v3/pkg/application/linux_menu_regression_test.go (1)

17-17: 💤 Low value

The co-occurrence check correctly detects the regression pattern.

The logic checks for both "if impl.processed" and "return" anywhere in the function body. While this could theoretically cause false positives if unrelated return statements are added later, it accurately targets the specific bug pattern (early-return guard) that this PR fixes.

If the test becomes brittle in the future, consider refining the check to look for the specific pattern "if impl.processed" followed closely by "return" (e.g., within the same conditional block), or migrate to AST-based testing using go/parser and go/ast to structurally verify control flow rather than substring matching. However, the current approach is acceptable for a focused regression test.

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents

Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

In `@v3/pkg/application/linux_menu_regression_test.go` at line 17, The current
test checks for co-occurrence using if strings.Contains(body, "if
impl.processed") && strings.Contains(body, "return"), which can yield false
positives; update the test to more precisely detect an early-return guard by
matching the pattern of "if impl.processed" followed closely by "return" (e.g.,
use a regex that allows only whitespace/comments/newlines between the if
condition and the return, or scan the subsequent N lines after finding "if
impl.processed" to assert a nearby "return"), or replace the substring approach
with an AST-based check using go/parser/go/ast to verify a conditional statement
whose body contains a return; operate on the same variable body (or parsed AST
root) and keep the assertion semantics but tighten the matching to avoid
unrelated return statements triggering the regression test.