From aa49c3bc34108bf792e754b057f103de6948dcc6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: PJ <ipriyanshujain@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2026 20:08:03 +0530
Subject: [PATCH] fix(testrun): a recorded violation outranks the dead-run
 refusal

A campaign never passes --exit-on-violation, so the refusal was discarding
runs that had found something: exit_code 1 in the record and the analysis
drops them as missing data. A run that recorded a violation holds a verdict,
which is the whole reason the refusal exists.
---
 internal/testrun/testrun.go      | 13 ++++++++-----
 internal/testrun/testrun_test.go | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/internal/testrun/testrun.go b/internal/testrun/testrun.go
index 57ad6c6..bd5cf5f 100644
--- a/internal/testrun/testrun.go
+++ b/internal/testrun/testrun.go
@@ -280,10 +280,12 @@ func Execute(ctx context.Context, options Options, stdout io.Writer) error {
 // run drove nothing. The count is the generator's alone because a spec's setup
 // drives the app before the generator is consulted, so a login that ran leaves
 // dispatched actions behind whatever the generator then did.
-// --exit-on-violation keeps precedence over it so a run that found something
-// still exits on its evidence, and the property-free opt-out exempts the sweeps,
-// whose measurement is where a generator reaches and for which "nowhere on this
-// build" is a result rather than a broken run.
+//
+// A recorded violation carries such a run through whether or not
+// --exit-on-violation was passed: the refusal exists because a run with no
+// verdict must not read as a clean one, and a run that recorded a violation
+// holds a verdict. Campaigns pass no flags, so refusing them there would write
+// exit_code 1 and lose a real detection to the analysis as missing data.
 func runOutcome(options Options, summary runner.Summary) error {
 	if summary.Steps > 0 && summary.SkippedVerification == summary.Steps {
 		return VacuousRunError{Steps: summary.Steps}
@@ -291,7 +293,8 @@ func runOutcome(options Options, summary runner.Summary) error {
 	if options.ExitOnViolation && len(summary.Violations) > 0 {
 		return ViolationsError{Count: len(summary.Violations)}
 	}
-	if !options.AllowNoProperties && summary.Steps > 0 && summary.GeneratorActions == 0 {
+	if !options.AllowNoProperties && len(summary.Violations) == 0 &&
+		summary.Steps > 0 && summary.GeneratorActions == 0 {
 		return NoGeneratorActionsError{
 			Steps:          summary.Steps,
 			SkippedActions: summary.SkippedActions,
diff --git a/internal/testrun/testrun_test.go b/internal/testrun/testrun_test.go
index 6aa125c..f8cda07 100644
--- a/internal/testrun/testrun_test.go
+++ b/internal/testrun/testrun_test.go
@@ -473,6 +473,27 @@ func TestRunOutcome_SetupActionsDoNotCarryARunWhoseGeneratorDroveNothing(t *test
 	}
 }
 
+// A recorded violation is a verdict, and a run that reached one is not a dead
+// run whatever drove the app to it. Campaigns are where this bites: they never
+// pass --exit-on-violation, so refusing such a run writes exit_code 1 into the
+// record and the analysis drops a real detection as missing data.
+func TestRunOutcome_ARecordedViolationCarriesARunWhoseGeneratorDroveNothing(t *testing.T) {
+	setupReachedTheBug := runner.Summary{
+		Steps:             40,
+		DispatchedActions: 3,
+		GeneratorActions:  0,
+		SkippedActions:    map[string]int{"no_action_produced": 40},
+		Violations: []runner.ViolationRecord{
+			{StepIndex: 3, Properties: []string{"noUncaughtExceptions"}},
+		},
+	}
+
+	if err := runOutcome(Options{}, setupReachedTheBug); err != nil {
+		t.Fatalf("a run that recorded a violation came back %v, want the run to succeed "+
+			"so the campaign records exit_code 0 and the detection survives", err)
+	}
+}
+
 // wedgedLaunchDriver never returns from Launch, standing in for a driver whose
 // device-side session is stuck.
 type wedgedLaunchDriver struct {