fix: correct misleading comments in MPR008 and Java actions tests

- MPR008: remove false claim about roundtrip integration test coverage
- Java actions: clarify that nil hierarchy safety depends on execShow guard

Author: retran

mdl/executor/cmd_javaactions_mock_test.go

@@ -59,9 +59,11 @@ func TestDescribeJavaAction_Mock(t *testing.T) {
 }
 
 // NOTE: listJavaActions has no explicit not-connected guard. It calls
-// getHierarchy (returns nil when disconnected) then proceeds to call
-// ListJavaActions on the backend. The handler degrades gracefully —
-// with an empty result set it succeeds with a nil hierarchy.
+// getHierarchy (which returns nil when disconnected) and is intended to
+// be reached through execShow, which enforces a connected backend first.
+// A nil hierarchy is only harmless when the backend returns no Java
+// actions; if Java actions are returned while disconnected, dereferencing
+// the nil hierarchy would panic.
 
 func TestShowJavaActions_BackendError(t *testing.T) {
 	mod := mkModule("MyModule")

mdl/linter/rules/mpr008_overlapping_activities_test.go

@@ -11,7 +11,8 @@ import (
 // NOTE: The full Check() logic requires ctx.Reader().GetMicroflow() to read microflow
 // positions from a real MPR file. The overlap detection algorithm (collect positions →
 // pairwise distance check) is inline in Check() and cannot be unit-tested without
-// building a mock mpr.Reader. Covered by integration tests (roundtrip_*.go).
+// building a mock mpr.Reader. This rule currently lacks end-to-end coverage;
+// behavioral testing requires a real .mpr project with overlapping activities.
 
 func TestOverlappingActivitiesRule_NilReader(t *testing.T) {
 	r := NewOverlappingActivitiesRule()