docs: correct runtime attribution and record coverage evidence - #984
docs: correct runtime attribution and record coverage evidence#984seonghobae wants to merge 80 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: true📝 WalkthroughWalkthrough로컬 엔드포인트 측정 규칙과 시스템 관측 결과를 추가했습니다. UI, API, mock, 커버리지, 숫자 지수 렌더링의 검증 결과와 테스트 진단 기준도 기록했습니다. Changes런타임 측정 및 검증
Estimated code review effort: 2 (Simple) | ~10 minutes Merge Risk: 🔵 Low · up to This documentation update leaves one Markdown formatting warning in the PR reference text. It has no runtime impact, but should be corrected to keep documentation lint-clean. 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 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 |
seonghobae
added
documentation
ChatGPT Codex Connector
![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 could not approve from deterministic current-head evidence because GitHub Checks have failed.
Findings
1. HIGH Current-head GitHub Checks - Fix failed required checks before approval
- Problem: Failed same-head checks remain for
faad61903b1f1bf51ad734788f38c42fc731eabe. - Root cause: The model-unavailable evidence fallback is allowed only when peer GitHub Checks are complete and clean.
- Fix: Read and fix the failed check logs below, then rerun the current-head checks.
- Regression test: Keep the model-unavailable fallback gated on an empty failed-check rollup.
Failed checks:
- Required Noema Review/noema-review: FAILURE (https://github.com/ContextualWisdomLab/LineageWeave/actions/runs/34177269944/job/101909198744)
- noema-review check run: failure (https://github.com/ContextualWisdomLab/LineageWeave/actions/runs/34177269944/job/101909198744)
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Repository file: AGENTS.md"]
S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Repository file: AGENTS.md"]
R1 --> V1["required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Docs: product-technical-gap-baseline.md"]
S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs: product-technical-gap-baseline.md"]
R2 --> V2["docs review"]
OpenCode Review Overview
|
|
Exact-head |
seonghobae
changed the title
seonghobae
left a comment
seonghobae
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fresh no-loss convergence verification: #984 is based on exact parent 141d93cb5a670e43380f1179881952692735233a; ordinary two-parent child 58ed096900d048460e1274ea4f46a6f2ad58a394 overlays only the pre-existing AGENTS.md and docs/product-technical-gap-baseline.md blobs. Parent→child compare is ahead-only / behind 0 with merge base exactly the parent and net changed paths only those two documents, so the new criterion-identity coverage regression is inherited rather than reverted. Keep Draft. The two documentation findings remain open: losslessly rewrite prose-leading #929 also contains... as PR #929..., and explicitly classify 20 ms as the CWL engineering/diagnostic target rather than an approved LineageWeave release SLO. Do not regenerate the large historical evidence document just to make those edits.
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: e54ebc10c9
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| historical evidence only. The job-architecture artifact ship originally via | ||
| #749 is now re-verified on `main` from the promotion. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Dashboard keyboard and viewport verification — 2026-09-08 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Because this and every following added evidence heading use ###, Markdown nests all of the September 8 diagnostics through “Exact-head frontend coverage failure” beneath ## 12. Delivery snapshot (2026-08-27). Rendered navigation therefore presents local failures and incomplete checks as part of that dated protected-main delivery snapshot, conflating two evidence scopes the text otherwise keeps distinct; move these entries to their matching top-level sections or promote them to ## headings.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Verified on current child 46bf2c28d1e6120a66ecf8c616b9d7786b6a4d9d: this finding is valid. ## 12. Delivery snapshot (2026-08-27) is followed by September 8 diagnostics using ###, so rendered Markdown incorrectly nests current diagnostics under the dated August protected-main snapshot. The repair must change document hierarchy without rewriting or dropping historical evidence—promote the September diagnostic blocks to the appropriate ## scope (or move them under an explicit current-evidence section). Keeping this thread unresolved until that structural repair is present.
| Only after recording terminal PostgreSQL evidence were the accumulated API | ||
| regression commits pushed. The new head requires its own hosted checks. | ||
|
|
||
| At exact HEAD `973ac01cf13657b15f316de6d5ca98380edb6e59`, hosted run |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This entry is nested under Frontend coverage evidence — 2026-09-08, but the referenced commit 973ac01c was authored and committed on 2026-09-09, so its hosted run necessarily occurred after the date assigned by the heading. In a revision-scoped evidence ledger this misdates the newest CI result and can distort chronological comparisons; add a September 9 heading or change the section title to an explicit date range.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Verified on current child 46bf2c28d1e6120a66ecf8c616b9d7786b6a4d9d: this date-scope finding is valid. The broad top-level heading remains ## Frontend coverage evidence — 2026-09-08 while later entries, including the September 9 exact-head evidence, remain within that section. A revision-scoped ledger should not make September 9 evidence appear to belong to September 8. Minimal repair is a truthful top-level date range or a separate September 9 evidence heading, preserving every recorded receipt. Thread remains unresolved until the document itself is repaired.
1 participant
Scope
Record revision-scoped runtime, frontend, PostgreSQL, browser, coverage, and failure-diagnosis evidence without turning supporting evidence into a new architecture, owner, or release decision. Keep service-port attribution, synthetic/focused checks, hosted results, translation-consumer failures, and all-page runtime acceptance distinct.
Current exact authority
codex/e2e-auth-redirect-main-20260908@59055dcdf1c38152bfbc3359cbed4e3af6806d52codex/gap-baseline-20260908@cae6d2bdd07c5ab6eb74e83dd04e86c879b4a98fmain@83eba56149eb802cd63642c507c324c9976ec78eFresh parent→child compare is ahead-only / behind 0 with merge base exactly
59055dcd.... Effective child paths remain onlyAGENTS.mdanddocs/product-technical-gap-baseline.md; the parent product/test tree, includingWorkspaceCalendar.emptyStateCoverage.test.tsx, is inherited and not reverted.Parent progression and exact evidence
Current parent
59055dcd...adds only a test-only Calendar regression for the accepted-source empty state:naruon_available=true,events=[],commitments=[]. Exact frontend verification is now terminal for that bounded slice: Tests34314379985, frontend job102347417265, ran 75 files / 731 tests GREEN; lint, production build, and Storybook build are GREEN. The frontend job remains RED only at the unchanged repository-wide 100% coverage threshold. Exact totals are 93.64% statements / 83.67% branches / 93.12% functions / 95.49% lines;WorkspaceCalendar.tsxis 100% lines/functions and 73.68% branches. Artifact10089635441, digestsha256:1b1c053d8cb24b3a7b1ae13e7d7c365914c98862ef2395b857ad16cecbedabfd, is retained.Parent PostgreSQL full-suite job
102347417455is still executing on this exact head, so the parent remains fixed. Current Security/SAST/CodeQL also have not reached terminal acceptance. No predecessor receipt transfers.Parent review has additionally verified three repairs that must occur on #983 before this documentation child is moved again: ADR 0165 must document the implementation's optional ASCII caret-exponent sign; intentional Arabic-Indic mixed-script test strings must satisfy Ruff RUF001 without weakening lint; and Ontology Explorer export-test timers/mocks/globals must be reset in
afterEachso assertion failures cannot contaminate later tests. These are parent owner repairs, not documentation-child substitutions.Descendant convergence
After #983 advanced, this branch was reconstructed non-force from exact
59055dcd...while overlaying only the then-live child-ownedAGENTS.mdand baseline blobs. Ordinary two-parent commitcae6d2bdd07c5ab6eb74e83dd04e86c879b4a98fhas prior child6409a082...and exact new parent59055dcd...as parents. Fresh compare remains behind 0 with merge base exactly59055dcd...; effective delta is only the two documentation paths. No force push, destructive rebase, or parent loss occurred.Documentation review state
Older findings remain repaired:
PR #929 also contains that import change.is prose rather than an accidental Markdown heading, and 20 ms is identified only as theCWL engineering/diagnostic target, explicitly not authenticated-page/render/k6 evidence or an approved LineageWeave deployment SLO.Two structure findings remain open until the file itself is repaired without losing historical evidence:
###beneath## 12. Delivery snapshot (2026-08-27)and must be promoted/moved to a current-evidence##scope.## Frontend coverage evidence — 2026-09-08contains September 9 exact-head evidence and needs a truthful date range or separate September 9 top-level section.Do not close those findings from prose alone. The baseline is a large historical evidence ledger; any repair must preserve historical content except for the necessary heading/date edits rather than regenerate or truncate the file through an unsafe whole-file rewrite.
Security / merge gate
Consumer evidence remains forwarded to canonical owner lanes
.github#1725and.github#2040; no leaf-local scanner/status replacement, synthetic receipt, provider/model pin, or waiver is accepted. Keep this child Draft while #983 continues exact-head product validation. After parent acceptance, this child still requires its own final-head checks/reviews before promotion. No self-approval, bypass, reduced production-code coverage denominator, stale-head evidence transfer, force-push, destructive rebase, canonical-owner duplication, or release claim is authorized.