[javenciu]

Problem / Motivation

Goal: website/src/test/PromptsTab.test.tsx stops emitting React act() warnings, so its row leaves website/integration/act-warning-baseline.json and the guard in website/integration/setup.ts checks it like any file outside the list.

Before this change, a run of the file emitted 10 act() warnings (late state updates in PromptsTab): a state update landed after the test's last barrier. Because the file is on the baseline, the guard kept those warnings out of the log.

Why it matters

website/docs/testing.md (Rules every test keeps) treats an act() warning as a finding: the update lands after the assertions, so whether the test sees it depends on timing. The baseline is shrink-only, and each file that leaves it is held to the rule from then on.

Not a goal

• Other files on the baseline (each is its own change).
• Any change to the components under test.
• Filtering or silencing the warning; the test waits for the update instead.

What changed (motivation → approach → change)

The tests now wait for the state the late update produces before they finish, so the update lands inside the test's barrier.

• website/src/test/PromptsTab.test.tsx: await waitFor(() => expect(screen.queryByPlaceholderText('my-prompt-name')).not.toBeInTheDocument())
• website/src/test/PromptsTab.test.tsx: await waitFor(() => expect(mockApi.promptDetail).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(2))
• website/src/test/PromptsTab.test.tsx: await waitFor(() => expect(screen.getByRole('option', { name: /other/ })).toHaveAttribute('aria-selected', 'true'))
• website/src/test/PromptsTab.test.tsx: await waitFor(() => expect(screen.queryByPlaceholderText('my-prompt-name')).not.toBeInTheDocument())
• website/integration/act-warning-baseline.json: removed src/test/PromptsTab.test.tsx.

Backwards compatibility

Compatible: test-only change.
Removes nothing: a baseline row is a tolerance the guard stops needing, not a capability.

Tests

• Before (the row removed, the file unchanged): KIROCREW_ACT_STRICT=1 npx vitest run src/test/PromptsTab.test.tsx from website/: 3 of 73 tests fail on act() warnings.
• After: the same command passes 5 runs out of 5 with 0 act() warnings; 73 tests, the same count as before.
• integration/setup.refactor.determinism.test.ts passes (the baseline stays sorted, unique and existing); npx eslint is clean on the file.

Manual verification

N/A: test-only change; the strict runs above are the check.

Screenshots / video

Why no screenshot: nothing renders; this change touches one test file and a test baseline only.

No issue exists; burn-down of the act() warning baseline that #17673 introduced.

[github-actions]

First Principles Review (Opus 5.5) — ⏭️ skipped

Revision 87b75f51fe34d13f1468aa28de2f6a96e92de6df ships no reviewable capability (docs, tests or generated files only), so there is nothing to inventory. Does not block merge.

[github-actions]

UX Review (Opus 5.5) — ✅ PASS

UX-level review of 87b75f51fe34d13f1468aa28de2f6a96e92de6df — updated in place on each push. A BLOCK verdict blocks PR readiness; PASS does not.

UX-Verdict: PASS

Nothing to check. Only a test file and a test baseline change, and no user-visible control changes, so the missing screenshots leave no gap.

[UX-REVIEWED] 87b75f5

Description read

[DESCRIPTION-READ] 4e3d51f1391bb8b7e058e0e2cb345683972f9d6d1285fc835948fe10dfdf417c

That sha256 names everything this verdict read: the PR description, plus the 3 evidence file(s) the workflow collected from it and handed this review. It covers that evidence because the media strip replaces every attachment URL with the same placeholder, so an edit swapping one attachment for another would leave the description's captured text identical while what this review judged changed. Recompute it with .github/scripts/pr-description-capture.sh over the same inputs; if it differs, the description or that evidence changed after this verdict was formed and any finding drawn from either is unproven.

[github-actions]

Design Review (Opus 5.5) — ✅ PASS

Design-level review of 87b75f51fe34d13f1468aa28de2f6a96e92de6df — updated in place on each push. A BLOCK verdict blocks PR readiness; PASS does not.

Design-Verdict: PASS

Nothing blocks: this is a test-only change that waits for the late state updates rather than silencing them, and removing the baseline row only puts the file under the existing guard.

[DESIGN-REVIEWED] 87b75f5

Description read

[DESCRIPTION-READ] b5251a5824d828a117865d126efb94308cd5b487e647c86ff85da9e549797bb8

That sha256 names everything this verdict read: the PR description, plus the 1 evidence file(s) the workflow collected from it and handed this review. It covers that evidence because the media strip replaces every attachment URL with the same placeholder, so an edit swapping one attachment for another would leave the description's captured text identical while what this review judged changed. Recompute it with .github/scripts/pr-description-capture.sh over the same inputs; if it differs, the description or that evidence changed after this verdict was formed and any finding drawn from either is unproven.

[github-actions]

Opus 5.5 Review — ✅ no blocking findings

Reviewed 87b75f51fe34d13f1468aa28de2f6a96e92de6df — this comment is updated in place on each push.

Review details

No findings.

[OPUS-REVIEWED] 87b75f5

Verdict parsed from the review's SHA-scoped output markers for commit 87b75f51fe34d13f1468aa28de2f6a96e92de6df.

False positive or not applicable? A repository writer can comment:
/ai-review override fable 87b75f51fe34d13f1468aa28de2f6a96e92de6df false-positive: <reason, 20 to 500 characters>

[github-actions]

GPT 6.1 Review — ✅ no blocking findings

GPT 6.1 completed its review of 87b75f51fe34d13f1468aa28de2f6a96e92de6df and found no blocking issues.

This comment is updated in place on each push.

Review details

No findings.
[GPT-REVIEWED] 87b75f5

False positive or not applicable? A repository writer can comment:
/ai-review override gpt 87b75f51fe34d13f1468aa28de2f6a96e92de6df false-positive: <reason, 20 to 500 characters>

[KiroCrewCaptain]

Tier 1 auto-approve: test (2 files). Criteria: no conflict, no requested changes, security path denylist clean, design-doc gate clean, security checklist all-NO, no reviewer-lane findings, readiness signal fresh for this head SHA, declared category matches the diff. Category: test-only change: waits for the create dialog to close and the row detail to load, and drops the file from the act-warning baseline.