test(utils): cover empty JSON input and blank error messages

[bohdansolovie]

Summary

• Extend json-utils tests for empty/undefined parseJson input, nowIso, and blank Error messages.

Test plan

• npx vitest run test/unit/json-utils.test.ts

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 95.71%. Comparing base (17d70b2) to head (f0585a5).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #2375   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   95.71%   95.71%           
=======================================
  Files         222      222           
  Lines       24661    24661           
  Branches     8949     8949           
=======================================
  Hits        23605    23605           
  Misses        433      433           
  Partials      623      623           

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[loopover-orb]

Warning

🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨

⏸️ Gittensory review result - manual review recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-02 04:15:46 UTC}

1 file · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · readiness 48/100 · CI green · clean

⏸️ Suggested Action - Manual Review

Review summary
This diff only expands the json utility unit tests: it covers fallback behavior for empty and undefined parseJson input, imports and smoke-tests nowIso, and verifies blank Error messages fall back to the default text. The added assertions are coherent with the existing test style and do not change production behavior. CI passed on the exact commit, and there are no visible correctness or contract issues in the changed file.

Nits — 3 non-blocking

• nit: test/unit/json-utils.test.ts:15 only validates nowIso with a format regex, so it would not catch an invalid-but-regex-shaped timestamp; consider also asserting Date.parse(nowIso()) is not NaN.
• test/unit/json-utils.test.ts:16 covers errorMessage(new Error("")); if strippedErrorMessage is expected to share the same blank-message fallback, add a neighboring assertion for strippedErrorMessage(new Error(""), "unknown error") or the project’s intended fallback.
• Readiness score is below the configured threshold — Use the readiness panel as advisory maintainer context; the score does not block this PR.

Signal	Result	Evidence
Code review	✅ No blockers	1 reviewer
Linked issue	⚠️ Missing	No linked issue or no-issue rationale found.
Related work	⚠️ 3 scoped overlaps	Top overlaps are listed below; lower-confidence bulk is hidden.
Change scope	❌ 8/20	High review scope from cached public metadata (size label size:XS; no linked issue context).
Validation posture	❌ 5/25	Preflight is holding this PR: the review lane is unavailable, so it is not ready for automated review.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 140 registered-repo PR(s), 68 merged, 11 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	bohdansolovie; Gittensor profile; 140 PR(s), 11 issue(s).
Gate result	✅ Passing	No configured blocker found.

Review context

• Author: bohdansolovie
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository registration is not available in the local Gittensory cache.
• Public profile languages: not available
• Official Gittensor activity: 140 PR(s), 11 issue(s).
• Related work: Items reference the same linked issue feat(enrichment): render section + analyzerStatus wiring test for new local analyzers #2037. (issue #2037, PR #2395)
• Related work: Open PR work references issue feat(enrichment): render section + analyzerStatus wiring test for new local analyzers #2037. (issue #2037, PR #2395)
• Related work: Titles/paths share 6 meaningful terms. (PR #2374, PR #2376)

Contributor next steps

• Explain no-issue PR.
• Review top overlaps.
• Add a concise scope and risk note.
• Await review-lane availability.
• Triage stale or unlinked PRs.
• Refresh registry data or choose a registered active repo.
• Link the issue being solved, or explicitly explain why this is a no-issue PR.
• Check active issues and PRs before submitting.

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.

_{🟩 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 Gittensory, a quiet PR intelligence layer for OSS maintainers.

• Re-run Gittensory review