test(ingest): add registry service facets contract test

[BigSimmo]

Adds coverage for catalog_payload tags round-trip and malformed dimensions to protect existing service-facets contract behavior.

Verification\n

• check:outstanding-issues\n- targeted tests and typecheck were run in prior worklog

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard.
To continue using code reviews, add credits to your account and enable them for code reviews in your settings.

[supabase]

This pull request has been ignored for the connected project sjrfecxgysukkwxsowpy because there are no changes detected in supabase directory. You can change this behaviour in Project Integrations Settings ↗︎.

---

Preview Branches by Supabase.
Learn more about Supabase Branching ↗︎.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

You’ve reached a temporary PR review limit under our Fair Usage Limits Policy.

Your recent review volume is higher than typical usage, so adaptive limits are currently applied.

Next review available in:34 minutes

Limit details: You’ve used all 1 included review currently available under your plan. You completed 90 included PR reviews in the past 7 days; at that activity level, included reviews refill at 1 review per hour.

Your organization has reached its usage spending cap. Adjust your spending cap in the billing tab.

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews.

How do review limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window.

Please refer docs for additional details.

Review details

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 58bde9a5-49eb-44d0-a381-897c069a26fa

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between fd3a100 and f788a24.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• docs/branch-review-records/140eabfb61f0822b5fb955d0c1d8d7fd924563215dd96f29802abdb3f093fc41.record.md
• tests/registry-service-facets.test.ts

---

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[BigSimmo]

Final review summary

• Reviewed head:f788a249634f8c23b98eede37e80791c6e135e6a
• Base at review completion:fd3a100b9ad0d4c806c7083d01cb3a0bed601646. The latest base was merged into the PR branch without rebasing, leaving it 0 commits behind with a clean merge tree.
• Final merged commit:087affb37230665f6d6345228ad884cf9fb32fe7 on main.
• Issue fixed: confirmed P2 false-negative in the new registry-facet contract test. The original assertion parsed both expected and actual values through serviceCatalogTags(), so a parser regression could agree with itself. The corrected assertion compares restored tags with the raw fixture payload. An immutable branch-review ledger record was added with the genuine fix/base update.
• Adversarial review: Codex and CodeRabbit review bots were rate-limited, so I performed a distinct manual mutation/adversarial pass. A simulated valid-dimension parser loss passed the old assertion and failed the corrected assertion. Re-reading and falsifying the final diff found no remaining in-scope defect.
• Threads: no review submissions or inline review threads existed. The remaining bot notices were non-actionable rate-limit and Supabase scope notices.
• Decisive verification on exact head f788a249:PR required passed; full CI passed; static PR checks passed, including formatting, lint, typecheck, branch-review ledger integrity and write discipline; unit coverage and coverage inventory passed; safety/config checks, SAST and secret scan passed.
• Advisory CI: visual baselines, migration replay, ingestion SAST, Lighthouse, advisory/production UI, build, container images and release browser matrix were correctly skipped for the test-only scope. No advisory check failed.
• Blockers/residual risk: none. The unavailable external bot review is the only limitation and was mitigated by the independent manual adversarial pass plus exact-head CI.

This Codex run did not invoke merge and did not alter auto-merge. The pre-existing auto-merge setting merged the PR automatically after required CI passed.