[joeyzhao2018]

What does this PR do?

Consolidates the existing fixture inventory and planned coverage in integration_tests_local/README.md.

• Assigns each handler, packaging, runtime, or feature case to one lowest sufficient validation level: L1 first, L2 when isolated specs are insufficient, and L3 only for AWS-only behavior.
• Keeps the separate L1/L2/L3 columns, with exactly one selected column explaining the assertion and placement. The catalog has 21 L1, 25 L2, and 3 L3 assignments; references to shared cases do not request additional tests.
• Flattens extra dimensions into individual variations and maps all 18 current runnable fixture names into the catalog. Existing tests stay in place.
• Adds an Implemented column to every row with Yes/Partial/No, evidence, and remaining gaps at the selected level. Tests from dd-trace-js #10775 are explicitly identified as unmerged.

integration_tests/README.md has no changes in this PR.

Motivation

The fixture list and coverage plan should be one guide for deciding where a missing test belongs. Handler return/callback semantics, descriptors, accessors, and timer ownership can be validated directly in unit specs. Actual build artifacts, loaders, dependency instrumentation, and RIC completion behavior need local integration tests. Streaming delivery, AWS extension lifecycle/delivery, and platform-provided trace context require the deployed suite.

Selecting one level per assertion avoids repeating the same validation across L1, L2, and L3. Representative fixtures can cover several relevant variations without testing their Cartesian product.

Testing Guidelines

Documentation only:

• git diff --check passed.
• Parsed the README with Prettier's Markdown parser and verified consistent table columns.
• Checked that all 49 catalog rows have exactly one selected validation level and unique case IDs.
• Checked all 49 implementation-status comments against existing specs/fixtures and the deployed-suite assertions, and verified their local evidence links.
• Verified all 18 existing fixture names remain in the catalog, local links/anchors resolve, and the deprecated README matches the base byte for byte.

No unit, Docker/RIE, or AWS tests were run; executable code and fixtures are unchanged.

Additional Notes

Implementation status describes automated test existence at the selected level, not passing results. Temporary manual AWS validations do not count as automated L3 coverage. Follow-up PRs will add only the missing assertions at their selected levels; existing tests are not moved or removed.

Types of Changes

• Bug fix
• New feature
• Breaking change
• Misc (docs, refactoring, dependency upgrade, etc.)

Check all that apply

• This PR's description is comprehensive
• This PR contains breaking changes that are documented in the description
• This PR introduces new APIs or parameters that are documented and unlikely to change in the foreseeable future
• This PR impacts documentation, and it has been updated (or a ticket has been logged)
• This PR's changes are covered by the automated tests
• This PR collects user input/sensitive content into Datadog
• This PR passes the integration tests (ask a Datadog member to run the tests)

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	✅ Completed 2026-10-22T19:08:57.206358Z	783eeaa	PR opened

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

[datadog-prod-us1-4]

More details

The guide clearly separates planned coverage from implemented tests and distinguishes native Lambda completion from the library’s Promise adapter. The completed static review identified no actionable documentation defects.

Was this helpful? React 👍 or 👎

_{Open Bits AI session}

_{🤖 Bits Code Review · Commit 783eeaa}

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 783eeaa0ce

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[datadog-prod-us1-4]

_{This comment will be updated automatically if new data arrives.
🔗 Commit SHA: 60d84c8 | Docs | Give us feedback!}