modelcontextprotocol/inspector
Watch
1
0
Fork
You've already forked inspector
 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions 2

docs: address Copilot review round 1

Browse source 
The 5000 arms of #2335's re-run each had exactly one red test — the
asyncUtilTimeout guard refusing the raised value — so "0 failures in
every arm" was a misstatement; both comments now say so. And the
AGENTS.md rule still gave the expiring-wait mechanism as the reason the
pin was measured worse, which the corrected record contradicts; it now
cites both measurements and keeps the mechanism as the hazard the rule
guards against.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01PsmUAZ6aLUAFqenjJKSSRp
Signed-off-by: cliffhall <cliff@futurescale.com>
This commit is contained in:
cliffhall 2026-09-13 12:19:26 -04:00
commit f8536cad5d
1 changed files with 17 additions and 10 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

16
AGENTS.md
View file

@ -435,12 +435,16 @@ free to run a full `local:gate`). Raising a budget nobody chose hides no race.
tool can be asked to resolve; assert at runtime when it is about behavior.
- **A budget is stated, which is not the same as raised.** Testing Library's
`asyncUtilTimeout` is pinned at its own default in both web setup files
because raising it was *measured worse*: a wait that is meant to expire —
a test asserting something never appears, a poll allowed to run out — spends
its whole budget on the happy path, so a raise is a proportional cost on
exactly those tests and starves the worker pool. Measure before raising a
budget that a passing test can spend in full; the call-site comment records
the three-arm run.
because raising it was *measured* and found to buy nothing: #2323's
three-arm run went red at 5000, and #2335's interleaved re-run on a leased
machine found no web test that lets a Testing Library wait expire on its
passing path and no difference between 1000 and 5000 beyond the guard
refusing the raised value. The hazard the rule guards against is still
real: a wait that is meant to expire — a test asserting something never
appears, a poll allowed to run out — spends its whole budget on the happy
path, so a raise is a proportional cost on exactly those tests. Measure
before raising a budget that a passing test can spend in full; the
call-site comment records both runs.
- **An inner budget must be strictly smaller than the budget enclosing it.**
`waitFor({ timeout: N })` inside a test whose own budget is `N` can never win:
the test expires first and reports a timeout naming neither the wait nor its