fix(review): keep partial-coverage framing out of a summary-only-cut delta comment

[devops-thiago]

What type of PR is this?

• 🐛 Bug fix

Description

When only the summary response was cut at the model's length cap (findings complete, no file-coverage gap), the opt-in follow-up delta comment (REVIEW_FOLLOW_UP_SUMMARY_ENABLED=true) rendered:

⚠️ Large PR — partial coverage. the summary was shortened … — the findings themselves are complete, so this covers only part of the diff.

Self-contradictory and false: the PR need not be large, coverage is not partial, and the delta comment's counts are complete. #513's summaryResponseCut flag made TruncationDetail.isEmpty() false, which defeated truncationDisclosure's empty-guard — the one consumer #513's dedicated SUMMARY_CUT_NOTICE banner (built precisely to avoid this framing) missed.

TruncationDetail gains hasFileGaps() (any name in the four file classes; isEmpty() is now expressed through it), and truncationDisclosure guards on that instead of isEmpty(): a summary-flag-only detail renders nothing there, since the framing is per-file coverage. The summary-aware surfaces (banner, coverage clause, check-run suffix) are untouched, and a detail with real file gaps still folds the summary cut in as a clause. The other two truncationDisclosure consumers cannot carry the flag (2-arg detail with flag unset / count-only overload), so they are unaffected.

Related Issues

Fixes #516

How Has This Been Tested?

• Unit tests

New tests (red/green proven — see Logs): FollowUpDeltaSummaryTest.summaryOnlyCutMustNotClaimPartialDiffCoverageInTheDeltaComment (the audit's ready-made failing test) and ReviewResultTest.truncationDisclosureTreatsASummaryFlagOnlyDetailAsEmpty, plus a green companion truncationDisclosureStillRendersWhenFileGapsAccompanyTheSummaryCut pinning no over-suppression. Full suite: 2570 tests, 0 failures.

Gates: spotless:apply → clean compile spotbugs:check spotless:check (BugInstance size 0) → clean test green. JaCoCo ∩ git diff -U0 against the stack parent: zero uncovered lines/branches in changed main code.

Checklist

• My code follows the project's coding standards
• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
• I have updated the documentation accordingly
• My changes generate no new warnings or errors

Screenshots / Logs

Red runs on unfixed code:

[ERROR] FollowUpDeltaSummaryTest.summaryOnlyCutMustNotClaimPartialDiffCoverageInTheDeltaComment:177
## 🤖 ThrillhouseBot — changes since the last review

- **New findings this round:** 1
- **Previous findings resolved:** 0
- **Previous findings still open:** 0


> ⚠️ **Large PR — partial coverage.** the summary was shortened because the model's response was cut at its length cap (max-output-tokens / REVIEW_CONCISE_MAX_OUTPUT_TOKENS) — the findings themselves are complete, so this covers only part of the diff. ==> expected: <false> but was: <true>

[ERROR] ReviewResultTest.truncationDisclosureTreatsASummaryFlagOnlyDetailAsEmpty:197 expected: <> but was: <

> ⚠️ **Large PR — partial coverage.** the summary was shortened because the model's response was cut at its length cap (max-output-tokens / REVIEW_CONCISE_MAX_OUTPUT_TOKENS) — the findings themselves are complete, so this covers only part of the diff.>

Both green with the fix applied.

Additional Notes

Second PR of the #515 → #516 → #518 stack: based on fix/515-walkthrough-rows; re-target to release/v0.6.0 after #522 (#515) merges — the diff scoped to this issue is the last commit.

[thrillhousebot]

🤖 ThrillhouseBot PR Summary

What this PR does

Fixes #516 by teaching the truncation disclosure that a detail carrying only the summary-response-cut flag (no per-file coverage gaps) is treated as empty in the partial-coverage-framed surface, while details with real file gaps still fold the summary cut in as a clause. TruncationDetail gains hasFileGaps(), isEmpty() is re-expressed through it, and truncationDisclosure guards on hasFileGaps() instead of isEmpty(); three unit tests pin the behavior.

Changes Overview

• Files changed: 3
• Lines added: +86
• Lines removed: -6

Changed Files

File	Change	Summary
src/main/java/dev/thiagogonzaga/thrillhousebot/review/ReviewResult.java	Modified	Adds TruncationDetail.hasFileGaps(); isEmpty() delegates to it; truncationDisclosure guards on hasFileGaps() so a summary-flag-only detail renders no partial-coverage disclosure.
src/test/java/dev/thiagogonzaga/thrillhousebot/review/FollowUpDeltaSummaryTest.java	Modified	Adds test asserting the delta comment no longer claims partial diff coverage when only the summary response was cut.
src/test/java/dev/thiagogonzaga/thrillhousebot/review/ReviewResultTest.java	Modified	Adds tests: a summary-flag-only detail is treated as empty by truncationDisclosure, and disclosure still renders when file gaps accompany the summary cut.

Risk Assessment

Risk	Count
🔴 Critical	0
🟠 High	0
🟡 Medium	0
🔵 Low	0

Everything's coming up Thrillhouse! 🎉

No issues found in this PR.

---

Automated review by ThrillhouseBot. Reply with /review to re-run.