Files
signal-platform/tests/unit/test_recommendation_service.py
T
dennisthiessen d3eb8a2b97
Deploy / lint (push) Successful in 5s
Deploy / test (push) Successful in 32s
Deploy / deploy (push) Successful in 22s
Fix scoring/recommendation correctness and calibration
Triggered by CNC showing "LONG (High Confidence)" with SHORT reasoning
and no long setup.

- A: recommendation action + reasoning are ticker-level and identical
  on both setups; reasoning always matches the shown action
- B: recommended_action only picks a direction with a tradeable setup;
  strong bias with no setup (e.g. price at ATH) → NEUTRAL with an
  explanatory reason instead of a fake LONG_HIGH
- C: confidence is a directional-agreement model — opposing signals push
  it below 50 (SHORT on a 92-technical/99-momentum stock ~0%, not 55%)
- D: fundamental score requires >=2 real metrics (market-cap-only no
  longer yields a high score)
- E: RSI score peaks at healthy momentum (~60) and penalizes
  overbought/oversold extremes instead of treating RSI 90 as maximal
- F: fundamentals chain merges fields across providers (FMP market cap
  + Finnhub P/E) instead of stopping at the first with any field
- NEUTRAL label: "No Clear Setup" (covers untradeable-bias case)

Scores recompute on next scan/scoring run; C and E shift score
distributions intentionally.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-06-13 15:34:36 +02:00

181 lines
5.3 KiB
Python

from __future__ import annotations
from dataclasses import dataclass
from app.services.recommendation_service import (
_build_reasoning,
_choose_recommended_action,
direction_analyzer,
probability_estimator,
signal_conflict_detector,
target_generator,
)
_DEFAULT_CFG = {
"recommendation_high_confidence_threshold": 70.0,
"recommendation_moderate_confidence_threshold": 50.0,
"recommendation_confidence_diff_threshold": 20.0,
}
@dataclass
class _SRLevelStub:
id: int
price_level: float
type: str
strength: int
def test_high_confidence_long_example():
dimension_scores = {
"technical": 75.0,
"momentum": 68.0,
"fundamental": 55.0,
}
confidence = direction_analyzer.calculate_confidence(
direction="long",
dimension_scores=dimension_scores,
sentiment_classification="bullish",
conflicts=[],
)
assert confidence > 70.0
def test_high_confidence_short_example():
dimension_scores = {
"technical": 30.0,
"momentum": 35.0,
"fundamental": 45.0,
}
confidence = direction_analyzer.calculate_confidence(
direction="short",
dimension_scores=dimension_scores,
sentiment_classification="bearish",
conflicts=[],
)
assert confidence > 70.0
def test_short_confidence_low_on_strongly_bullish_stock():
"""The CNC case: technical 92 / momentum 99 must make SHORT confidence low."""
dims = {"technical": 92.0, "momentum": 99.0, "fundamental": 96.0}
short_conf = direction_analyzer.calculate_confidence(
direction="short", dimension_scores=dims, sentiment_classification="neutral", conflicts=[],
)
long_conf = direction_analyzer.calculate_confidence(
direction="long", dimension_scores=dims, sentiment_classification="neutral", conflicts=[],
)
assert short_conf < 20.0 # not 55
assert long_conf > 90.0
def test_action_neutral_when_bias_direction_has_no_setup():
"""Strong LONG bias but only a SHORT setup is tradeable → NEUTRAL, not LONG_HIGH."""
action = _choose_recommended_action(
long_confidence=100.0, short_confidence=5.0, config=_DEFAULT_CFG,
available_directions={"short"},
)
assert action == "NEUTRAL"
# With the long setup available, the same numbers give LONG_HIGH
action_ok = _choose_recommended_action(
long_confidence=100.0, short_confidence=5.0, config=_DEFAULT_CFG,
available_directions={"long", "short"},
)
assert action_ok == "LONG_HIGH"
def test_reasoning_explains_missing_setup():
reasoning = _build_reasoning(
action="NEUTRAL", long_confidence=100.0, short_confidence=5.0, conflicts=[],
dimension_scores={"technical": 92.0, "momentum": 99.0},
sentiment_classification="neutral", config=_DEFAULT_CFG,
available_directions={"short"},
)
assert "bias is LONG" in reasoning
assert "no high-conviction long setup" in reasoning.lower()
def test_detects_sentiment_technical_conflict():
conflicts = signal_conflict_detector.detect_conflicts(
dimension_scores={"technical": 72.0, "momentum": 55.0, "fundamental": 50.0},
sentiment_classification="bearish",
)
assert any("sentiment-technical" in conflict for conflict in conflicts)
def test_generate_targets_respects_direction_and_order():
sr_levels = [
_SRLevelStub(id=1, price_level=110.0, type="resistance", strength=80),
_SRLevelStub(id=2, price_level=115.0, type="resistance", strength=70),
_SRLevelStub(id=3, price_level=120.0, type="resistance", strength=60),
_SRLevelStub(id=4, price_level=95.0, type="support", strength=75),
]
targets = target_generator.generate_targets(
direction="long",
entry_price=100.0,
stop_loss=96.0,
sr_levels=sr_levels, # type: ignore[arg-type]
atr_value=2.0,
)
assert len(targets) >= 1
assert all(target["price"] > 100.0 for target in targets)
distances = [target["distance_from_entry"] for target in targets]
assert distances == sorted(distances)
def test_probability_ranges_by_classification():
config = {
"recommendation_signal_alignment_weight": 0.15,
"recommendation_sr_strength_weight": 0.20,
"recommendation_distance_penalty_factor": 0.10,
}
dimension_scores = {"technical": 70.0, "momentum": 70.0}
conservative = probability_estimator.estimate_probability(
{
"classification": "Conservative",
"sr_strength": 80,
"distance_atr_multiple": 1.5,
},
dimension_scores,
"bullish",
"long",
config,
)
moderate = probability_estimator.estimate_probability(
{
"classification": "Moderate",
"sr_strength": 60,
"distance_atr_multiple": 3.0,
},
dimension_scores,
"bullish",
"long",
config,
)
aggressive = probability_estimator.estimate_probability(
{
"classification": "Aggressive",
"sr_strength": 40,
"distance_atr_multiple": 6.0,
},
dimension_scores,
"bullish",
"long",
config,
)
assert conservative > 60
assert 40 <= moderate <= 70
assert aggressive < 50