/**
 * The test-first offer — making the TDD loop discoverable from the calls people
 * already make.
 *
 * The loop exists and is complete: `prepare(mode="test")` resolves a class or a
 * table method, `generate_object(pattern="systest")` emits a red-first scaffold,
 * `run_systest_class` executes it and reports per method. Across 1,603 real MCP
 * calls in 47 sessions it was used **zero times**. `prepare(mode="test")`: 0.
 * `run_systest_class`: 0. Meanwhile `prepare(mode="change")` ran 54 times and
 * `d365fo_file(modify)` 195, and the single most-asked knowledge question — about
 * thirty-five of roughly fifty real asks — was the table `validateWrite` Chain of
 * Command contract, which is precisely the thing the loop was built to test.
 *
 * A feature nobody finds is indistinguishable from one that does not exist. So
 * the offer goes where the developer already is, and it costs nothing to publish:
 * this is response TEXT, not schema, so the ListTools payload (44,951 of 45,000
 * chars) is untouched.
 *
 * ── WHAT IT MUST NOT DO ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────
 * Offer on everything. A suggestion that appears on every call is banner blindness
 * within a session, and it would land on changes a SysTest cannot express: adding
 * a field to a table, adding a control to a form, renaming an enum value. Those
 * are METADATA, and the eval loop already covers them with a golden — a golden is
 * the right oracle for structure, a SysTest for behaviour.
 *
 * So the trigger is behaviour, and structure is not a weaker signal for it — it is
 * no signal at all. `add-field` on a table-extension does not offer a test even
 * though a table-extension is testable; `add-method` on the same object does.
 */
import type { XppServerContext } from '../../types/context.js';
export interface TestFirstInput {
    /** Resolved objectType of the change, if known. */
    objectType?: string;
    /** The method being written, if the change names one. */
    methodName?: string;
    /** The caller's stated goal. */
    goal?: string;
    /** Comma-separated or array `operation` argument, as `prepare` receives it. */
    operation?: string | string[];
}
export interface TestFirstOffer {
    /** Why the offer fired — surfaced in the text so the reader can judge it. */
    reason: string;
    /** The method to focus the scaffold on, when the change named one. */
    focusMethod?: string;
}
/**
 * Should this change be offered a red-first test, and why?
 *
 * Returns `undefined` for "no" rather than a boolean plus a separate reason,
 * so a caller cannot render an offer without the sentence that justifies it.
 */
export declare function testFirstOffer(input: TestFirstInput): TestFirstOffer | undefined;
/**
 * Test classes that already mention the target.
 *
 * Shared with `prepare(mode="test")` rather than re-queried: two copies of this
 * lookup would drift, and the answer decides between "scaffold one" and "extend
 * the one you have", which is the difference between a useful offer and a
 * duplicate test class.
 */
export declare function findExistingTests(context: XppServerContext, target: string): string[];
/**
 * The object a test should target, given the object being WRITTEN.
 *
 * A CoC wrapper is transparent to a test: you exercise `CustTable`, not
 * `CustTableConExtension_Extension`, and the wrapper is what makes the assertion
 * change. So an extension name has to be reduced to its base — and that cannot be
 * done by string surgery alone, because the infix between base and `_Extension`
 * is a per-model convention (`FMVehicleDataContract` + `Con` + `_Extension`).
 *
 * Candidates are therefore VERIFIED against the index, and `undefined` is
 * returned when none resolves. Printing an unverified name would put a call in
 * front of the caller that resolves to nothing — worse than saying nothing, since
 * it costs a round trip to discover.
 */
export declare function resolveTestTarget(context: XppServerContext, objectName: string, objectType?: string): string | undefined;
/**
 * One line for a write that just landed: is this behaviour covered by a test?
 *
 * Emitted only when the write SUCCEEDED, carried X++, and the index knows both
 * the target and that nothing tests it. Silence is the default — a note on every
 * write is noise, and this one is competing with the write's own report.
 */
export declare function testCoverageNote(context: XppServerContext, input: TestFirstInput & {
    objectName?: string;
}): string | undefined;
/**
 * The offer, as markdown lines. Empty when there is nothing to offer.
 *
 * Three lines at most. This section competes for a capped response with the
 * write contract and the grounding token, and it must never be the reason one of
 * those is cut — callers place it after both.
 */
export declare function renderTestFirst(offer: TestFirstOffer | undefined, target: string, existingTests: string[]): string[];
//# sourceMappingURL=testFirst.d.ts.map