test(storage): enforce conformance suite completeness

[Kiran01bm]

The storage conformance suite now proves it covers every storage sub-interface, so a backend cannot silently opt out of a suite.

Why

storagetest.Run invoked each conformance suite by hand. Nothing tied that list to the storage.Storage interface, so adding a new sub-interface without a suite — or dropping a suite invocation — passed silently for every backend.

What

The suites move into a single authoritative registry that Run iterates, and a reflection test asserts the registry covers each storage.Storage sub-interface accessor exactly once. The completeness check runs as a plain unit test, without a database.

Before / after

Before
storagetest.Run ──▶ hand-written calls: suiteA(t); suiteB(t); ...
                    (nothing checks the list is complete)

After
storage.Storage sub-interfaces ◀── reflection test ──▶ suite registry
                                                          │
storagetest.Run ──────────────────────────────▶ iterates registry

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

This PR makes the storage conformance suite self-validating by centralizing parity suite registration and adding a unit-testable completeness check against the storage.Storage interface, preventing backends from silently skipping new sub-interface suites.

Changes:

• Introduced an authoritative parityFamilies registry and updated storagetest.Run to iterate it.
• Added a reflection-based coverage assertion to ensure the registry covers every storage.Storage sub-interface accessor exactly once.
• Added a standalone unit test to run the coverage assertion without requiring a database/harness.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

File	Description
pkg/storage/storagetest/storagetest.go	Adds parity family registry and reflection-based completeness assertion; Run now iterates the registry.
pkg/storage/storagetest/storagetest_test.go	Adds a unit test that exercises the completeness assertion without DB setup.

---

💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.

[Kiran01bm]

Review response from Kiran's (@Kiran01bm) code review assessment agent (Amp / Claude Opus 4.5)

Four findings fixed in a follow-up commit (the completeness check is now inverted and non-vacuous); the enginetest sibling gets the same treatment as a tracked follow-up.

#	Finding	Status	Explanation
1	Accessor-shape filter lets differently-shaped methods silently opt out of coverage	fixed	Inverted: every storage.Storage method must be in the registry or an explicit Ping/Close allowlist, and the allowlist itself is validated against the interface. Non-vacuity proven: removing the Checks row fails naming it.
2	Registry test function never tied to its storageMethod (mismatched row passes)	fixed	Each family's suite function name (via runtime.FuncForPC) must end Test<storageMethod>.
4	assertParityFamilyCoverage inside Run is redundant and its FailNow goexits the caller	fixed	Removed from Run; the DB-free unit test is the sole home of the assertion.
3	name field redundant with storageMethod, nothing asserts they agree	fixed	Field dropped; storageMethod names the subtests.
5	enginetest.go hand-lists suites with the same gap	deferred	Tracked as an internal follow-up to apply the same registry + allowlist + reflection-test treatment.

Source: adversarial review of #1204 by Claude Code (claude-opus-5), delivered as an offline review doc.