Skip to content

test(billing): assert accruedOverage in carry-over shape expectations - #3193

Merged
SirTenzin merged 1 commit into
devfrom
fix/existing-usages-accrued-overage-unit
Sep 1, 2026
Merged

test(billing): assert accruedOverage in carry-over shape expectations#3193
SirTenzin merged 1 commit into
devfrom
fix/existing-usages-accrued-overage-unit

Conversation

@SirTenzin

@SirTenzin SirTenzin commented Sep 1, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Unblocks the Unit Tests job on the dev -> main release PR (#3189).

cusProductToExistingUsages now reports accruedOverage alongside usage. Four assertions in credit-rate-card-attribution-carry.test.ts compare the whole ExistingUsages entry with toEqual, so the added key made them fail on shape rather than on value.

All four cases have a positive source balance — nothing had exceeded its allowance — so the expected value is 0. The rest of each toEqual is untouched, so the assertions keep their original coverage.

A fifth site in the same file builds an ExistingUsages input by hand and was already passing; deliberately left alone.

Full unit suite locally: 3904 passed, 0 failed.


Summary by cubic

Adds accruedOverage to four carry-over shape assertions so the unit tests pass again on the dev -> main release PR. cusProductToExistingUsages now reports accruedOverage alongside usage, which made these toEqual assertions fail on shape. All four cases have a positive source balance, so the expected value is 0.

Written for commit 7c954f5. Summary will update on new commits.

Review in cubic

cusProductToExistingUsages now reports accruedOverage alongside usage, so the
four toEqual shape assertions in the credit-rate carry-over suite were failing
on the added key. All four cases have a positive source balance, so the
expected value is 0.

Fixes the Unit Tests job on the dev -> main release PR.
@vercel

vercel Bot commented Sep 1, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

1 Skipped Deployment
Project Deployment Actions Updated
landing-page Ignored Ignored Sep 1, 2026 5:06pm UTC

Request Review

@vercel
vercel Bot temporarily deployed to Preview – autumn-vite September 1, 2026 17:06 Inactive
@chatgpt-codex-connector

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Sep 1, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review Status Commit Review trigger
📝 Code Review Completed 2026-09-01T17:08:03.061093Z 7c954f5 PR opened
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

@capy-ai capy-ai Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Capy found no issues.

View 1 other finding in Capy.

Open in Capy Review

@polylane

polylane Bot commented Sep 1, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Note

Production impact unlikely.

Documentation, test, or CI-only change; nothing that runs in production is affected.

review-in-polylane disable-pr-reviews

Polylane analysed 7c954f5 for production impact.

@cubic-dev-ai cubic-dev-ai Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No issues found across 1 file

Confidence score: 5/5

  • Automated review surfaced no issues in the provided summaries.
  • No files require special attention.

Re-trigger cubic

@SirTenzin
SirTenzin merged commit 2deaaae into dev Sep 1, 2026
20 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant