Fix unittest test ID format in utils unit tests

[Copilot]

Two unit tests in utils.unit.test.ts were failing due to incorrect test ID format expectations. The tests assumed unittest test IDs had no separator between filename and class name, but the implementation correctly uses backslash separators.

Changes

• Updated test ID format: Changed from 'a/b/c.pyMyClass' to 'a/b/c.py\\MyClass' to match the backslash-separated format that idToModuleClassMethod expects
• Fixed stub target: Changed from stubbing utils.clipboardWriteText to env.clipboard.writeText - stubbing exported functions doesn't affect internal module calls in the same module
• Consistent wrapper usage: Updated writeTestIdToClipboard to always call clipboardWriteText wrapper instead of mixing direct env.clipboard.writeText calls

Example

// Before: incorrect format without separator
expect(utils.idToModuleClassMethod('a/b/c.pyMyClass')).to.equal('c.MyClass');

// After: correct format with backslash separator  
expect(utils.idToModuleClassMethod('a/b/c.py\\MyClass')).to.equal('c.MyClass');

The unittest ID format uses backslashes to delimit: filepath\\ClassName\\method_name, which the implementation splits and converts to module.ClassName.method_name.

Original prompt

continue with assessment and fix of test to align with new changes

[Chronological Review: The conversation began with the user requesting edits to a pull request (PR) related to the `controller.ts` file. The user outlined specific changes, including switching to an existing file, changing syntax, improving code readability, adding logging, and documenting design considerations. The user then reported compilation errors in the same file, indicating unused variables. Following this, the user questioned the purpose of certain variables and whether the PR was merely updating legacy code. The user expressed a desire to mark certain items and suggested a staged approach to the complex switch in architecture. Finally, the user requested an assessment of the testing architecture and a proposal for necessary updates to tests.]

[Intent Mapping:

1. "I have some edits I want to make." - User wants to modify the PR.
2. "why are these not being used?" - User seeks clarification on unused variables.
3. "does this PR just do legacy updating not switching to the new one?" - User questions the nature of the PR.
4. "mark them with that" - User requests to label certain items.
5. "I would love to do it in stages" - User expresses a preference for a phased approach.
6. "Run all the tests and do an assessment" - User wants to evaluate the testing architecture.]

[Technical Inventory:

• File: /Users/eleanorboyd/vscode-python/src/client/testing/testController/controller.ts - Contains the main logic for the test controller.
• Variables: vsIdToProject, fileUriToProject, projectToVsIds, workspaceDiscoveryState - Declared but not used, leading to compilation errors.
• Logging: User requested to add logging with a specific label for easier tracking.]

[Code Archaeology:

• The user has made edits to controller.ts and other files, but specific changes were not detailed in the conversation.
• The user is concerned about the complexity of the switch in architecture and the implications for testing.]

[Progress Assessment:

• Completed: User has outlined specific edits for the PR.
• Pending: User needs to resolve compilation errors, clarify the purpose of certain variables, and assess the testing architecture.]

[Context Validation: All critical information for continuation is captured, including user requests for edits, clarifications, and assessments.]

[Recent Commands Analysis:

• Last Agent Commands: User requested to run tests and assess the testing architecture.
• Tool Results Summary: Compilation errors were found in controller.ts, indicating unused variables.
• Pre-Summary State: The agent was actively discussing the complexity of the switch in architecture and the need for a proposal regarding testing updates.
• Operation Context: The user is focused on ensuring the PR is effective and that the testing architecture aligns with the new design.]

1. Conversation Overview: - Primary Objectives: - "I have some edits I want to make." - "Run all the tests and do an assessment of the status of which tests need to be updated." - Session Context: The user is working on a PR for the `controller.ts` file, addressing edits, compilation errors, and the testing architecture. - User Intent Evolution: The user initially focused on specific edits, then shifted to understanding the implications of the PR and the need for a structured approach to testing.

2. Technical Foundation:

• TypeScript: Used for the controller.ts file, which is part of the testing framework.
• Logging: User requested to implement logging for better traceability.

3. Codebase Status:

• File Name: controller.ts
  • Purpose: Main logic for the test controller.
  • Current State: Contains compilation errors due to unused variables.
  • Key Code Segments: Variables like vsIdToProject, fileUriToProject, etc., are declared but not utilized.
  • Dependencies: Relies on the overall testing architecture.

4. Problem Resolution:

• Issues Encountered: Compilation errors due to unused variables.
• Solutions Implemented: User is seeking to clarify the purpose of these variables and their necessity.
• Debugging Context: Ongoing assessment of the testing architecture and its alignment with the new design.

5. Progress Tracking:

• Completed Tasks: User has outlined specific edits for the PR.
• Partially Complete Work: Compilation errors need to be resolved, and the testing architecture needs assessment.
• Validated Outcomes: None confirmed yet due to ongoing issues.

6. Active Work State:

• Current Focus: User is assessing the complexity of the switch in architecture and the implications for testing.
• Recent Context: User is questioning the nature of the PR and its effectiveness in transitioning to a new architecture.
• Working Code: The controller.ts file is being modified.
• Immediate Context: User is concerned about the testing architecture and its alignment with the new design.

7. Recent Operations:

• Last Agent Com...

Created from VS Code.

---

✨ Let Copilot coding agent set things up for you — coding agent works faster and does higher quality work when set up for your repo.