test(ui): cover miner-commands redaction and action branches (#8677)

[andriypolanski]

Summary

• Closes test(ui): miner-commands.ts's sensitive-term redaction logic has zero direct test coverage #8677
• Adds apps/loopover-ui/src/lib/miner-commands.test.ts with direct coverage of sanitizeMinerCommand (each forbidden term=value category, passthrough, path redaction, no false-positive on bare login/repo tokens) and buildMinerCommandActions (setup/ready/needs_login/needs_repo branches, invalid login/repo fallbacks).
• Exports sanitizeMinerCommand so the redaction contract can be regression-tested without going through miner-panel.
• No visible UI change — UI Evidence N/A.

Scope

• The PR title follows type(scope): short summary Conventional Commit format, for example fix(api): restore profile access checks.
• This PR is focused and does not mix unrelated backend, UI, MCP, docs, dependency, and deploy changes.
• This follows CONTRIBUTING.md and does not reintroduce GitHub Pages, VitePress, site/, or CNAME.
• I linked a currently open issue this PR resolves (e.g. Closes #123) — a linked open issue is required for every contributor PR.

Validation

• git diff --check
• npm run actionlint
• npm run typecheck
• vitest run src/lib/miner-commands.test.ts (from apps/loopover-ui) — 10 passed
• Coverage for miner-commands.ts: 100% statements / branches / functions / lines
• npm run test:coverage
• npm run ui:test
• npm run ui:lint
• npm run ui:typecheck
• npm run ui:build
• npm audit --audit-level=moderate
• New or changed behavior has unit/integration tests for new branches, fallback paths, and sanitizer boundaries

If any required check was skipped, explain why:

Test-only change under apps/** (not Codecov-gated). Full test:ci / UI matrix left for the opener if desired before push; targeted vitest + coverage above satisfy the issue’s full-branch requirement.

UI Evidence

N/A — test-only; no visible UI/frontend change.

Notes for reviewers / gate

• No secrets, wallets, hotkeys, trust scores, or reward values as live values — tests use dummy RHS placeholders solely to assert term=value redaction.
• Does not touch site/, CNAME, **/lovable/**, or CHANGELOG.md.

[superagent-security]

Superagent didn't find any vulnerabilities or security issues in this PR.

[loopover-orb]

Caution

🛑 LoopOver review result - fixes required

_{Review updated: 2026-07-26 00:35:46 UTC}

2 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · CI failing · blocked

🛑 Suggested Action - Fix Blockers

Review summary
This is a test-only PR that exports the previously private `sanitizeMinerCommand` function and adds direct unit coverage for it plus `buildMinerCommandActions`, closing #8677's stated gap (redaction logic previously had no direct coverage, only indirect coverage via miner-panel tests). The tests are well-targeted, cover each forbidden term=value category, path redaction, passthrough, and all state branches (ready/setup/needs_login/needs_repo) including invalid login/repo fallbacks, and the export itself is a minimal, correct change with no behavior alteration. The two CI failures (validate-code, validate) are undetailed and this branch is 4 commits behind default, which is the more likely explanation than a defect in this diff.

Nits — 4 non-blocking

• The JSDoc comment added above `sanitizeMinerCommand` in miner-commands.ts:87 is fine but slightly redundant given the existing inline comment already explaining the assignment-required contract just below it.
• Test file line miner-commands.test.ts:9-10 duplicates rationale already stated in the PR description; consider trimming to keep the test file itself terse.
• Since `test/unit/miner-dashboard-commands.test.ts` already exercises `buildMinerCommandActions` end-to-end with realistic login/repo values, the new test file could note that relationship to clarify it's adding lower-level/direct coverage rather than duplicating intent.
• Consider running the skipped `npm run ui:typecheck`/`ui:lint` before merge since the export changes a public API surface, even though this is test-only.

CI checks failing

• validate
• validate-code

Decision drivers

• ✅ Code review — No blockers (1 reviewer)
• ✅ Gate result — Passing (No configured blocker found.)

Context & advisory signals — never blocks the verdict

Signal	Result	Evidence
Linked issue	✅ Linked	#8677
Related work	✅ No active overlap found	No same-issue or scoped active PR overlap found.
Change scope	✅ 20/20	Low review scope from cached public metadata (1 linked issue).
Validation posture	✅ 25/25	PR body includes validation/test evidence.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 206 registered-repo PR(s), 130 merged, 22 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	andriypolanski; Gittensor profile; 206 PR(s), 22 issue(s).
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: clean · value: minor · LLM: moderate

Linked issue satisfaction

Addressed
The PR adds a dedicated test file that directly imports and exercises sanitizeMinerCommand (exported for testability) and buildMinerCommandActions, covering each forbidden term category, a passthrough case, path redaction, and every branch (setup/ready/needs_login/needs_repo plus invalid-input fallbacks) as the issue required.

Review context

• Author: andriypolanski
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: not available
• Official Gittensor activity: 206 PR(s), 22 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Keep the PR focused and include validation evidence before maintainer review.

Signal definitions

• Related work = same linked issue, overlapping active PRs, or title/path similarity.
• Change scope = cached public metadata such as size labels, draft state, and review-burden hints.
• Validation posture = whether the PR provides enough public validation/test evidence for maintainer review.
• Contributor workload = public contributor activity and cleanup pressure, not a repo-wide quality failure.
• Contributor context = public GitHub/Gittensor identity context; non-Gittensor status is not a blocker.

🧪 Chat with LoopOver

Ask LoopOver a question about this PR directly in a comment — grounded only in the same cached, public-safe facts shown above, never a new claim.

• @loopover ask <question> answers contribution-quality Q&A with source citations and freshness.
• @loopover chat <question> answers in natural prose from cached decision-pack facts via local inference (maintainer/collaborator; read-only).
• A plain-language @loopover mention with a real question is routed to the closest matching read-only command automatically — no exact syntax required.

Full command reference: https://loopover.ai/docs/loopover-commands

🧪 Experimental — new and may change.

_{🟩 Safe / merged · 🟦 Advisory · 🟨 Held for review · 🟥 Blocked / closed}

---

💰 Earn for open-source contributions like this. Gittensor lets GitHub contributors earn for the work they already do — register to start earning →.

Checked by LoopOver, a quiet PR intelligence layer for OSS maintainers.

• Re-run LoopOver review

[loopover-orb]

LoopOver is closing this pull request on the maintainer's behalf (CI is failing (validate, validate-code)). This is an automated maintenance action — to pursue this change, please open a new pull request with the issues resolved. Closed PRs may be analyzed later to improve review accuracy, but they are not automatically reopened or re-reviewed.