Skip to content

fix: isolate required workflow concurrency by PR head - #417

Merged
seonghobae merged 3 commits into
mainfrom
codex/required-workflow-head-concurrency
Jul 10, 2026
Merged

fix: isolate required workflow concurrency by PR head#417
seonghobae merged 3 commits into
mainfrom
codex/required-workflow-head-concurrency

Conversation

@seonghobae

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Summary

  • isolate required workflow concurrency groups by PR number and current head SHA for OpenCode review, PR queue scheduler, close-empty, and security scan runs
  • keep closed-PR cancellation behavior while preventing superseded runs for the same current head from being recorded as failed required workflow evidence
  • update queue/timeout contract tests and quick-gate expectations so future workflow changes preserve visible fail-closed diagnostics

Why

Verification

  • codegraph sync
  • codegraph explore "required workflow concurrency current head opencode close empty security scan scheduler tests"
  • python -m pytest tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py tests/test_required_workflow_queue_contract.py -q => 31 passed
  • python -m pytest -q => 257 passed
  • bash -n scripts/ci/test_strix_quick_gate.sh
  • git diff --check origin/main...HEAD

@seonghobae
seonghobae force-pushed the codex/required-workflow-head-concurrency branch from 3ec7f81 to 16e6617 Compare July 10, 2026 13:54
@opencode-agent

opencode-agent Bot commented Jul 10, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

OpenCode Review Overview

  • Head SHA: 0834f7850a2cbf7d9348402c5e1f1b810feac597
  • Workflow run: 29098350309
  • Workflow attempt: 1
  • Gate result: APPROVE (approval step)

Pull request overview

OpenCode reviewed the current-head bounded evidence and found no blocking issues.

Findings

No blocking findings.

Summary

Approval sufficiency: bounded evidence supplied affirmative approval evidence for changed files, coverage/docstring posture, risk surfaces, and current-head verification; approval is not based merely on the absence of known blockers.
Verification posture: CodeGraph evidence was initialized and bounded current-head evidence reviewed for changed-file evidence including .github/workflows/close-empty-pr.yml, .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml, .github/workflows/pr-review-merge-scheduler.yml, .github/workflows/security-scan.yml, scripts/ci/pr_review_merge_scheduler.py, and 3 more.
Linter/static: workflow/static review evidence is bounded by the current-head GitHub Checks gate and changed-file evidence.
TDD/regression: coverage execution evidence and focused changed hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Coverage: coverage execution evidence reports supported repository test suites passed.
Docstring coverage: coverage execution evidence reports configured repository docstring gates passed or docstring coverage was advisory.
DAG: CodeGraph/source-backed behavior map connects .github/workflows/close-empty-pr.yml to the affected review, runtime, or workflow path and required checks.
PoC/execution: coverage-evidence job executed on the current head and reported PASS.
DDD/domain: workflow and repository-governance invariants were reviewed against changed files in bounded evidence.
CDD/context: CodeGraph evidence, changed-file history, and focused hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Similar issues: changed-file history evidence was reviewed for comparable local precedents.
Claim/concept check: bounded evidence, repository source, current-head workflow evidence, and, where numeric, scientific, statistical, or literature-backed claims are affected, original-paper/formula evidence and parameter-recovery expectations were used for claims.
Standards search: standards and external-source checks are delegated to configured OpenCode web_search/Context7/DeepWiki sources when applicable; no evidence-backed standards blocker is present in bounded evidence.
Compatibility/convention: changed workflow/script conventions, object naming, and reserved-word safety for schema/API/config/code surfaces were checked in bounded evidence.
Breaking-change/backcompat: deployment evidence and changed-file history were checked for backward-compatibility risk.
Performance: changed surfaces were checked for performance risk in bounded evidence.
Developer experience: changed automation, review, test, setup, and maintenance surfaces were checked for helpful or obstructive DX impact in bounded evidence.
User experience: connected user, operator, API, CLI, documentation, review-comment, status-check, rendering, and workflow-reader behavior was checked for contradictions against code, docs, and tests in bounded evidence.
Visual/DOM: Playwright visual, DOM locator, ARIA snapshot, console, and responsive evidence were checked when a web UI surface was present; for non-web surfaces, API/CLI/log/docs/workflow interaction evidence was reviewed instead.
Accessibility/i18n: accessibility, localization, and human-readable text surfaces were checked where UI, CLI, API message, docs, logs, or review text changed.
Supply-chain/license: dependency, package, model, container, and external-tool changes were checked in bounded evidence.
Packaging: package, build, test, lint, and security contracts were checked in bounded evidence.
Security/privacy: workflow-token, review-gate, and repository-automation security/privacy boundaries were checked in bounded evidence.

  • Result: APPROVE
  • Reason: PR improves workflow concurrency isolation with passing tests and full coverage
  • Head SHA: 0834f7850a2cbf7d9348402c5e1f1b810feac597
  • Workflow run: 29098350309
  • Workflow attempt: 1

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Workflow (4 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow (4 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["CI script (2 files)"]
  S2 --> I2["review and security gate shell path"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: CI script (2 files)"]
  R2 --> V2["bash -n plus Strix self-test"]
  Evidence --> S3["Test (2 files)"]
  S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test (2 files)"]
  R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
Loading

@opencode-agent opencode-agent Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

OpenCode reviewed the current-head bounded evidence and found no blocking issues.

Findings

No blocking findings.

Summary

Approval sufficiency: bounded evidence supplied affirmative approval evidence for changed files, coverage/docstring posture, risk surfaces, and current-head verification; approval is not based merely on the absence of known blockers.
Verification posture: CodeGraph evidence was initialized and bounded current-head evidence reviewed for changed-file evidence including .github/workflows/close-empty-pr.yml, .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml, .github/workflows/pr-review-merge-scheduler.yml, .github/workflows/security-scan.yml, scripts/ci/pr_review_merge_scheduler.py, and 3 more.
Linter/static: workflow/static review evidence is bounded by the current-head GitHub Checks gate and changed-file evidence.
TDD/regression: coverage execution evidence and focused changed hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Coverage: coverage execution evidence reports supported repository test suites passed.
Docstring coverage: coverage execution evidence reports configured repository docstring gates passed or docstring coverage was advisory.
DAG: CodeGraph/source-backed behavior map connects .github/workflows/close-empty-pr.yml to the affected review, runtime, or workflow path and required checks.
PoC/execution: coverage-evidence job executed on the current head and reported PASS.
DDD/domain: workflow and repository-governance invariants were reviewed against changed files in bounded evidence.
CDD/context: CodeGraph evidence, changed-file history, and focused hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Similar issues: changed-file history evidence was reviewed for comparable local precedents.
Claim/concept check: bounded evidence, repository source, current-head workflow evidence, and, where numeric, scientific, statistical, or literature-backed claims are affected, original-paper/formula evidence and parameter-recovery expectations were used for claims.
Standards search: standards and external-source checks are delegated to configured OpenCode web_search/Context7/DeepWiki sources when applicable; no evidence-backed standards blocker is present in bounded evidence.
Compatibility/convention: changed workflow/script conventions, object naming, and reserved-word safety for schema/API/config/code surfaces were checked in bounded evidence.
Breaking-change/backcompat: deployment evidence and changed-file history were checked for backward-compatibility risk.
Performance: changed surfaces were checked for performance risk in bounded evidence.
Developer experience: changed automation, review, test, setup, and maintenance surfaces were checked for helpful or obstructive DX impact in bounded evidence.
User experience: connected user, operator, API, CLI, documentation, review-comment, status-check, rendering, and workflow-reader behavior was checked for contradictions against code, docs, and tests in bounded evidence.
Visual/DOM: Playwright visual, DOM locator, ARIA snapshot, console, and responsive evidence were checked when a web UI surface was present; for non-web surfaces, API/CLI/log/docs/workflow interaction evidence was reviewed instead.
Accessibility/i18n: accessibility, localization, and human-readable text surfaces were checked where UI, CLI, API message, docs, logs, or review text changed.
Supply-chain/license: dependency, package, model, container, and external-tool changes were checked in bounded evidence.
Packaging: package, build, test, lint, and security contracts were checked in bounded evidence.
Security/privacy: workflow-token, review-gate, and repository-automation security/privacy boundaries were checked in bounded evidence.

  • Result: APPROVE
  • Reason: PR improves workflow concurrency isolation with passing tests and full coverage
  • Head SHA: 0834f7850a2cbf7d9348402c5e1f1b810feac597
  • Workflow run: 29098350309
  • Workflow attempt: 1

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Workflow (4 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow (4 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["CI script (2 files)"]
  S2 --> I2["review and security gate shell path"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: CI script (2 files)"]
  R2 --> V2["bash -n plus Strix self-test"]
  Evidence --> S3["Test (2 files)"]
  S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test (2 files)"]
  R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
Loading

@opencode-agent
opencode-agent Bot enabled auto-merge (squash) July 10, 2026 14:12
@seonghobae
seonghobae merged commit 4bd48ea into main Jul 10, 2026
35 checks passed
@seonghobae
seonghobae deleted the codex/required-workflow-head-concurrency branch July 10, 2026 14:15
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant