fix: guard upload limits in production builds - #1441
Conversation
Warning Review limit reachedYou’ve reached a temporary PR review limit under our Fair Usage Limits Policy. Next review available in:27 minutes Your organization has reached its usage spending cap. Adjust your spending cap in the billing tab. How can I continue?After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the 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 configurationConfiguration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (13)
Comment |
This pull request has been ignored for the connected project Preview Branches by Supabase. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit:f661dfe56a
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".
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
# Conflicts: # package.json
…' into codex/issue-ledger-upload-parity
…' into codex/issue-ledger-upload-parity
CI triageCI failed on this PR. Automated classification of the 2 failed job(s):
Compared with main CI run #6987 (cancelled). Classification is evidence routing, not permission to ignore a failure. Exact quarantined Playwright identities remain governed by the flake ledger. |
…load-parity # Conflicts: # docs/outstanding-issues.md
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Fifth consecutive genuine conflict on docs/outstanding-issues.md, confirmed with git merge-tree before acting. Main's d8b034c (PR #1441) deleted three rows from the Open items table and archived none of them: #85, which that PR genuinely resolved by adding check-upload-limit-parity.mjs; #119, a duplicate of #122; and #105, which is open and unresolved — its LoadingPanel half is still unverified. This resolution mirrors main on #85 and #119, which were dispositionable, and keeps #105, which was not. #105 survived only because this resolution was done row by row and then diffed with column padding normalised away. Taking either side wholesale would have lost it silently, which is what AGENTS.md forbids for this file and what appears to have happened upstream. Filed as #148: check:outstanding-issues validates duplicate ids, ids in both tables, stale markers and malformed rows, but never compares against the previous revision, so a row that simply disappears is invisible to it in verify:cheap and static-pr alike. The fix is a deletion check against the merge base, not a union merge driver — #133 removed that driver deliberately and reinstating it would bring back the duplicate-row damage it was removed to stop. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01361jh3eYVjJCzXWjAhdZiF
Resolves the docs/outstanding-issues.md conflict against #1441 and #1470. That file deliberately carries no merge driver (#133), so overlapping edits conflict loudly rather than being silently concatenated. Resolved by the prescribed recipe: rebuilt the file from origin/main and re-applied only this branch's own change (the #86 row's "Hydration SHIPPED (#101)" edit). Verified the result has an identical row count and an identical id set to origin/main, so #1470's closures were preserved and nothing was dropped; the only content delta against main is that one row. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01GGEBHp4Seoh1jK1vGTNtYS
Summary
MAX_UPLOAD_MBbuild argument to the checker-onlyUPLOAD_LIMIT_PARITY_SERVER_MB, then removeMAX_UPLOAD_MBfrom the Next build process so application env validation never mistakes an empty build argument for a runtime value.RAG impact: no retrieval behaviour change — build configuration, tests, and documentation only.
Verification
MAX_UPLOAD_MB=150/NEXT_PUBLIC_MAX_UPLOAD_MB=150parity passed.tests/ci-cache-safety.test.ts— 13/13 passed after current-main sync.git diff --checkpassed.Review and risk
3f7c89f5e2660ec1505719ab3208013e873dc79e; current head adds only that append-only record.