Fixes #889

Describe the changes you have made in this PR -

Added direct unit tests for TracerToolsMixin in app/services/tracer_client/tracer_tools.py. The implementation uses a fake subclass to stub out the _get() method, allowing for fully offline testing of the task processing logic. The tests verify:

• Correct task counting (total, failed, completed).
• Accurate extraction of failure details including extra fields like tool_cmd and explanation.
• Robust handling of various exit code formats (strings, numbers, None, empty strings).
• Proper behavior for unsuccessful API responses and empty payloads.

Demo/Screenshot for feature changes and bug fixes -

tests/services/tracer_client/test_tracer_tools.py::test_get_run_tasks_all_success PASSED [ 20%]
tests/services/tracer_client/test_tracer_tools.py::test_get_run_tasks_mixed_failure PASSED [ 40%]
tests/services/tracer_client/test_tracer_tools.py::test_get_run_tasks_empty_payload PASSED [ 60%]
tests/services/tracer_client/test_tracer_tools.py::test_get_run_tasks_unsuccessful_response PASSED [ 80%]
tests/services/tracer_client/test_tracer_tools.py::test_get_run_tasks_exit_code_handling PASSED [100%]

============================== 5 passed in 1.78s ==============================

Code Understanding and AI Usage

Did you use AI assistance (ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, etc.) to write any part of this code?

• Yes, I used AI assistance (Antigravity)

If you used AI assistance:

• I have reviewed every single line of the AI-generated code
• I can explain the purpose and logic of each function/component I added
• I have tested edge cases and understand how the code handles them
• I have modified the AI output to follow this project's coding standards and conventions

Explain your implementation approach:
I implemented a FakeTracerClient that inherits from the mixin and stubs the _get method. This approach avoids complex mocking of the httpx client while still ensuring that the core logic of get_run_tasks is exercised against realistic JSON payloads. I explicitly tested edge cases for exit_code as specified in the issue scope to ensure that the logic correctly distinguishes between success and failure across different representation styles.

Checklist before requesting a review

• I have added proper PR title and linked to the issue
• I have performed a self-review of my code
• I can explain the purpose of every function, class, and logic block I added
• I understand why my changes work and have tested them thoroughly
• I have considered potential edge cases and how my code handles them
• If it is a core feature, I have added thorough tests
• My code follows the project's style guidelines and conventions