fix(ci): restore OpenCode coverage honesty and mermaid surfaces - #1363
Conversation
|
Warning Review limit reachedNext included review available in 10 minutes. View limit detailsLimit details: You’ve used the included review currently available. You've used all free OSS reviews for now. Wait for the free limit to reset to keep reviewing this public repository. Review configuration: ⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (2)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughOpenCode 리뷰를 공식 리뷰와 게이트 상태 댓글로 분리했습니다. 현재 HEAD와 workflow run ID에 연결된 커버리지를 검증합니다. 커버리지 실패 시 변경 파일 폴백 리뷰와 ChangesOpenCode 리뷰 무결성
Estimated code review effort: 5 (Critical) | ~100 minutes Merge Risk: 🔵 Low · up to The change makes coverage failures visibly block approval and improves review file and graph output, but malformed or traversal-shaped paths can still cause incorrect authenticated lookups or interrupt review rendering, while the initial status may show coverage as unknown. The impact is bounded to CI/review correctness and security hardening, so merge is reasonable with explicit owner follow-up. Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant CoverageEvidence
participant CoverageIdentity
participant ReviewDispatch
participant GitHub
participant ReceiptGate
CoverageEvidence->>CoverageIdentity: 현재 HEAD와 run ID의 coverage 조회
CoverageIdentity-->>ReviewDispatch: 검증된 coverage 결과 전달
ReviewDispatch->>GitHub: 공식 리뷰 또는 폴백 COMMENT 게시
ReviewDispatch->>GitHub: 게이트 상태 댓글에 결과 기록
GitHub-->>ReceiptGate: 현재 HEAD의 PR 리뷰 목록 반환
ReceiptGate->>ReceiptGate: 공식 OpenCode 영수증 검증
ReceiptGate-->>GitHub: 필수 체크 성공 또는 실패 반환
Possibly related PRs
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
Full details: Docstring CoverageExplanation Docstring coverage is 90.00% which is sufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%. Docstring coverage is scoped to functions touched by this diff. Analyzed 160 functions across 13 files. (3 skipped: 2 unsupported, 1 too large.) ✨ Finishing Touches📝 Generate docstrings
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks 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 |
Stacked on main after #1360 squash 17052a7. Coverage-evidence failure publishes a COMMENT product-file review then sets the status comment to COVERAGE_BLOCKED. Mermaid labels crates/packages instead of generic Changed file (N files) and does not invent class edges. Findings say Review process instead of opencode-review.yml:1 unless that file is in the diff. Does not touch noema-review.yml and is not NIM-2h.
16eec2b to
848d796
Compare
seonghobae
changed the title
Keep COMMENT fallback then update_review_overview "COVERAGE_BLOCKED". Restore ## OpenCode Review Overview on the status builder, restore quoted mermaid honesty phrases in helpers, and retarget the leftover REQUEST_CHANGES-as-finished-gate path-policy string to the honesty wording. Pair REVIEW_DISPATCH_BLOB_SHA with the updated dispatch blob.
|
Live regression repair added on exact head
The source PR remains draft while fresh hosted evidence is non-terminal. Operational acceptance still requires protected-main integration and a fresh current-head canary where |
![devin-ai-integration[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/811515?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Sorry, something went wrong.
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Sorry, something went wrong.
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Sorry, something went wrong.
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Sorry, something went wrong.
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Sorry, something went wrong.
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Sorry, something went wrong.
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Sorry, something went wrong.
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Sorry, something went wrong.
![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 cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.
Review outcome
1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence
-
Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was
failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head. -
Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.
-
Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports
successwith required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence. -
Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking
needs.coverage-evidence.result == successbefore posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present. -
Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
-
Reason: coverage-evidence result was
failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current headb4919d36f63e835b2503d9d8c1e882bb755b4c6a. -
Head SHA:
b4919d36f63e835b2503d9d8c1e882bb755b4c6a -
Workflow run: 33122874846
-
Workflow attempt: 1
Coverage evidence
Coverage Decision
- Result: FAIL
- Test evidence: not proven passing
- Docstring evidence: not proven passing when configured
- Failure count: 1
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Workflow (2 files)"]
S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow (2 files)"]
R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Changed file (2 files)"]
S2 --> I2["repository behavior"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Changed file (2 files)"]
R2 --> V2["required checks"]
Evidence --> S3["Docs: opencode-review-surfaces-originweave-47.md"]
S3 --> I3["operator or user guidance"]
I3 --> R3["Review risk: Docs: opencode-review-surfaces-originweave-47.md"]
R3 --> V3["docs review"]
Evidence --> S4["CI script (7 files)"]
S4 --> I4["review and security gate shell path"]
I4 --> R4["Review risk: CI script (7 files)"]
R4 --> V4["bash -n plus Strix self-test"]
Evidence --> S5["Test (8 files)"]
S5 --> I5["regression suite"]
I5 --> R5["Review risk: Test (8 files)"]
R5 --> V5["targeted test run"]
OpenCode Review Overview
Pull request overviewOpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass. Review outcome1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence
Coverage evidenceCoverage Decision
Changed-File Evidence Mapflowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Workflow (2 files)"]
S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow (2 files)"]
R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Changed file (2 files)"]
S2 --> I2["repository behavior"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Changed file (2 files)"]
R2 --> V2["required checks"]
Evidence --> S3["Docs: opencode-review-surfaces-originweave-47.md"]
S3 --> I3["operator or user guidance"]
I3 --> R3["Review risk: Docs: opencode-review-surfaces-originweave-47.md"]
R3 --> V3["docs review"]
Evidence --> S4["CI script (7 files)"]
S4 --> I4["review and security gate shell path"]
I4 --> R4["Review risk: CI script (7 files)"]
R4 --> V4["bash -n plus Strix self-test"]
Evidence --> S5["Test (8 files)"]
S5 --> I5["regression suite"]
I5 --> R5["Review risk: Test (8 files)"]
R5 --> V5["targeted test run"]
|
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Sorry, something went wrong.
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Sorry, something went wrong.
1 participant
Stacked on main after #1360 squash 17052a7; COVERAGE_BLOCKED after fallback COMMENT; no invented mermaid edges; no fake opencode-review.yml:1; no generic-only Changed file (N files); does not touch noema-review.yml (PM owns feat/noema-orchestrator-free-zdr); not NIM-2h.
Honesty slice only
publish_fallback_diff_reviewposts a COMMENT product-file review, thenrequest_changes_for_coverage_evidence_failuresets the status comment toCOVERAGE_BLOCKEDso a coverage miss never looks finished asGate result: COMMENT.Changed file (N files)and does not invent class edges.Review processinstead of.github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1unless that file is in the diff.abf47ce275fd8c1efa8306d30f1d6afbadd989ab(not fix(opencode): restore coverage-blocked status after fallback review #1056 v1).noema-review.yml/strix.yml. PM ownsfeat/noema-orchestrator-free-zdr.attach_contextual_orchestrator_provider.py/opencode_coverage_identity.py/opencode_review_receipt_gate.py/materialize_base_rust_toolchain.py.Summary by CodeRabbit
개선 사항
COVERAGE_BLOCKED상태를 명확히 표시합니다.문서