Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
🧪 [테스트 개선] parse_external_head_update_reason 함수 테스트 추가 - #127
Closed
seonghobae wants to merge 14 commits into
Closed
Conversation
👋 Jules, reporting for duty! I'm here to lend a hand with this pull request. When you start a review, I'll add a 👀 emoji to each comment to let you know I've read it. I'll focus on feedback directed at me and will do my best to stay out of conversations between you and other bots or reviewers to keep the noise down. I'll push a commit with your requested changes shortly after. Please note there might be a delay between these steps, but rest assured I'm on the job! For more direct control, you can switch me to Reactive Mode. When this mode is on, I will only act on comments where you specifically mention me with New to Jules? Learn more at jules.google/docs. For security, I will only act on instructions from the user who triggered this task. |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
OpenCode reviewed the current-head mergeability evidence and changed-file flow before approval, then found merge conflicts on the affected path.
Findings
1. HIGH Merge Conflict Guidance - Resolve the PR branch against the latest base branch
- Problem: GitHub reports mergeStateStatus
DIRTYfor this pull request. - Root cause: Branch
test-parse-external-head-update-reason-7167455868434156004cannot be merged cleanly intomain; the changed-file flow below shows which review/runtime path is blocked by the conflict. - Fix: Merge or rebase the latest
mainintotest-parse-external-head-update-reason-7167455868434156004, resolve conflict markers in the PR branch, rerun the focused checks, and push the same branch. - Repair commands:
gh pr checkout 127 --repo ContextualWisdomLab/.github
git fetch origin main
git merge --no-ff origin/main # or: git rebase origin/main
git status --short
# resolve files, then git add <resolved-files># merge path: git commit# rebase path: git rebase --continue
git push origin HEAD:test-parse-external-head-update-reason-7167455868434156004
# rebase path only: git push --force-with-lease origin HEAD:test-parse-external-head-update-reason-7167455868434156004- Regression test: Keep OpenCode approval gated on mergeability so model-output failures cannot approve a conflicted PR.
Change Flow DAG
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Test: test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py"]
S1 --> I1["regression suite"]
I1 --> Conflict["Merge conflict blocks this path"]
Conflict --> V1["targeted test run"]
- Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
- Reason: mergeStateStatus is
DIRTY; mergeable isCONFLICTING. - Head SHA:
33d6d604c250aa87ce71438dff4c392495470c4c - Workflow run: 28358989823
- Workflow attempt: 1
Contributor
OpenCode Review Overview
Pull request overviewOpenCode reviewed the current-head mergeability evidence and changed-file flow before approval, then found merge conflicts on the affected path. Findings1. HIGH Merge Conflict Guidance - Resolve the PR branch against the latest base branch
gh pr checkout 127 --repo ContextualWisdomLab/.github
git fetch origin main
git merge --no-ff origin/main # or: git rebase origin/main
git status --short
# resolve files, then git add <resolved-files># merge path: git commit# rebase path: git rebase --continue
git push origin HEAD:test-parse-external-head-update-reason-7167455868434156004
# rebase path only: git push --force-with-lease origin HEAD:test-parse-external-head-update-reason-7167455868434156004
Merge Conflict Evidence Mapflowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
I1 --> Conflict["Merge conflict blocks this path"]
Conflict --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Test (2 files)"]
S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
I2 --> Conflict["Merge conflict blocks this path"]
Conflict --> V2["targeted test run"]
Changed-File Evidence Mapflowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
I1 --> Conflict["Merge conflict blocks this path"]
Conflict --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Test (2 files)"]
S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
I2 --> Conflict["Merge conflict blocks this path"]
Conflict --> V2["targeted test run"]
Merge Conflict Guidance
gh pr checkout 127 --repo ContextualWisdomLab/.github
git fetch origin main
git merge --no-ff origin/main # or: git rebase origin/main
git status --short
# resolve files, then git add <resolved-files># merge path: git commit# rebase path: git rebase --continue
git push origin HEAD:test-parse-external-head-update-reason-7167455868434156004
# rebase path only: git push --force-with-lease origin HEAD:test-parse-external-head-update-reason-7167455868434156004 |
seonghobae
commented
Jul 1, 2026
ContributorAuthor
@copilot resolve the merge conflicts in this pull request |
…reason-7167455868434156004' into test-parse-external-head-update-reason-7167455868434156004
Contributor
머지 충돌 해결 완료했습니다. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
This PR improves test coverage for parse_external_head_update_reason in scripts/ci/pr_review_merge_scheduler.py by adding missing test cases to the existing scheduler test suite.
Changes:
- Adds a new test covering successful extraction of external head repo identifiers from update guidance strings.
- Adds negative tests for non-matching input and the “empty repo name” edge case.
💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.
seonghobae
commented
Jul 1, 2026
ContributorAuthor
@copilot 훨씬 많은 시간을 들여서 훨씬 많은 재시도와 exponential sleep을 추가해서라도 반드시 성공시켜라. |
…ability - OPENCODE_MODEL_ATTEMPTS: 1 → 5 (more attempts per model) - OPENCODE_RUN_TIMEOUT_SECONDS: 240 → 300 (5 min per attempt) - OPENCODE_TOTAL_RETRY_BUDGET_SECONDS: 360 → 3600 (6 min → 1 hour) - OPENCODE_BACKOFF_INITIAL_SECONDS: 30 → 60 (longer initial wait) - OPENCODE_BACKOFF_MAX_SECONDS: 30 → 600 (real exponential growth up to 10 min) - timeout-minutes: 20 → 70 (accommodate the larger retry budget)"
Contributor
이전에는 |
seonghobae
commented
Jul 1, 2026
ContributorAuthor
@copilot 큰 레포지터리는 다섯 시간도 걸리더라. |
Contributor
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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
successwith required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking
needs.coverage-evidence.result == successbefore 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 headfe42f98dc238ad363efcd274bd538a4fa960d5bd.Head SHA:
fe42f98dc238ad363efcd274bd538a4fa960d5bdWorkflow run: 28518708879
Workflow attempt: 2
Coverage evidence
Coverage Evidence
- Head SHA:
fe42f98dc238ad363efcd274bd538a4fa960d5bd - Required test evidence: supported repository test suites must pass.
- Required docstring evidence: repository-owned docstring gates must pass when configured; otherwise docstring coverage is advisory.
Python project dependencies (.)
Using CPython 3.12.3 interpreter at: /usr/bin/python3
Creating virtual environment at: .venv
Resolved 17 packages in 118ms
Downloading pygments (1.2MiB)
Downloaded pygments
Prepared 13 packages in 111ms
Installed 13 packages in 11ms
+ attrs==26.1.0
+ click==8.4.2
+ colorama==0.4.6
+ coverage==7.14.3
+ iniconfig==2.3.0
+ interrogate==1.7.0
+ packaging==26.2
+ pluggy==1.6.0
+ py==1.11.0
+ pygments==2.20.0
+ pytest==9.1.1
+ pytest-cov==7.1.0
+ tabulate==0.10.0
- Result: PASS
Python coverage with missing-line report (.)
============================= test session starts ==============================
platform linux -- Python 3.12.3, pytest-9.1.1, pluggy-1.6.0
rootdir: /home/runner/work/.github/.github/pr-head
configfile: pyproject.toml
plugins: cov-7.1.0
collected 160 items
tests/test_assert_opencode_reasoning_effort.py ....... [ 4%]
tests/test_noema_review_gate.py .......... [ 10%]
tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py ...F....... [ 17%]
tests/test_opencode_review_normalize_output.py ......................... [ 33%]
[ 33%]
tests/test_opencode_workflow_shell_syntax.py . [ 33%]
tests/test_pr_governance_audit_contract.py .. [ 35%]
tests/test_pr_review_fix_scheduler.py ................... [ 46%]
tests/test_pr_review_fix_scheduler_coverage.py .. [ 48%]
tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py ................................ [ 68%]
.............................. [ 86%]
tests/test_render_opencode_prompt_template.py .... [ 89%]
tests/test_review_execution_contracts.py .. [ 90%]
tests/test_sandboxed_verify.py ......... [ 96%]
tests/test_sandboxed_web_e2e.py ...... [100%]
=================================== FAILURES ===================================
___________ test_workflow_provisions_sandbox_tool_and_reviewer_agent ___________
def test_workflow_provisions_sandbox_tool_and_reviewer_agent():
"""Guard the runtime OpenCode workspace, not only repo-local config."""
workflow = Path(".github/workflows/opencode-review.yml").read_text(
encoding="utf-8"
)
assert "code-reviewer-prompt.md" in workflow
assert "sandboxed_verify.py" in workflow
assert "sandboxed_web_e2e.py" in workflow
assert "review_execution_contracts.py" in workflow
assert "SANDBOXED_VERIFY_RESULT" in workflow
assert "SANDBOXED_WEB_E2E_RESULT" in workflow
assert "Docker Compose, devcontainer, Nix, or temporary package-install sandbox" in workflow
assert "scientific, statistical, simulation" in workflow
assert "skewed true" in workflow
assert "object naming" in workflow
assert "connected code paths, rendering paths" in workflow
assert "CHECK_LOOKUP_GH_TOKEN" in workflow
assert "retrying with workflow github token" in workflow
assert 'review_write_token="$GH_TOKEN"' in workflow
assert 'review_write_token="$OPENCODE_APP_TOKEN"' in workflow
assert 'review_write_token="$CHECK_LOOKUP_GH_TOKEN"' in workflow
assert 'review_write_token="${OPENCODE_APP_TOKEN:-$GH_TOKEN}"' not in workflow
assert "Review execution contracts" in workflow
assert "Accessibility/i18n:" in workflow
assert "Supply-chain/license:" in workflow
assert "Packaging:" in workflow
assert 'gsub("`"; "\'")' not in workflow
assert 'gsub("`"; "'")' in workflow
assert '"code-reviewer"' in workflow
assert workflow.count('"reasoningEffort": "high"') >= 10
assert '"task": "allow"' in workflow
assert 'cat >"$prompt_file" <<EOF' not in workflow
assert 'cat >"$prompt_file" <<\'EOF\'' not in workflow
assert "Run OpenCode PR Review model pool" in workflow
assert "opencode_review_model_pool" in workflow
assert "run_opencode_review_model_pool.sh" in workflow
assert "OPENCODE_MODEL_CANDIDATES" in workflow
model_pool_runner = Path("scripts/ci/run_opencode_review_model_pool.sh").read_text(encoding="utf-8")
assert "assert_reasoning_effort_for_candidate" in model_pool_runner
assert "assert_opencode_reasoning_effort.py" in model_pool_runner
assert "--config opencode.jsonc" in model_pool_runner
reasoning_effort_guard = Path("scripts/ci/assert_opencode_reasoning_effort.py").read_text(encoding="utf-8")
assert 'options.reasoningEffort=high' in reasoning_effort_guard
assert 'variants.high.reasoningEffort=high' in reasoning_effort_guard
assert "deepseek/deepseek-r1" in reasoning_effort_guard
assert "--config \"$OPENCODE_REVIEW_WORKDIR/opencode.jsonc\"" in workflow
assert 'timeout --kill-after=15s "${export_timeout_seconds}s" opencode export' in model_pool_runner
assert "session export did not complete within %ss" in model_pool_runner
assert "Read and follow the complete review contract" in model_pool_runner
assert "compact launcher as a reduced review policy" in model_pool_runner
assert "is_context_overflow_failure" in model_pool_runner
assert "tokens_limit_reached" in model_pool_runner
assert "skipping remaining attempts for this model" in model_pool_runner
assert "approve_low_risk_review_fallback_after_model_exhaustion" not in workflow
assert "changed_file_is_low_risk_review_fallback" not in workflow
assert "production source 또는 package manifest 변경이 없습니다" not in workflow
assert "request_changes_for_coverage_evidence_failure" in workflow
assert '"## Review outcome"' in workflow
assert '"## Check outcome"' not in workflow
assert "publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states" in workflow
assert 'timeout-minutes: 75' in workflow
> assert re.search(r"Run OpenCode PR Review model pool[\s\S]{0,240}timeout-minutes: 20", workflow)
E assert None
E + where None = <function search at 0x7f87b5490220>('Run OpenCode PR Review model pool[\\s\\S]{0,240}timeout-minutes: 20', 'name: Required OpenCode Review\n\non:\n pull_request_target:\n types: [opened, synchronize, reopened, ready_for_r... The scheduled and PR-event scheduler paths remain authoritative.\\n\' "$GH_REPOSITORY" "$base_branch"\n fi\n')
E + where <function search at 0x7f87b5490220> = re.search
tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py:214: AssertionError
=============================== warnings summary ===============================
tests/test_assert_opencode_reasoning_effort.py::test_module_entrypoint_success
<frozen runpy>:128: RuntimeWarning: 'scripts.ci.assert_opencode_reasoning_effort' found in sys.modules after import of package 'scripts.ci', but prior to execution of 'scripts.ci.assert_opencode_reasoning_effort'; this may result in unpredictable behaviour
tests/test_render_opencode_prompt_template.py::test_module_entrypoint
<frozen runpy>:128: RuntimeWarning: 'scripts.ci.render_opencode_prompt_template' found in sys.modules after import of package 'scripts.ci', but prior to execution of 'scripts.ci.render_opencode_prompt_template'; this may result in unpredictable behaviour
tests/test_review_execution_contracts.py::test_discovers_package_managers_java_r_json_and_main
<frozen runpy>:128: RuntimeWarning: 'scripts.ci.review_execution_contracts' found in sys.modules after import of package 'scripts.ci', but prior to execution of 'scripts.ci.review_execution_contracts'; this may result in unpredictable behaviour
tests/test_sandboxed_verify.py::test_module_main_entrypoint
<frozen runpy>:128: RuntimeWarning: 'scripts.ci.sandboxed_verify' found in sys.modules after import of package 'scripts.ci', but prior to execution of 'scripts.ci.sandboxed_verify'; this may result in unpredictable behaviour
tests/test_sandboxed_web_e2e.py::test_module_import_and_main_entrypoint
<frozen runpy>:128: RuntimeWarning: 'scripts.ci.sandboxed_web_e2e' found in sys.modules after import of package 'scripts.ci', but prior to execution of 'scripts.ci.sandboxed_web_e2e'; this may result in unpredictable behaviour
-- Docs: https://docs.pytest.org/en/stable/how-to/capture-warnings.html
=========================== short test summary info ============================
FAILED tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py::test_workflow_provisions_sandbox_tool_and_reviewer_agent - assert None
+ where None = <function search at 0x7f87b5490220>('Run OpenCode PR Review model pool[\\s\\S]{0,240}timeout-minutes: 20', 'name: Required OpenCode Review\n\non:\n pull_request_target:\n types: [opened, synchronize, reopened, ready_for_r... The scheduled and PR-event scheduler paths remain authoritative.\\n\' "$GH_REPOSITORY" "$base_branch"\n fi\n')
+ where <function search at 0x7f87b5490220> = re.search
================== 1 failed, 159 passed, 5 warnings in 5.62s ===================
- Result: FAIL (exit 1)
Python docstring coverage advisory
RESULT: PASSED (minimum: 100.0%, actual: 100.0%)
- Result: PASS
Coverage Decision
- Result: FAIL
- Test evidence: not proven passing
- Docstring evidence: not proven passing when configured
- Failure count: 1
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Test: test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py"]
S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test: test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py"]
R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]
seonghobae
commented
Jul 1, 2026
ContributorAuthor
@copilot 해결합시다. |
요청하신 대로 훨씬 더 많은 시간을 할애하여 OpenCode 리뷰 과정에서 재시도 횟수와 대기 시간을 획기적으로 늘렸습니다. 관련된 워크플로우 설정( |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
OpenCode exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed review can establish approval sufficiency or identify concrete fixes.
Findings
1. HIGH review evidence:1 - OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency
- Problem: every configured model path failed to produce a usable current-head control block.
- Root cause: model execution, timeout, export, normalization, or approval-gate validation did not complete after exponential retry across the configured model pool.
- Impact: approving from deterministic check state alone would miss PR-intent mismatches, missing files, edge-case bugs, robustness gaps, UX/DX regressions, security issues, and CodeGraph-backed base/head flow changes.
- Fix: rerun OpenCode after model availability recovers, or update the PR with the missing files, tests, docs, generated artifacts, and verification evidence needed for a source-backed review conclusion.
- Regression test: keep the approval gate posting REQUEST_CHANGES, not APPROVE or check-only failure, when no model produces a valid current-head review.
Summary
- Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
- Reason: coverage-evidence passed and peer GitHub Checks completed without failures, but no model produced a valid review control block.
- Deterministic evidence checked but not used for approval: current-head changed-file evidence (.github/workflows/opencode-review.yml, tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py, tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
- Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
- Head SHA:
da6a01b0d7e144d2d04ef6cf4eadacaf4abc7f52 - Workflow run: 28520852336
- Workflow attempt: 1
No PR approval was posted because model-output failure is not evidence that the PR has no blockers.
Inline comment note: OpenCode could not find an added RIGHT-side diff line for this PR, so the model-exhaustion blocker is attached to the PR review body instead of a file line.
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Test (2 files)"]
S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test (2 files)"]
R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
OpenCode exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed review can establish approval sufficiency or identify concrete fixes.
Findings
1. HIGH review evidence:1 - OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency
- Problem: every configured model path failed to produce a usable current-head control block.
- Root cause: model execution, timeout, export, normalization, or approval-gate validation did not complete after exponential retry across the configured model pool.
- Impact: approving from deterministic check state alone would miss PR-intent mismatches, missing files, edge-case bugs, robustness gaps, UX/DX regressions, security issues, and CodeGraph-backed base/head flow changes.
- Fix: rerun OpenCode after model availability recovers, or update the PR with the missing files, tests, docs, generated artifacts, and verification evidence needed for a source-backed review conclusion.
- Regression test: keep the approval gate posting REQUEST_CHANGES, not APPROVE or check-only failure, when no model produces a valid current-head review.
Summary
- Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
- Reason: coverage-evidence passed and peer GitHub Checks completed without failures, but no model produced a valid review control block.
- Deterministic evidence checked but not used for approval: current-head changed-file evidence (.github/workflows/opencode-review.yml, tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py, tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
- Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
- Head SHA:
da6a01b0d7e144d2d04ef6cf4eadacaf4abc7f52 - Workflow run: 28520852336
- Workflow attempt: 2
No PR approval was posted because model-output failure is not evidence that the PR has no blockers.
Inline comment note: OpenCode could not find an added RIGHT-side diff line for this PR, so the model-exhaustion blocker is attached to the PR review body instead of a file line.
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Test (2 files)"]
S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test (2 files)"]
R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
OpenCode exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed review can establish approval sufficiency or identify concrete fixes.
Findings
1. HIGH review evidence:1 - OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency
- Problem: every configured model path failed to produce a usable current-head control block.
- Root cause: model execution, timeout, export, normalization, or approval-gate validation did not complete after exponential retry across the configured model pool.
- Impact: approving from deterministic check state alone would miss PR-intent mismatches, missing files, edge-case bugs, robustness gaps, UX/DX regressions, security issues, and CodeGraph-backed base/head flow changes.
- Fix: rerun OpenCode after model availability recovers, or update the PR with the missing files, tests, docs, generated artifacts, and verification evidence needed for a source-backed review conclusion.
- Regression test: keep the approval gate posting REQUEST_CHANGES, not APPROVE or check-only failure, when no model produces a valid current-head review.
Summary
- Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
- Reason: coverage-evidence passed and peer GitHub Checks completed without failures, but no model produced a valid review control block.
- Deterministic evidence checked but not used for approval: current-head changed-file evidence (.github/workflows/opencode-review.yml, tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py, tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
- Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
- Head SHA:
da6a01b0d7e144d2d04ef6cf4eadacaf4abc7f52 - Workflow run: 28520852336
- Workflow attempt: 3
No PR approval was posted because model-output failure is not evidence that the PR has no blockers.
Inline comment note: OpenCode could not find an added RIGHT-side diff line for this PR, so the model-exhaustion blocker is attached to the PR review body instead of a file line.
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Test (2 files)"]
S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test (2 files)"]
R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
OpenCode exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed review can establish approval sufficiency or identify concrete fixes.
Findings
1. HIGH review evidence:1 - OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency
- Problem: every configured model path failed to produce a usable current-head control block.
- Root cause: model execution, timeout, export, normalization, or approval-gate validation did not complete after exponential retry across the configured model pool.
- Impact: approving from deterministic check state alone would miss PR-intent mismatches, missing files, edge-case bugs, robustness gaps, UX/DX regressions, security issues, and CodeGraph-backed base/head flow changes.
- Fix: rerun OpenCode after model availability recovers, or update the PR with the missing files, tests, docs, generated artifacts, and verification evidence needed for a source-backed review conclusion.
- Regression test: keep the approval gate posting REQUEST_CHANGES, not APPROVE or check-only failure, when no model produces a valid current-head review.
Summary
- Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
- Reason: coverage-evidence passed and peer GitHub Checks completed without failures, but no model produced a valid review control block.
- Deterministic evidence checked but not used for approval: current-head changed-file evidence (.github/workflows/opencode-review.yml, tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py, tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
- Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
- Head SHA:
da6a01b0d7e144d2d04ef6cf4eadacaf4abc7f52 - Workflow run: 28520852336
- Workflow attempt: 4
No PR approval was posted because model-output failure is not evidence that the PR has no blockers.
Inline comment note: OpenCode could not find an added RIGHT-side diff line for this PR, so the model-exhaustion blocker is attached to the PR review body instead of a file line.
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Test (2 files)"]
S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test (2 files)"]
R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
OpenCode exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed review can establish approval sufficiency or identify concrete fixes.
Findings
1. HIGH review evidence:1 - OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency
- Problem: every configured model path failed to produce a usable current-head control block.
- Root cause: model execution, timeout, export, normalization, or approval-gate validation did not complete after exponential retry across the configured model pool.
- Impact: approving from deterministic check state alone would miss PR-intent mismatches, missing files, edge-case bugs, robustness gaps, UX/DX regressions, security issues, and CodeGraph-backed base/head flow changes.
- Fix: rerun OpenCode after model availability recovers, or update the PR with the missing files, tests, docs, generated artifacts, and verification evidence needed for a source-backed review conclusion.
- Regression test: keep the approval gate posting REQUEST_CHANGES, not APPROVE or check-only failure, when no model produces a valid current-head review.
Summary
- Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
- Reason: coverage-evidence passed and peer GitHub Checks completed without failures, but no model produced a valid review control block.
- Deterministic evidence checked but not used for approval: current-head changed-file evidence (.github/workflows/opencode-review.yml, tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py, tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
- Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
- Head SHA:
d9a5810d941243906399c51a1576d84c1fab06b2 - Workflow run: 28550746369
- Workflow attempt: 3
No PR approval was posted because model-output failure is not evidence that the PR has no blockers.
Inline comment note: OpenCode could not find an added RIGHT-side diff line for this PR, so the model-exhaustion blocker is attached to the PR review body instead of a file line.
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Test (2 files)"]
S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test (2 files)"]
R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
OpenCode exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed review can establish approval sufficiency or identify concrete fixes.
Findings
1. HIGH review evidence:1 - OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency
- Problem: every configured model path failed to produce a usable current-head control block.
- Root cause: model execution, timeout, export, normalization, or approval-gate validation did not complete after exponential retry across the configured model pool.
- Impact: approving from deterministic check state alone would miss PR-intent mismatches, missing files, edge-case bugs, robustness gaps, UX/DX regressions, security issues, and CodeGraph-backed base/head flow changes.
- Fix: rerun OpenCode after model availability recovers, or update the PR with the missing files, tests, docs, generated artifacts, and verification evidence needed for a source-backed review conclusion.
- Regression test: keep the approval gate posting REQUEST_CHANGES, not APPROVE or check-only failure, when no model produces a valid current-head review.
Summary
- Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
- Reason: coverage-evidence passed and peer GitHub Checks completed without failures, but no model produced a valid review control block.
- Deterministic evidence checked but not used for approval: current-head changed-file evidence (.github/workflows/opencode-review.yml, tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py, tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
- Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
- Head SHA:
61804825100041b3623f12ee092618e08f035cb7 - Workflow run: 28557598164
- Workflow attempt: 2
No PR approval was posted because model-output failure is not evidence that the PR has no blockers.
Inline comment note: OpenCode could not find an added RIGHT-side diff line for this PR, so the model-exhaustion blocker is attached to the PR review body instead of a file line.
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Test (2 files)"]
S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test (2 files)"]
R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
OpenCode reviewed the current-head mergeability evidence and changed-file flow before approval, then found merge conflicts on the affected path.
Findings
1. HIGH Merge Conflict Guidance - Resolve the PR branch against the latest base branch
- Problem: GitHub reports mergeStateStatus
DIRTYfor this pull request. - Root cause: Branch
test-parse-external-head-update-reason-7167455868434156004cannot be merged cleanly intomain; the changed-file flow below shows which review/runtime path is blocked by the conflict. - Fix: Merge or rebase the latest
mainintotest-parse-external-head-update-reason-7167455868434156004, resolve conflict markers in the PR branch, rerun the focused checks, and push the same branch. - Repair commands:
gh pr checkout 127 --repo ContextualWisdomLab/.github
git fetch origin main
git merge --no-ff origin/main # or: git rebase origin/main
git status --short
# resolve files, then git add <resolved-files># merge path: git commit# rebase path: git rebase --continue
git push origin HEAD:test-parse-external-head-update-reason-7167455868434156004
# rebase path only: git push --force-with-lease origin HEAD:test-parse-external-head-update-reason-7167455868434156004- Regression test: Keep OpenCode approval gated on mergeability so model-output failures cannot approve a conflicted PR.
Merge Conflict Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
I1 --> Conflict["Merge conflict blocks this path"]
Conflict --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Test (2 files)"]
S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
I2 --> Conflict["Merge conflict blocks this path"]
Conflict --> V2["targeted test run"]
- Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
- Reason: mergeStateStatus is
DIRTY; mergeable isCONFLICTING. - Head SHA:
68f1ec9675628c86055ab28140fdf4789a8de805 - Workflow run: 28564578660
- Workflow attempt: 1
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
I1 --> Conflict["Merge conflict blocks this path"]
Conflict --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Test (2 files)"]
S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
I2 --> Conflict["Merge conflict blocks this path"]
Conflict --> V2["targeted test run"]
seonghobae
commented
Jul 7, 2026
ContributorAuthor
Closing during org-wide PR backlog reduction. This looks like a low-priority automated maintenance PR ( |
Understood. Acknowledging that this work is now obsolete and stopping work on this task. |
opencode-agentBot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 11, 2026
![pr-auto-rebase[bot]](https://github.laxmiang.work.gd/r/github.githubassets.com/images/gravatars/gravatar-user-420.png){kind=avatar}
Event-driven scheduler runs in target repositories stop retrying once their triggering event is consumed, so a PR that becomes mergeable AFTER its last event (approval published after the scheduler pass, merge-preview checks landing late, a temporary base-branch policy blocker clearing) has no later trigger and accumulates as approved-but-unmerged. Live evidence: bandscope #600/#604/#606/#627, html4tree #139-#148, clearfolio #136-#141, codec-carver #226-#232, appguardrail #278-#283, keyverse #10/#14, gyeot #9/#10, aFIPC #127/#128, nonnest2 #42/#44/#45, naruon #1034. Add an org-queue-sweep job to the central scheduler workflow: - runs hourly (cron 17 * * * *) only in ContextualWisdomLab/.github, or on workflow_dispatch with org_sweep=true; the single-repository scan skips those triggers so nothing double-runs - re-runs the trusted scheduler script against every non-archived org repository through the same guarded merge/update/review contract - requires a cross-repository mutation credential (PR_REVIEW_MERGE_TOKEN, OPENCODE_APPROVE_TOKEN, or the exchanged OpenCode app token) and fails with a visible ::error reason instead of silently no-opping on the repository-scoped github.token - prints each repository's per-PR decision log so every unmerged PR has a concrete logged reason at most one hour old - queue hygiene: cancels workflow runs still queued after ORG_SWEEP_STALE_QUEUE_HOURS (default 24h), logging run id, workflow, head branch, and age, so the Actions queue only holds current-head work Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018Fxd76REwJfmQcXCJjLi6Z
opencode-agentBot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 11, 2026
…iewer PAT fallback (#451) * feat(scheduler): hourly org-wide approved-PR queue sweep Event-driven scheduler runs in target repositories stop retrying once their triggering event is consumed, so a PR that becomes mergeable AFTER its last event (approval published after the scheduler pass, merge-preview checks landing late, a temporary base-branch policy blocker clearing) has no later trigger and accumulates as approved-but-unmerged. Live evidence: bandscope #600/#604/#606/#627, html4tree #139-#148, clearfolio #136-#141, codec-carver #226-#232, appguardrail #278-#283, keyverse #10/#14, gyeot #9/#10, aFIPC #127/#128, nonnest2 #42/#44/#45, naruon #1034. Add an org-queue-sweep job to the central scheduler workflow: - runs hourly (cron 17 * * * *) only in ContextualWisdomLab/.github, or on workflow_dispatch with org_sweep=true; the single-repository scan skips those triggers so nothing double-runs - re-runs the trusted scheduler script against every non-archived org repository through the same guarded merge/update/review contract - requires a cross-repository mutation credential (PR_REVIEW_MERGE_TOKEN, OPENCODE_APPROVE_TOKEN, or the exchanged OpenCode app token) and fails with a visible ::error reason instead of silently no-opping on the repository-scoped github.token - prints each repository's per-PR decision log so every unmerged PR has a concrete logged reason at most one hour old - queue hygiene: cancels workflow runs still queued after ORG_SWEEP_STALE_QUEUE_HOURS (default 24h), logging run id, workflow, head branch, and age, so the Actions queue only holds current-head work Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018Fxd76REwJfmQcXCJjLi6Z * feat(noema-review): NOEMA_REVIEW_TOKEN PAT fallback for the second reviewer The two-reviewer merge rule needs a second approving-review identity beyond OpenCode. Today it only works if the Noema Worker is deployed and NOEMA_TOKEN_EXCHANGE_URL is set, so no PR gets a second review and .github's classic 2-review protection blocks every .github PR. Add a NOEMA_REVIEW_TOKEN secret fallback: when present it is used directly as the reviewer identity and the OIDC app-token exchange is skipped; the review step prefers it over the exchanged app token. The secret is never emitted as a step output. When neither the secret nor the exchange URL is configured, the step still emits the unconfigured notice and skips (green-by-skip), not a failure. noema_review_gate.py already refuses to review as a primary review actor, so the fallback cannot manufacture a fake second review from the github-actions/opencode identity. Pairs with the noema PydanticAI reviewer agent (ContextualWisdomLab/noema#9) that produces the verdict this identity publishes. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018Fxd76REwJfmQcXCJjLi6Z --------- Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
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 freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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:
scripts/ci/pr_review_merge_scheduler.py파일의parse_external_head_update_reason함수에 대한 테스트 누락 부분 개선.📊 Coverage: 성공적인 추출, 잘못된 입력 (매칭 안됨), 빈 레포지토리 이름이 주어지는 엣지 케이스들을 테스트 커버.
✨ Result: 해당 함수는 이제 100% 테스트 커버리지를 가짐.
PR created automatically by Jules for task 7167455868434156004 started by @seonghobae