Harden planning test suite with realistic fixtures and output sanity checks

Adds messy/realistic data factories to TestFixtures, new PlannerOutputSanityTests,
and updates all scenario planner tests with improved coverage and assertions.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

SportsTimeTests/Planning/PlanningPipelineBugRegressionTests.swift

@@ -212,18 +212,19 @@ struct Bug4_ScenarioDRationaleTests {
         let planner = ScenarioDPlanner()
         let result = planner.plan(request: request)
 
-        if case .success(let options) = result {
-            // Bug #4: rationale was using stops.count instead of actual game count.
-            // Verify that for each option, the game count in the rationale matches
-            // the actual total games across stops.
-            for option in options {
-                let actualGameCount = option.stops.reduce(0) { $0 + $1.games.count }
-                let rationale = option.geographicRationale
-                #expect(rationale.contains("\(actualGameCount) games"),
-                        "Rationale game count should match actual games (\(actualGameCount)). Got: \(rationale)")
-            }
+        guard case .success(let options) = result else {
+            Issue.record("Expected .success, got \(result)")
+            return
+        }
+        // Bug #4: rationale was using stops.count instead of actual game count.
+        // Verify that for each option, the game count in the rationale matches
+        // the actual total games across stops.
+        for option in options {
+            let actualGameCount = option.stops.reduce(0) { $0 + $1.games.count }
+            let rationale = option.geographicRationale
+            #expect(rationale.contains("\(actualGameCount) games"),
+                    "Rationale game count should match actual games (\(actualGameCount)). Got: \(rationale)")
         }
-        // If planning fails, that's OK — this test focuses on rationale text when it succeeds
     }
 }
 
@@ -261,15 +262,21 @@ struct Bug5_ScenarioDDepartureDateTests {
         let planner = ScenarioDPlanner()
         let result = planner.plan(request: request)
 
-        if case .success(let options) = result, let option = options.first {
-            // Find the game stop (not the home start/end waypoints)
-            let gameStops = option.stops.filter { $0.hasGames }
-            if let gameStop = gameStops.first {
-                let gameDayStart = calendar.startOfDay(for: gameDate)
-                let departureDayStart = calendar.startOfDay(for: gameStop.departureDate)
-                #expect(departureDayStart > gameDayStart,
-                        "Departure should be after game day, not same day. Game: \(gameDayStart), Departure: \(departureDayStart)")
-            }
+        guard case .success(let options) = result else {
+            Issue.record("Expected .success, got \(result)")
+            return
+        }
+        guard let option = options.first else {
+            Issue.record("Expected at least one option, got empty array")
+            return
+        }
+        // Find the game stop (not the home start/end waypoints)
+        let gameStops = option.stops.filter { $0.hasGames }
+        if let gameStop = gameStops.first {
+            let gameDayStart = calendar.startOfDay(for: gameDate)
+            let departureDayStart = calendar.startOfDay(for: gameStop.departureDate)
+            #expect(departureDayStart > gameDayStart,
+                    "Departure should be after game day, not same day. Game: \(gameDayStart), Departure: \(departureDayStart)")
         }
     }
 }
@@ -321,11 +328,12 @@ struct Bug6_ScenarioCDateRangeTests {
         let result = planner.plan(request: request)
 
         // Should find at least one option — games exactly span the trip duration
-        if case .failure(let failure) = result {
-            let reason = failure.reason
-            #expect(reason != PlanningFailure.FailureReason.noGamesInRange,
-                    "Games spanning exactly daySpan should not be excluded. Failure: \(failure.message)")
+        guard case .success(let options) = result else {
+            Issue.record("Expected .success, got \(result)")
+            return
         }
+        #expect(!options.isEmpty,
+                "Games spanning exactly daySpan should produce at least one option")
     }
 }
 
@@ -634,9 +642,11 @@ struct Bug13_MissingStadiumTests {
 
         // Currently: silently excluded → noGamesInRange.
         // This test documents the current behavior (missing stadiums are excluded).
-        if case .failure(let failure) = result {
-            #expect(failure.reason == .noGamesInRange)
+        guard case .failure(let failure) = result else {
+            Issue.record("Expected .failure, got \(result)")
+            return
         }
+        #expect(failure.reason == .noGamesInRange)
     }
 }
 
@@ -647,14 +657,7 @@ struct Bug13_MissingStadiumTests {
 @Suite("Bug #14: Drag drop feedback")
 struct Bug14_DragDropTests {
 
-    @Test("documented: drag state should not be cleared before validation")
-    func documented_dragStateShouldPersistDuringValidation() {
-        // This bug is in TripDetailView.swift:1508-1525 (UI layer).
-        // Drag state is cleared synchronously before async validation runs.
-        // If validation fails, no visual feedback is shown.
-        // Fix: Move drag state clearing AFTER validation succeeds.
-        #expect(true, "UI bug documented — drag state should persist during validation")
-    }
+    // Bug #14 (drag state) is a UI-layer issue tracked separately — no unit test possible here.
 }
 
 // MARK: - Bug #15: ScenarioB force unwraps on date arithmetic
@@ -699,8 +702,14 @@ struct Bug15_DateArithmeticTests {
         )
 
         let planner = ScenarioBPlanner()
-        // Should not crash — just verifying safety
-        let _ = planner.plan(request: request)
+        let result = planner.plan(request: request)
+        // Should not crash — verify we get a valid result (success or failure, not a crash)
+        switch result {
+        case .success(let options):
+            #expect(!options.isEmpty, "If success, should have at least one option")
+        case .failure:
+            break // Failure is acceptable — the point is it didn't crash
+        }
     }
 }
 
@@ -709,14 +718,7 @@ struct Bug15_DateArithmeticTests {
 @Suite("Bug #16: Sort order accumulation")
 struct Bug16_SortOrderTests {
 
-    @Test("documented: repeated before-games moves should use midpoint not subtraction")
-    func documented_sortOrderShouldNotGoExtremelyNegative() {
-        // This bug is in ItineraryReorderingLogic.swift:420-428.
-        // Each "move before first item" subtracts 1.0 instead of using midpoint.
-        // After many moves, sortOrder becomes -10, -20, etc.
-        // Fix: Use midpoint (n/2.0) instead of subtraction (n-1.0).
-        #expect(true, "Documented: sortOrder should use midpoint insertion")
-    }
+    // Bug #16 (sortOrder accumulation) is in ItineraryReorderingLogic — tracked separately.
 }
 
 // MARK: - Cross-cutting: TravelEstimator consistency