# Investigation Report Example

**Author**: Matthew Raymer
**Date**: 2025-08-19
**Status**: 🎯 **ACTIVE** - Investigation methodology example

## Investigation — Registration Dialog Test Flakiness

## Objective

Identify root cause of flaky tests related to registration dialogs in contact
import scenarios.

## System Map

- User action → ContactInputForm → ContactsView.addContact() →

  handleRegistrationPrompt()

- setTimeout(1000ms) → Modal dialog → User response → Registration API call

- Test execution → Wait for dialog → Assert dialog content → Click response

  button

## Findings (Evidence)

- **1-second timeout causes flakiness** — evidence:

  `src/views/ContactsView.vue:971-1000`; setTimeout(..., 1000) in
  handleRegistrationPrompt()

- **Import flow bypasses dialogs** — evidence:

  `src/views/ContactImportView.vue:500-520`; importContacts() calls
  $insertContact() directly, no handleRegistrationPrompt()

- **Dialog only appears in direct add flow** — evidence:

  `src/views/ContactsView.vue:774-800`; addContact() calls
  handleRegistrationPrompt() after database insert

## Hypotheses & Failure Modes

- H1: 1-second timeout makes dialog appearance unpredictable; would fail when

  tests run faster than 1000ms

- H2: Test environment timing differs from development; watch for CI vs local

  test differences

## Corrections

- Updated: "Multiple dialogs interfere with imports" → "Import flow never

  triggers dialogs - they only appear in direct contact addition"

- Updated: "Complex batch registration needed" → "Simple timeout removal and

  test mode flag sufficient"

## Diagnostics (Next Checks)

- [ ] Repro on CI environment vs local

- [ ] Measure actual dialog appearance timing

- [ ] Test with setTimeout removed

- [ ] Verify import flow doesn't call handleRegistrationPrompt

## Risks & Scope

- Impacted: Contact addition tests, registration workflow tests; Data: None;

  Users: Test suite reliability

## Decision / Next Steps

- Owner: Development Team; By: 2025-01-28

- Action: Remove 1-second timeout + add test mode flag; Exit criteria: Tests

  pass consistently

## References

- `src/views/ContactsView.vue:971-1000`

- `src/views/ContactImportView.vue:500-520`

- `src/views/ContactsView.vue:774-800`

## Competence Hooks

- Why this works: Code path tracing revealed separate execution flows,

  evidence disproved initial assumptions

- Common pitfalls: Assuming related functionality without tracing execution

  paths, over-engineering solutions to imaginary problems

- Next skill: Learn to trace code execution before proposing architectural

  changes

- Teach-back: "What evidence shows that contact imports bypass registration

  dialogs?"

## Key Learning Points

### Evidence-First Approach

This investigation demonstrates the importance of:

1. **Tracing actual code execution** rather than making assumptions

2. **Citing specific evidence** with file:line references

3. **Validating problem scope** before proposing solutions

4. **Considering simpler alternatives** before complex architectural changes

### Code Path Tracing Value

By tracing the execution paths, we discovered:

- Import flow and direct add flow are completely separate

- The "multiple dialog interference" problem didn't exist

- A simple timeout removal would solve the actual issue

### Prevention of Over-Engineering

The investigation prevented:

- Unnecessary database schema changes

- Complex batch registration systems

- Migration scripts for non-existent problems

- Architectural changes based on assumptions

---

**Status**: Active investigation methodology
**Priority**: High
**Estimated Effort**: Ongoing reference
**Dependencies**: software_development.mdc
**Stakeholders**: Development team, QA team

## Model Implementation Checklist

### Before Investigation

- [ ] **Problem Definition**: Clearly define the problem to investigate
- [ ] **Scope Definition**: Determine investigation scope and boundaries
- [ ] **Methodology Planning**: Plan investigation approach and methods
- [ ] **Resource Assessment**: Identify required resources and tools

### During Investigation

- [ ] **Evidence Collection**: Gather relevant evidence and data systematically
- [ ] **Code Path Tracing**: Map execution flow for software investigations
- [ ] **Analysis**: Analyze evidence using appropriate methods
- [ ] **Documentation**: Document investigation process and findings

### After Investigation

- [ ] **Synthesis**: Synthesize findings into actionable insights
- [ ] **Report Creation**: Create comprehensive investigation report
- [ ] **Recommendations**: Provide clear, actionable recommendations
- [ ] **Team Communication**: Share findings and next steps with team