Summary
tools/spec-loop/specs/reviewer-routing.md says the non-ASF smoke suite asserts that
"area-match routing and load-aware fallback both work". The suite does not assert the second
half. Correct the sentence to describe what the fixtures actually check.
Background
The specs under tools/spec-loop/specs/ are the framework's source of truth, and this sentence
replaced a Known Gap — so it reads as proven coverage and will be trusted by anyone deciding
what still needs testing.
The suite has two cases. case-1-non-asf-roster-area-match does test area-match routing.
case-2-non-asf-no-area-match does not test a load-aware fallback: its expected.json
asserts has_null_primary: true, no_eligible_reviewer: true, and
load_signal_shown: false — no reviewer is selected and no load signal is shown. So the
sentence claims coverage that does not exist.
Note this issue is only about making the sentence match the fixtures. There is a separate,
larger question about which behaviour is correct for a no-area-match (the skill's own text
supports both readings) — that is a maintainer decision and explicitly out of scope here. Do
not change the fixture to match the sentence; change the sentence to match the fixture.
Where to look
tools/spec-loop/specs/reviewer-routing.md around line 120-124 — the Known-gap replacement
paragraph beginning "Non-ASF roster shape is now exercised".tools/skill-evals/evals/non-asf-profile-smoke/step-reviewer-routing/fixtures/case-2-non-asf-no-area-match/expected.json
— what case 2 actually asserts.tools/skill-evals/evals/non-asf-profile-smoke/README.md — the suite's own table already
describes case 2 correctly ("no-area-match → NO ELIGIBLE REVIEWER"); useful as a model for
the wording.
Acceptance criteria
Estimated effort
~30 minutes for someone new to the codebase.
Getting started
[How to contribute](https://github.com/apache/airflow-steward/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#your-first-contribution)
This issue was drafted with the help of an AI-assisted tool and reviewed by a Magpie maintainer before posting. If anything here is unclear or looks wrong, say so on the issue: a real person is reading.
Summary
tools/spec-loop/specs/reviewer-routing.mdsays the non-ASF smoke suite asserts that"area-match routing and load-aware fallback both work". The suite does not assert the second
half. Correct the sentence to describe what the fixtures actually check.
Background
The specs under
tools/spec-loop/specs/are the framework's source of truth, and this sentencereplaced a Known Gap — so it reads as proven coverage and will be trusted by anyone deciding
what still needs testing.
The suite has two cases.
case-1-non-asf-roster-area-matchdoes test area-match routing.case-2-non-asf-no-area-matchdoes not test a load-aware fallback: itsexpected.jsonasserts
has_null_primary: true,no_eligible_reviewer: true, andload_signal_shown: false— no reviewer is selected and no load signal is shown. So thesentence claims coverage that does not exist.
Note this issue is only about making the sentence match the fixtures. There is a separate,
larger question about which behaviour is correct for a no-area-match (the skill's own text
supports both readings) — that is a maintainer decision and explicitly out of scope here. Do
not change the fixture to match the sentence; change the sentence to match the fixture.
Where to look
tools/spec-loop/specs/reviewer-routing.mdaround line 120-124 — the Known-gap replacementparagraph beginning "Non-ASF roster shape is now exercised".
tools/skill-evals/evals/non-asf-profile-smoke/step-reviewer-routing/fixtures/case-2-non-asf-no-area-match/expected.json— what case 2 actually asserts.
tools/skill-evals/evals/non-asf-profile-smoke/README.md— the suite's own table alreadydescribes case 2 correctly ("no-area-match → NO ELIGIBLE REVIEWER"); useful as a model for
the wording.
Acceptance criteria
tools/skill-evals/is modified.prek run --all-filespasses.Estimated effort
~30 minutes for someone new to the codebase.
Getting started
[How to contribute](https://github.com/apache/airflow-steward/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#your-first-contribution)
This issue was drafted with the help of an AI-assisted tool and reviewed by a Magpie maintainer before posting. If anything here is unclear or looks wrong, say so on the issue: a real person is reading.