test: make EVT-015 control window explicit

Author: flemming-n-larsen

compat-test/conformance-robots/conformance/probes/EventPriorityProbe.java

@@ -4,16 +4,17 @@
 import robocode.HitWallEvent;
 import robocode.ScannedRobotEvent;
 
-/** Records only a scan handler entered while the higher-priority wall handler is blocked. */
+/** Controls scan dispatch inside and outside a higher-priority wall handler. */
 public class EventPriorityProbe extends AdvancedRobot {
 
     private boolean wallHandlerActive;
+    private boolean controlWindow = true;
 
     @Override
     public void run() {
-        // Establish a scan control before the wall-handler window; the full sweep reaches the
-        // stationary sample.Target regardless of the engines' unseeded starting positions.
-        turnRadarRight(360);
+        // First make scans higher priority than HitWallEvent. A radar sweep in that handler
+        // must enter onScannedRobot, proving the same window can generate a scan on both engines.
+        setEventPriority("ScannedRobotEvent", 40);
         while (true) {
             ahead(10);
         }
@@ -23,7 +24,15 @@ public void run() {
     public void onHitWall(HitWallEvent event) {
         wallHandlerActive = true;
         try {
+            if (!controlWindow) {
+                out.println("SuppressionWindowEntered!!!");
+            }
             turnRadarRight(360);
+            if (controlWindow) {
+                // Subsequent wall handlers exercise the classic lower-priority expiry rule.
+                setEventPriority("ScannedRobotEvent", 10);
+                controlWindow = false;
+            }
         } finally {
             wallHandlerActive = false;
         }
@@ -33,7 +42,11 @@ public void onHitWall(HitWallEvent event) {
     public void onScannedRobot(ScannedRobotEvent event) {
         out.println("ScanObserved!!!");
         if (wallHandlerActive) {
-            out.println("ScannedDuringWallHandler!!!");
+            if (controlWindow) {
+                out.println("ScanControlDuringWallHandler!!!");
+            } else {
+                out.println("ScannedDuringWallHandler!!!");
+            }
         }
     }
 }

conformance-test/src/test/java/dev/robocode/tankroyale/bridge/conformance/EventPriorityConformanceTest.java

@@ -9,16 +9,17 @@
 /**
  * Acceptance evidence for EVT-015 — the classic event-priority filter expectation.
  *
- * The probe moves until it hits a wall, then blocks while turning its radar. Its lower-priority
- * scan handler prints a marker only if it is entered during that handler. Classic's authoritative
- * EventPriorityFilter test asserts the same boundary through its observable marker; this probe
- * makes the handler window explicit for an unseeded Tank Royale battle.
+ * The probe first raises scan priority and proves that a radar sweep enters the scan handler
+ * while the wall handler is blocked. It then lowers scan priority and proves the same sweep does
+ * not enter that handler, matching classic's authoritative EventPriorityFilter boundary.
  */
 class EventPriorityConformanceTest extends ConformanceTestBase {
 
     private static final String ROBOT = "conformance.probes.EventPriorityProbe";
     private static final String ENEMY = "sample.Target";
     private static final String SCAN_OBSERVED = "ScanObserved!!!";
+    private static final String SCAN_CONTROL = "ScanControlDuringWallHandler!!!";
+    private static final String SUPPRESSION_WINDOW = "SuppressionWindowEntered!!!";
     private static final String SCANNED = "ScannedDuringWallHandler!!!";
     private static final java.nio.file.Path SOURCE = ConformanceHarness.repoRoot()
             .resolve("compat-test/conformance-robots/conformance/probes/EventPriorityProbe.java");
@@ -30,6 +31,12 @@ void testEVT015_IntegrationPositive_LowerPriorityScanIsSuppressedOnBothEngines()
                 assertTrue(outcome.anyConsoleContains(SCAN_OBSERVED),
                         () -> "the priority probe observed no scan on " + engine
                                 + " (" + outcome.summary() + ")");
+                assertTrue(outcome.anyConsoleContains(SCAN_CONTROL),
+                        () -> "the priority probe found no high-priority scan during the wall handler on " + engine
+                                + " (" + outcome.summary() + ")");
+                assertTrue(outcome.anyConsoleContains(SUPPRESSION_WINDOW),
+                        () -> "the priority probe did not reach the lower-priority window on " + engine
+                                + " (" + outcome.summary() + ")");
                 assertFalse(outcome.anyConsoleContains(SCANNED),
                         () -> "the lower-priority scan handler ran on " + engine
                                 + " (" + outcome.summary() + ")");
@@ -50,6 +57,18 @@ void testEVT015_IntegrationNegative_BridgeDoesNotReportAScanClassicDidNotSee() {
                 () -> "the classic priority probe observed no scan (" + classic.summary() + ")");
         assertTrue(bridge.anyConsoleContains(SCAN_OBSERVED),
                 () -> "the bridge priority probe observed no scan (" + bridge.summary() + ")");
+        assertTrue(classic.anyConsoleContains(SCAN_CONTROL),
+                () -> "the classic priority probe found no high-priority scan during the wall handler ("
+                        + classic.summary() + ")");
+        assertTrue(bridge.anyConsoleContains(SCAN_CONTROL),
+                () -> "the bridge priority probe found no high-priority scan during the wall handler ("
+                        + bridge.summary() + ")");
+        assertTrue(classic.anyConsoleContains(SUPPRESSION_WINDOW),
+                () -> "the classic priority probe did not reach the lower-priority window ("
+                        + classic.summary() + ")");
+        assertTrue(bridge.anyConsoleContains(SUPPRESSION_WINDOW),
+                () -> "the bridge priority probe did not reach the lower-priority window ("
+                        + bridge.summary() + ")");
         assertFalse(classic.anyConsoleContains(SCANNED),
                 () -> "the classic priority-probe baseline reported a scan ("
                         + classic.summary() + ")");

docs/capabilities/CAP-001-event-dispatch-parity/README.md

@@ -35,4 +35,4 @@ The physics the events describe. That a `ScannedRobotEvent` arrives at the right
 
 `draft`. The redesign that routed events through the Bot API's own event queue is implemented and believed correct, but it was verified by running battles and reading scores. Every criterion here is unproven in the sense that matters: nothing would tell us if it broke again. `M-001` is the plan door.
 
-The conformance tier now reaches some of them. `EVT-004`, `EVT-011`, `EVT-012`, `EVT-013`, `EVT-014`, and `EVT-015` are active — the tests that already proved them were retagged after [`G-002`](../../goals/G-002-conformance-evidence-proves-the-criterion-it-names.md) found them mistagged, and `EVT-001`/`EVT-003`/`EVT-007` retired rather than be credited with evidence they cannot honestly claim ([`IDR-003`](../../decisions/IDR-003-evt-003-scoped-to-what-classic-actually-proves.md), [`IDR-004`](../../decisions/IDR-004-evt-007-scoped-to-observable-survivor-delivery.md), [`IDR-005`](../../decisions/IDR-005-evt-001-scoped-to-classic-filter-behavior.md)). `EVT-004` and `EVT-014` are proven with a locally built matched Tank Royale Bot API and runner pair under [`PDR-002`](../../decisions/PDR-002-locally-built-tank-royale-artifacts-for-conformance.md), which contains the server repair [`AN-009`](../../analysis/AN-009-the-server-never-sends-a-death-to-any-bot.md) identified. `EVT-015` is proven with the same matched pair and a bridge-owned probe that observes only the blocked-handler boundary. The capability still holds at `draft` because most criteria remain unproven.
+The conformance tier now reaches some of them. `EVT-004`, `EVT-011`, `EVT-012`, `EVT-013`, `EVT-014`, and `EVT-015` are active — the tests that already proved them were retagged after [`G-002`](../../goals/G-002-conformance-evidence-proves-the-criterion-it-names.md) found them mistagged, and `EVT-001`/`EVT-003`/`EVT-007` retired rather than be credited with evidence they cannot honestly claim ([`IDR-003`](../../decisions/IDR-003-evt-003-scoped-to-what-classic-actually-proves.md), [`IDR-004`](../../decisions/IDR-004-evt-007-scoped-to-observable-survivor-delivery.md), [`IDR-005`](../../decisions/IDR-005-evt-001-scoped-to-classic-filter-behavior.md)). `EVT-004` and `EVT-014` are proven with a locally built matched Tank Royale Bot API and runner pair under [`PDR-002`](../../decisions/PDR-002-locally-built-tank-royale-artifacts-for-conformance.md), which contains the server repair [`AN-009`](../../analysis/AN-009-the-server-never-sends-a-death-to-any-bot.md) identified. `EVT-015` is proven with the same matched pair and a bridge-owned two-phase probe: a higher-priority scan callback is required inside `onHitWall`, then a lower-priority scan callback is required to be absent. The capability still holds at `draft` because most criteria remain unproven.

docs/capabilities/CAP-001-event-dispatch-parity/criteria.md

@@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ Feature: Event dispatch and timing parity
     Given a priority probe runs against sample.Target, moves to a wall, and turns its radar from onHitWall
     When the same battle runs on classic Robocode and on Tank Royale through the bridge
     Then neither engine's robot output contains the scan marker
-    # Proven by EventPriorityConformanceTest with a bridge-owned probe and sample.Target fixture. The probe observes the same handler boundary as classic's EventPriorityFilter test without depending on an unseeded pre-handler scan. Successor to EVT-001; see IDR-005. Plan door: M-001.
+    # Proven by EventPriorityConformanceTest with a bridge-owned probe and sample.Target fixture. The probe first raises scan priority and requires a scan callback inside onHitWall, then lowers scan priority and requires that callback to be absent. Successor to EVT-001; see IDR-005. Plan door: M-001.
 
   @EVT-008 @draft
   Scenario: Skipped turns are reported to the robot

docs/decisions/IDR-005-evt-001-scoped-to-classic-filter-behavior.md

@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ Retire `EVT-001` and mint `EVT-015`: a lower-priority scan handler is not entere
 
 ## Context
 
-The named classic robot prints a scan marker and its authoritative test asserts that the marker is absent while running against `sample.Target`; it does not record a handler order. A criterion about recorded order therefore claims behavior that its source evidence cannot observe. The conformance harness stages that opponent fixture for both engines and resets classic's deterministic test seed for this fixture. Because Tank Royale has no battle seed, the conformance test uses a bridge-owned probe that records only a scan entered during the blocked wall-handler window, avoiding unrelated scans before that window.
+The named classic robot prints a scan marker and its authoritative test asserts that the marker is absent while running against `sample.Target`; it does not record a handler order. A criterion about recorded order therefore claims behavior that its source evidence cannot observe. The conformance harness stages that opponent fixture for both engines and resets classic's deterministic test seed for this fixture. Because Tank Royale has no battle seed, the conformance test uses a bridge-owned two-phase probe: it first raises scan priority and requires a scan callback inside the blocked wall-handler window, then lowers scan priority and requires that callback to be absent.
 
 ## Consequences