docs(autofix): make bot PR comments bilingual with collapsed Chinese - #7137
Merged
Conversation
Files the workflow posts verbatim as PR comments (address-summary.md, no-action.md, e2e-report.md) must now end with a complete collapsed Chinese translation (<details><summary>中文说明</summary>…), mirroring the repository's PR-body convention, so the bot's review reports and E2E reports read natively for both audiences. failure.md/handoff.md stay English-only without a details block: handoff comments embed a byte-truncated excerpt, and a severed <details> tag would swallow the rest of the rendered comment. Contract test pins the rule (bilingual instruction present, the three files named, the truncation-safety exclusion stated). 51/51.
Collaborator
|
Thanks for the PR! Template looks good ✓ Problem: observed gap — the autofix bot's per-round review reports (e.g. PR #7113) are English-only while the repo convention requires bilingual PR bodies. Extending the same convention to bot-posted comments is a consistency fix with evidence from a real review round. Direction: aligned. The repo already requires bilingual PR bodies; applying the same rule to bot comments that are posted verbatim is a natural, zero-pipeline-cost extension. The Size: not applicable — no core paths touched. 23 production lines in a skill prompt doc + 16 test lines. Approach: scope is minimal and focused. One new Shared Rules entry with a clear example, three short pointers at the write sites, and a contract test that pins the rule. No scope creep. Moving on to code review. 🔍 中文说明感谢贡献！ 模板完整 ✓ 问题：已观测到的差距——autofix bot 的逐轮 review 报告（如 PR #7113）是纯英文，而仓库约定要求 PR 正文双语。把同一约定延伸到 bot 逐字发布的评论是一次一致性修补，有真实 review 轮次作为证据。 方向：对齐。仓库已要求双语 PR 正文；对 bot 逐字发布的评论应用同一规则是自然的、零管道成本的扩展。 规模：不适用——未触及核心路径。skill 提示文档 23 行生产代码 + 16 行测试。 方案：范围最小且聚焦。一条新的 Shared Rules 条目带有清晰示例，三处写入点的简短提示，以及一个钉住规则的契约测试。无范围蔓延。 进入代码审查 🔍 — Qwen Code · qwen3.7-max Reviewed at |
Collaborator
Code ReviewClean diff — the PR does exactly what it says and nothing more. The new Shared Rules entry is well-placed (between the "do not skip failing checks" and "never ask the user a question" rules) with a clear format example. The three write-site pointers ( One thing I verified: the The contract test asserts the three critical invariants: the TestingContract test: 51/51 pass ✅ (including the new bilingual test) Real-scenario testing: not applicable — this is a prompt-only change. The bilingual output behavior only manifests when the autofix agent runs autonomously; there's no interactive CLI path to exercise. The PR body acknowledges this ("prompt-only change; the behavior lands on the next agent run"). The contract test is the appropriate verification here. 中文说明代码审查干净的 diff——PR 精确地完成了所声明的事情，没有多余内容。 新增的 Shared Rules 条目位置合理（在"不跳过失败检查"与"不向用户提问"规则之间），带有清晰的格式示例。三处写入点提示（develop-issue 第 9 步的 验证了一点： 契约测试断言了三个关键不变量： 测试契约测试： 51/51 通过 ✅（含新增双语测试） 真实场景测试： 不适用——这是纯 prompt 改动。双语输出行为仅在 autofix agent 自主运行时体现，无可交互的 CLI 路径。PR 正文已说明（"纯 prompt 改动；行为在下一次 agent 运行时落地"）。契约测试是此处恰当的验证手段。 — Qwen Code · qwen3.7-max Reviewed at |
Collaborator
|
Confidence: 5/5 Reflection: this is a well-scoped, prompt-only change that extends an existing repo convention (bilingual PR bodies) to bot-posted comments. The diff is clean, the reasoning for the Verdict: Approve ✅ 中文说明信心度：5/5 反思：这是一个范围合理、纯 prompt 的改动，将仓库既有约定（双语 PR 正文）延伸到 bot 发布的评论。diff 干净， 结论：批准 ✅ — Qwen Code · qwen3.7-max Reviewed at |
qwen-code-ci-bot
approved these changes
Jul 17, 2026
qwen-code-ci-bot
left a comment
qwen-code-ci-bot
left a comment
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM, looks ready to ship. ✅
Contributor
Code Coverage Summary
CLI Package - Full Text ReportCore Package - Full Text ReportFor detailed HTML reports, please see the 'coverage-reports-22.x-ubuntu-latest' artifact from the main CI run. |
qwen-code-ci-bot
left a comment
qwen-code-ci-bot
left a comment
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
— qwen3.7-max via Qwen Code /review
pomelo-nwu
approved these changes
Jul 18, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What this PR does
Makes the autofix bot's PR comments bilingual. Every agent-written file that the workflow posts verbatim as a PR comment — the review-round report bodies (
address-summary.md,no-action.md) and the issue-phase E2E report (e2e-report.md) — must now be written in English and end with a complete collapsed Chinese translation (<details><summary>中文说明</summary>…</details>), mirroring the repository's existing PR-body convention.failure.mdandhandoff.mdare explicitly kept English-only without a details block. The contract test pins the rule.Why it's needed
The repository already requires every PR body to carry a full collapsed Chinese translation, but the bot's comment output — e.g. its per-round review reports like the one on PR #7113 — is English-only, so half the convention's audience reads machine reports in a foreign language while human-authored PR bodies are bilingual. Extending the same convention to bot comments closes that gap at zero workflow cost (it is an agent-output rule, not a pipeline change). The failure/handoff exclusion is deliberate: handoff comments embed a byte-truncated excerpt of those files (
head -c 1500), and a<details>block severed mid-tag would swallow the remainder of the rendered comment.Reviewer Test Plan
How to verify
.qwen/skills/autofix/SKILL.md: it names exactly the three verbatim-posted files, shows the details-block shape, requires a complete section-by-section translation, and states the truncation-safety exclusion forfailure.md/handoff.md. The three write sites (develop-issue step 9, the two address-review outcomes) carry short pointers to the rule.address-summary.md/no-action.mdarecat-ed intoreport.mdand posted viagh pr commentin the review phase;e2e-report.mdis posted viagh pr comment --body-filein the issue phase;failure.md/handoff.mdonly ever reach comments as truncated excerpts.npx vitest run scripts/tests/qwen-autofix-workflow.test.js— 51/51, including the new test asserting the bilingual instruction, the three file names, and the English-only exclusion.Behavioral expectation after merge: the next address round or issue-phase E2E report posts a comment whose English body ends with a collapsed 中文说明 section containing the full translation.
Evidence (Before & After)
Tested on
Environment (optional)
Contract test via vitest on a worktree checkout of main. Prompt-only change; the behavior lands on the next agent run.
Risk & Scope
Linked Issues
Follow-up to #6998/#7094; prompted by maintainer feedback on the report comment at PR #7113.
中文说明
本 PR 做了什么
让 autofix bot 的 PR 评论双语化。工作流逐字发布为 PR 评论的每个 agent 产物 —— review 轮次报告正文(
address-summary.md、no-action.md)与 issue 阶段的 E2E 报告(e2e-report.md)—— 现在必须以英文撰写,并以完整的折叠中文翻译结尾(<details><summary>中文说明</summary>…</details>),与仓库既有的 PR 正文约定一致。failure.md与handoff.md明确保持纯英文、不带 details 块。契约测试钉住该规则。为什么需要
仓库已要求每个 PR 正文携带完整折叠中文翻译,但 bot 的评论输出(例如 PR #7113 上的逐轮 review 报告)是纯英文 —— 该约定的一半受众要用外语读机器报告,而人写的 PR 正文却是双语。把同一约定延伸到 bot 评论零工作流成本地补齐了这个缺口(这是 agent 输出规则,不是管道改动)。failure/handoff 的排除是刻意的:交接评论嵌入这两个文件的字节截断摘录(
head -c 1500),<details>块若在标签中间被切断,会吞掉渲染后评论的剩余部分。评审验证方案
如何验证
.qwen/skills/autofix/SKILL.md新增的 Shared Rules 条目:精确点名三个逐字发布的文件、给出 details 块样式、要求逐段完整翻译、说明failure.md/handoff.md的截断安全排除。三处写入点(develop-issue 第 9 步、address-review 两个结局)带有指向该规则的简短提示。address-summary.md/no-action.md被cat进report.md后经gh pr comment发布;issue 阶段e2e-report.md经gh pr comment --body-file发布;failure.md/handoff.md只以截断摘录形式进入评论。npx vitest run scripts/tests/qwen-autofix-workflow.test.js—— 51/51,含新测试:断言双语指令存在、三个文件名被点名、纯英文排除条款在案。合并后的行为预期:下一次 address 轮次或 issue 阶段 E2E 报告发布的评论,英文正文之后以折叠的 中文说明 段收尾,内含完整翻译。
证据(前后对比)
测试情况
环境(可选)
在 main 的 worktree 检出上用 vitest 跑契约测试。纯 prompt 改动;行为在下一次 agent 运行时生效。
风险与范围
关联 Issue
#6998/#7094 的后续;由维护者对 PR #7113 报告评论的反馈触发。