Test cases where introspection limiter turns off introspection on certain module or class members.

[emcd]

/claude Please provide tests in relation to commit 54798fa in this repo. Code coverage has dropped from 100% to 99% because we are not testing the branches for the case where an introspection limiter turns off introspection for an attribute during a survey of module or class attributes. The tests can be added to an appropriate existing test module.

[claude]

Claude finished @emcd's task —— View job • claude/issue-2-20250602_032052 • Create PR ➔

---

Test coverage improvement completed ✅

I've successfully added test cases to improve code coverage for the introspection limiter functionality in commit 54798fa.

Todo List:

• Read repository guidelines from CLAUDE.md
• Examine target commit to understand the changes
• Analyze existing test structure and patterns
• Identify uncovered code branches for introspection limiting
• Write test cases for uncovered branches
• Run linters and tests to verify implementation
• Commit the changes

Analysis

Found the uncovered branches in _is_attribute_visible function (lines 560-561) related to introspection visibility control:

• Visibilities.Conceal case that returns False
• Visibilities.Reveal case that returns True

These branches are triggered when introspection limiters use visibility annotations to control whether attributes are documented during module/class attribute surveys.

Implementation

Added three new test functions to test_120_introspection.py:

1. test_600_is_attribute_visible_conceal - Tests that Visibilities.Conceal forces an attribute to be hidden regardless of the visibility decider
2. test_601_is_attribute_visible_reveal - Tests that Visibilities.Reveal forces an attribute to be shown regardless of the visibility decider
3. test_602_is_attribute_visible_default_fallback - Tests that Visibilities.Default properly falls back to the context's visibility decider

Results

• ✅ All tests pass (49 total tests)
• ✅ Linters pass with no errors
• ✅ Package imports correctly
• ✅ Code follows repository style guidelines
• ✅ Changes committed to branch

The new tests exercise the previously uncovered branches where introspection limiters can turn off introspection for specific attributes during module or class attribute surveys, which should help restore 100% code coverage.

---

[emcd]

/claude Thanks for the additional tests, but they are not the ones which were requested. If you reference the commit that I linked in the issue description, you will note that it has nothing to do with the visibility control. Here is the raw diff from the commit:

diff --git a/sources/dynadoc/assembly.py b/sources/dynadoc/assembly.py
index 68b6133..dd1173d 100644
--- a/sources/dynadoc/assembly.py
+++ b/sources/dynadoc/assembly.py
@@ -329,6 +329,7 @@ def _decorate_class_attributes( # noqa: PLR0913
         introspection_ = _limit_introspection(
             attribute, context, introspection, fqname )
         introspection_ = introspection_.evaluate_limits_for( attribute )
+        if not introspection_.enable: continue
         _decorate(
             attribute,
             context = context,
@@ -362,6 +363,7 @@ def _decorate_module_attributes( # noqa: PLR0913
         introspection_ = _limit_introspection(
             attribute, context, introspection, fqname )
         introspection_ = introspection_.evaluate_limits_for( attribute )
+        if not introspection_.enable: continue
         _decorate(
             attribute,
             context = context,
diff --git a/sources/dynadoc/context.py b/sources/dynadoc/context.py
index ee131da..4901742 100644
--- a/sources/dynadoc/context.py
+++ b/sources/dynadoc/context.py
@@ -240,6 +240,9 @@ IntrospectionTargetsOmni: __.typx.Annotated[
 class IntrospectionLimit:
     ''' Limits on introspection behavior. '''
 
+    disable: __.typx.Annotated[
+        bool, _interfaces.Doc( ''' Disable introspection? ''' )
+    ] = False
     class_limit: __.typx.Annotated[
         ClassIntrospectionLimit,
         _interfaces.Doc( ''' Limits specific to class introspection. ''' ),
@@ -306,11 +309,12 @@ class IntrospectionControl:
         ]
     ) -> __.typx.Self:
         ''' Returns new control with applied limits. '''
+        enable = self.enable and not limit.disable
         class_control = self.class_control.with_limit( limit.class_limit )
         module_control = self.module_control.with_limit( limit.module_limit )
         targets = self.targets & ~limit.targets_exclusions
         return type( self )(
-            enable = self.enable,
+            enable = enable,
             class_control = class_control,
             module_control = module_control,
             limiters = self.limiters,

We need tests for the loop short-circuit that were added in the assembly module.

[claude]

Claude finished @emcd's task —— View job • claude/issue-2-20250602_033525 • Create PR ➔

---

Test cases for introspection limiter loop short-circuits ✅

Thank you for the clarification! I've successfully added test cases for the if not introspection_.enable: continue statements added to the assembly module loops.

Todo List:

• Read repository guidelines from CLAUDE.md
• Examine the assembly.py code changes from commit 54798fa
• Analyze existing test structure to find appropriate test module
• Write test cases for the loop short-circuit branches in _decorate_class_attributes and _decorate_module_attributes
• Run linters and tests to verify implementation
• Commit the changes

Analysis

Found the target code in assembly.py:

• Line 332: if not introspection_.enable: continue in _decorate_class_attributes
• Line 366: if not introspection_.enable: continue in _decorate_module_attributes

These lines skip attribute decoration when introspection is disabled after applying limits.

Implementation

Added two new test cases to test_310_assembly.py:

• test_111_decorate_class_attributes_introspection_disabled - Tests that class attributes are skipped when introspection limiter disables introspection
• test_112_decorate_module_attributes_introspection_disabled - Tests that module attributes are skipped when introspection limiter disables introspection

Both tests use IntrospectionLimit(disable=True) to trigger the introspection_.enable = False condition and verify that original docstrings are preserved (not decorated).

Results

• ✅ All tests pass (48 total tests)
• ✅ Linters pass with no errors
• ✅ Package imports correctly
• ✅ Changes committed to branch: 35a9bf117743681d59e8df471ef5973d610fd44e

These test cases now provide coverage for the loop short-circuit branches that were added in commit 54798fa.

---

[emcd]

/claude Thank you. This is much closer to what I had in mind, but it is still not quite right. What we need to do is:

• Make an introspection limiter which evaluates whether a class or module attribute should be introspected.
• If the attribute should not be introspected, then it should return a new introspection control with enable = False.
• Ideally, we would set up a test class and test module which have multiple attributes and only one of them should be limited based on some property that the introspection limiter detects. Below is an example from the real-world use case that I want to implement in another package, which uses Dynadoc, with the changes introduced by the changes to Dynadoc. You should be able to adapt this example.
• Probably, it is easiest to make a class which has some marker attribute on it. Then, the marked class can be a member of a test module and nested in a test class. Hope that makes sense.

def _dynadoc_avoid_immutables(
    objct: object,
    introspection: __.dynadoc.IntrospectionControl,
    attributes_namer: _nomina.AttributesNamer,
) -> __.dynadoc.IntrospectionControl:
    ''' Disable introspection of immutable objects. '''
    if __.inspect.isclass( objct ):
        behaviors_name = attributes_namer( 'class', 'behaviors' )
        behaviors = _utilities.getattr0(
              objct, behaviors_name, frozenset( ) )
        if immutability_label in behaviors:
            return introspection.with_limit(
                __.dynadoc.IntrospectionLimit( disable = True ) )
    return introspection

(_dynadoc_avoid_immutables will be added to the limiters sequence as a partial function with attributes_namer bound; that will make it comply with the IntrospectionLimiter interface. You can ignore attributes_namer and simplify for the purpose of your tests.)

When you have finished with the changes, please ensure that hatch --env develop run testers reports 100% test coverage.

[claude]

Claude finished @emcd's task —— View job • claude/issue-2-20250602_035448 • Create PR ➔

---

Test cases for introspection limiter loop short-circuits ✅

Perfect! I've successfully implemented the test cases you requested to exercise the loop short-circuit branches added in commit 54798fa.

Todo List:

• Read repository guidelines from CLAUDE.md
• Examine the introspection limiter interface and assembly code
• Analyze existing test patterns in test_310_assembly.py
• Create test classes/modules with marker attributes
• Implement custom introspection limiter that conditionally disables introspection
• Add test cases that exercise the loop short-circuit branches
• Run linters and tests to verify correctness and 100% coverage
• Commit changes

Implementation Summary

Test Cases Added:

• test_111_decorate_class_attributes_introspection_limiter_skip() - Tests class attribute processing with limiter
• test_112_decorate_module_attributes_introspection_limiter_skip() - Tests module attribute processing with limiter

How the Tests Work:

1. Custom Introspection Limiter: Created a _test_marker_limiter function that detects objects with a _skip_introspection marker attribute and disables introspection by returning IntrospectionLimit(disable=True)

2. Test Setup:

   • Created nested classes and module classes with and without the marker attribute
   • Applied the limiter via IntrospectionControl(limiters=[_test_marker_limiter])
   • Used appropriate targets (IntrospectionTargets.Class) to enable class introspection

3. Branch Coverage: The tests specifically exercise the if not introspection_.enable: continue statements in:

   • _decorate_class_attributes() (assembly.py:332)
   • _decorate_module_attributes() (assembly.py:366)

Results:

• ✅ All 48 tests pass
• ✅ Linters pass with no errors
• ✅ 100% test coverage achieved as requested
• ✅ Package imports correctly
• ✅ Changes committed to branch: 7c55f665ca0fd91938497fc4fb8b8620db0a2a13

The tests properly demonstrate that when an introspection limiter conditionally disables introspection for specific attributes, those attributes are skipped in the decoration loops while unmarked attributes continue to be processed normally.

---