← Back to Docs

Test failure analysis 20250714

Documentation for test_failure_analysis_20250714 from the Dspex repository.

Test Failure Analysis - Stage 1 Phase 3b Remaining Issues

Date: July 14, 2025
Scope: DSPex Adapter Infrastructure Final Bug Fixes
Status: Root Cause Analysis for Remaining 5 Test Failures Previous Analysis: docs/test_failure_analysis_20250713.md

Executive Summary

Following the successful implementation of the Stage 1 Phase 3b adapter infrastructure components, we have 5 remaining test failures out of 495 tests (99% pass rate). This analysis identifies the precise root causes and implementation strategies to achieve 100% test compliance.

Current State Analysis

Infrastructure Successfully Implemented ✅

  • TypeConverter: Enhanced type conversion with test layer awareness - WORKING
  • ErrorHandler: Standardized error handling with retry logic - WORKING
  • Factory: Adapter lifecycle management with test layer support - MOSTLY WORKING
  • Enhanced Mock/BridgeMock: Signature module support - PARTIALLY WORKING

Remaining Issues Analysis 🔧

The git diff shows significant infrastructure improvements have been made, but 5 specific integration gaps remain:

Test Failure Categorization

Category 1: Test Layer Requirements Bypass Failures (2 failures - 40%)

Pattern: "Adapter Elixir.DSPex.Adapters.PythonPort does not support test layer layer_1"

Failing Tests:

  1. test adapter requirements checking bypasses requirements for test modes (line 358)
  2. test adapter requirements checking bypasses requirements for test modes (line 358) - Same test, different run

Root Cause Hypothesis #1: Factory’s test layer compatibility check is too strict

# In factory.ex line ~517
defp validate_test_layer_compatibility(adapter_module, test_layer) do
  if function_exported?(adapter_module, :supports_test_layer?, 1) do
    case adapter_module.supports_test_layer?(test_layer) do
      true -> {:ok, :compatible}
      false -> {:error, "Adapter #{adapter_module} does not support test layer #{test_layer}"}
    end
  else
    # Assume compatibility if not implemented
    {:ok, :compatible}
  end
end

Issue: PythonPort probably doesn’t implement supports_test_layer?/1 or returns false for layer_1

Test Strategy:

# Verify PythonPort.supports_test_layer?(:layer_1) behavior
# Check if function exists and what it returns
# Validate bypass logic for test requirements

Category 2: Function Clause Pattern Matching Errors (2 failures - 40%)

Pattern: resolve_adapter_to_module/1 receiving [adapter: :mock] instead of :mock

Failing Tests: 2. test adapter lifecycle management execute_with_fallback provides fallback logic (line 254) 4. Same test, different execution

Root Cause Hypothesis #2: execute_with_fallback passing keyword list instead of atom

# The error shows:
# The following arguments were given to DSPex.Adapters.Factory.resolve_adapter_to_module/1:
#     # 1
#     [adapter: :mock]
#
# But function expects:
# def resolve_adapter_to_module(adapter) when is_atom(adapter)

Issue: Somewhere in the execute_with_fallback call chain, a keyword list [adapter: :mock] is being passed instead of just :mock

Test Strategy:

# Trace execute_with_fallback call path
# Find where keyword list gets passed to resolve_adapter_to_module
# Fix parameter extraction/passing

Category 3: Python Bridge Runtime Availability (1 failure - 20%)

Pattern: "Python bridge not running" and bridge process crashes

Failing Tests:

  1. test test layer specific behavior layer_3 uses long timeouts and more retries (line 301)
  2. test create_adapter/2 creates python port adapter for layer_3 (line 55)
  3. test Factory pattern compliance creates correct adapters for test layers (line 181)

Root Cause Hypothesis #3: Test is running in mock_adapter mode but trying to use Python bridge

14:06:18.892 [error] Python bridge not running - check supervision configuration

Issue: Either:

  1. Python bridge should be available for layer_3 tests but isn’t starting
  2. Test mode configuration is incorrect (running mock_adapter but expecting layer_3 behavior)

Test Strategy:

# Check TEST_MODE environment variable during test execution
# Verify bridge startup logic for different test modes
# Validate adapter selection for test layers

Category 4: Mock Response Generation Gaps (2 failures - remainder)

Pattern: Mock adapter not generating expected output keys for complex signatures

Failing Tests: 5. test layer_2 adapter behavior compliance handles complex signatures 6. test layer_2 adapter behavior compliance executes programs with valid inputs

Root Cause Hypothesis #4: Mock signature processing improvements missed some output field mappings

# Expected outputs like :result, :answer not being generated
# Even though signature processing was enhanced

Issue: The enhanced signature processing in Mock/BridgeMock may not be correctly generating all expected output fields for complex signature modules.

Deep Root Cause Analysis

Root Cause #1: Test Layer Compatibility Logic Gap

Current Implementation Analysis: From git diff, Factory.ex has:

defp validate_test_layer_compatibility(adapter_module, test_layer) do
  if function_exported?(adapter_module, :supports_test_layer?, 1) do
    case adapter_module.supports_test_layer?(test_layer) do
      true -> {:ok, :compatible}
      false -> {:error, "Adapter #{adapter_module} does not support test layer #{test_layer}"}
    end
  else
    # Assume compatibility if not implemented
    {:ok, :compatible}
  end
end

Hypothesis: PythonPort implements supports_test_layer?/1 and returns false for :layer_1, but test expects it to be bypassed in test mode.

Solution Strategy:

  1. Check if PythonPort should implement supports_test_layer?/1
  2. If yes, make it return true for all test layers
  3. If no, ensure it doesn’t implement the function so compatibility is assumed
  4. Add test mode bypass logic if needed

Root Cause #2: Keyword List Parameter Passing Bug

Error Pattern Analysis:

The following arguments were given to DSPex.Adapters.Factory.resolve_adapter_to_module/1:
    # 1
    [adapter: :mock]

Expected: :mock (atom)
Actual: [adapter: :mock] (keyword list)

Call Chain Hypothesis:

execute_with_fallback(...) ->
execute_with_adapter_list(...) ->
execute_with_retries(...) ->
create_adapter([adapter: :mock]) ->  # BUG: passing whole options list
resolve_adapter_to_module([adapter: :mock])  # Should extract :mock

Solution Strategy:

  1. Find where execute_with_fallback constructs the adapter list
  2. Ensure adapter atoms are extracted from keyword lists properly
  3. Fix parameter passing in the call chain

Root Cause #3: Test Mode vs Bridge Availability Mismatch

Environment Analysis:

🧪 Test mode: mock_adapter (excluding: [:layer_2, :layer_3])

But tests are trying to create layer_3 adapters and use Python bridge.

Hypothesis: Test configuration issue where:

  1. TEST_MODE=mock_adapter excludes layer_3 tests
  2. But some tests still try to run layer_3 functionality
  3. Bridge is not started because mode is mock_adapter

Solution Strategy:

  1. Review test mode mapping and adapter selection logic
  2. Ensure Factory respects test mode exclusions
  3. Add proper test mode validation in adapter creation

Root Cause #4: Complex Signature Output Generation

Git Diff Analysis: Enhanced signature processing was added to both Mock and BridgeMock:

defp generate_signature_outputs(signature, inputs) do
  signature_data = extract_signature_data(signature)
  outputs = Map.get(signature_data, "outputs", []) || Map.get(signature_data, :outputs, [])
  # ... output generation logic
end

Hypothesis: The signature extraction or output generation logic is not correctly handling all test signature formats, leading to missing expected keys like :answer, :result.

Solution Strategy:

  1. Verify test signature modules return correct output specifications
  2. Check output key generation logic handles both string and atom keys
  3. Ensure complex signature types are properly converted

Implementation Plan

Phase 1: Parameter Passing Fix (Priority: Critical)

Issue #2 Fix: Keyword List Parameter Bug

Target: Fix execute_with_fallback -> resolve_adapter_to_module parameter passing

Investigation Required:

# Find the exact call site where [adapter: :mock] is passed
# Look for execute_with_fallback implementation
# Trace parameter flow through call chain

Expected Fix:

# Instead of passing keyword list directly:
resolve_adapter_to_module([adapter: :mock])

# Extract the adapter value:
adapter = Keyword.get(opts, :adapter)
resolve_adapter_to_module(adapter)

Phase 2: Test Layer Logic Fixes (Priority: High)

Issue #1 Fix: Test Layer Compatibility

Target: Fix PythonPort test layer compatibility for layer_1

Investigation Required:

# Check if PythonPort.supports_test_layer?(:layer_1) exists and returns false
# Determine correct behavior for test mode bypass

Expected Fix Options:

  1. Remove supports_test_layer?/1 from PythonPort if not needed
  2. Make supports_test_layer?/1 return true for all test layers
  3. Add test mode bypass logic in compatibility check

Issue #3 Fix: Test Mode Configuration

Target: Ensure proper test mode and bridge availability alignment

Investigation Required:

# Verify TEST_MODE setting during test execution
# Check bridge startup logic for different test modes
# Validate adapter selection respects test mode exclusions

Phase 3: Signature Processing Polish (Priority: Medium)

Issue #4 Fix: Complex Signature Output Generation

Target: Ensure all expected output keys are generated for complex signatures

Investigation Required:

# Verify test signature modules output specifications
# Check output key generation for both string and atom formats
# Test complex signature type conversion

Testing Strategy

Hypothesis Testing Protocol

For Issue #2 (Parameter Passing):

  1. Isolate: Create minimal reproduction of execute_with_fallback call
  2. Trace: Add logging to see exact parameter flow
  3. Fix: Correct parameter extraction
  4. Verify: Run specific failing test

For Issue #1 (Test Layer Compatibility):

  1. Check: Verify PythonPort.supports_test_layer?/1 implementation
  2. Test: Call function with different test layers
  3. Fix: Adjust implementation or bypass logic
  4. Validate: Run requirements bypass test

For Issue #3 (Test Mode Configuration):

  1. Audit: Review test mode mapping logic
  2. Verify: Check bridge startup conditions
  3. Fix: Align test mode with adapter selection
  4. Test: Run layer_3 tests in correct mode

For Issue #4 (Signature Processing):

  1. Debug: Add logging to signature output generation
  2. Compare: Check expected vs actual output keys
  3. Fix: Correct signature conversion or output mapping
  4. Validate: Run complex signature tests

Success Metrics

Phase 1 Success:

  • 0 function clause errors in resolve_adapter_to_module
  • execute_with_fallback tests pass

Phase 2 Success:

  • 0 “does not support test layer” errors
  • 0 “Python bridge not running” errors in mock tests
  • All test layer compatibility tests pass

Phase 3 Success:

  • 0 missing output key assertions
  • All complex signature tests pass
  • 100% test pass rate achieved

Risk Assessment

Low Risk Issues:

  • Issues #2, #4: Clear fix paths, isolated to specific functions

Medium Risk Issues:

  • Issue #1: May require architecture decision on test layer support
  • Issue #3: Could involve test configuration changes

Mitigation Strategies:

  • Issue #1: Default to assuming compatibility for test modes
  • Issue #3: Add explicit test mode validation and clear error messages
  • All Issues: Maintain backward compatibility with existing working functionality

Expected Timeline

Immediate (Next 1 hour):

  • Investigation phase: Reproduce and trace each issue
  • Quick wins: Fix parameter passing bug (#2)

Short-term (Next 2 hours):

  • Fix test layer compatibility logic (#1)
  • Resolve test mode configuration issues (#3)
  • Polish signature output generation (#4)

Validation (Next 30 minutes):

  • Run full test suite
  • Verify 100% pass rate
  • Document final status

Conclusion

With the successful implementation of the major infrastructure components from Stage 1 Phase 3b, we are now down to 5 specific integration bugs with clear fix paths. The analysis shows these are isolated issues rather than architectural problems, indicating the infrastructure foundation is solid and we’re in the final polish phase.

Each issue has a clear hypothesis, investigation strategy, and expected fix. The high test pass rate (99%) demonstrates the infrastructure is fundamentally working correctly.