/**
 * These helpers recover old leaked Turns on hydrate. They are not the live
 * spoken-answer classifier; `runV9AgentTurn` must not call them.
 */
import assert from "node:assert/strict";
import test from "node:test";

import {
  finalizeRectificationSpokenAndThinking,
  isRectificationProcessNarration,
  nextStableChannelDelta,
  settleRectificationSpokenAndThinking,
  splitRectificationSpokenAndThinking,
} from "../src/lib/rectification-agentic/v9/spoken-answer.ts";

test("a plain spoken follow-up stays on the answer channel", () => {
  const spoken = [
    "记下了，大约六岁入学小学。",
    "接下来你大概哪一年上的初中？说个大概年份或范围就行。",
  ].join("\n\n");

  assert.deepEqual(splitRectificationSpokenAndThinking(spoken), {
    thinking: "",
    spoken,
  });
});

test("process self-talk leaves the spoken conclusion on the answer channel", () => {
  const processTalk = [
    "用户提到先给了一个很晚的年份，后又改口说六岁入学。这里有个明显的内部矛盾。",
    "但按 skill 规则，日期精度真实保留，不得猜补。datePrecision 用 year，occurredFrom 只能按用户原话来。",
    "我决定先按六岁入学记下来，再在正文里确认那句晚年份是不是口误。",
    "让我调用 batch 写入 education_start。",
  ].join("\n\n");
  const spoken = [
    "入学小学这条先按大约六岁记下。你第一句提到的那个很晚的年份，我理解是口误对吗？",
    "接下来你大概哪一年上的初中？说个大概年份或范围就行。",
  ].join("\n\n");

  assert.deepEqual(splitRectificationSpokenAndThinking(`${processTalk}\n\n${spoken}`), {
    thinking: processTalk,
    spoken,
  });
});

test("English process talk is classified as thinking, not the spoken answer", () => {
  const split = splitRectificationSpokenAndThinking([
    "The proposedKind value was rejected. Retrying with education_start.",
    "记下了，那年九月上大学。",
  ].join("\n\n"));

  assert.match(split.thinking, /proposedKind/);
  assert.equal(split.spoken, "记下了，那年九月上大学。");
});

test("stable channel deltas only emit the newly classified suffix", () => {
  assert.equal(nextStableChannelDelta("", "先核对升学年份。"), "先核对升学年份。");
  assert.equal(
    nextStableChannelDelta("先核对升学年份。", "先核对升学年份。\n\n再问初中。"),
    "\n\n再问初中。",
  );
  assert.equal(nextStableChannelDelta("先核对升学年份。", "另一段"), "");
});

test("a lone process paragraph stays in thinking until a spoken conclusion arrives", () => {
  const processTalk = "用户提到先给了一个很晚的年份。这里有个明显的内部矛盾。";
  assert.deepEqual(splitRectificationSpokenAndThinking(`${processTalk}\n\n`), {
    thinking: processTalk,
    spoken: "",
  });
});

test("truncated third-person batch-tool narration stays in thinking", () => {
  const truncated = "用户在上一轮里提供了两件带日期的经历。我需要用批量工具写入这些证据。用户";
  assert.equal(isRectificationProcessNarration(truncated), true);
  assert.deepEqual(splitRectificationSpokenAndThinking(truncated), {
    thinking: truncated,
    spoken: "",
  });
  assert.deepEqual(finalizeRectificationSpokenAndThinking(truncated), {
    thinking: truncated,
    spoken: "",
  });
});

test("finalizing does not promote process-only self-talk into the spoken answer", () => {
  const first = "用户提到先给了一个很晚的年份。这里有个明显的内部矛盾。";
  const last = "但按 skill 规则，日期精度真实保留，不得猜补。";
  const processTalk = `${first}\n\n${last}`;
  assert.deepEqual(finalizeRectificationSpokenAndThinking(processTalk), {
    thinking: processTalk,
    spoken: "",
  });
});

test("Chinese interview planning after tools stays out of the spoken answer", () => {
  const processTalk = [
    "读取校正记录",
    "整理多条事件证据",
    "比较候选时间",
    "职业类型已经记录，并重新计算了候选。虽然职业领域现在有信息了，但账户里仍然只有 3 件带评分日期的事件，还不足以拉开候选范围区间（当前不可分宽度 8 分钟）。",
    "方法覆盖上，职业这一层已经通过 occupation_note 补齐了（不计分），但还需要更多带日期的经历来区分候选。当前还应继续收集事件。",
    "我用自然语言再问一件带大概年份的经历。根据 method_followup_plan，职业已经覆盖。当前 open_question 为空，next_action 为空。",
    "候选区分尚未充分（not_separated），应继续收集。",
    "让我继续访谈，问一件能帮助区分候选的职业前事。",
    "本轮对照了Gochara、D1 本命盘、D10 事业分盘。",
  ].join("\n\n");
  const spoken = "职业类型已经记下。接下来想请你回想一下这份工作的时间段——**你大概是在哪一年入职的？**又是什么时候离开的？只要个大概年份就行。";

  const split = splitRectificationSpokenAndThinking(`${processTalk}\n\n${spoken}`);
  assert.equal(split.spoken, spoken);
  assert.match(split.thinking, /occupation_note/);
  assert.match(split.thinking, /读取校正记录/);
  assert.match(split.thinking, /本轮对照了/);
  assert.doesNotMatch(split.thinking, /你大概是在哪一年入职/);
  assert.equal(isRectificationProcessNarration("读取校正记录"), true);
  assert.equal(isRectificationProcessNarration(spoken), false);
});

test("planning about candidate_contrast_packet stays out of the spoken answer", () => {
  const processTalk = [
    "这意味着：方法资料已齐，还不能出牌。",
    "服务器给了 candidate_contrast_packet，choice_frame 已写好。",
    "第 7 条边界：id=ask_candidate_discriminator 时不得 offer。",
  ].join("\n\n");
  const spoken = "那次高考或重要考试，发挥有没有明显失常、压力很大？说有或没有就行。";

  const split = splitRectificationSpokenAndThinking(`${processTalk}\n\n${spoken}`);
  assert.equal(split.spoken, spoken);
  assert.match(split.thinking, /这意味着/);
  assert.match(split.thinking, /candidate_contrast_packet/);
  assert.match(split.thinking, /不得 offer/);
  assert.match(split.thinking, /第 7 条边界/);
  assert.doesNotMatch(split.thinking, /发挥有没有明显失常/);
  assert.equal(isRectificationProcessNarration("这意味着：方法资料已齐"), true);
  assert.equal(isRectificationProcessNarration("服务器给了 candidate_contrast_packet"), true);
  assert.equal(isRectificationProcessNarration(spoken), false);

  const settled = settleRectificationSpokenAndThinking(`${processTalk}\n\n${spoken}`, "");
  assert.equal(settled.spoken, spoken);
  assert.doesNotMatch(settled.spoken, /candidate_contrast_packet/);
});

test("draft-ledger planning stays out of the spoken answer", () => {
  const processTalk = [
    "第二件离职事件已记录为草稿。现在账本有两件已确认加一件草稿。",
    "既然实习开始和实习离职都属于同一段职业经历并且相关联，用户后面的消息会继续补充，我先向用户确认这件离职信息，同时继续收集。",
    "由于离职是事务性的独立事件且 quote 路径有障碍，我继续自然访谈。",
    "先确认草稿再继续收集下一件。",
    "这里草稿是服务器接受但待确认状态。",
    "我应该继续访谈而不是纠缠草稿确认。",
  ].join("\n\n");
  const spoken = [
    "好的，已经记下你这段职业经历：那年春天开始实习、秋天离职。加上之前上学，目前有了比较清晰的两大块时间线。",
    "不用急着回忆全部。毕业后正式入职的第一份工作，大概哪一年？有没有恋爱、结婚这样的关系节点？哪一件印象深就先说哪件，大概年份就好。",
  ].join("\n\n");

  const split = splitRectificationSpokenAndThinking(`${processTalk}\n\n${spoken}`);
  assert.equal(split.spoken, spoken);
  assert.match(split.thinking, /账本/);
  assert.match(split.thinking, /我应该继续访谈/);
  assert.match(split.thinking, /quote 路径/);
  assert.doesNotMatch(split.spoken, /账本/);
  assert.doesNotMatch(split.spoken, /我应该/);
  assert.doesNotMatch(split.spoken, /草稿是服务器/);
  assert.equal(isRectificationProcessNarration("我应该继续访谈而不是纠缠草稿确认。"), true);
  assert.equal(isRectificationProcessNarration(spoken.split("\n\n")[0]!), false);
});

test("probe-deliberation with no user-facing close stays off the spoken answer", () => {
  const processTalk = [
    "这回应的是当前探针（感情前事，用于对照 D9 差异）。",
    "当前探针是请核对一段还没用进评分的感情前事。用户给出的是一个主观感受，不是具体带日期的事件。",
    "让我看看是否应该把它作为一条证据记录。",
    "严格来说，用户没有给出有确定日期的新事件。根据规则，没有具体带日期事件就按 focus 处理。",
    "current_question 为 null，但 current_probe 有一条。",
    "也许我应该直接自然回应，不调用工具。规则要求承接。",
    "我认为这里不需要写证据。写入需要日期精度。",
    "我直接自然问。",
  ].join("\n\n");

  const split = splitRectificationSpokenAndThinking(processTalk);
  assert.equal(split.spoken, "");
  assert.match(split.thinking, /当前探针/);
  assert.match(split.thinking, /current_question/);
  assert.match(split.thinking, /我直接自然问/);
  assert.equal(finalizeRectificationSpokenAndThinking(processTalk).spoken, "");

  const settled = settleRectificationSpokenAndThinking(processTalk, "");
  assert.equal(settled.spoken, "");
  assert.doesNotMatch(settled.spoken, /探针/);
  assert.doesNotMatch(settled.spoken, /根据规则/);
});

test("leaked process text on the answer channel is not mixed into native thinking", () => {
  const processTalk = "用户在上一轮里提供了两件带日期的经历。我需要用批量工具写入这些证据。用户";
  const spoken = "记下了升学这两件。接下来有没有一件带大概年份的工作变化？";
  assert.deepEqual(settleRectificationSpokenAndThinking(processTalk, ""), {
    thinking: processTalk,
    spoken: "",
  });
  assert.deepEqual(settleRectificationSpokenAndThinking(spoken, processTalk), {
    thinking: processTalk,
    spoken,
  });
  assert.deepEqual(settleRectificationSpokenAndThinking(processTalk, processTalk), {
    thinking: processTalk,
    spoken: "",
  });
});