[javenciu]

Problem / Motivation

Goal: website/src/test/WhatsAppPanel.test.tsx stops emitting React act() warnings, so its row leaves website/integration/act-warning-baseline.json and the guard in website/integration/setup.ts checks it like any file outside the list.

Before this change, a run of the file emitted 1 act() warning (late state updates in WhatsAppPanel): a state update landed after the test's last barrier. Because the file is on the baseline, the guard kept those warnings out of the log.

Why it matters

website/docs/testing.md (Rules every test keeps) treats an act() warning as a finding: the update lands after the assertions, so whether the test sees it depends on timing. The baseline is shrink-only, and each file that leaves it is held to the rule from then on.

Not a goal

• Other files on the baseline (each is its own change).
• Any change to the components under test.
• Filtering or silencing the warning; the test waits for the update instead.

What changed (motivation → approach → change)

The tests now wait for the state the late update produces before they finish, so the update lands inside the test's barrier.

• website/src/test/WhatsAppPanel.test.tsx: await act(async () => {
• website/integration/act-warning-baseline.json: removed src/test/WhatsAppPanel.test.tsx.

Backwards compatibility

Compatible: test-only change.
Removes nothing: a baseline row is a tolerance the guard stops needing, not a capability.

Tests

• Before (the row removed, the file unchanged): KIROCREW_ACT_STRICT=1 npx vitest run src/test/WhatsAppPanel.test.tsx from website/: 1 of 42 tests fail on act() warnings.
• After: the same command passes 5 runs out of 5 with 0 act() warnings; 42 tests, the same count as before.
• integration/setup.refactor.determinism.test.ts passes (the baseline stays sorted, unique and existing); npx eslint is clean on the file.

Manual verification

N/A: test-only change; the strict runs above are the check.

Screenshots / video

Why no screenshot: nothing renders; this change touches one test file and a test baseline only.

No issue exists; burn-down of the act() warning baseline that #17673 introduced.

[github-actions]

First Principles Review (Opus 5.5) — ⏭️ skipped

Revision a25858e5d3d46cde9ab66089cadba72c6db4b97b ships no reviewable capability (docs, tests or generated files only), so there is nothing to inventory. Does not block merge.

[github-actions]

Design Review (Opus 5.5) — ✅ PASS

Design-level review of a25858e5d3d46cde9ab66089cadba72c6db4b97b — updated in place on each push. A BLOCK verdict blocks PR readiness; PASS does not.

Design-Verdict: PASS

Nothing to check. This is a test-only act() settle plus a shrink of the shrink-only baseline, and it renders nothing.

[DESIGN-REVIEWED] a25858e

Description read

[DESCRIPTION-READ] 0de63b2c744bbe62cb5c946dc528333d438082c7da22e859815d0cf89ab38996

That sha256 names everything this verdict read: the PR description, plus the 1 evidence file(s) the workflow collected from it and handed this review. It covers that evidence because the media strip replaces every attachment URL with the same placeholder, so an edit swapping one attachment for another would leave the description's captured text identical while what this review judged changed. Recompute it with .github/scripts/pr-description-capture.sh over the same inputs; if it differs, the description or that evidence changed after this verdict was formed and any finding drawn from either is unproven.

[github-actions]

UX Review (Opus 5.5) — ✅ PASS

UX-level review of a25858e5d3d46cde9ab66089cadba72c6db4b97b — updated in place on each push. A BLOCK verdict blocks PR readiness; PASS does not.

UX-Verdict: PASS

Nothing to check. Only a test file and the test baseline changed, so no user-visible control was added or changed and no screenshot is needed.

[UX-REVIEWED] a25858e

Description read

[DESCRIPTION-READ] 805996bd30d66888b8e4e7627096fa3b9376ba3e084ab10226587b434a75d4d5

That sha256 names everything this verdict read: the PR description, plus the 3 evidence file(s) the workflow collected from it and handed this review. It covers that evidence because the media strip replaces every attachment URL with the same placeholder, so an edit swapping one attachment for another would leave the description's captured text identical while what this review judged changed. Recompute it with .github/scripts/pr-description-capture.sh over the same inputs; if it differs, the description or that evidence changed after this verdict was formed and any finding drawn from either is unproven.

[github-actions]

Opus 5.5 Review — ✅ no blocking findings

Reviewed a25858e5d3d46cde9ab66089cadba72c6db4b97b — this comment is updated in place on each push.

Review details

No findings.

[OPUS-REVIEWED] a25858e

Verdict parsed from the review's SHA-scoped output markers for commit a25858e5d3d46cde9ab66089cadba72c6db4b97b.

False positive or not applicable? A repository writer can comment:
/ai-review override fable a25858e5d3d46cde9ab66089cadba72c6db4b97b false-positive: <reason, 20 to 500 characters>

[github-actions]

GPT 6.1 Review — ✅ no blocking findings

GPT 6.1 completed its review of a25858e5d3d46cde9ab66089cadba72c6db4b97b and found no blocking issues.

This comment is updated in place on each push.

Review details

No findings.
[GPT-REVIEWED] a25858e

False positive or not applicable? A repository writer can comment:
/ai-review override gpt a25858e5d3d46cde9ab66089cadba72c6db4b97b false-positive: <reason, 20 to 500 characters>

[KiroCrewCaptain]

Tier 1 auto-approve: test (2 files). Criteria: no conflict, no requested changes, security path denylist clean, design-doc gate clean, security checklist all-NO, no reviewer-lane findings, readiness signal fresh for this head SHA, declared category matches the diff. Category: test-only change: settles the held group save inside act in one panel test and drops it from the act-warning baseline.