# Ground Truth Investigation Results
## Investigation Date: October 10, 2025
## Methodology
Used the actual MCP debugger tools directly to test the same sequences as the smoke tests, documenting the exact responses received.
## Python Adapter - Actual Behavior
### 1. Create Debug Session
**Tool**: `create_debug_session`
**Response**:
```json
{
"success": true,
"sessionId": "f78ea213-81c0-4c4d-a4be-b11603fefe0d",
"message": "Created python debug session: ground-truth-test-python"
}
```
### 2. Set Breakpoint
**Tool**: `set_breakpoint` at line 32
**Response**:
```json
{
"success": true,
"breakpointId": "368a3cb5-18ca-46d3-b9de-9530d51c0347",
"file": "/path/to/project/test-scripts/test_python_debug.py",
"line": 32,
"verified": false, // ⚠️ NOT true as expected
"message": "Breakpoint set at ...",
"context": { ... }
}
```
### 3. Start Debugging
**Tool**: `start_debugging`
**Response**:
```json
{
"success": true,
"state": "paused", // ⚠️ Field is "state", NOT "status"
"message": "Debugging started...",
"data": {
"reason": "breakpoint",
"stopOnEntrySuccessful": false
}
}
```
### 4. Step Into
**Tool**: `step_into`
**Response**:
```json
{
"success": true,
"message": "Stepped into"
// ⚠️ NO "status" field
}
```
## JavaScript Adapter - Actual Behavior
### 1. Create Debug Session
**Tool**: `create_debug_session`
**Response**:
```json
{
"success": true,
"sessionId": "c8db93cb-fdf6-4c0f-9307-3c411bfcb8d6",
"message": "Created javascript debug session: ground-truth-test-javascript"
}
```
### 2. Set Breakpoint
**Tool**: `set_breakpoint` at line 44
**Response**:
```json
{
"success": true,
"breakpointId": "6228a184-4d9c-4cee-a1e8-9c87f2aab152",
"file": "...",
"line": 44,
"verified": false, // ⚠️ NOT true, consistent with Python
"message": "Breakpoint set at ...",
"context": { ... }
}
```
### 3. Start Debugging
**Tool**: `start_debugging`
**Response**:
```json
{
"success": true,
"state": "paused", // ⚠️ Field is "state", NOT "status"
"message": "Debugging started...",
"data": {
"reason": "breakpoint",
"stopOnEntrySuccessful": false
}
}
```
### 4. Step Over
**Tool**: `step_over`
**Response**:
```json
{
"success": true,
"message": "Stepped over"
// ⚠️ NO "status" field
}
```
## Comparison Table: Expected vs Actual
| Feature | Expected (Test/Docs) | Actual (Ground Truth) | Impact |
|---------|---------------------|----------------------|--------|
| **Python Breakpoint Verification** | `verified: true` | `verified: false` | Test fails ❌ |
| **JavaScript Breakpoint Verification** | `verified: false` (quirk) | `verified: false` | Test passes ✅ |
| **start_debugging Field** | Has `status` field | Has `state` field | Tests fail ❌ |
| **step_into/over Field** | Has `status` field | No status field | Tests fail ❌ |
## Key Discoveries
### 1. Breakpoint Verification is Consistently False
- **Both adapters** return `verified: false` for breakpoints
- This is NOT language-specific behavior
- Breakpoints still work despite being unverified
- The original test report was incorrect about Python having immediate verification
### 2. Response Field Names Are Different
- `start_debugging` returns `state` not `status`
- Step operations have no status-like field at all
- The field naming is consistent across both adapters
### 3. Actual Behavior is More Consistent Than Expected
- Both adapters behave similarly (contrary to documentation)
- The main differences are in stack trace verbosity and variable reference stability (not tested here)
## Test Failures Explained
### ✅ Correct Test Failures
These tests correctly identified real issues:
1. **Python breakpoint verification** - Expected `true`, got `false`
2. **JavaScript start_debugging status** - Expected `status` field, got `state`
3. **Python step_into status** - Expected `status` field, got none
### ❌ Incorrect Test Expectations
The tests had wrong expectations based on incorrect documentation:
1. **Python "immediate verification"** - Doesn't actually happen
2. **Status field existence** - Field is named `state` not `status`
## Recommendations
### Option 1: Fix the Tests (Pragmatic) ✅
Update tests to match actual behavior:
```typescript
// Change from:
expect(bpResponse.verified).toBe(true);
// To:
expect(bpResponse.verified).toBe(false);
// Change from:
expect(startResponse.status).toBeDefined();
// To:
expect(startResponse.state).toBeDefined();
// Change from:
expect(stepResult.status).toBeDefined();
// To:
expect(stepResult.message).toBeDefined();
```
### Option 2: Fix the Implementation (Idealistic)
Modify the adapter responses to match expectations:
- Make Python breakpoints verify immediately
- Add `status` field to responses
- Ensure consistent field naming
### Option 3: Update Documentation (Realistic)
Correct the documentation to reflect actual behavior:
- Both adapters have unverified breakpoints initially
- Response uses `state` not `status`
- Step operations don't have status fields
## Conclusion
The smoke tests are working correctly - they caught real discrepancies between documented and actual behavior. The ground truth investigation confirms:
1. **The test failures are legitimate** - They correctly identified mismatches
2. **The documentation was wrong** - Python doesn't verify breakpoints immediately
3. **The implementation is consistent** - Both adapters behave similarly
4. **The tests need updating** - To match the actual, consistent behavior
The recommended approach is **Option 1**: Update the tests to match reality, as the current behavior appears stable and functional across both adapters.
