fix(scheduler): filter central review workflow authority - #2005
fix(scheduler): filter central review workflow authority#2005seonghobae wants to merge 9 commits into
Conversation
|
Important Draft PR not reviewedDraft PRs are not automatically reviewed by default.
To automatically review draft PRs, update your CodeRabbit configuration: reviews:
auto_review:
drafts: trueThanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
seonghobae
added
bug
ChatGPT Codex Connector
|
독립 baseline 검증: hosted run 34082563712 / job 101620505562의 15개 실패 모두 이 PR 이전 부모 14f7c85ca56be3297fa4d090d39d487d7be9bf14에서도 재현했습니다. clean detached worktree에서 기존 pytest 환경으로 동일 test node들을 두 묶음 실행: 4 failed / 330 deselected / 13.60s 및 11 failed / 323 deselected / 1.65s, 모두 exit 1. 첫 세 건은 취소 함수 테스트 대역이 stdin 키워드 인자를 받지 못하는 TypeError이며, 나머지는 workflow-starting credential 증거 누락과 관련된 assertion/RuntimeError입니다. 따라서 관측된 15개 실패는 이번 target inventory 생략 변경 이전에도 존재합니다. 부모 #2002/#2003 계약과 fixture를 함께 수리해야 하며, 자격 증명 안전 검사를 제거하거나 기대값만 wait로 바꾸는 것은 해결이 아닙니다. 이 결과는 #2005 전체 정상 동작이나 hosted 통과를 뜻하지 않습니다. 소스 변경 없이 검증했습니다. |
|
부모에서 재현한 15개 실패의 테스트 계약 수리를 #2029에 보존했습니다. exact eebcc79, 부모는 #2004의 14f7c85c입니다. 운영 안전 검사 변경 없이 fixture와 callable doubles만 수정했고, 스케줄러 334개가 일반 환경 및 GITHUB_ACTIONS=true/-W error에서 각각 통과했습니다. AGENTS 노하우와 실제 브라우저 VI도 포함했습니다. #2005 inventory 생략 delta는 별개로 유지해야 합니다. 정상 통합 후 combined exact-head hosted 검증이 필요하며, 이 댓글은 병합 승인이나 전체 successor 선언이 아닙니다. |
Preserve this PR's bounded RED→GREEN delta while integrating protected-main CodeQL fixes through its exact parent branch. No force update; both parent SHAs are recorded.
Keep the central-inventory ordering delta while inheriting exact parent fixture repairs. The resolved tree was built from the current child head; no rebase or force update.
Preserve the Draft mutation-boundary guard while inheriting current parent fixtures and CodeQL coordinator lineage. No rebase or force update.
seonghobae
left a comment
seonghobae
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
P1 — exact-head finding: this child skips the entire broad cancel_stale_pr_runs() call whenever review dispatch is centralized. That function inventories/cancels every direct target-repository PR workflow whose head is stale, not only the central model-review run, so the change also preserves stale target CodeQL/security/other workflow executions. The stated boundary (“central reviewer owns its own lifecycle”) does not justify suppressing unrelated target workflow cleanup, and the single positive test cannot detect the loss. Split the inventory by workflow authority (or introduce a narrowly filtered central-review cleanup path), retain target-owned stale-run retirement with existing live PR/head revalidation, and add same-repository/casefold plus unrelated-workflow regressions. Keep Draft until combined parent exact-head Runtime Quality and hosted evidence are GREEN.
|
수리 착수: exact |
seonghobae
changed the title
|
Exact-head repair receipt: |
seonghobae
left a comment
seonghobae
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Exact-head re-review at 9293c779b9634859acf7a311be4dba1be8b83008: the broad-skip P1 is repaired and its only inline thread is resolved. The bounded delta keeps target-owned Actions inventory plus live PR/head revalidation and excludes only central OpenCode names for cross-repository dispatch. Current-head Runtime Quality, SAST, Python Security, and Security Scan are GREEN. CodeQL run 34190638093 is not GREEN: the python shard remained pending without an authenticated terminal verdict, while the actions rerun failed because it still had no authenticated terminal verdict/dispatch receipt. That is a central CodeQL settlement blocker, not merge evidence. No new substantive source finding in this bounded delta; this COMMENT is not approval or merge authority.
Codex Review SummaryThis comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings. |
|
Ready-for-review admission receipt for exact head |
![opencode-agent[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1549082?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
OpenCode reviewed the current-head product diff. Coverage is a separate gate.
Changed files
CHANGELOG.md— repository behaviordocs/doctoring/central-review-target-inventory-suppression.md— operator or user guidancedocs/product-technical-gap-baseline.md— operator or user guidancescripts/ci/pr_review_merge_scheduler_core.py— review and security gate shell pathtests/test_pr2005_central_inventory_boundary.py— regression suite
Changed behavior
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Repository file: CHANGELOG.md"]
S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Repository file: CHANGELOG.md"]
R1 --> V1["required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Docs: central-review-target-inventory-suppression.md (2 files)"]
S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs: central-review-target-inventory-suppression.md (2 files)"]
R2 --> V2["docs review"]
Evidence --> S3["CI script: pr_review_merge_scheduler_core.py"]
S3 --> I3["review and security gate shell path"]
I3 --> R3["Review risk: CI script: pr_review_merge_scheduler_core.py"]
R3 --> V3["bash -n plus Strix self-test"]
Evidence --> S4["Test: test_pr2005_central_inventory_boundary.py"]
S4 --> I4["regression suite"]
I4 --> R4["Review risk: Test: test_pr2005_central_inventory_boundary.py"]
R4 --> V4["targeted test run"]
Findings
No source-backed product finding is synthesized from the coverage gate. A coverage miss belongs in the status comment.
- Head SHA:
9293c779b9634859acf7a311be4dba1be8b83008 - Workflow run: 34203012562
- Workflow attempt: 1
- Coverage gate:
failure
Review outcome
Coverage is a gate, not the review. This body reviews the changed product files.
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Repository file: CHANGELOG.md"]
S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Repository file: CHANGELOG.md"]
R1 --> V1["required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Docs: central-review-target-inventory-suppression.md (2 files)"]
S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs: central-review-target-inventory-suppression.md (2 files)"]
R2 --> V2["docs review"]
Evidence --> S3["CI script: pr_review_merge_scheduler_core.py"]
S3 --> I3["review and security gate shell path"]
I3 --> R3["Review risk: CI script: pr_review_merge_scheduler_core.py"]
R3 --> V3["bash -n plus Strix self-test"]
Evidence --> S4["Test: test_pr2005_central_inventory_boundary.py"]
S4 --> I4["regression suite"]
I4 --> R4["Review risk: Test: test_pr2005_central_inventory_boundary.py"]
R4 --> V4["targeted test run"]
OpenCode Review Overview
Coverage evidence did not pass, so approval is blocked. The formal pull-request review is the source-backed diff review, not this status comment. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
OpenCode reviewed the current-head product diff. Coverage is a separate gate.
Changed files
CHANGELOG.md— repository behaviordocs/doctoring/central-review-target-inventory-suppression.md— operator or user guidancedocs/product-technical-gap-baseline.md— operator or user guidancescripts/ci/pr_review_merge_scheduler_core.py— review and security gate shell pathtests/test_pr2005_central_inventory_boundary.py— regression suite
Changed behavior
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Repository file: CHANGELOG.md"]
S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Repository file: CHANGELOG.md"]
R1 --> V1["required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Docs: central-review-target-inventory-suppression.md (2 files)"]
S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs: central-review-target-inventory-suppression.md (2 files)"]
R2 --> V2["docs review"]
Evidence --> S3["CI script: pr_review_merge_scheduler_core.py"]
S3 --> I3["review and security gate shell path"]
I3 --> R3["Review risk: CI script: pr_review_merge_scheduler_core.py"]
R3 --> V3["bash -n plus Strix self-test"]
Evidence --> S4["Test: test_pr2005_central_inventory_boundary.py"]
S4 --> I4["regression suite"]
I4 --> R4["Review risk: Test: test_pr2005_central_inventory_boundary.py"]
R4 --> V4["targeted test run"]
Findings
No source-backed product finding is synthesized from the coverage gate. A coverage miss belongs in the status comment.
- Head SHA:
9293c779b9634859acf7a311be4dba1be8b83008 - Workflow run: 34205898313
- Workflow attempt: 1
- Coverage gate:
failure
Review outcome
Coverage is a gate, not the review. This body reviews the changed product files.
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Repository file: CHANGELOG.md"]
S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Repository file: CHANGELOG.md"]
R1 --> V1["required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Docs: central-review-target-inventory-suppression.md (2 files)"]
S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs: central-review-target-inventory-suppression.md (2 files)"]
R2 --> V2["docs review"]
Evidence --> S3["CI script: pr_review_merge_scheduler_core.py"]
S3 --> I3["review and security gate shell path"]
I3 --> R3["Review risk: CI script: pr_review_merge_scheduler_core.py"]
R3 --> V3["bash -n plus Strix self-test"]
Evidence --> S4["Test: test_pr2005_central_inventory_boundary.py"]
S4 --> I4["regression suite"]
I4 --> R4["Review risk: Test: test_pr2005_central_inventory_boundary.py"]
R4 --> V4["targeted test run"]
|
Non-force restack receipt for exact head Parents are the prior #2005 head and repaired #2004@ Combined exact-tree verification under The PR was moved to Draft before restack because its prior checks did not cover the new parent. Fresh exact-head hosted checks and independent review are required. #2006/#2007 still need sequential non-force restack. |
1 participant
Root cause
The first implementation skipped the target repository's entire old-head Actions inventory whenever review dispatch was centralized. That avoided an unauthoritative OpenCode target lookup, but it also preserved stale target-owned CodeQL, Python Security, and other direct pull-request runs.
This remains a bounded successor for the corresponding valid delta preserved in historical Draft #1231. It follows the credential/stack trigger chain #2002 → #2003 → #2004.
RED → GREEN
08a16caa4fdb0d0d86c44bb8cd7aed611beaab7b234d98dec14ae7a91819857f561b78d0d424ec98and32a0d66cd1210f6fae1cb675265ce4ce49f631679293c779b9634859acf7a311be4dba1be8b83008docs/product-technical-gap-baseline.mdVerification
Local evidence at GREEN (not hosted authority):
python -m py_compile scripts/ci/pr_review_merge_scheduler_core.py tests/test_pr2005_central_inventory_boundary.pypython -m pytest tests/test_pr2005_central_inventory_boundary.py tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py -q --tb=short→ 339 passedGITHUB_ACTIONS=true python -W error -m pytest tests/test_pr2005_central_inventory_boundary.py tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py -q --tb=short→ 339 passedAuthority and safety
fix/stacked-python-runtime-review-triggers@9fb02c92ef680710cd4737746b719f77cfd97cd5