Test project: UT-001..011 for JR-016 and JR-022

The register defined 46 requirements and zero tests, so every Done in it rested
on inspection. This adds the T1 tier: an xUnit project in the solution,
covering the two units whose logic is pure enough to test without a Jellyfin
host.

JR-022 (UT-001..006) covers the cases where removal could reach too far --
another plugin's injection, and an unmarked look-alike script tag -- because
index.html is a file JRay shares. UT-001 pins the trailing newline to the tag,
without which every install cycle leaves another blank line behind.

JR-016 (UT-007..011) covers specificity resolution, including the prioritised
series inside an ignored genre that motivated the rule, and a Series rule
valued Guid.Empty, which would otherwise swallow every movie in the library.

RemoveInjection is reached through InternalsVisibleTo rather than being made
public: it is factored out for testability, not part of the surface.

The suite BUILDS but does not RUN here. Jellyfin.Controller framework-
references Microsoft.AspNetCore.App, so the test host demands it even for pure
logic, and this machine has no ASP.NET Core runtime at any version --
RollForward cannot substitute for a framework that is absent entirely. Fix is
to install aspnet-runtime, which the CI image needs for the same reason.

So every UT here is recorded as Written, not Passing, and no requirement is
promoted to Done on their strength. A test whose result nobody has seen is not
evidence.

TRACES: UT-001, UT-002, UT-003, UT-004, UT-005, UT-006 | JR-022
TRACES: UT-007, UT-008, UT-009, UT-010, UT-011 | JR-016

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

Jellyfin.Plugin.JRay.Tests/Jellyfin.Plugin.JRay.Tests.csproj

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+<Project Sdk="Microsoft.NET.Sdk">
+
+  <PropertyGroup>
+    <TargetFramework>net9.0</TargetFramework>
+    <Nullable>enable</Nullable>
+    <IsPackable>false</IsPackable>
+    <!--
+      The plugin project treats warnings as errors and runs StyleCop. Tests do
+      not inherit that: their naming conventions differ deliberately (Method_
+      Condition_Expectation reads as documentation, and trips SA1300-family
+      rules), and a style failure in a test is not a defect in the thing under
+      test.
+    -->
+    <TreatWarningsAsErrors>false</TreatWarningsAsErrors>
+    <GenerateDocumentationFile>false</GenerateDocumentationFile>
+    <!--
+      The plugin targets net9.0 to match Jellyfin's ABI, but a machine that can
+      build it need not have the 9.0 *runtime* installed. Roll the test host
+      forward to whatever major is present so the suite runs on a developer box
+      and on CI without pinning either to a runtime that is not the plugin's.
+    -->
+    <RollForward>LatestMajor</RollForward>
+  </PropertyGroup>
+
+  <ItemGroup>
+    <PackageReference Include="Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk" Version="17.11.1" />
+    <PackageReference Include="xunit" Version="2.9.2" />
+    <PackageReference Include="xunit.runner.visualstudio" Version="2.8.2" />
+  </ItemGroup>
+
+  <ItemGroup>
+    <ProjectReference Include="..\Jellyfin.Plugin.JRay\Jellyfin.Plugin.JRay.csproj" />
+  </ItemGroup>
+
+</Project>

Jellyfin.Plugin.JRay.Tests/PolicyResolverTests.cs

@@ -0,0 +1,85 @@
+using System;
+using System.Collections.Generic;
+using Jellyfin.Plugin.JRay.Models;
+using Jellyfin.Plugin.JRay.Services;
+using Xunit;
+
+namespace Jellyfin.Plugin.JRay.Tests;
+
+/// <summary>
+/// JR-016 — prioritise/ignore rules resolve by specificity: Item beats Series
+/// beats Genre. A scope+value holds only one action, so the only conflicts
+/// possible are across scopes, and that is exactly what these cover.
+///
+/// TRACES: UT-007, UT-008, UT-009, UT-010, UT-011 | JR-016
+/// </summary>
+public class PolicyResolverTests
+{
+    private static readonly Guid ItemId = Guid.Parse("11111111-1111-1111-1111-111111111111");
+    private static readonly Guid SeriesId = Guid.Parse("22222222-2222-2222-2222-222222222222");
+
+    private static MediaPolicyRule Rule(PolicyScope scope, string value, PolicyAction action)
+        => new() { Scope = scope, Value = value, Action = action };
+
+    // UT-007
+    [Fact]
+    public void Resolve_WithNoMatchingRule_ReturnsNull()
+    {
+        var rules = new List<MediaPolicyRule> { Rule(PolicyScope.Genre, "Anime", PolicyAction.Ignore) };
+
+        Assert.Null(PolicyResolver.Resolve(rules, ItemId, SeriesId, new[] { "Drama" }));
+    }
+
+    // UT-008
+    [Fact]
+    public void Resolve_ItemRuleBeatsSeriesRule()
+    {
+        var rules = new List<MediaPolicyRule>
+        {
+            Rule(PolicyScope.Series, SeriesId.ToString("D"), PolicyAction.Ignore),
+            Rule(PolicyScope.Item, ItemId.ToString("D"), PolicyAction.Prioritise),
+        };
+
+        Assert.Equal(PolicyAction.Prioritise, PolicyResolver.Resolve(rules, ItemId, SeriesId, Array.Empty<string>()));
+    }
+
+    // UT-009
+    [Fact]
+    public void Resolve_PrioritisedSeriesInsideIgnoredGenre_SeriesWins()
+    {
+        // The case that motivated specificity resolution: an admin ignores a
+        // whole genre but wants one series out of it anyway. If genre won, the
+        // more specific instruction would be silently discarded.
+        var rules = new List<MediaPolicyRule>
+        {
+            Rule(PolicyScope.Genre, "Anime", PolicyAction.Ignore),
+            Rule(PolicyScope.Series, SeriesId.ToString("D"), PolicyAction.Prioritise),
+        };
+
+        Assert.Equal(PolicyAction.Prioritise, PolicyResolver.Resolve(rules, ItemId, SeriesId, new[] { "Anime" }));
+    }
+
+    // UT-010
+    [Fact]
+    public void Resolve_GenreMatchIsCaseInsensitive()
+    {
+        var rules = new List<MediaPolicyRule> { Rule(PolicyScope.Genre, "anime", PolicyAction.Ignore) };
+
+        Assert.Equal(PolicyAction.Ignore, PolicyResolver.Resolve(rules, ItemId, SeriesId, new[] { "AnImE" }));
+    }
+
+    // UT-011
+    [Fact]
+    public void Resolve_SeriesRuleDoesNotMatchNonEpisode()
+    {
+        // A movie carries Guid.Empty as its series id. A series rule whose value
+        // happened to be an empty GUID must not swallow every movie in the
+        // library.
+        var rules = new List<MediaPolicyRule>
+        {
+            Rule(PolicyScope.Series, Guid.Empty.ToString("D"), PolicyAction.Ignore),
+        };
+
+        Assert.Null(PolicyResolver.Resolve(rules, ItemId, Guid.Empty, Array.Empty<string>()));
+    }
+}

Jellyfin.Plugin.JRay.Tests/WebClientPatchServiceTests.cs

@@ -0,0 +1,92 @@
+using Jellyfin.Plugin.JRay.Services;
+using Xunit;
+
+namespace Jellyfin.Plugin.JRay.Tests;
+
+/// <summary>
+/// JR-022 — an earlier JRay injected its overlay script into index.html on
+/// disk. Those users must not be left with a stale injection pointing at
+/// endpoints that have since changed, so removal survives even though JR-021
+/// deleted the injection that created it.
+///
+/// Removal keys on JRay's own marker. The cases that matter are the ones where
+/// it could reach too far: another plugin's injection, or a script tag that
+/// looks like JRay's but carries no marker.
+///
+/// TRACES: UT-001, UT-002, UT-003, UT-004, UT-005 | JR-022
+/// </summary>
+public class WebClientPatchServiceTests
+{
+    private const string Marker = "<!-- jray-overlay -->";
+    private const string ScriptTag = "<script defer src=\"/Plugins/JRay/ClientScript\"></script>";
+
+    // UT-001
+    [Fact]
+    public void RemoveInjection_WithMarkedTagAndNewline_RestoresOriginalBytes()
+    {
+        var original = "<html><body><div>x</div>\n</body></html>";
+        var patched = "<html><body><div>x</div>\n" + ScriptTag + Marker + "\n</body></html>";
+
+        // The trailing newline goes with the tag. If it did not, every
+        // install/uninstall cycle would leave another blank line behind.
+        Assert.Equal(original, WebClientPatchService.RemoveInjection(patched));
+    }
+
+    // UT-002
+    [Fact]
+    public void RemoveInjection_WithMarkedTagAndNoNewline_RemovesTag()
+    {
+        var patched = "<html><body>" + ScriptTag + Marker + "</body></html>";
+
+        Assert.Equal("<html><body></body></html>", WebClientPatchService.RemoveInjection(patched));
+    }
+
+    // UT-003
+    [Fact]
+    public void RemoveInjection_WithNoMarker_LeavesDocumentUnchanged()
+    {
+        var clean = "<html><body><div>x</div>\n</body></html>";
+
+        Assert.Equal(clean, WebClientPatchService.RemoveInjection(clean));
+    }
+
+    // UT-004
+    [Fact]
+    public void RemoveInjection_IsIdempotent()
+    {
+        var patched = "<html><body>" + ScriptTag + Marker + "\n</body></html>";
+
+        var once = WebClientPatchService.RemoveInjection(patched);
+        var twice = WebClientPatchService.RemoveInjection(once);
+
+        // Startup calls this unconditionally, so it runs on every boot forever
+        // after the patch is gone.
+        Assert.Equal(once, twice);
+    }
+
+    // UT-005
+    [Fact]
+    public void RemoveInjection_LeavesAnotherPluginsInjectionIntact()
+    {
+        var foreign = "<script defer src=\"/Plugins/Other/Script\"></script><!-- other-overlay -->";
+        var patched = "<html><body>" + foreign + ScriptTag + Marker + "\n</body></html>";
+
+        var cleaned = WebClientPatchService.RemoveInjection(patched);
+
+        // The marker is what makes removal unambiguous. Removing anything we did
+        // not add is the failure this guards: it is another plugin's file too.
+        Assert.Contains(foreign, cleaned, System.StringComparison.Ordinal);
+        Assert.DoesNotContain(Marker, cleaned, System.StringComparison.Ordinal);
+    }
+
+    // UT-006
+    [Fact]
+    public void RemoveInjection_WithUnmarkedLookalikeTag_LeavesItAlone()
+    {
+        // Same script tag, no marker: JRay did not write this, so JRay does not
+        // remove it.
+        var patched = "<html><body>" + ScriptTag + "\n</body></html>";
+
+        Assert.Equal(patched, WebClientPatchService.RemoveInjection(patched));
+    }
+}