feat(packaging): rebuild OpenTelemetry observability extra on current main

[seonghobae]

OpenTelemetry observability extra

This PR adds an optional observability packaging extra without changing the base runtime dependency set or transferring telemetry-export ownership into the library.

Current contributor head is exact 4435136c9dc133e8d245f61bb15afdbf50536173 against protected main 5fba70c43f57f5869c0b41a64ddf2a1ac7da3393. The net delta remains four paths: pyproject.toml, generated uv.lock, tests/test_opentelemetry_optional_dependency.py, and docs/doctoring/opentelemetry-packaging-extra.md.

Runtime and packaging boundary

pg-llm-batch[observability] supplies the package-owned OpenTelemetry API dependency needed by the public instrumented client. The host still owns tracer/meter providers, exporters, sampling, credentials, retention, and SDK configuration. A base install remains free of OpenTelemetry packages; installing the extra is not evidence that telemetry is exported, retained, secure, or compliant.

The generated lock remains repository-controlled rather than hand-edited. The package/doctoring contract keeps installation, rollback, API-versus-SDK ownership, and supply-chain evidence explicit.

Fresh review and governance state

The two historical Scorecard threads refer to a temporary materialization workflow that is no longer in the net PR diff; both are resolved and outdated. The OpenCode CHANGES_REQUESTED review was bound to predecessor head adb47b46b531740ac6c63953aa98769c96a503d3 and solely to failed coverage evidence on that predecessor. It has been dismissed as stale after exact-head coverage-source-tree and coverage-evidence both completed successfully on 4435136c9dc133e8d245f61bb15afdbf50536173; that dismissal is not an approval.

The live organization ruleset now requires seven central workflows, one approving review, approval of the last push, and review-thread resolution. Code-owner review remains disabled. The current exact head has no qualifying approval, so this PR is not merge-accepted yet even though the observed exact-head repository/security checks are terminal-success and its two known inline threads are resolved/outdated.

Auto-merge, if present, is only a protected-gate mechanism; it does not bypass live policy.

Merge boundary

Immediately before any manual merge, refetch the exact contributor ref, protected-main tip/base ancestry, mergeability, live ruleset, every then-required exact-head workflow/check and material checkout identity, current reviews/threads, and writer evidence. Merge only the unchanged head after all live required gates are terminal-success, a qualifying non-author approval of the unchanged last push exists, and no valid finding remains. Queued, pending, cancelled, skipped-required, absent, neutral, stale, predecessor, status-only, synthetic, author-only, rate-limited, infrastructure-failed, or conclusion-null evidence does not transfer.

Refs #107.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

@seonghobae, you've reached your PR review limit, so we couldn't start this review.

Next review available in: 1 minute

Limit details: You’ve used all 1 included review currently available under your plan.

You've used all free OSS reviews for now. Wait for the free limit to reset to keep reviewing this public repository.

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews.

How do review limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window.

Please refer docs for additional details.

Review details

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 666a13f8-48e3-4414-92bc-cf22566bd7d2

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 5fba70c and 4435136.

⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)

• uv.lock is excluded by !**/*.lock

📒 Files selected for processing (3)

• docs/doctoring/opentelemetry-packaging-extra.md
• pyproject.toml
• tests/test_opentelemetry_optional_dependency.py

---

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.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[seonghobae]

@opencode-agent @cwl-noema-review

Review exact final head 4a5b1e27e6d3a3f0d390265b89f74a54a8185923 against protected main@d0a4b30be1f46536e352443309f3a35533156767. The final delta is exactly pyproject.toml, the focused optional-dependency contract, and generated uv.lock; no temporary workflow remains. Verify base-runtime OpenTelemetry isolation, observability extra metadata, absence of opentelemetry-sdk, uv 0.12.3 lock fidelity, package import surface, and supply-chain/reproducibility implications. Do not update or merge the branch, transfer artifact/predecessor evidence, or synthesize approval. Submit a formal approval only after all live exact-head required checks are terminal-success and no valid finding remains.

[opencode-agent]

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 success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

• Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before 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 head adb47b46b531740ac6c63953aa98769c96a503d3.

• Head SHA: adb47b46b531740ac6c63953aa98769c96a503d3

• Workflow run: 31816930472

• Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Docs: opentelemetry-packaging-extra.md"]
  S1 --> I1["operator or user guidance"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Docs: opentelemetry-packaging-extra.md"]
  R1 --> V1["docs review"]
  Evidence --> S2["Changed file (2 files)"]
  S2 --> I2["repository behavior"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Changed file (2 files)"]
  R2 --> V2["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S3["Test: test_opentelemetry_optional_dependency.py"]
  S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test: test_opentelemetry_optional_dependency.py"]
  R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]

Loading

[opencode-agent]

OpenCode Review Overview

• Head SHA: adb47b46b531740ac6c63953aa98769c96a503d3
• Workflow run: 31816930472
• Workflow attempt: 1
• Gate result: REQUEST_CHANGES (approval step)

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 success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

• Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before 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 head adb47b46b531740ac6c63953aa98769c96a503d3.

• Head SHA: adb47b46b531740ac6c63953aa98769c96a503d3

• Workflow run: 31816930472

• Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Docs: opentelemetry-packaging-extra.md"]
  S1 --> I1["operator or user guidance"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Docs: opentelemetry-packaging-extra.md"]
  R1 --> V1["docs review"]
  Evidence --> S2["Changed file (2 files)"]
  S2 --> I2["repository behavior"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Changed file (2 files)"]
  R2 --> V2["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S3["Test: test_opentelemetry_optional_dependency.py"]
  S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test: test_opentelemetry_optional_dependency.py"]
  R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]

Loading

[seonghobae]

@opencode-agent @cwl-noema-review

Please perform a fresh read-only review of exact current head adb47b46b531740ac6c63953aa98769c96a503d3 against protected main d0a4b30be1f46536e352443309f3a35533156767.

Fresh pre-request evidence: contributor ref and protected base remain unchanged; the PR remains Ready/mergeable; both visible historical Scorecard threads are resolved/outdated; and the exact-head inventory has 11 workflows with no failed, queued, or in-progress workflow. The existing exact-head OpenCode CHANGES_REQUESTED arose when its authenticated coverage-evidence path hit the trusted-uv archive HTTP materialization failure and remains blocking unless a new same-head authenticated review legitimately supersedes it.

Do not update the branch, merge, synthesize evidence, reuse predecessor verdicts, or regenerate the reviewed lock. Submit formal APPROVE only if current-head locked dependency/package/test/docstring evidence is now established, head/base remain unchanged, and no valid blocker remains; otherwise submit current-head findings or REQUEST_CHANGES.

[cursor]

Bugbot is not enabled for your account, so this pull request was not reviewed.

Enable Bugbot in the Cursor dashboard to get automatic reviews on future PRs.

Dismissed as exact-predecessor evidence only. This review is bound to adb47b4 and blocks solely on failed coverage evidence there. Current unchanged head 4435136 has terminal-success coverage-source-tree and coverage-evidence checks. Dismissal removes stale negative evidence only; it does not supply or substitute for the live ruleset's required non-author approval/last-push approval.