跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开

feature-flag-test-harness

Builds a test harness that runs the same suite under every relevant flag combination - picks the minimum cover (single flags + pairwise interactions where the team marks them, not the full 2^N cartesian product), wires an OpenFeature in-memory provider so the suite never hits the production flag service, runs each combination as its own labeled CI matrix shard, and emits a per-combination result matrix. Use when a feature behind a flag must be verified on AND off (release toggles + experiment toggles per Hodgson) and the team wants those runs deterministic and parallel.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

testland/qa星标 13(GitHub 13 + cccskills 0)

实测评分 未实测

查看安装方法

包含的文件(5)

  • SKILL.md8.2 KB
  • .tessl-plugin/plugin.json717 B
  • references/anti-patterns-and-limits.md2.9 KB
  • references/matrix-and-ci.md4.2 KB
  • references/provider-wiring.md2.3 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

feature-flag-test-harness

Overview

A test that hits the production flag service is non-deterministic by definition - the answer depends on whoever toggled the flag last. And a test that asks "did we test the feature with the flag off?" needs both runs side by side.

This skill builds a harness that:

  1. Replaces the production OpenFeature provider with an in-memory provider the test owns (openfeature-providers).
  2. Enumerates the relevant flag combinations (not the full 2^N cartesian product - the long tail isn't worth running).
  3. Runs the suite once per combination, as a separate CI shard.
  4. Aggregates results into a matrix the reviewer can read.

The skill's reference architecture targets OpenFeature because it standardizes the SDK across LaunchDarkly, Flagsmith, ConfigCat, self-hosted, etc. - the harness works identically against any provider (openfeature-overview).

When to use

  • A new feature lives behind a release toggle and the team needs to verify both code paths (toggle off = old behavior unchanged; toggle on = new behavior correct).
  • An experiment toggle has multiple variants (A / B / control) and each needs an integration-test pass.
  • An ops toggle (kill switch / degradation flag) needs a "service fails open" pass.
  • The flag set already exists in OpenFeature, LaunchDarkly, Flagsmith, ConfigCat, GrowthBook, or any SDK with an in-memory / test provider.

If the team has only one or two flags and a flat "always on for test" config works, this skill is overkill - set the test environment's flag values once in setup and stop there.

How to use

  1. Classify each flag by Hodgson category (Step 1) and mark which flag pairs actually interact.
  2. Enumerate the minimum cover - single-flag variants plus the declared interaction tuples, never the full 2^N product.
  3. Wire the OpenFeature in-memory provider so the suite never hits the production flag service - see references/provider-wiring.md.
  4. Generate the combination matrix and run one CI shard per combination - see references/matrix-and-ci.md.
  5. Keep fail-fast: false on the matrix so every failing combination surfaces in one run, not just the first.
  6. Aggregate each shard's JUnit XML into a per-combination pass/fail matrix the reviewer reads at a glance.
  7. Split cadence: PR runs only combinations whose flags touch changed files; nightly runs the full matrix.

Step 1 - Classify each flag (Hodgson taxonomy)

Per feature-toggles, flags fall into four categories with different test needs:

CategoryLifespanDynamismTest combinations needed
Release toggleDays - weeksStatic at deployOFF (current) and ON (new behavior). 2 runs.
Experiment toggleDays - weeksPer-request dynamicOne run per variant (A / B / control).
Ops toggleLong-livedPer-request dynamicON (normal) and OFF (degraded / kill).
Permissioning toggleYearsPer-request dynamicOne run per relevant user cohort.

For experiment and permissioning toggles, the harness simulates each cohort by seeding the EvaluationContext (feature-toggles).

Don't run all 2^N combinations. Author marks the interactions worth testing:

# tests/flag-matrix.yaml
flags:
  new_checkout:        { kind: release,  test: [off, on] }
  promo_codes:         { kind: release,  test: [off, on] }
  ranking_experiment:  { kind: experiment, variants: [control, treatment_a, treatment_b] }
  payment_kill_switch: { kind: ops,      test: [on, off] }   # off = degraded

interactions:
  # The author asserts these flag pairs interact; run their combinations explicitly.
  - [new_checkout, promo_codes]
  # Ranking experiment doesn't interact with checkout; don't bloat the matrix.

The harness enumerates every flag's variants individually plus the listed interaction tuples, never the full 2^N product. See the Worked example for the run count this schema yields.

Provider wiring, matrix generation, CI

Wire the in-memory provider so the suite reads flag values from FLAGS_JSON instead of the production service (Node shown; Python and Java variants in the reference):

// tests/harness/flag-harness.ts
import { OpenFeature, InMemoryProvider } from '@openfeature/server-sdk';

export function withFlags(flags: Record<string, unknown>) {
  return OpenFeature.setProviderAndWait(new InMemoryProvider(
    Object.fromEntries(Object.entries(flags).map(([k, v]) => [k, {
      defaultVariant: 'configured', variants: { configured: v }, disabled: false,
    }])),
  ));
}
// beforeAll(() => withFlags(JSON.parse(process.env.FLAGS_JSON || '{}')));

Generate one shard per combination, then feed the JSON to the CI matrix:

python scripts/gen-flag-matrix.py tests/flag-matrix.yaml   # -> JSON array of {name, flags}

Worked example

A checkout team ships new_checkout (release) and promo_codes (release) behind flags, runs a ranking_experiment (control / treatment_a / treatment_b), and guards payments with a payment_kill_switch (ops). They author tests/flag-matrix.yaml exactly as in Step 1 and declare the one interaction that matters: [new_checkout, promo_codes].

gen-flag-matrix.py enumerates 9 single-flag runs (2 + 2 + 3 + 2) plus 4 interaction runs (new_checkout × promo_codes) = 13 shards, not the 24 of the full 2^N product. Each shard boots the suite with the in-memory provider pinned to that combination via FLAGS_JSON, so no run touches the production flag service.

CI runs all 13 shards in parallel with fail-fast: false. The aggregated matrix shows promo_codes=on red at checkout.spec.ts:42 and ranking_experiment=treatment_b red at cart.spec.ts:18, while the baseline and every other combination pass. The team reads two flag-specific failures in one glance instead of re-running to find the second.

Anti-patterns and limitations

The full anti-pattern table (2^N blowup, hitting the prod provider, asserting flag value instead of behavior, fail-fast: true, missing baseline row) and the harness's limitations (no targeting rules, author-declared interactions, per-request dynamism, matrix-size bound) are in references/anti-patterns-and-limits.md.

References

  • openfeature-overview - OpenFeature SDK + provider model.
  • openfeature-providers - Provider interface, in-memory test provider.
  • openfeature-eval - getBooleanValue / getStringValue / getNumberValue / getObjectValue signatures + default-value behavior.
  • feature-toggles - Hodgson's taxonomy: release / experiment / ops / permissioning; longevity vs dynamism.
  • testcontainers, docker-compose-tests - the surrounding stack the harness drives per combination.

评价

还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。

评论

无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问,或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。

还没有评论。来写第一条吧。

提交后会立即公开。请勿填写邮箱、电话等个人信息。URL 最多 2 个。

0 / 1000 字

此表单受 reCAPTCHA 保护,适用 Google 的隐私权政策和服务条款。

同一仓库的技能

Builds a CI gate that fails the build on **new** WCAG / a11y violations introduced by a PR while grandfathering pre-existing violations on a per-rule / per-page baseline. Aggregates verdicts from axe-core / pa11y / Lighthouse a11y / WAVE / IBM Equal Access scans. Use when a project has accumulated a11y debt and a strict "zero violations" gate would block every PR - the ratchet pattern lets the team ship while preventing regressions.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

testland/qa132026年10月20日 更新

Workflow skill that builds an A/B-test validity checklist from an experiment proposal, walking the canonical design-correctness gates - pre-registered OEC/power/guardrails, randomization unit + SRM check, assignment integrity, telemetry, peeking discipline, novelty/primacy, post-experiment SRM re-check - into a per-experiment checklist + sign-off form. Use when launching, auditing, or governing an experiment. For pitfall mechanics (guardrails, peeking) see experiment-results-interpreter's references; to read an already-valid result use experiment-results-interpreter; for per-SDK harness tests use experiment-sdk-testing - this gates DESIGN, not SDK code.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

testland/qa132026年10月20日 更新

The single install-flow skill: the reference contract for the PWA install flow (installability gate fields, `beforeinstallprompt` handshake, per-platform paths - Android WebAPK / iOS Share menu / Firefox no-op - and the `display-mode` post-install signal, in references/install-flow-reference.md) plus the build-an-X workflow that emits the Add-to-Home-Screen suite. Walks the four-stage timeline, emitting one test per gate cell per [web.dev/articles/install-criteria][install-criteria], the deferred-prompt → `prompt()` → `userChoice` chain per [web.dev/articles/customize-install][customize-install], the iOS Safari manual-metadata branch (`apple-touch-icon`) per [web.dev/learn/pwa/installation][learn-pwa], and the post-install `(display-mode: standalone)` MQ assertion. Output: a Playwright spec with per-stage cells plus a coverage matrix. Use when a PWA's manifest, icons, or install handler change, when install conversion drops at an unknown stage, or when triaging a flaky install assertion.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

testland/qa132026年10月20日 更新

Build-an-X workflow that uses an LLM to map existing tests to spec sections - given a spec doc + the test suite, the LLM identifies which tests cover which sections, surfaces uncovered sections (gap), and recommends specific tests to add. Output is a coverage matrix per spec ID. Scope is mapping tests that already exist and naming the gaps, not authoring tests for new acceptance criteria. Use when a spec doc and a test suite both exist but nobody can say which requirements are actually covered - before a release sign-off, an audit, or a decision about where to spend the next round of test effort.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

testland/qa132026年10月20日 更新

Generates tests from natural-language specs (acceptance criteria, user stories, requirements) using an LLM, with confidence scoring per test case (LLM self-assessment plus heuristics: assertion quality, naming, completeness), batching uncertain cases for human review, and integration with the team's existing test framework. Use when the user asks to generate unit tests from acceptance criteria, convert user stories to test cases, automate test creation from requirements, or augment a spec-driven test suite with AI-generated stubs that are then curated before merge.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

testland/qa132026年10月20日 更新

Configures Allure Report (test-runner adapter install, `allure-results` directory wiring, `categories.json` for failure classification, `history-trend.json` retention via the copy-history-between-runs pattern), runs the Allure CLI to convert `allure-results` to a static HTML site, and uploads the report as a CI artifact. Use when the team needs richer test reporting than JUnit XML - step-level attachments, per-test history, retry tracking, and severity / epic / feature labeling across framework-agnostic adapters (pytest, Jest, JUnit, TestNG, NUnit, Mocha). As a rich static HTML report generator, it is the open-source alternative to the sunset ExtentReports (JVM/.NET per-test HTML narrative); for hosted cross-run flakiness analytics rather than a static per-run report use currents-integration.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

testland/qa132026年10月20日 更新

查看 testland 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题