ci(ui-kit): wire ui-kit vitest into ui:test/CI and add test-wiring checker

[RealDiligent]

Summary

• Add npm --workspace @loopover/ui-kit run test to root ui:test (after ui:kit:build).
• Add UI tests (ui-kit) CI step alongside ui / ui-miner.
• Add scripts/check-test-coverage-wiring.ts (mirror of typecheck-coverage) + test-wiring:check in test:ci.
• Unit coverage for the checker's pure core.

Closes #10049

Test plan

• npm run test-wiring:check exits 0
• npm run checkers-wired:check exits 0
• npm --workspace @loopover/ui-kit run test — 12 files / 60 tests pass
• Pure findTestWiringGaps cases (direct, intermediate, build-only gap, cycle, missing entry)

[superagent-security]

Superagent Supply Chain Scan

Superagent flagged 1 dependency introduced by this pull request.

High risk: actions/cache/save@55cc8345863c7cc4c66a329aec7e433d2d1c52a9

• Change: added 55cc8345863c7cc4c66a329aec7e433d2d1c52a9
• Dependency path: .github/workflows/ci.yml → jobs → validate-code → steps → 66 → actions/cache/save
• Correlated risks: 3
• Why flagged: Detects keylogging and input capture patterns. Location: cache-55cc8345863c7cc4c66a329aec7e433d2d1c52a9/dist/restore-only/index.js. Rules: threat-runtime-keylogging
• Risk score: 4.9

View Superagent Supply Chain Scan

[loopover-orb]

Caution

🛑 LoopOver review result - fixes required

_{Review updated: 2026-07-31 09:28:56 UTC}

4 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · CI failing · unstable

🛑 Suggested Action - Fix Blockers

• Touches a guarded path — held for manual review: This PR changes guardrail-protected path(s): .github/workflows/ci.yml (matched .github/workflows/**).

Review summary
This PR closes #10049 by adding a `test:ci` reachability checker for workspace `test` scripts (mirroring the existing `check-typecheck-coverage.ts` pattern), wiring `@​loopover/ui-kit`'s previously-orphaned vitest suite into both `ui:test` and a new `UI tests (ui-kit)` CI step, and adding direct unit tests for the pure `findTestWiringGaps` function. I traced the regex-based script-graph walk (`referencedWorkspaces`/`referencedRootScripts`) against the actual root `package.json` `test:ci` chain and it correctly resolves both `--workspace X run test` and `run test --workspace X` forms, transitively follows `ui:test` to pick up ui-kit/ui/ui-miner, and terminates on the cyclic-graph case via the `seen` set — the accompanying tests exercise the real function, not a fabricated scenario. The change is narrow, closes a real silently-partial gap, and is scoped correctly to its stated intent.

Nits — 6 non-blocking

• scripts/check-test-coverage-wiring.ts:28 — the `(?:--\S+\s+)*` nested inside the outer match is ReDoS-shaped in form, but since this script only ever parses this repo's own trusted package.json (never externally-supplied input) it isn't practically exploitable; still worth simplifying since `--\S+` can't contain whitespace anyway.
• scripts/check-test-coverage-wiring.ts:88-103 (workspacesDeclaringTest) — the filesystem-walking half (readdirSync/readFileSync/JSON.parse + try/catch swallow for a non-workspace package.json) has no test coverage in this diff; only the pure `findTestWiringGaps` is tested.
• scripts/check-test-coverage-wiring.ts:88-103 nests for/try-catch 5 levels deep — consider extracting the per-dir manifest parse into a small helper for readability, matching the flatter shape of `referencedWorkspaces`/`referencedRootScripts` above it.
• The Superagent Supply Chain Scan CI failure ('Supply chain risks detected') isn't explained by anything in this diff — no new dependencies are added — and is more likely attributable to this branch being 10 commits behind the default branch; worth rebasing to confirm before treating it as a real finding here.
• Confirm `test-wiring:check` is itself reachable/verified by `checkers-wired:check` in CI, since (unlike the ui-kit test step) it isn't added as its own named ci.yml step in this diff.
• Touches a guarded path — held for manual review — A maintainer must review and merge this change.

CI checks failing

• Superagent Supply Chain Scan — Supply chain risks detected

Decision drivers

• ✅ Code review — No blockers (1 reviewer)
• ⚠️ Gate result — Not blocking (Advisory; not blocking this PR.)

Context & advisory signals — never blocks the verdict

Signal	Result	Evidence
Linked issue	✅ Linked	#10049
Related work	✅ No active overlap found	No same-issue or scoped active PR overlap found.
Change scope	❌ 8/20	High review scope from cached public metadata (1 linked issue).
Validation posture	✅ 25/25	PR body includes validation/test evidence.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 244 registered-repo PR(s), 95 merged, 38 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	RealDiligent; Gittensor profile; 244 PR(s), 38 issue(s).
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: clean · value: minor · LLM: moderate

Linked issue satisfaction

Addressed
The diff adds ui-kit's vitest run to root ui:test (after ui:kit:build), adds a matching 'UI tests (ui-kit)' CI step with the same guard condition as the ui/ui-miner steps, and introduces scripts/check-test-coverage-wiring.ts mirroring check-typecheck-coverage.ts with a pure findTestWiringGaps function, wired via test-wiring:check into test:ci, plus unit tests for the pure core — covering all state

Review context

• Author: RealDiligent
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: Python, Ruby, TypeScript, Svelte, Cuda, JavaScript, Markdown, MDX
• Official Gittensor activity: 244 PR(s), 38 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Start here: Add a concise scope and risk note.
• Then work through the remaining 1 step in the Signals table above.

Signal definitions

• Related work = same linked issue, overlapping active PRs, or title/path similarity.
• Change scope = cached public metadata such as size labels, draft state, and review-burden hints.
• Validation posture = whether the PR provides enough public validation/test evidence for maintainer review.
• Contributor workload = public contributor activity and cleanup pressure, not a repo-wide quality failure.
• Contributor context = public GitHub/Gittensor identity context; non-Gittensor status is not a blocker.

🧪 Chat with LoopOver

Ask LoopOver a question about this PR directly in a comment — grounded only in the same cached, public-safe facts shown above, never a new claim.

• @loopover ask <question> answers contribution-quality Q&A with source citations and freshness.
• @loopover chat <question> answers in natural prose from cached decision-pack facts via local inference (maintainer/collaborator; read-only).
• A plain-language @loopover mention with a real question is routed to the closest matching read-only command automatically — no exact syntax required.

Full command reference: https://loopover.ai/docs/loopover-commands

🧪 Experimental — new and may change.

_{🟩 Safe / merged · 🟦 Advisory · 🟨 Held for review · 🟥 Blocked / closed}

---

💰 Earn for open-source contributions like this. Gittensor lets GitHub contributors earn for the work they already do — register to start earning →.

Checked by LoopOver, a quiet PR intelligence layer for OSS maintainers.

• Re-run LoopOver review

[superagent-security]

Superagent didn't find any vulnerabilities or security issues in this PR.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 91.99%. Comparing base (1d2b142) to head (9072937).
⚠️ Report is 9 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main   #10139   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   91.99%   91.99%           
=======================================
  Files         931      931           
  Lines      113994   113994           
  Branches    27523    27523           
=======================================
  Hits       104871   104871           
  Misses       7823     7823           
  Partials     1300     1300           

Flag	Coverage Δ
backend	95.67% <ø> (ø)
control-plane	100.00% <ø> (ø)
rees	89.62% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

[loopover-orb]

LoopOver is closing this pull request on the maintainer's behalf (CI is failing (Superagent Supply Chain Scan)). This is an automated maintenance action — to pursue this change, please open a new pull request with the issues resolved. Closed PRs may be analyzed later to improve review accuracy, but they are not automatically reopened or re-reviewed.