chore(bugbot): Add testing conventions code review rules#18433
Merged
chore(bugbot): Add testing conventions code review rules#18433
Conversation
Lms24
changed the title
This was referenced Dec 9, 2025
nicohrubec
reviewed
Dec 9, 2025
.cursor/BUGBOT.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| ## Testing Conventions | ||
|
|
||
| - When reviewing a `feat(*)` PR, check if the PR includes at least one integration or E2E test. If neither of the two are present, add a comment, recommending to add one. |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
l: Should we add a similar rule for fix(*) PRs?
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
great point! I think for fixes we should at least require a unit test (or integration/e2e if present of course)
s1gr1d
approved these changes
Dec 9, 2025
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR adds some rules to bugbot's rulest to flag some testing-related issues we'd like to avoid. Like with all AI rules, there are for sure exceptions to the new rules, so no problem with us ignoring any of these flags. But I think having an additional reminder that testing is necessary would be a good change. LMK what you think!
Happy to add/remove/change rules as reviewers see fit.
Closes #18435