문서 품질 critic와 golden 회귀를 고도화해 PPTX·HTML·DOCX·XLSX 마감 품질을 강화한다
- ArtifactQualityReviewService를 확장해 HTML의 board/strategy decision gap, DOCX evidence table·callout 부족, XLSX dashboard trend·variance·sheet summary·headline tile 부족을 개별 이슈로 판정하도록 보강 - ArtifactRepairGuideService와 DeckRepairGuideService를 보강해 decision summary, next steps, evidence table, trend/variance, dashboard tile 등 실제 보강 행동을 바로 제안하는 repair guide를 반환하도록 정리 - ExcelSkill review 입력을 세분화하고 Html/PPT golden 테스트를 strategy brief, PMO steering 시나리오까지 확대해 문서군 golden 회귀 범위를 넓힘 - 검증: dotnet build src/AxCopilot/AxCopilot.csproj -c Release -v minimal -p:OutputPath=bin\\verify_doc_finish_batch\\ -p:IntermediateOutputPath=obj\\verify_doc_finish_batch\\ / dotnet test src/AxCopilot.Tests/AxCopilot.Tests.csproj -c Release -v minimal (ArtifactQualityReviewServiceTests, ArtifactRepairGuideServiceTests, DeckQualityReviewServiceTests, DeckRepairGuideServiceTests, HtmlSkillGoldenReportTests, PptxSkillGoldenDeckTests, DocxSkillGoldenDocumentTests, ExcelSkillGoldenWorkbookTests) -p:OutputPath=bin\\verify_doc_finish_batch_tests\\ -p:IntermediateOutputPath=obj\\verify_doc_finish_batch_tests\
This commit is contained in:
@@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ public class ArtifactQualityReviewServiceTests
|
||||
<table><tr><th>Metric</th><th>Value</th></tr><tr><td>NPS</td><td>61</td></tr></table>
|
||||
<div class="comparison-grid"></div>
|
||||
<div class="roadmap-block"></div>
|
||||
<div class="decision-summary"></div>
|
||||
<section class="board-report-panel"></section>
|
||||
<section class="strategy-brief-panel"></section>
|
||||
<h2>Recommendation</h2><p>Recommendation text.</p><p>Action support text.</p>
|
||||
@@ -77,6 +78,9 @@ public class ArtifactQualityReviewServiceTests
|
||||
false,
|
||||
false,
|
||||
false,
|
||||
false,
|
||||
false,
|
||||
false,
|
||||
false));
|
||||
|
||||
review.Issues.Should().Contain(issue => issue.Message.Contains("summary sheet", StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase));
|
||||
@@ -101,11 +105,60 @@ public class ArtifactQualityReviewServiceTests
|
||||
false,
|
||||
false,
|
||||
false,
|
||||
true));
|
||||
false,
|
||||
false,
|
||||
false,
|
||||
false));
|
||||
|
||||
review.Issues.Should().Contain(issue => issue.Message.Contains("highlights or actions", StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase));
|
||||
review.Issues.Should().Contain(issue => issue.Message.Contains("supporting detail sheets", StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase));
|
||||
review.Issues.Should().Contain(issue => issue.Message.Contains("trend or variance formulas", StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase));
|
||||
review.Issues.Should().Contain(issue => issue.Message.Contains("KPI, trend, or decision content", StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase));
|
||||
review.Issues.Should().Contain(issue => issue.Message.Contains("trend or variance framing", StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase));
|
||||
review.Issues.Should().Contain(issue => issue.Message.Contains("summarize each supporting detail sheet", StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase));
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
[Fact]
|
||||
public void ReviewHtml_ShouldFlagDecisionGap_ForBoardAndStrategyPanels()
|
||||
{
|
||||
var html =
|
||||
"""
|
||||
<h2>Executive Summary</h2><p>Summary text.</p><p>Supporting paragraph.</p>
|
||||
<section class="board-report-panel"></section>
|
||||
<section class="strategy-brief-panel"></section>
|
||||
<div class="comparison-grid"></div>
|
||||
<div class="roadmap-block"></div>
|
||||
<h2>Recommendation</h2><p>Recommendation text.</p><p>More detail.</p>
|
||||
<h2>Appendix</h2><p>Reference detail.</p><p>More detail.</p>
|
||||
""";
|
||||
|
||||
var review = ArtifactQualityReviewService.ReviewHtml("Decision Gap", html, hasCover: false, hasTableOfContents: false, printReady: true);
|
||||
|
||||
review.Issues.Should().Contain(issue => issue.Message.Contains("Board-ready report should include a decision summary block", StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase));
|
||||
review.Issues.Should().Contain(issue => issue.Message.Contains("Strategy brief should include explicit decisions", StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase));
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
[Fact]
|
||||
public void ReviewStructuredDocument_ShouldRecommendEvidenceTableAndCallouts_ForLongBusinessDoc()
|
||||
{
|
||||
var review = ArtifactQualityReviewService.ReviewStructuredDocument(new StructuredDocumentReviewInput(
|
||||
"Executive Brief",
|
||||
6,
|
||||
2400,
|
||||
0,
|
||||
1,
|
||||
0,
|
||||
0,
|
||||
0,
|
||||
true,
|
||||
true,
|
||||
true,
|
||||
true,
|
||||
true,
|
||||
true,
|
||||
true));
|
||||
|
||||
review.Issues.Should().Contain(issue => issue.Message.Contains("evidence table", StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase));
|
||||
review.Issues.Should().Contain(issue => issue.Message.Contains("callout or highlight blocks", StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase));
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -15,15 +15,16 @@ public class ArtifactRepairGuideServiceTests
|
||||
["Includes summary sheet"],
|
||||
[
|
||||
new ArtifactReviewIssue("Dashboard sheet lacks KPI, trend, or decision content.", ArtifactReviewSeverity.Info),
|
||||
new ArtifactReviewIssue("Workbook could benefit from a dashboard sheet to summarize multi-sheet trends.", ArtifactReviewSeverity.Info),
|
||||
new ArtifactReviewIssue("Summary sheet does not link to detail sheets.", ArtifactReviewSeverity.Warning)
|
||||
new ArtifactReviewIssue("Dashboard sheet lacks trend or variance framing for the supporting sheets.", ArtifactReviewSeverity.Info),
|
||||
new ArtifactReviewIssue("Dashboard workbook should summarize each supporting detail sheet.", ArtifactReviewSeverity.Info)
|
||||
]);
|
||||
|
||||
var guide = ArtifactRepairGuideService.BuildGuide(review);
|
||||
|
||||
guide.Should().Contain("dashboard sheet");
|
||||
guide.Should().Contain("dashboard");
|
||||
guide.Should().Contain("core story");
|
||||
guide.Should().Contain("detail sheets");
|
||||
guide.Should().Contain("trend");
|
||||
guide.Should().Contain("sheet summaries");
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
[Fact]
|
||||
@@ -34,14 +35,14 @@ public class ArtifactRepairGuideServiceTests
|
||||
70,
|
||||
["Includes print-ready CSS"],
|
||||
[
|
||||
new ArtifactReviewIssue("Print-ready business report would benefit from decision summary or evidence cards.", ArtifactReviewSeverity.Warning),
|
||||
new ArtifactReviewIssue("Strategy brief would be stronger with a comparison or roadmap block.", ArtifactReviewSeverity.Info)
|
||||
new ArtifactReviewIssue("Board-ready report should include a decision summary block.", ArtifactReviewSeverity.Warning),
|
||||
new ArtifactReviewIssue("Strategy brief should include explicit decisions or a decision summary block.", ArtifactReviewSeverity.Warning)
|
||||
]);
|
||||
|
||||
var guide = ArtifactRepairGuideService.BuildGuide(review);
|
||||
|
||||
guide.Should().Contain("decision summary");
|
||||
guide.Should().Contain("comparison or roadmap");
|
||||
guide.Should().Contain("strategy brief");
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
[Fact]
|
||||
@@ -52,15 +53,15 @@ public class ArtifactRepairGuideServiceTests
|
||||
66,
|
||||
["Includes cover page"],
|
||||
[
|
||||
new ArtifactReviewIssue("Long document could benefit from a table of contents.", ArtifactReviewSeverity.Info),
|
||||
new ArtifactReviewIssue("Template-based styling could improve consistency for a longer document.", ArtifactReviewSeverity.Info),
|
||||
new ArtifactReviewIssue("Supporting evidence table is limited for a business document.", ArtifactReviewSeverity.Info),
|
||||
new ArtifactReviewIssue("Key messages would benefit from callout or highlight blocks.", ArtifactReviewSeverity.Info),
|
||||
new ArtifactReviewIssue("Header or footer metadata is limited for a business document.", ArtifactReviewSeverity.Info)
|
||||
]);
|
||||
|
||||
var guide = ArtifactRepairGuideService.BuildGuide(review);
|
||||
|
||||
guide.Should().Contain("table of contents");
|
||||
guide.Should().Contain("template");
|
||||
guide.Should().Contain("evidence table");
|
||||
guide.Should().Contain("callout");
|
||||
guide.Should().Contain("header and footer");
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ public class DeckQualityReviewServiceTests
|
||||
{ "layout": "title", "title": "Growth Strategy" },
|
||||
{ "layout": "executive_summary", "title": "Executive Summary", "headline": "Headline", "summary_points": ["A","B","C"], "recommendation": "Do B" },
|
||||
{ "layout": "comparison", "title": "Options", "headline": "Compare", "options": [{ "name": "A", "pros": "Fast", "cons": "Shallow", "verdict": "Fastest" }, { "name": "B", "pros": "Balanced", "cons": "Needs alignment", "verdict": "Recommended" }] },
|
||||
{ "layout": "roadmap", "title": "Roadmap", "headline": "Execute in three phases" },
|
||||
{ "layout": "roadmap", "title": "Roadmap", "headline": "Execute in three phases", "phases": [{ "title": "Design", "detail": "Lock scope" }, { "title": "Launch", "detail": "Go live" }] },
|
||||
{ "layout": "recommendation", "title": "Recommendation", "recommendation": "Approve phase-1", "summary_points": ["Reason 1", "Reason 2"] },
|
||||
{ "layout": "table", "title": "Appendix & Evidence", "headers": ["Evidence","Detail"], "rows": [["Metric","Value"]] }
|
||||
]
|
||||
@@ -81,6 +81,7 @@ public class DeckQualityReviewServiceTests
|
||||
|
||||
review.Issues.Should().Contain(issue => issue.Message.Contains("Slide 2"));
|
||||
review.Issues.Should().Contain(issue => issue.Message.Contains("headline is too long"));
|
||||
review.Issues.Should().Contain(issue => issue.Message.Contains("decision ask", StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase));
|
||||
review.Issues.Should().Contain(issue => issue.Message.Contains("comparison slide needs at least two options"));
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -107,4 +108,21 @@ public class DeckQualityReviewServiceTests
|
||||
review.Issues.Should().Contain(issue => issue.Message.Contains("Storyline expects a roadmap slide", StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase));
|
||||
review.Issues.Should().Contain(issue => issue.Message.Contains("Storyline expects appendix or evidence support", StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase));
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
[Fact]
|
||||
public void ReviewDeck_ShouldFlagRecommendationSlideWithoutRationaleOrNextSteps()
|
||||
{
|
||||
using var slides = JsonDocument.Parse(
|
||||
"""
|
||||
[
|
||||
{ "layout": "title", "title": "PMO Steering" },
|
||||
{ "layout": "executive_summary", "title": "Executive Summary", "headline": "Delivery is stable", "summary_points": ["A", "B"], "recommendation": "Proceed" },
|
||||
{ "layout": "recommendation", "title": "Recommendation", "recommendation": "Proceed" }
|
||||
]
|
||||
""");
|
||||
|
||||
var review = DeckQualityReviewService.ReviewDeck("Thin Recommendation", slides.RootElement, hasTemplate: false, autoRepairCount: 0);
|
||||
|
||||
review.Issues.Should().Contain(issue => issue.Message.Contains("supporting rationale or next steps", StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase));
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -70,4 +70,22 @@ public class DeckRepairGuideServiceTests
|
||||
guide.Should().Contain("comparison slide");
|
||||
guide.Should().Contain("storyline");
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
[Fact]
|
||||
public void BuildGuide_ShouldTranslateDecisionAskAndNextStepGaps()
|
||||
{
|
||||
var report = new DeckQualityReport(
|
||||
60,
|
||||
[],
|
||||
[
|
||||
new DeckReviewIssue("Slide 2: Executive Summary should include a recommendation or decision ask.", DeckReviewSeverity.Info),
|
||||
new DeckReviewIssue("Slide 3: recommendation slide needs supporting rationale or next steps.", DeckReviewSeverity.Info)
|
||||
],
|
||||
[]);
|
||||
|
||||
var guide = DeckRepairGuideService.BuildGuide(report);
|
||||
|
||||
guide.Should().Contain("decision ask");
|
||||
guide.Should().Contain("next steps");
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -142,4 +142,121 @@ public class HtmlSkillGoldenReportTests
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
[Fact]
|
||||
public async Task ExecuteAsync_WithStrongStrategyBrief_ShouldReturnStableQualitySummary()
|
||||
{
|
||||
var workDir = Path.Combine(Path.GetTempPath(), "ax-html-golden-strategy-" + Guid.NewGuid().ToString("N"));
|
||||
Directory.CreateDirectory(workDir);
|
||||
|
||||
try
|
||||
{
|
||||
var tool = new HtmlSkill();
|
||||
var context = new AgentContext
|
||||
{
|
||||
WorkFolder = workDir,
|
||||
Permission = "Auto",
|
||||
OperationMode = "external",
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
var args = JsonDocument.Parse(
|
||||
"""
|
||||
{
|
||||
"path": "strategy-golden.html",
|
||||
"title": "Growth Strategy Brief",
|
||||
"body": "",
|
||||
"toc": true,
|
||||
"print": true,
|
||||
"cover": {
|
||||
"title": "Growth Strategy Brief",
|
||||
"subtitle": "Decision-ready strategy pack",
|
||||
"author": "AX Copilot",
|
||||
"date": "2026-04-15"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"sections": [
|
||||
{ "type": "heading", "level": 2, "text": "Executive Summary" },
|
||||
{ "type": "paragraph", "text": "The strongest near-term growth path is an SMB-first expansion strategy that protects margin while improving sales velocity. The evidence is consistent across retention, commercial efficiency, and onboarding load." },
|
||||
{ "type": "paragraph", "text": "Leadership should approve the SMB-first sequencing now, then unlock enterprise investment after onboarding capacity stabilizes. This is a sequencing choice, not a strategic reversal." },
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "strategy_brief",
|
||||
"title": "Strategic Question",
|
||||
"strategic_question": "Which segment should be prioritized over the next two quarters?",
|
||||
"thesis": "SMB-first expansion offers the best balance of growth, margin, and execution risk.",
|
||||
"implications": [
|
||||
"Commercial resources should shift toward faster-cycle opportunities.",
|
||||
"Enterprise capacity should be staged behind onboarding readiness."
|
||||
],
|
||||
"decisions": [
|
||||
"Approve SMB-first sequencing",
|
||||
"Stage enterprise hiring after week 8"
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "comparison",
|
||||
"title": "Strategic Options",
|
||||
"items": [
|
||||
{ "name": "SMB first", "summary": "Fastest near-term growth", "pros": "Strong retention and shorter sales cycle", "cons": "Smaller average deal size", "verdict": "Recommended" },
|
||||
{ "name": "Balanced mix", "summary": "Diversified growth path", "pros": "Lower concentration risk", "cons": "More operating complexity", "verdict": "Balanced" },
|
||||
{ "name": "Enterprise first", "summary": "Highest headline upside", "pros": "Largest deal size", "cons": "Longest ramp and heaviest onboarding load", "verdict": "Long-term option" }
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "evidence_cards",
|
||||
"title": "Evidence",
|
||||
"items": [
|
||||
{ "title": "Retention", "detail": "SMB retention remains above plan across the last three cohorts.", "source": "Revenue analytics", "tag": "KPI" },
|
||||
{ "title": "Onboarding load", "detail": "Enterprise onboarding is the main delivery bottleneck.", "source": "Operations review", "tag": "Ops" }
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "roadmap",
|
||||
"title": "Execution Roadmap",
|
||||
"phases": [
|
||||
{ "title": "Refocus", "detail": "Reset segment priorities and revenue targets", "timeline": "Weeks 1-2", "owner": "Strategy" },
|
||||
{ "title": "Enable", "detail": "Align messaging, pricing, and onboarding", "timeline": "Weeks 3-6", "owner": "Sales + Ops" },
|
||||
{ "title": "Scale", "detail": "Expand channel coverage and monitor retention", "timeline": "Weeks 7-12", "owner": "GM" }
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "decision_summary",
|
||||
"title": "Decision Summary",
|
||||
"decision": "Approve the SMB-first growth plan and stage enterprise investment after onboarding capacity stabilizes.",
|
||||
"rationale": "The SMB-first path captures faster growth with lower delivery complexity.",
|
||||
"actions": [
|
||||
"Reset next-quarter targets",
|
||||
"Lock the SMB enablement backlog",
|
||||
"Review enterprise readiness at week 8"
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
{ "type": "heading", "level": 2, "text": "Appendix" },
|
||||
{ "type": "paragraph", "text": "The appendix contains source notes and supporting assumptions behind the growth model. It preserves traceability from the recommended decision to the underlying evidence." }
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
""").RootElement;
|
||||
|
||||
var result = await tool.ExecuteAsync(args, context, CancellationToken.None);
|
||||
|
||||
result.Success.Should().BeTrue();
|
||||
result.Output.Should().Contain("Quality score");
|
||||
result.Output.Should().Contain("Needs work: none");
|
||||
result.Output.Should().Contain("Repair guide: none");
|
||||
|
||||
var html = File.ReadAllText(Path.Combine(workDir, "strategy-golden.html"));
|
||||
html.Should().Contain("strategy-brief-panel");
|
||||
html.Should().Contain("decision-summary");
|
||||
html.Should().Contain("comparison-grid");
|
||||
html.Should().Contain("evidence-cards");
|
||||
}
|
||||
finally
|
||||
{
|
||||
try
|
||||
{
|
||||
if (Directory.Exists(workDir))
|
||||
Directory.Delete(workDir, true);
|
||||
}
|
||||
catch
|
||||
{
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -237,4 +237,131 @@ public class PptxSkillGoldenDeckTests
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
[Fact]
|
||||
public async Task ExecuteAsync_WithStrongPmoSteeringDeck_ShouldRemainFreeOfSlideAlerts()
|
||||
{
|
||||
var workDir = Path.Combine(Path.GetTempPath(), "ax-pptx-golden-pmo-" + Guid.NewGuid().ToString("N"));
|
||||
Directory.CreateDirectory(workDir);
|
||||
|
||||
try
|
||||
{
|
||||
var tool = new PptxSkill();
|
||||
var context = new AgentContext
|
||||
{
|
||||
WorkFolder = workDir,
|
||||
Permission = "Auto",
|
||||
OperationMode = "external",
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
var args = JsonDocument.Parse(
|
||||
"""
|
||||
{
|
||||
"path": "pmo-golden.pptx",
|
||||
"theme": "professional",
|
||||
"template_pack": "pmo",
|
||||
"audience": "Transformation steering committee",
|
||||
"objective": "Confirm the phase-2 PMO steering decision",
|
||||
"decision_ask": "Approve the next wave and keep the governance cadence",
|
||||
"storyline": ["Executive Summary", "Issue Tree", "Risk Overview", "Roadmap", "Recommendation", "Appendix"],
|
||||
"slides": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"layout": "title",
|
||||
"title": "PMO Steering Pack"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"layout": "executive_summary",
|
||||
"title": "Executive Summary",
|
||||
"headline": "Phase-2 can proceed with controlled delivery risk and a stable governance model.",
|
||||
"summary_points": [
|
||||
"The current PMO cadence already highlights the few issues that matter most for the next wave.",
|
||||
"The major delivery risk is onboarding bottlenecks, not design ambiguity.",
|
||||
"The decision is now about release timing and governance discipline."
|
||||
],
|
||||
"recommendation": "Approve the next wave and keep the PMO steering cadence intact.",
|
||||
"kpis": [
|
||||
{ "label": "Milestone Health", "value": "92%", "trend": "on track", "note": "core plan stable" },
|
||||
{ "label": "Risk Closure", "value": "78%", "trend": "improving", "note": "weekly review" },
|
||||
{ "label": "Budget", "value": "98%", "trend": "plan", "note": "within guardrails" }
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"layout": "issue_tree",
|
||||
"title": "Issue Tree",
|
||||
"issues": [
|
||||
"Onboarding capacity is the main delivery bottleneck.",
|
||||
"Regional readiness varies by manager capability.",
|
||||
"Decision latency increases when risk owners are unclear."
|
||||
],
|
||||
"implications": [
|
||||
"Protect the launch window with tighter staffing rules.",
|
||||
"Keep manager enablement inside the PMO workplan.",
|
||||
"Confirm named owners for the top-three risk items."
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"layout": "risk_heatmap",
|
||||
"title": "Risk Overview",
|
||||
"risks": [
|
||||
{ "title": "Onboarding bottleneck", "impact": "High", "likelihood": "Medium", "mitigation": "Stage wave-2 staffing" },
|
||||
{ "title": "Regional readiness gap", "impact": "Medium", "likelihood": "Medium", "mitigation": "Run manager enablement" }
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"layout": "roadmap",
|
||||
"title": "Roadmap",
|
||||
"headline": "Run the next wave through three controlled PMO checkpoints.",
|
||||
"phases": [
|
||||
{ "title": "Approve", "detail": "Lock funding, risk owners, and wave scope", "timeline": "Week 1", "owner": "SteerCo" },
|
||||
{ "title": "Launch", "detail": "Start the next wave and monitor onboarding load", "timeline": "Weeks 2-6", "owner": "PMO" },
|
||||
{ "title": "Review", "detail": "Confirm milestone health and risk closure", "timeline": "Week 8", "owner": "Exec sponsors" }
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"layout": "recommendation",
|
||||
"title": "Recommendation",
|
||||
"headline": "Approve the next wave and keep governance cadence intact.",
|
||||
"recommendation": "Approve the next wave, keep weekly PMO reviews, and assign named owners to the top-three risks.",
|
||||
"summary_points": [
|
||||
"The current evidence is sufficient to proceed without delaying the launch window.",
|
||||
"Governance continuity is the main control lever for delivery quality."
|
||||
],
|
||||
"next_steps": [
|
||||
"Approve funding and scope",
|
||||
"Confirm risk owners",
|
||||
"Start weekly PMO review for wave 2"
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"layout": "appendix_evidence",
|
||||
"title": "Appendix & Evidence",
|
||||
"evidence": [
|
||||
{ "title": "Milestone trend", "detail": "Core milestones remain above 90% health", "source": "PMO tracker" },
|
||||
{ "title": "Budget status", "detail": "Program remains inside the approved guardrails", "source": "Finance review" }
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
""").RootElement;
|
||||
|
||||
var result = await tool.ExecuteAsync(args, context, CancellationToken.None);
|
||||
|
||||
result.Success.Should().BeTrue();
|
||||
File.Exists(Path.Combine(workDir, "pmo-golden.pptx")).Should().BeTrue();
|
||||
result.Output.Should().Contain("PPT quality");
|
||||
result.Output.Should().NotContain("Slide alerts:");
|
||||
result.Output.Should().Contain("Needs work: none");
|
||||
}
|
||||
finally
|
||||
{
|
||||
try
|
||||
{
|
||||
if (Directory.Exists(workDir))
|
||||
Directory.Delete(workDir, true);
|
||||
}
|
||||
catch
|
||||
{
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user