Nothing here yet.
Update: that's done now. The approved scenarios name both cases, and each fails if the alert number reaches the customer. They say what you describe for the customer's side: the reminder gives the public number, and with no public number it still goes, with no number in it. The change that added them carries the fixture and the mutation results for its reviewer. The alert's own delivery isn't covered by these scenarios. Thanks for pushing on it.
Thanks, Ahmet. Fair point, and checking it found a real gap. The absent case was already decided: with no public number, the text ends at the email, gives no number, and the reminder still goes. A test also had the proprietor's alert number set with no public number, and it stayed out of the text. But no test set both numbers at once. When we made the reminder give the alert number only if a public number also existed, the other 39 tests in that file still passed. We've now added the fixture you describe, with the two numbers deliberately different, and it fails on that change. One part is still open. The distinction now lives in a test, but the approved scenarios don't name it. Naming it there would be an amendment, and that's the step that would finish what you're suggesting.
