test(ui): cover formatReversalEventType's three branches directly

[bitfathers94]

test(ui): cover formatReversalEventType's three branches directly

Add a standalone unit test for the pure formatReversalEventType helper,
asserting each of its three branches: the headline reversal_reverted ->
"merge reverted" case, reversal_reopened -> "close reopened", and the
generic underscore-humanizing fallback. Previously only the reopened arm
was exercised, and only indirectly through ReversalHealthCard's render, so
a regression in the reverted or fallback comparison went uncaught.

Closes #8665

Validation

Verified locally on this branch before opening:

• npm run typecheck
• npx turbo run build:tsc build:verify
• npm run test:coverage — patch coverage 100.0% of changed lines

[superagent-security]

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

[loopover-orb]

Tip

✅ LoopOver review result - approve/merge recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-26 05:54:44 UTC}

1 file · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · readiness 100/100 · CI green · clean

✅ Suggested Action - Approve/Merge

• safe to merge

Review summary
This PR adds a standalone unit test file directly exercising the pure formatReversalEventType helper across its three branches: the reversal_reverted headline case, reversal_reopened, and the generic underscore-humanizing fallback. The test is straightforward, correctly imports the helper, and closes issue #8665 by adding direct coverage that previously only existed indirectly via component render tests. This is a narrow, well-targeted test-only addition with no production code changes.

Nits — 3 non-blocking

• The inline comment block at the top of the test file is quite long (6 lines) for a test file; a shorter comment referencing the issue would suffice.
• Consider a table-driven or it.each test structure for the three branches to reduce duplication as more event types are added.
• apps/loopover-ui/src/lib/reversal-event-type-format.test.ts: could use it.each to parametrize the three cases if more event types are added later.

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	#8665
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: 44 registered-repo PR(s), 29 merged, 0 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	bitfathers94; Gittensor profile; 44 PR(s), 0 issue(s).
Improvement	ℹ️ Insufficient signal	risk: clean · value: insufficient-signal · LLM: minor

Linked issue satisfaction

Addressed
The PR adds a new test file with direct unit assertions covering all three branches of formatReversalEventType: reversal_reverted, reversal_reopened, and the generic fallback, exactly as required by the three deliverables.

Review context

• Author: bitfathers94
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: TypeScript
• Official Gittensor activity: 44 PR(s), 0 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 approves — the gate is satisfied and CI is green.