MCP Debugger

# Smoke Test Run Summary ## Test Execution Results **Date**: October 10, 2025 **Test Command**: `npx vitest run tests/e2e/mcp-server-smoke-javascript.test.ts tests/e2e/mcp-server-smoke-python.test.ts` ## Overall Results - **Total Tests**: 9 - **Passed**: 5 (55.6%) - **Failed**: 4 (44.4%) - **Duration**: 26.53s ## JavaScript Adapter Results ### ✅ Passed Tests (3/4) 1. **Multiple breakpoints handling** - Successfully set multiple breakpoints 2. **Expression evaluation** - Correctly evaluated "1 + 2" expression 3. **Source context retrieval** - Successfully retrieved source context ### ❌ Failed Tests (1/4) 1. **Core debugging flow** - `startResponse.status` is undefined - **Issue**: The start_debugging response doesn't include a status field - **Impact**: Cannot verify debug session started correctly ## Python Adapter Results ### ✅ Passed Tests (2/5) 1. **Expression evaluation** - Correctly evaluated expressions and rejected statements 2. **Source context retrieval** - Successfully retrieved source context ### ❌ Failed Tests (3/5) 1. **Core debugging flow** - Breakpoint verification returns false - **Expected**: Python breakpoints verify immediately - **Actual**: `bpResponse.verified` is false 2. **Multiple breakpoints** - Same verification issue - **Expected**: Both breakpoints verified as true - **Actual**: Both return false 3. **Step into operation** - `stepIntoResult.status` is undefined - **Issue**: The step_into response doesn't include a status field - **Impact**: Cannot verify step operation completed ## Key Findings ### 🎯 Tests Are Working Correctly The smoke tests successfully identified discrepancies between documented behavior and actual implementation. This proves the tests are valuable for catching regressions and behavior changes. ### 📊 Actual vs Expected Behaviors | Feature | Expected (from test report) | Actual (from test run) | |---------|----------------------------|------------------------| | Python breakpoint verification | Immediate (true) | Returns false | | JavaScript start_debugging status | Has status field | No status field | | Python step_into status | Has status field | No status field | ### 🔍 Response Structure Issues Several MCP tool responses are missing expected fields: - `start_debugging` missing `status` field (JavaScript) - `step_into` missing `status` field (Python) - Breakpoint responses have `verified` field but returning unexpected values ## Recommendations ### Immediate Actions 1. **Update tests to match actual behavior** - Adjust expectations to match current implementation 2. **OR Fix adapter responses** - Add missing fields and correct verification logic 3. **Document actual response structures** - Update API documentation with real response formats ### Test Improvements 1. **Add response logging** - Log full responses for debugging 2. **Make assertions more flexible** - Check for success indicators beyond specific fields 3. **Add retry logic** - Some operations may need time to stabilize ## Positive Outcomes ✅ **Test infrastructure works** - MCP client connection and tool calling successful ✅ **Utilities function correctly** - `parseSdkToolResult` and `callToolSafely` work as designed ✅ **Some core features work** - Expression evaluation and source context retrieval function properly ✅ **Tests catch real issues** - Successfully identified missing/incorrect response fields ## Conclusion The smoke tests are functioning as intended - they're catching discrepancies between expected and actual behavior. The failures are not test bugs but rather: 1. **Documentation vs Reality**: The test report documented idealized behavior 2. **Missing Response Fields**: Some adapter responses lack expected fields 3. **Behavior Differences**: Python breakpoints don't verify as expected These tests provide valuable regression detection and should be: 1. Updated to match current behavior (pragmatic approach) 2. Used to drive adapter improvements (idealistic approach) 3. Run regularly to catch future changes The fact that 5 out of 9 tests passed shows that core functionality is working, while the failures highlight areas needing attention or documentation updates.