docs(i18n): name the measurement-widening race in check-i18n-coverage's header - #14799

Merged
baozhoutao merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
claude/issue-14729-i18n-coverage-ratchet-race-header
Sep 3, 2026
Merged

docs(i18n): name the measurement-widening race in check-i18n-coverage's header#14799
baozhoutao merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
claude/issue-14729-i18n-coverage-ratchet-race-header

Conversation

@claude

@claudeclaudeBot commented Sep 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Fixes#14729

What changed

scripts/check-i18n-coverage.mjs only, two additions, adopted as filed by
triage (comment 5518536856) — no baseline split, no dropped DOWN direction,
no computed number.

1. One sentence on the DOWN-direction remedy (was :1340-1341)

Before:

${file}: untranslated declared strings improved ${allowed} → ${now} — ratchet DOWN: run `node scripts/check-i18n-coverage.mjs --update` and commit the baseline.

After:

${file}: untranslated declared strings improved ${allowed} → ${now} — ratchet DOWN: run `node scripts/check-i18n-coverage.mjs --update` and commit the baseline. If you did not touch this population, merge `origin/main` first — the movement is probably not yours.

2. One header paragraph naming the class generally

Appended at the end of the file's header (which already opens with the #3370
narrative), stating the property in general form — not i18n-specific — plus
the campaign observation (the two collisions were not independent draws) and
the forward-looking exposure as of 224f8ea: app-showcase 0 untranslated
rule messages remaining (that leg is finished); app-crm 5, app-todo 4;
bulkActions 18 and datasets 62 nobody is currently working — any of those
starting to move will race this gate the same way.

Diff

$ git diff --stat origin/main
scripts/check-i18n-coverage.mjs | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

One file, comment/string additions only — no logic change, no baseline
movement.

Tests

  • pnpm check:i18n-coverage (self-test + real run) at 674bb4afe8:
    check-i18n-coverage: OK (13 config(s), 691 baselined untranslated string(s), none new).
    — same 691 total as the issue's forward-exposure snapshot; no movement from
    this comment/string-only edit.
  • node scripts/pm/dispatch-gates.mjs --repo objectstack-ai/objectstack --commands scripts/check-i18n-coverage.mjs
    derived 18 runnable gates for this file surface; all 18 ran, 17 green,
    1 NOT MEASURED (check-test-completeness.mjs — its own text: "PREREQUISITE
    NOT MET… no local log… not a red, nothing here to fix").
  • No self-test in this file pins the exact remedy string (grepped), so none
    needed updating.

Excluded (binding, per triage)

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_01WLJQhde67SeTccsmnBVarV


Generated by Claude Code

…'s header
The DOWN-direction remedy read as "your diff improved something" when the
usual cause was "main moved under you" — a PR that widens what this ratchet
measures races every in-flight PR that changes what is measured, invisibly,
because the instrument does not exist on main. Append one sentence to the
remedy pointing the reader at merging main first, and name the class
generally in the file's own header, alongside the campaign observation and
the forward-looking exposure (app-crm, app-todo, bulkActions, datasets).
Fixes#14729
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01WLJQhde67SeTccsmnBVarV
@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

⛔ merge queue 构建失败 — 先分诊,再决定要不要重排

队列构建 33712976158 红了。队列跑的是全量套件(PR 侧 CI 只跑 affected 子集),
所以失败的测试可能在本 PR 没碰过的包里 —— 那不是重排能修的。每次盲目重排都会让排在后面的所有 PR 重建一轮。

失败的 job(日志抽取,best effort):

  • Test Core (1/6) — 失败步骤: Run this shard's tests

    @objectstack/cli:test: FAIL integration test/run-dev-unbuilt-workspace.e2e.test.ts > the mirror direction: a reader that is never coming back > gives up and exits instead of waiting forever
    ↳ 失败原因: @objectstack/cli:test: AssertionError: the harness SIGKILLed the child — it was still alive at the ceiling. cap 180000 ms (RUN_TIMEOUT_MS, constant and load-independent by design); this child ran 1801
    

↳ 失败原因 是判读的关键:超时Test timed out in … / Hook timed out in …)多半是负载/时序,不是本 PR 的回归;
断言AssertionError: …)才指向真实的行为改变。两者的 FAIL 行长得一模一样,只有这一行能区分。

⚠️断言这一侧有一类例外,判据是断言在测什么,不是它是不是 AssertionError 断言的对象是产品行为(一个值、一个形状、一次拒收)⇒ 照上面读:真实的行为改变,去查,⛔ 不要重排掉;
断言的对象是这次实验自身的有效性前提(跑完的耗时、负载下的先后、任何只在时间预算内才成立的条件)⇒ 它跟超时是同一类,同样对负载敏感,重排一次是合法的判别手段。
识别是机械的:断言的消息或它比较的值本身点名了一段时长、一个时间戳、一个耗时计数。实测过的一对 —— AssertionError: SecurityPlugin.init() ran: expected false to be true 测的是产品行为(真回归);
AssertionError: this run took over a second, so second-precision stamps could have differed too: expected 1006 to be less than 1000 测的是实验前提:它守护的那条不变式当时是绿的,同一个 head 原样重排一次即成功。
穿着 AssertionError 外衣的时间测量,仍然是时间测量。(⛔ 这只改「怎么读一次红」,不改「哪些测试可以重排」——后者由别处管。)

跨 PR 相同签名(24h,按失败测试文件聚合):

历史信号:

  • 本 PR 过去 24h 无队列失败记录(首次)。
  • 过去 24h 队列共有 51 个失败构建(不含本次)。

分诊清单:

  1. 失败测试在本 PR 改动的包里 → 真回归,修 PR。
  2. 失败测试与本 PR 无关 → 看上面的「跨 PR 相同签名」;已有汇总 issue ⇒ flaky/环境问题实锤,去那张 issue 上谈,修好前重排只会再烧一轮全队列。
  3. 两者都不是 → 可能与同组 PR 语义冲突;等前面的 PR 落地或失败出队后再重排一次即可,不要连续重排。

Generated by Claude Code · merge-queue-triage workflow (#4859)

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

⛔ merge queue 构建失败 — 先分诊,再决定要不要重排

队列构建 33712949207 红了。队列跑的是全量套件(PR 侧 CI 只跑 affected 子集),
所以失败的测试可能在本 PR 没碰过的包里 —— 那不是重排能修的。每次盲目重排都会让排在后面的所有 PR 重建一轮。

失败的 job(日志抽取,best effort):

  • Test Core (1/6) — 失败步骤: Run this shard's tests

    @objectstack/cli:test: FAIL integration test/run-dev-unbuilt-workspace.e2e.test.ts > the mirror direction: a reader that is never coming back > gives up and exits instead of waiting forever
    ↳ 失败原因: @objectstack/cli:test: AssertionError: the harness SIGKILLed the child — it was still alive at the ceiling. cap 180000 ms (RUN_TIMEOUT_MS, constant and load-independent by design); this child ran 1801
    

↳ 失败原因 是判读的关键:超时Test timed out in … / Hook timed out in …)多半是负载/时序,不是本 PR 的回归;
断言AssertionError: …)才指向真实的行为改变。两者的 FAIL 行长得一模一样,只有这一行能区分。

⚠️断言这一侧有一类例外,判据是断言在测什么,不是它是不是 AssertionError 断言的对象是产品行为(一个值、一个形状、一次拒收)⇒ 照上面读:真实的行为改变,去查,⛔ 不要重排掉;
断言的对象是这次实验自身的有效性前提(跑完的耗时、负载下的先后、任何只在时间预算内才成立的条件)⇒ 它跟超时是同一类,同样对负载敏感,重排一次是合法的判别手段。
识别是机械的:断言的消息或它比较的值本身点名了一段时长、一个时间戳、一个耗时计数。实测过的一对 —— AssertionError: SecurityPlugin.init() ran: expected false to be true 测的是产品行为(真回归);
AssertionError: this run took over a second, so second-precision stamps could have differed too: expected 1006 to be less than 1000 测的是实验前提:它守护的那条不变式当时是绿的,同一个 head 原样重排一次即成功。
穿着 AssertionError 外衣的时间测量,仍然是时间测量。(⛔ 这只改「怎么读一次红」,不改「哪些测试可以重排」——后者由别处管。)

跨 PR 相同签名(24h,按失败测试文件聚合):

历史信号:

  • ⚠️本 PR 过去 24h 已在队列失败 1 次(不含本次)。 内容未变而反复失败 ⇒ 高度怀疑 flaky 测试或与同组 PR 的语义冲突,重排不解决。
  • 过去 24h 队列共有 53 个失败构建(不含本次)。

分诊清单:

  1. 失败测试在本 PR 改动的包里 → 真回归,修 PR。
  2. 失败测试与本 PR 无关 → 看上面的「跨 PR 相同签名」;已有汇总 issue ⇒ flaky/环境问题实锤,去那张 issue 上谈,修好前重排只会再烧一轮全队列。
  3. 两者都不是 → 可能与同组 PR 语义冲突;等前面的 PR 落地或失败出队后再重排一次即可,不要连续重排。

Generated by Claude Code · merge-queue-triage workflow (#4859)

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

⛔ merge queue 构建失败 — 先分诊,再决定要不要重排

队列构建 33714188793 红了。队列跑的是全量套件(PR 侧 CI 只跑 affected 子集),
所以失败的测试可能在本 PR 没碰过的包里 —— 那不是重排能修的。每次盲目重排都会让排在后面的所有 PR 重建一轮。

失败的 job(日志抽取,best effort):

  • Test Core (1/6) — 失败步骤: Run this shard's tests

    @objectstack/cli:test: FAIL integration test/run-dev-unbuilt-workspace.e2e.test.ts > the mirror direction: a reader that is never coming back > gives up and exits instead of waiting forever
    ↳ 失败原因: @objectstack/cli:test: AssertionError: the harness SIGKILLed the child — it was still alive at the ceiling. cap 180000 ms (RUN_TIMEOUT_MS, constant and load-independent by design); this child ran 1801
    

↳ 失败原因 是判读的关键:超时Test timed out in … / Hook timed out in …)多半是负载/时序,不是本 PR 的回归;
断言AssertionError: …)才指向真实的行为改变。两者的 FAIL 行长得一模一样,只有这一行能区分。

⚠️断言这一侧有一类例外,判据是断言在测什么,不是它是不是 AssertionError 断言的对象是产品行为(一个值、一个形状、一次拒收)⇒ 照上面读:真实的行为改变,去查,⛔ 不要重排掉;
断言的对象是这次实验自身的有效性前提(跑完的耗时、负载下的先后、任何只在时间预算内才成立的条件)⇒ 它跟超时是同一类,同样对负载敏感,重排一次是合法的判别手段。
识别是机械的:断言的消息或它比较的值本身点名了一段时长、一个时间戳、一个耗时计数。实测过的一对 —— AssertionError: SecurityPlugin.init() ran: expected false to be true 测的是产品行为(真回归);
AssertionError: this run took over a second, so second-precision stamps could have differed too: expected 1006 to be less than 1000 测的是实验前提:它守护的那条不变式当时是绿的,同一个 head 原样重排一次即成功。
穿着 AssertionError 外衣的时间测量,仍然是时间测量。(⛔ 这只改「怎么读一次红」,不改「哪些测试可以重排」——后者由别处管。)

跨 PR 相同签名(24h,按失败测试文件聚合):

历史信号:

  • ⚠️本 PR 过去 24h 已在队列失败 2 次(不含本次)。 内容未变而反复失败 ⇒ 高度怀疑 flaky 测试或与同组 PR 的语义冲突,重排不解决。
  • 过去 24h 队列共有 59 个失败构建(不含本次)。

分诊清单:

  1. 失败测试在本 PR 改动的包里 → 真回归,修 PR。
  2. 失败测试与本 PR 无关 → 看上面的「跨 PR 相同签名」;已有汇总 issue ⇒ flaky/环境问题实锤,去那张 issue 上谈,修好前重排只会再烧一轮全队列。
  3. 两者都不是 → 可能与同组 PR 语义冲突;等前面的 PR 落地或失败出队后再重排一次即可,不要连续重排。

Generated by Claude Code · merge-queue-triage workflow (#4859)

Merged via the queue into main with commit 13ade4dSep 3, 2026
36 checks passed
@baozhoutao
baozhoutao deleted the claude/issue-14729-i18n-coverage-ratchet-race-header branch September 3, 2026 04:51
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

size/sskip-changesetPR has no user-facing published change; bypasses the changeset gate

Projects

None yet

2 participants

@baozhoutao@claude
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Add copy buttons to all
 blocks\n(function() {\n function addCopyButtons() {\n document.querySelectorAll('pre code').forEach(function(codeBlock) {\n if (codeBlock.parentElement.hasAttribute('data-copy-added')) return;\n codeBlock.parentElement.setAttribute('data-copy-added', 'true');\n \n var btn = document.createElement('button');\n btn.textContent = 'Copy';\n btn.style.cssText = 'position:absolute;top:4px;right:4px;padding:2px 8px;font-size:11px;background:#4ecdc4;border:none;border-radius:4px;color:#1a1a2e;cursor:pointer;opacity:0.7;transition:opacity 0.2s;';\n btn.onmouseover = function() { this.style.opacity = '1'; };\n btn.onmouseout = function() { this.style.opacity = '0.7'; };\n btn.onclick = function() {\n navigator.clipboard.writeText(codeBlock.textContent).then(function() {\n btn.textContent = 'Copied!';\n setTimeout(function() { btn.textContent = 'Copy'; }, 1500);\n });\n };\n codeBlock.parentElement.style.position = 'relative';\n codeBlock.parentElement.appendChild(btn);\n });\n }\n \n addCopyButtons();\n \n // Re-run on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(addCopyButtons);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "github.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "github\\.com" + '
Skip to content

docs(i18n): name the measurement-widening race in check-i18n-coverage's header - #14799

Merged
baozhoutao merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
claude/issue-14729-i18n-coverage-ratchet-race-header
Sep 3, 2026
Merged

docs(i18n): name the measurement-widening race in check-i18n-coverage's header#14799
baozhoutao merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
claude/issue-14729-i18n-coverage-ratchet-race-header

Conversation

@claude

@claudeclaudeBot commented Sep 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Fixes#14729

What changed

scripts/check-i18n-coverage.mjs only, two additions, adopted as filed by
triage (comment 5518536856) — no baseline split, no dropped DOWN direction,
no computed number.

1. One sentence on the DOWN-direction remedy (was :1340-1341)

Before:

${file}: untranslated declared strings improved ${allowed} → ${now} — ratchet DOWN: run `node scripts/check-i18n-coverage.mjs --update` and commit the baseline.

After:

${file}: untranslated declared strings improved ${allowed} → ${now} — ratchet DOWN: run `node scripts/check-i18n-coverage.mjs --update` and commit the baseline. If you did not touch this population, merge `origin/main` first — the movement is probably not yours.

2. One header paragraph naming the class generally

Appended at the end of the file's header (which already opens with the #3370
narrative), stating the property in general form — not i18n-specific — plus
the campaign observation (the two collisions were not independent draws) and
the forward-looking exposure as of 224f8ea: app-showcase 0 untranslated
rule messages remaining (that leg is finished); app-crm 5, app-todo 4;
bulkActions 18 and datasets 62 nobody is currently working — any of those
starting to move will race this gate the same way.

Diff

$ git diff --stat origin/main
scripts/check-i18n-coverage.mjs | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

One file, comment/string additions only — no logic change, no baseline
movement.

Tests

  • pnpm check:i18n-coverage (self-test + real run) at 674bb4afe8:
    check-i18n-coverage: OK (13 config(s), 691 baselined untranslated string(s), none new).
    — same 691 total as the issue's forward-exposure snapshot; no movement from
    this comment/string-only edit.
  • node scripts/pm/dispatch-gates.mjs --repo objectstack-ai/objectstack --commands scripts/check-i18n-coverage.mjs
    derived 18 runnable gates for this file surface; all 18 ran, 17 green,
    1 NOT MEASURED (check-test-completeness.mjs — its own text: "PREREQUISITE
    NOT MET… no local log… not a red, nothing here to fix").
  • No self-test in this file pins the exact remedy string (grepped), so none
    needed updating.

Excluded (binding, per triage)

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_01WLJQhde67SeTccsmnBVarV


Generated by Claude Code

…'s header
The DOWN-direction remedy read as "your diff improved something" when the
usual cause was "main moved under you" — a PR that widens what this ratchet
measures races every in-flight PR that changes what is measured, invisibly,
because the instrument does not exist on main. Append one sentence to the
remedy pointing the reader at merging main first, and name the class
generally in the file's own header, alongside the campaign observation and
the forward-looking exposure (app-crm, app-todo, bulkActions, datasets).
Fixes#14729
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01WLJQhde67SeTccsmnBVarV
@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

⛔ merge queue 构建失败 — 先分诊,再决定要不要重排

队列构建 33712976158 红了。队列跑的是全量套件(PR 侧 CI 只跑 affected 子集),
所以失败的测试可能在本 PR 没碰过的包里 —— 那不是重排能修的。每次盲目重排都会让排在后面的所有 PR 重建一轮。

失败的 job(日志抽取,best effort):

  • Test Core (1/6) — 失败步骤: Run this shard's tests

    @objectstack/cli:test: FAIL integration test/run-dev-unbuilt-workspace.e2e.test.ts > the mirror direction: a reader that is never coming back > gives up and exits instead of waiting forever
    ↳ 失败原因: @objectstack/cli:test: AssertionError: the harness SIGKILLed the child — it was still alive at the ceiling. cap 180000 ms (RUN_TIMEOUT_MS, constant and load-independent by design); this child ran 1801
    

↳ 失败原因 是判读的关键:超时Test timed out in … / Hook timed out in …)多半是负载/时序,不是本 PR 的回归;
断言AssertionError: …)才指向真实的行为改变。两者的 FAIL 行长得一模一样,只有这一行能区分。

⚠️断言这一侧有一类例外,判据是断言在测什么,不是它是不是 AssertionError 断言的对象是产品行为(一个值、一个形状、一次拒收)⇒ 照上面读:真实的行为改变,去查,⛔ 不要重排掉;
断言的对象是这次实验自身的有效性前提(跑完的耗时、负载下的先后、任何只在时间预算内才成立的条件)⇒ 它跟超时是同一类,同样对负载敏感,重排一次是合法的判别手段。
识别是机械的:断言的消息或它比较的值本身点名了一段时长、一个时间戳、一个耗时计数。实测过的一对 —— AssertionError: SecurityPlugin.init() ran: expected false to be true 测的是产品行为(真回归);
AssertionError: this run took over a second, so second-precision stamps could have differed too: expected 1006 to be less than 1000 测的是实验前提:它守护的那条不变式当时是绿的,同一个 head 原样重排一次即成功。
穿着 AssertionError 外衣的时间测量,仍然是时间测量。(⛔ 这只改「怎么读一次红」,不改「哪些测试可以重排」——后者由别处管。)

跨 PR 相同签名(24h,按失败测试文件聚合):

历史信号:

  • 本 PR 过去 24h 无队列失败记录(首次)。
  • 过去 24h 队列共有 51 个失败构建(不含本次)。

分诊清单:

  1. 失败测试在本 PR 改动的包里 → 真回归,修 PR。
  2. 失败测试与本 PR 无关 → 看上面的「跨 PR 相同签名」;已有汇总 issue ⇒ flaky/环境问题实锤,去那张 issue 上谈,修好前重排只会再烧一轮全队列。
  3. 两者都不是 → 可能与同组 PR 语义冲突;等前面的 PR 落地或失败出队后再重排一次即可,不要连续重排。

Generated by Claude Code · merge-queue-triage workflow (#4859)

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

⛔ merge queue 构建失败 — 先分诊,再决定要不要重排

队列构建 33712949207 红了。队列跑的是全量套件(PR 侧 CI 只跑 affected 子集),
所以失败的测试可能在本 PR 没碰过的包里 —— 那不是重排能修的。每次盲目重排都会让排在后面的所有 PR 重建一轮。

失败的 job(日志抽取,best effort):

  • Test Core (1/6) — 失败步骤: Run this shard's tests

    @objectstack/cli:test: FAIL integration test/run-dev-unbuilt-workspace.e2e.test.ts > the mirror direction: a reader that is never coming back > gives up and exits instead of waiting forever
    ↳ 失败原因: @objectstack/cli:test: AssertionError: the harness SIGKILLed the child — it was still alive at the ceiling. cap 180000 ms (RUN_TIMEOUT_MS, constant and load-independent by design); this child ran 1801
    

↳ 失败原因 是判读的关键:超时Test timed out in … / Hook timed out in …)多半是负载/时序,不是本 PR 的回归;
断言AssertionError: …)才指向真实的行为改变。两者的 FAIL 行长得一模一样,只有这一行能区分。

⚠️断言这一侧有一类例外,判据是断言在测什么,不是它是不是 AssertionError 断言的对象是产品行为(一个值、一个形状、一次拒收)⇒ 照上面读:真实的行为改变,去查,⛔ 不要重排掉;
断言的对象是这次实验自身的有效性前提(跑完的耗时、负载下的先后、任何只在时间预算内才成立的条件)⇒ 它跟超时是同一类,同样对负载敏感,重排一次是合法的判别手段。
识别是机械的:断言的消息或它比较的值本身点名了一段时长、一个时间戳、一个耗时计数。实测过的一对 —— AssertionError: SecurityPlugin.init() ran: expected false to be true 测的是产品行为(真回归);
AssertionError: this run took over a second, so second-precision stamps could have differed too: expected 1006 to be less than 1000 测的是实验前提:它守护的那条不变式当时是绿的,同一个 head 原样重排一次即成功。
穿着 AssertionError 外衣的时间测量,仍然是时间测量。(⛔ 这只改「怎么读一次红」,不改「哪些测试可以重排」——后者由别处管。)

跨 PR 相同签名(24h,按失败测试文件聚合):

历史信号:

  • ⚠️本 PR 过去 24h 已在队列失败 1 次(不含本次)。 内容未变而反复失败 ⇒ 高度怀疑 flaky 测试或与同组 PR 的语义冲突,重排不解决。
  • 过去 24h 队列共有 53 个失败构建(不含本次)。

分诊清单:

  1. 失败测试在本 PR 改动的包里 → 真回归,修 PR。
  2. 失败测试与本 PR 无关 → 看上面的「跨 PR 相同签名」;已有汇总 issue ⇒ flaky/环境问题实锤,去那张 issue 上谈,修好前重排只会再烧一轮全队列。
  3. 两者都不是 → 可能与同组 PR 语义冲突;等前面的 PR 落地或失败出队后再重排一次即可,不要连续重排。

Generated by Claude Code · merge-queue-triage workflow (#4859)

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

⛔ merge queue 构建失败 — 先分诊,再决定要不要重排

队列构建 33714188793 红了。队列跑的是全量套件(PR 侧 CI 只跑 affected 子集),
所以失败的测试可能在本 PR 没碰过的包里 —— 那不是重排能修的。每次盲目重排都会让排在后面的所有 PR 重建一轮。

失败的 job(日志抽取,best effort):

  • Test Core (1/6) — 失败步骤: Run this shard's tests

    @objectstack/cli:test: FAIL integration test/run-dev-unbuilt-workspace.e2e.test.ts > the mirror direction: a reader that is never coming back > gives up and exits instead of waiting forever
    ↳ 失败原因: @objectstack/cli:test: AssertionError: the harness SIGKILLed the child — it was still alive at the ceiling. cap 180000 ms (RUN_TIMEOUT_MS, constant and load-independent by design); this child ran 1801
    

↳ 失败原因 是判读的关键:超时Test timed out in … / Hook timed out in …)多半是负载/时序,不是本 PR 的回归;
断言AssertionError: …)才指向真实的行为改变。两者的 FAIL 行长得一模一样,只有这一行能区分。

⚠️断言这一侧有一类例外,判据是断言在测什么,不是它是不是 AssertionError 断言的对象是产品行为(一个值、一个形状、一次拒收)⇒ 照上面读:真实的行为改变,去查,⛔ 不要重排掉;
断言的对象是这次实验自身的有效性前提(跑完的耗时、负载下的先后、任何只在时间预算内才成立的条件)⇒ 它跟超时是同一类,同样对负载敏感,重排一次是合法的判别手段。
识别是机械的:断言的消息或它比较的值本身点名了一段时长、一个时间戳、一个耗时计数。实测过的一对 —— AssertionError: SecurityPlugin.init() ran: expected false to be true 测的是产品行为(真回归);
AssertionError: this run took over a second, so second-precision stamps could have differed too: expected 1006 to be less than 1000 测的是实验前提:它守护的那条不变式当时是绿的,同一个 head 原样重排一次即成功。
穿着 AssertionError 外衣的时间测量,仍然是时间测量。(⛔ 这只改「怎么读一次红」,不改「哪些测试可以重排」——后者由别处管。)

跨 PR 相同签名(24h,按失败测试文件聚合):

历史信号:

  • ⚠️本 PR 过去 24h 已在队列失败 2 次(不含本次)。 内容未变而反复失败 ⇒ 高度怀疑 flaky 测试或与同组 PR 的语义冲突,重排不解决。
  • 过去 24h 队列共有 59 个失败构建(不含本次)。

分诊清单:

  1. 失败测试在本 PR 改动的包里 → 真回归,修 PR。
  2. 失败测试与本 PR 无关 → 看上面的「跨 PR 相同签名」;已有汇总 issue ⇒ flaky/环境问题实锤,去那张 issue 上谈,修好前重排只会再烧一轮全队列。
  3. 两者都不是 → 可能与同组 PR 语义冲突;等前面的 PR 落地或失败出队后再重排一次即可,不要连续重排。

Generated by Claude Code · merge-queue-triage workflow (#4859)

Merged via the queue into main with commit 13ade4dSep 3, 2026
36 checks passed
@baozhoutao
baozhoutao deleted the claude/issue-14729-i18n-coverage-ratchet-race-header branch September 3, 2026 04:51
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

size/sskip-changesetPR has no user-facing published change; bypasses the changeset gate

Projects

None yet

2 participants

@baozhoutao@claude
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Force GitHub README to respect dark mode\n(function() {\n var style = document.createElement('style');\n style.textContent = '\n .markdown-body {\n color-scheme: dark light;\n }\n .markdown-body pre { background: #161b22 !important; }\n .markdown-body code { background: rgba(110, 118, 129, 0.4) !important; }\n .markdown-body table th, .markdown-body table td { border-color: #30363d !important; }\n .markdown-body img { background: #0d1117; }\n .markdown-body blockquote { border-left-color: #8b949e; }\n .markdown-body hr { border-color: #30363d; }\n ';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n})();", "GitHub Dark Mode README Fix"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:GitHub Dark Mode README Fix]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Skip to content

docs(i18n): name the measurement-widening race in check-i18n-coverage's header - #14799

Merged
baozhoutao merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
claude/issue-14729-i18n-coverage-ratchet-race-header
Sep 3, 2026
Merged

docs(i18n): name the measurement-widening race in check-i18n-coverage's header#14799
baozhoutao merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
claude/issue-14729-i18n-coverage-ratchet-race-header

Conversation

@claude

@claudeclaudeBot commented Sep 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Fixes#14729

What changed

scripts/check-i18n-coverage.mjs only, two additions, adopted as filed by
triage (comment 5518536856) — no baseline split, no dropped DOWN direction,
no computed number.

1. One sentence on the DOWN-direction remedy (was :1340-1341)

Before:

${file}: untranslated declared strings improved ${allowed} → ${now} — ratchet DOWN: run `node scripts/check-i18n-coverage.mjs --update` and commit the baseline.

After:

${file}: untranslated declared strings improved ${allowed} → ${now} — ratchet DOWN: run `node scripts/check-i18n-coverage.mjs --update` and commit the baseline. If you did not touch this population, merge `origin/main` first — the movement is probably not yours.

2. One header paragraph naming the class generally

Appended at the end of the file's header (which already opens with the #3370
narrative), stating the property in general form — not i18n-specific — plus
the campaign observation (the two collisions were not independent draws) and
the forward-looking exposure as of 224f8ea: app-showcase 0 untranslated
rule messages remaining (that leg is finished); app-crm 5, app-todo 4;
bulkActions 18 and datasets 62 nobody is currently working — any of those
starting to move will race this gate the same way.

Diff

$ git diff --stat origin/main
scripts/check-i18n-coverage.mjs | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

One file, comment/string additions only — no logic change, no baseline
movement.

Tests

  • pnpm check:i18n-coverage (self-test + real run) at 674bb4afe8:
    check-i18n-coverage: OK (13 config(s), 691 baselined untranslated string(s), none new).
    — same 691 total as the issue's forward-exposure snapshot; no movement from
    this comment/string-only edit.
  • node scripts/pm/dispatch-gates.mjs --repo objectstack-ai/objectstack --commands scripts/check-i18n-coverage.mjs
    derived 18 runnable gates for this file surface; all 18 ran, 17 green,
    1 NOT MEASURED (check-test-completeness.mjs — its own text: "PREREQUISITE
    NOT MET… no local log… not a red, nothing here to fix").
  • No self-test in this file pins the exact remedy string (grepped), so none
    needed updating.

Excluded (binding, per triage)

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_01WLJQhde67SeTccsmnBVarV


Generated by Claude Code

…'s header
The DOWN-direction remedy read as "your diff improved something" when the
usual cause was "main moved under you" — a PR that widens what this ratchet
measures races every in-flight PR that changes what is measured, invisibly,
because the instrument does not exist on main. Append one sentence to the
remedy pointing the reader at merging main first, and name the class
generally in the file's own header, alongside the campaign observation and
the forward-looking exposure (app-crm, app-todo, bulkActions, datasets).
Fixes#14729
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01WLJQhde67SeTccsmnBVarV
@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

⛔ merge queue 构建失败 — 先分诊,再决定要不要重排

队列构建 33712976158 红了。队列跑的是全量套件(PR 侧 CI 只跑 affected 子集),
所以失败的测试可能在本 PR 没碰过的包里 —— 那不是重排能修的。每次盲目重排都会让排在后面的所有 PR 重建一轮。

失败的 job(日志抽取,best effort):

  • Test Core (1/6) — 失败步骤: Run this shard's tests

    @objectstack/cli:test: FAIL integration test/run-dev-unbuilt-workspace.e2e.test.ts > the mirror direction: a reader that is never coming back > gives up and exits instead of waiting forever
    ↳ 失败原因: @objectstack/cli:test: AssertionError: the harness SIGKILLed the child — it was still alive at the ceiling. cap 180000 ms (RUN_TIMEOUT_MS, constant and load-independent by design); this child ran 1801
    

↳ 失败原因 是判读的关键:超时Test timed out in … / Hook timed out in …)多半是负载/时序,不是本 PR 的回归;
断言AssertionError: …)才指向真实的行为改变。两者的 FAIL 行长得一模一样,只有这一行能区分。

⚠️断言这一侧有一类例外,判据是断言在测什么,不是它是不是 AssertionError 断言的对象是产品行为(一个值、一个形状、一次拒收)⇒ 照上面读:真实的行为改变,去查,⛔ 不要重排掉;
断言的对象是这次实验自身的有效性前提(跑完的耗时、负载下的先后、任何只在时间预算内才成立的条件)⇒ 它跟超时是同一类,同样对负载敏感,重排一次是合法的判别手段。
识别是机械的:断言的消息或它比较的值本身点名了一段时长、一个时间戳、一个耗时计数。实测过的一对 —— AssertionError: SecurityPlugin.init() ran: expected false to be true 测的是产品行为(真回归);
AssertionError: this run took over a second, so second-precision stamps could have differed too: expected 1006 to be less than 1000 测的是实验前提:它守护的那条不变式当时是绿的,同一个 head 原样重排一次即成功。
穿着 AssertionError 外衣的时间测量,仍然是时间测量。(⛔ 这只改「怎么读一次红」,不改「哪些测试可以重排」——后者由别处管。)

跨 PR 相同签名(24h,按失败测试文件聚合):

历史信号:

  • 本 PR 过去 24h 无队列失败记录(首次)。
  • 过去 24h 队列共有 51 个失败构建(不含本次)。

分诊清单:

  1. 失败测试在本 PR 改动的包里 → 真回归,修 PR。
  2. 失败测试与本 PR 无关 → 看上面的「跨 PR 相同签名」;已有汇总 issue ⇒ flaky/环境问题实锤,去那张 issue 上谈,修好前重排只会再烧一轮全队列。
  3. 两者都不是 → 可能与同组 PR 语义冲突;等前面的 PR 落地或失败出队后再重排一次即可,不要连续重排。

Generated by Claude Code · merge-queue-triage workflow (#4859)

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

⛔ merge queue 构建失败 — 先分诊,再决定要不要重排

队列构建 33712949207 红了。队列跑的是全量套件(PR 侧 CI 只跑 affected 子集),
所以失败的测试可能在本 PR 没碰过的包里 —— 那不是重排能修的。每次盲目重排都会让排在后面的所有 PR 重建一轮。

失败的 job(日志抽取,best effort):

  • Test Core (1/6) — 失败步骤: Run this shard's tests

    @objectstack/cli:test: FAIL integration test/run-dev-unbuilt-workspace.e2e.test.ts > the mirror direction: a reader that is never coming back > gives up and exits instead of waiting forever
    ↳ 失败原因: @objectstack/cli:test: AssertionError: the harness SIGKILLed the child — it was still alive at the ceiling. cap 180000 ms (RUN_TIMEOUT_MS, constant and load-independent by design); this child ran 1801
    

↳ 失败原因 是判读的关键:超时Test timed out in … / Hook timed out in …)多半是负载/时序,不是本 PR 的回归;
断言AssertionError: …)才指向真实的行为改变。两者的 FAIL 行长得一模一样,只有这一行能区分。

⚠️断言这一侧有一类例外,判据是断言在测什么,不是它是不是 AssertionError 断言的对象是产品行为(一个值、一个形状、一次拒收)⇒ 照上面读:真实的行为改变,去查,⛔ 不要重排掉;
断言的对象是这次实验自身的有效性前提(跑完的耗时、负载下的先后、任何只在时间预算内才成立的条件)⇒ 它跟超时是同一类,同样对负载敏感,重排一次是合法的判别手段。
识别是机械的:断言的消息或它比较的值本身点名了一段时长、一个时间戳、一个耗时计数。实测过的一对 —— AssertionError: SecurityPlugin.init() ran: expected false to be true 测的是产品行为(真回归);
AssertionError: this run took over a second, so second-precision stamps could have differed too: expected 1006 to be less than 1000 测的是实验前提:它守护的那条不变式当时是绿的,同一个 head 原样重排一次即成功。
穿着 AssertionError 外衣的时间测量,仍然是时间测量。(⛔ 这只改「怎么读一次红」,不改「哪些测试可以重排」——后者由别处管。)

跨 PR 相同签名(24h,按失败测试文件聚合):

历史信号:

  • ⚠️本 PR 过去 24h 已在队列失败 1 次(不含本次)。 内容未变而反复失败 ⇒ 高度怀疑 flaky 测试或与同组 PR 的语义冲突,重排不解决。
  • 过去 24h 队列共有 53 个失败构建(不含本次)。

分诊清单:

  1. 失败测试在本 PR 改动的包里 → 真回归,修 PR。
  2. 失败测试与本 PR 无关 → 看上面的「跨 PR 相同签名」;已有汇总 issue ⇒ flaky/环境问题实锤,去那张 issue 上谈,修好前重排只会再烧一轮全队列。
  3. 两者都不是 → 可能与同组 PR 语义冲突;等前面的 PR 落地或失败出队后再重排一次即可,不要连续重排。

Generated by Claude Code · merge-queue-triage workflow (#4859)

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

⛔ merge queue 构建失败 — 先分诊,再决定要不要重排

队列构建 33714188793 红了。队列跑的是全量套件(PR 侧 CI 只跑 affected 子集),
所以失败的测试可能在本 PR 没碰过的包里 —— 那不是重排能修的。每次盲目重排都会让排在后面的所有 PR 重建一轮。

失败的 job(日志抽取,best effort):

  • Test Core (1/6) — 失败步骤: Run this shard's tests

    @objectstack/cli:test: FAIL integration test/run-dev-unbuilt-workspace.e2e.test.ts > the mirror direction: a reader that is never coming back > gives up and exits instead of waiting forever
    ↳ 失败原因: @objectstack/cli:test: AssertionError: the harness SIGKILLed the child — it was still alive at the ceiling. cap 180000 ms (RUN_TIMEOUT_MS, constant and load-independent by design); this child ran 1801
    

↳ 失败原因 是判读的关键:超时Test timed out in … / Hook timed out in …)多半是负载/时序,不是本 PR 的回归;
断言AssertionError: …)才指向真实的行为改变。两者的 FAIL 行长得一模一样,只有这一行能区分。

⚠️断言这一侧有一类例外,判据是断言在测什么,不是它是不是 AssertionError 断言的对象是产品行为(一个值、一个形状、一次拒收)⇒ 照上面读:真实的行为改变,去查,⛔ 不要重排掉;
断言的对象是这次实验自身的有效性前提(跑完的耗时、负载下的先后、任何只在时间预算内才成立的条件)⇒ 它跟超时是同一类,同样对负载敏感,重排一次是合法的判别手段。
识别是机械的:断言的消息或它比较的值本身点名了一段时长、一个时间戳、一个耗时计数。实测过的一对 —— AssertionError: SecurityPlugin.init() ran: expected false to be true 测的是产品行为(真回归);
AssertionError: this run took over a second, so second-precision stamps could have differed too: expected 1006 to be less than 1000 测的是实验前提:它守护的那条不变式当时是绿的,同一个 head 原样重排一次即成功。
穿着 AssertionError 外衣的时间测量,仍然是时间测量。(⛔ 这只改「怎么读一次红」,不改「哪些测试可以重排」——后者由别处管。)

跨 PR 相同签名(24h,按失败测试文件聚合):

历史信号:

  • ⚠️本 PR 过去 24h 已在队列失败 2 次(不含本次)。 内容未变而反复失败 ⇒ 高度怀疑 flaky 测试或与同组 PR 的语义冲突,重排不解决。
  • 过去 24h 队列共有 59 个失败构建(不含本次)。

分诊清单:

  1. 失败测试在本 PR 改动的包里 → 真回归,修 PR。
  2. 失败测试与本 PR 无关 → 看上面的「跨 PR 相同签名」;已有汇总 issue ⇒ flaky/环境问题实锤,去那张 issue 上谈,修好前重排只会再烧一轮全队列。
  3. 两者都不是 → 可能与同组 PR 语义冲突;等前面的 PR 落地或失败出队后再重排一次即可,不要连续重排。

Generated by Claude Code · merge-queue-triage workflow (#4859)

Merged via the queue into main with commit 13ade4dSep 3, 2026
36 checks passed
@baozhoutao
baozhoutao deleted the claude/issue-14729-i18n-coverage-ratchet-race-header branch September 3, 2026 04:51
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

size/sskip-changesetPR has no user-facing published change; bypasses the changeset gate

Projects

None yet

2 participants

@baozhoutao@claude
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Highlight search terms from Google/DuckDuckGo/Bing referrer\n(function() {\n var ref = document.referrer;\n var terms = [];\n \n if (ref.includes('google.com') || ref.includes('duckduckgo.com') || ref.includes('bing.com')) {\n var url = new URL(ref);\n var q = url.searchParams.get('q') || url.searchParams.get('p');\n if (q) {\n terms = q.split(/\\s+/).filter(function(t) { return t.length > 2; });\n }\n }\n \n if (terms.length === 0) return;\n \n var style = document.createElement('style');\n style.textContent = '.userscript-highlight { background: #fbbf24; color: #1a1a2e; padding: 1px 3px; border-radius: 2px; }';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n \n function highlight(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 3) { // text node\n var text = node.textContent;\n var found = false;\n terms.forEach(function(term) {\n var regex = new RegExp('(' + term.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\\]\\\\]/g, '\\\\') + ')', 'gi');\n if (regex.test(text)) {\n found = true;\n var frag = document.createDocumentFragment();\n var parts = text.split(regex);\n parts.forEach(function(part, i) {\n if (i % 2 === 0) {\n frag.appendChild(document.createTextNode(part));\n } else {\n var span = document.createElement('span');\n span.className = 'userscript-highlight';\n span.textContent = part;\n frag.appendChild(span);\n }\n });\n node.parentNode.replaceChild(frag, node);\n }\n });\n } else if (node.nodeType === 1 && node.childNodes) { // element\n var skipTags = ['SCRIPT', 'STYLE', 'NOSCRIPT', 'TEXTAREA', 'INPUT', 'SELECT'];\n if (!skipTags.includes(node.tagName)) {\n Array.from(node.childNodes).forEach(highlight);\n }\n }\n }\n \n highlight(document.body);\n \n // Re-highlight on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n mutations.forEach(function(m) {\n m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 1 || node.nodeType === 3) highlight(node);\n });\n });\n });\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Highlight Search Terms"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Highlight Search Terms]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Skip to content

docs(i18n): name the measurement-widening race in check-i18n-coverage's header - #14799

Merged
baozhoutao merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
claude/issue-14729-i18n-coverage-ratchet-race-header
Sep 3, 2026
Merged

docs(i18n): name the measurement-widening race in check-i18n-coverage's header#14799
baozhoutao merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
claude/issue-14729-i18n-coverage-ratchet-race-header

Conversation

@claude

@claudeclaudeBot commented Sep 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Fixes#14729

What changed

scripts/check-i18n-coverage.mjs only, two additions, adopted as filed by
triage (comment 5518536856) — no baseline split, no dropped DOWN direction,
no computed number.

1. One sentence on the DOWN-direction remedy (was :1340-1341)

Before:

${file}: untranslated declared strings improved ${allowed} → ${now} — ratchet DOWN: run `node scripts/check-i18n-coverage.mjs --update` and commit the baseline.

After:

${file}: untranslated declared strings improved ${allowed} → ${now} — ratchet DOWN: run `node scripts/check-i18n-coverage.mjs --update` and commit the baseline. If you did not touch this population, merge `origin/main` first — the movement is probably not yours.

2. One header paragraph naming the class generally

Appended at the end of the file's header (which already opens with the #3370
narrative), stating the property in general form — not i18n-specific — plus
the campaign observation (the two collisions were not independent draws) and
the forward-looking exposure as of 224f8ea: app-showcase 0 untranslated
rule messages remaining (that leg is finished); app-crm 5, app-todo 4;
bulkActions 18 and datasets 62 nobody is currently working — any of those
starting to move will race this gate the same way.

Diff

$ git diff --stat origin/main
scripts/check-i18n-coverage.mjs | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

One file, comment/string additions only — no logic change, no baseline
movement.

Tests

  • pnpm check:i18n-coverage (self-test + real run) at 674bb4afe8:
    check-i18n-coverage: OK (13 config(s), 691 baselined untranslated string(s), none new).
    — same 691 total as the issue's forward-exposure snapshot; no movement from
    this comment/string-only edit.
  • node scripts/pm/dispatch-gates.mjs --repo objectstack-ai/objectstack --commands scripts/check-i18n-coverage.mjs
    derived 18 runnable gates for this file surface; all 18 ran, 17 green,
    1 NOT MEASURED (check-test-completeness.mjs — its own text: "PREREQUISITE
    NOT MET… no local log… not a red, nothing here to fix").
  • No self-test in this file pins the exact remedy string (grepped), so none
    needed updating.

Excluded (binding, per triage)

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_01WLJQhde67SeTccsmnBVarV


Generated by Claude Code

…'s header
The DOWN-direction remedy read as "your diff improved something" when the
usual cause was "main moved under you" — a PR that widens what this ratchet
measures races every in-flight PR that changes what is measured, invisibly,
because the instrument does not exist on main. Append one sentence to the
remedy pointing the reader at merging main first, and name the class
generally in the file's own header, alongside the campaign observation and
the forward-looking exposure (app-crm, app-todo, bulkActions, datasets).
Fixes#14729
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01WLJQhde67SeTccsmnBVarV
@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

⛔ merge queue 构建失败 — 先分诊,再决定要不要重排

队列构建 33712976158 红了。队列跑的是全量套件(PR 侧 CI 只跑 affected 子集),
所以失败的测试可能在本 PR 没碰过的包里 —— 那不是重排能修的。每次盲目重排都会让排在后面的所有 PR 重建一轮。

失败的 job(日志抽取,best effort):

  • Test Core (1/6) — 失败步骤: Run this shard's tests

    @objectstack/cli:test: FAIL integration test/run-dev-unbuilt-workspace.e2e.test.ts > the mirror direction: a reader that is never coming back > gives up and exits instead of waiting forever
    ↳ 失败原因: @objectstack/cli:test: AssertionError: the harness SIGKILLed the child — it was still alive at the ceiling. cap 180000 ms (RUN_TIMEOUT_MS, constant and load-independent by design); this child ran 1801
    

↳ 失败原因 是判读的关键:超时Test timed out in … / Hook timed out in …)多半是负载/时序,不是本 PR 的回归;
断言AssertionError: …)才指向真实的行为改变。两者的 FAIL 行长得一模一样,只有这一行能区分。

⚠️断言这一侧有一类例外,判据是断言在测什么,不是它是不是 AssertionError 断言的对象是产品行为(一个值、一个形状、一次拒收)⇒ 照上面读:真实的行为改变,去查,⛔ 不要重排掉;
断言的对象是这次实验自身的有效性前提(跑完的耗时、负载下的先后、任何只在时间预算内才成立的条件)⇒ 它跟超时是同一类,同样对负载敏感,重排一次是合法的判别手段。
识别是机械的:断言的消息或它比较的值本身点名了一段时长、一个时间戳、一个耗时计数。实测过的一对 —— AssertionError: SecurityPlugin.init() ran: expected false to be true 测的是产品行为(真回归);
AssertionError: this run took over a second, so second-precision stamps could have differed too: expected 1006 to be less than 1000 测的是实验前提:它守护的那条不变式当时是绿的,同一个 head 原样重排一次即成功。
穿着 AssertionError 外衣的时间测量,仍然是时间测量。(⛔ 这只改「怎么读一次红」,不改「哪些测试可以重排」——后者由别处管。)

跨 PR 相同签名(24h,按失败测试文件聚合):

历史信号:

  • 本 PR 过去 24h 无队列失败记录(首次)。
  • 过去 24h 队列共有 51 个失败构建(不含本次)。

分诊清单:

  1. 失败测试在本 PR 改动的包里 → 真回归,修 PR。
  2. 失败测试与本 PR 无关 → 看上面的「跨 PR 相同签名」;已有汇总 issue ⇒ flaky/环境问题实锤,去那张 issue 上谈,修好前重排只会再烧一轮全队列。
  3. 两者都不是 → 可能与同组 PR 语义冲突;等前面的 PR 落地或失败出队后再重排一次即可,不要连续重排。

Generated by Claude Code · merge-queue-triage workflow (#4859)

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

⛔ merge queue 构建失败 — 先分诊,再决定要不要重排

队列构建 33712949207 红了。队列跑的是全量套件(PR 侧 CI 只跑 affected 子集),
所以失败的测试可能在本 PR 没碰过的包里 —— 那不是重排能修的。每次盲目重排都会让排在后面的所有 PR 重建一轮。

失败的 job(日志抽取,best effort):

  • Test Core (1/6) — 失败步骤: Run this shard's tests

    @objectstack/cli:test: FAIL integration test/run-dev-unbuilt-workspace.e2e.test.ts > the mirror direction: a reader that is never coming back > gives up and exits instead of waiting forever
    ↳ 失败原因: @objectstack/cli:test: AssertionError: the harness SIGKILLed the child — it was still alive at the ceiling. cap 180000 ms (RUN_TIMEOUT_MS, constant and load-independent by design); this child ran 1801
    

↳ 失败原因 是判读的关键:超时Test timed out in … / Hook timed out in …)多半是负载/时序,不是本 PR 的回归;
断言AssertionError: …)才指向真实的行为改变。两者的 FAIL 行长得一模一样,只有这一行能区分。

⚠️断言这一侧有一类例外,判据是断言在测什么,不是它是不是 AssertionError 断言的对象是产品行为(一个值、一个形状、一次拒收)⇒ 照上面读:真实的行为改变,去查,⛔ 不要重排掉;
断言的对象是这次实验自身的有效性前提(跑完的耗时、负载下的先后、任何只在时间预算内才成立的条件)⇒ 它跟超时是同一类,同样对负载敏感,重排一次是合法的判别手段。
识别是机械的:断言的消息或它比较的值本身点名了一段时长、一个时间戳、一个耗时计数。实测过的一对 —— AssertionError: SecurityPlugin.init() ran: expected false to be true 测的是产品行为(真回归);
AssertionError: this run took over a second, so second-precision stamps could have differed too: expected 1006 to be less than 1000 测的是实验前提:它守护的那条不变式当时是绿的,同一个 head 原样重排一次即成功。
穿着 AssertionError 外衣的时间测量,仍然是时间测量。(⛔ 这只改「怎么读一次红」,不改「哪些测试可以重排」——后者由别处管。)

跨 PR 相同签名(24h,按失败测试文件聚合):

历史信号:

  • ⚠️本 PR 过去 24h 已在队列失败 1 次(不含本次)。 内容未变而反复失败 ⇒ 高度怀疑 flaky 测试或与同组 PR 的语义冲突,重排不解决。
  • 过去 24h 队列共有 53 个失败构建(不含本次)。

分诊清单:

  1. 失败测试在本 PR 改动的包里 → 真回归,修 PR。
  2. 失败测试与本 PR 无关 → 看上面的「跨 PR 相同签名」;已有汇总 issue ⇒ flaky/环境问题实锤,去那张 issue 上谈,修好前重排只会再烧一轮全队列。
  3. 两者都不是 → 可能与同组 PR 语义冲突;等前面的 PR 落地或失败出队后再重排一次即可,不要连续重排。

Generated by Claude Code · merge-queue-triage workflow (#4859)

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

⛔ merge queue 构建失败 — 先分诊,再决定要不要重排

队列构建 33714188793 红了。队列跑的是全量套件(PR 侧 CI 只跑 affected 子集),
所以失败的测试可能在本 PR 没碰过的包里 —— 那不是重排能修的。每次盲目重排都会让排在后面的所有 PR 重建一轮。

失败的 job(日志抽取,best effort):

  • Test Core (1/6) — 失败步骤: Run this shard's tests

    @objectstack/cli:test: FAIL integration test/run-dev-unbuilt-workspace.e2e.test.ts > the mirror direction: a reader that is never coming back > gives up and exits instead of waiting forever
    ↳ 失败原因: @objectstack/cli:test: AssertionError: the harness SIGKILLed the child — it was still alive at the ceiling. cap 180000 ms (RUN_TIMEOUT_MS, constant and load-independent by design); this child ran 1801
    

↳ 失败原因 是判读的关键:超时Test timed out in … / Hook timed out in …)多半是负载/时序,不是本 PR 的回归;
断言AssertionError: …)才指向真实的行为改变。两者的 FAIL 行长得一模一样,只有这一行能区分。

⚠️断言这一侧有一类例外,判据是断言在测什么,不是它是不是 AssertionError 断言的对象是产品行为(一个值、一个形状、一次拒收)⇒ 照上面读:真实的行为改变,去查,⛔ 不要重排掉;
断言的对象是这次实验自身的有效性前提(跑完的耗时、负载下的先后、任何只在时间预算内才成立的条件)⇒ 它跟超时是同一类,同样对负载敏感,重排一次是合法的判别手段。
识别是机械的:断言的消息或它比较的值本身点名了一段时长、一个时间戳、一个耗时计数。实测过的一对 —— AssertionError: SecurityPlugin.init() ran: expected false to be true 测的是产品行为(真回归);
AssertionError: this run took over a second, so second-precision stamps could have differed too: expected 1006 to be less than 1000 测的是实验前提:它守护的那条不变式当时是绿的,同一个 head 原样重排一次即成功。
穿着 AssertionError 外衣的时间测量,仍然是时间测量。(⛔ 这只改「怎么读一次红」,不改「哪些测试可以重排」——后者由别处管。)

跨 PR 相同签名(24h,按失败测试文件聚合):

历史信号:

  • ⚠️本 PR 过去 24h 已在队列失败 2 次(不含本次)。 内容未变而反复失败 ⇒ 高度怀疑 flaky 测试或与同组 PR 的语义冲突,重排不解决。
  • 过去 24h 队列共有 59 个失败构建(不含本次)。

分诊清单:

  1. 失败测试在本 PR 改动的包里 → 真回归,修 PR。
  2. 失败测试与本 PR 无关 → 看上面的「跨 PR 相同签名」;已有汇总 issue ⇒ flaky/环境问题实锤,去那张 issue 上谈,修好前重排只会再烧一轮全队列。
  3. 两者都不是 → 可能与同组 PR 语义冲突;等前面的 PR 落地或失败出队后再重排一次即可,不要连续重排。

Generated by Claude Code · merge-queue-triage workflow (#4859)

Merged via the queue into main with commit 13ade4dSep 3, 2026
36 checks passed
@baozhoutao
baozhoutao deleted the claude/issue-14729-i18n-coverage-ratchet-race-header branch September 3, 2026 04:51
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

size/sskip-changesetPR has no user-facing published change; bypasses the changeset gate

Projects

None yet

2 participants

@baozhoutao@claude
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Strip utm_, fbclid, gclid, etc. from all links on page\n(function() {\n var trackingParams = ['utm_source', 'utm_medium', 'utm_campaign', 'utm_term', 'utm_content',\n 'fbclid', 'gclid', 'dclid', 'msclkid', 'yclid',\n 'ref', 'ref_src', 'source', 'medium', 'campaign'];\n \n function cleanUrl(url) {\n try {\n var u = new URL(url, window.location.origin);\n var changed = false;\n trackingParams.forEach(function(p) {\n if (u.searchParams.has(p)) {\n u.searchParams.delete(p);\n changed = true;\n }\n });\n return changed ? u.toString() : url;\n } catch (e) {\n return url;\n }\n }\n \n function cleanLinks() {\n document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {\n var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);\n if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;\n });\n }\n \n cleanLinks();\n \n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n mutations.forEach(function(m) {\n m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 1) {\n if (node.tagName === 'A') cleanLinks();\n node.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {\n var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);\n if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;\n });\n }\n });\n });\n });\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Remove Tracking Parameters from Links"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Remove Tracking Parameters from Links]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "youtube.com"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + "youtube\\.com" + '
Skip to content

docs(i18n): name the measurement-widening race in check-i18n-coverage's header - #14799

Merged
baozhoutao merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
claude/issue-14729-i18n-coverage-ratchet-race-header
Sep 3, 2026
Merged

docs(i18n): name the measurement-widening race in check-i18n-coverage's header#14799
baozhoutao merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
claude/issue-14729-i18n-coverage-ratchet-race-header

Conversation

@claude

@claudeclaudeBot commented Sep 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Fixes#14729

What changed

scripts/check-i18n-coverage.mjs only, two additions, adopted as filed by
triage (comment 5518536856) — no baseline split, no dropped DOWN direction,
no computed number.

1. One sentence on the DOWN-direction remedy (was :1340-1341)

Before:

${file}: untranslated declared strings improved ${allowed} → ${now} — ratchet DOWN: run `node scripts/check-i18n-coverage.mjs --update` and commit the baseline.

After:

${file}: untranslated declared strings improved ${allowed} → ${now} — ratchet DOWN: run `node scripts/check-i18n-coverage.mjs --update` and commit the baseline. If you did not touch this population, merge `origin/main` first — the movement is probably not yours.

2. One header paragraph naming the class generally

Appended at the end of the file's header (which already opens with the #3370
narrative), stating the property in general form — not i18n-specific — plus
the campaign observation (the two collisions were not independent draws) and
the forward-looking exposure as of 224f8ea: app-showcase 0 untranslated
rule messages remaining (that leg is finished); app-crm 5, app-todo 4;
bulkActions 18 and datasets 62 nobody is currently working — any of those
starting to move will race this gate the same way.

Diff

$ git diff --stat origin/main
scripts/check-i18n-coverage.mjs | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

One file, comment/string additions only — no logic change, no baseline
movement.

Tests

  • pnpm check:i18n-coverage (self-test + real run) at 674bb4afe8:
    check-i18n-coverage: OK (13 config(s), 691 baselined untranslated string(s), none new).
    — same 691 total as the issue's forward-exposure snapshot; no movement from
    this comment/string-only edit.
  • node scripts/pm/dispatch-gates.mjs --repo objectstack-ai/objectstack --commands scripts/check-i18n-coverage.mjs
    derived 18 runnable gates for this file surface; all 18 ran, 17 green,
    1 NOT MEASURED (check-test-completeness.mjs — its own text: "PREREQUISITE
    NOT MET… no local log… not a red, nothing here to fix").
  • No self-test in this file pins the exact remedy string (grepped), so none
    needed updating.

Excluded (binding, per triage)

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_01WLJQhde67SeTccsmnBVarV


Generated by Claude Code

…'s header
The DOWN-direction remedy read as "your diff improved something" when the
usual cause was "main moved under you" — a PR that widens what this ratchet
measures races every in-flight PR that changes what is measured, invisibly,
because the instrument does not exist on main. Append one sentence to the
remedy pointing the reader at merging main first, and name the class
generally in the file's own header, alongside the campaign observation and
the forward-looking exposure (app-crm, app-todo, bulkActions, datasets).
Fixes#14729
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01WLJQhde67SeTccsmnBVarV
@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

⛔ merge queue 构建失败 — 先分诊,再决定要不要重排

队列构建 33712976158 红了。队列跑的是全量套件(PR 侧 CI 只跑 affected 子集),
所以失败的测试可能在本 PR 没碰过的包里 —— 那不是重排能修的。每次盲目重排都会让排在后面的所有 PR 重建一轮。

失败的 job(日志抽取,best effort):

  • Test Core (1/6) — 失败步骤: Run this shard's tests

    @objectstack/cli:test: FAIL integration test/run-dev-unbuilt-workspace.e2e.test.ts > the mirror direction: a reader that is never coming back > gives up and exits instead of waiting forever
    ↳ 失败原因: @objectstack/cli:test: AssertionError: the harness SIGKILLed the child — it was still alive at the ceiling. cap 180000 ms (RUN_TIMEOUT_MS, constant and load-independent by design); this child ran 1801
    

↳ 失败原因 是判读的关键:超时Test timed out in … / Hook timed out in …)多半是负载/时序,不是本 PR 的回归;
断言AssertionError: …)才指向真实的行为改变。两者的 FAIL 行长得一模一样,只有这一行能区分。

⚠️断言这一侧有一类例外,判据是断言在测什么,不是它是不是 AssertionError 断言的对象是产品行为(一个值、一个形状、一次拒收)⇒ 照上面读:真实的行为改变,去查,⛔ 不要重排掉;
断言的对象是这次实验自身的有效性前提(跑完的耗时、负载下的先后、任何只在时间预算内才成立的条件)⇒ 它跟超时是同一类,同样对负载敏感,重排一次是合法的判别手段。
识别是机械的:断言的消息或它比较的值本身点名了一段时长、一个时间戳、一个耗时计数。实测过的一对 —— AssertionError: SecurityPlugin.init() ran: expected false to be true 测的是产品行为(真回归);
AssertionError: this run took over a second, so second-precision stamps could have differed too: expected 1006 to be less than 1000 测的是实验前提:它守护的那条不变式当时是绿的,同一个 head 原样重排一次即成功。
穿着 AssertionError 外衣的时间测量,仍然是时间测量。(⛔ 这只改「怎么读一次红」,不改「哪些测试可以重排」——后者由别处管。)

跨 PR 相同签名(24h,按失败测试文件聚合):

历史信号:

  • 本 PR 过去 24h 无队列失败记录(首次)。
  • 过去 24h 队列共有 51 个失败构建(不含本次)。

分诊清单:

  1. 失败测试在本 PR 改动的包里 → 真回归,修 PR。
  2. 失败测试与本 PR 无关 → 看上面的「跨 PR 相同签名」;已有汇总 issue ⇒ flaky/环境问题实锤,去那张 issue 上谈,修好前重排只会再烧一轮全队列。
  3. 两者都不是 → 可能与同组 PR 语义冲突;等前面的 PR 落地或失败出队后再重排一次即可,不要连续重排。

Generated by Claude Code · merge-queue-triage workflow (#4859)

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

⛔ merge queue 构建失败 — 先分诊,再决定要不要重排

队列构建 33712949207 红了。队列跑的是全量套件(PR 侧 CI 只跑 affected 子集),
所以失败的测试可能在本 PR 没碰过的包里 —— 那不是重排能修的。每次盲目重排都会让排在后面的所有 PR 重建一轮。

失败的 job(日志抽取,best effort):

  • Test Core (1/6) — 失败步骤: Run this shard's tests

    @objectstack/cli:test: FAIL integration test/run-dev-unbuilt-workspace.e2e.test.ts > the mirror direction: a reader that is never coming back > gives up and exits instead of waiting forever
    ↳ 失败原因: @objectstack/cli:test: AssertionError: the harness SIGKILLed the child — it was still alive at the ceiling. cap 180000 ms (RUN_TIMEOUT_MS, constant and load-independent by design); this child ran 1801
    

↳ 失败原因 是判读的关键:超时Test timed out in … / Hook timed out in …)多半是负载/时序,不是本 PR 的回归;
断言AssertionError: …)才指向真实的行为改变。两者的 FAIL 行长得一模一样,只有这一行能区分。

⚠️断言这一侧有一类例外,判据是断言在测什么,不是它是不是 AssertionError 断言的对象是产品行为(一个值、一个形状、一次拒收)⇒ 照上面读:真实的行为改变,去查,⛔ 不要重排掉;
断言的对象是这次实验自身的有效性前提(跑完的耗时、负载下的先后、任何只在时间预算内才成立的条件)⇒ 它跟超时是同一类,同样对负载敏感,重排一次是合法的判别手段。
识别是机械的:断言的消息或它比较的值本身点名了一段时长、一个时间戳、一个耗时计数。实测过的一对 —— AssertionError: SecurityPlugin.init() ran: expected false to be true 测的是产品行为(真回归);
AssertionError: this run took over a second, so second-precision stamps could have differed too: expected 1006 to be less than 1000 测的是实验前提:它守护的那条不变式当时是绿的,同一个 head 原样重排一次即成功。
穿着 AssertionError 外衣的时间测量,仍然是时间测量。(⛔ 这只改「怎么读一次红」,不改「哪些测试可以重排」——后者由别处管。)

跨 PR 相同签名(24h,按失败测试文件聚合):

历史信号:

  • ⚠️本 PR 过去 24h 已在队列失败 1 次(不含本次)。 内容未变而反复失败 ⇒ 高度怀疑 flaky 测试或与同组 PR 的语义冲突,重排不解决。
  • 过去 24h 队列共有 53 个失败构建(不含本次)。

分诊清单:

  1. 失败测试在本 PR 改动的包里 → 真回归,修 PR。
  2. 失败测试与本 PR 无关 → 看上面的「跨 PR 相同签名」;已有汇总 issue ⇒ flaky/环境问题实锤,去那张 issue 上谈,修好前重排只会再烧一轮全队列。
  3. 两者都不是 → 可能与同组 PR 语义冲突;等前面的 PR 落地或失败出队后再重排一次即可,不要连续重排。

Generated by Claude Code · merge-queue-triage workflow (#4859)

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

⛔ merge queue 构建失败 — 先分诊,再决定要不要重排

队列构建 33714188793 红了。队列跑的是全量套件(PR 侧 CI 只跑 affected 子集),
所以失败的测试可能在本 PR 没碰过的包里 —— 那不是重排能修的。每次盲目重排都会让排在后面的所有 PR 重建一轮。

失败的 job(日志抽取,best effort):

  • Test Core (1/6) — 失败步骤: Run this shard's tests

    @objectstack/cli:test: FAIL integration test/run-dev-unbuilt-workspace.e2e.test.ts > the mirror direction: a reader that is never coming back > gives up and exits instead of waiting forever
    ↳ 失败原因: @objectstack/cli:test: AssertionError: the harness SIGKILLed the child — it was still alive at the ceiling. cap 180000 ms (RUN_TIMEOUT_MS, constant and load-independent by design); this child ran 1801
    

↳ 失败原因 是判读的关键:超时Test timed out in … / Hook timed out in …)多半是负载/时序,不是本 PR 的回归;
断言AssertionError: …)才指向真实的行为改变。两者的 FAIL 行长得一模一样,只有这一行能区分。

⚠️断言这一侧有一类例外,判据是断言在测什么,不是它是不是 AssertionError 断言的对象是产品行为(一个值、一个形状、一次拒收)⇒ 照上面读:真实的行为改变,去查,⛔ 不要重排掉;
断言的对象是这次实验自身的有效性前提(跑完的耗时、负载下的先后、任何只在时间预算内才成立的条件)⇒ 它跟超时是同一类,同样对负载敏感,重排一次是合法的判别手段。
识别是机械的:断言的消息或它比较的值本身点名了一段时长、一个时间戳、一个耗时计数。实测过的一对 —— AssertionError: SecurityPlugin.init() ran: expected false to be true 测的是产品行为(真回归);
AssertionError: this run took over a second, so second-precision stamps could have differed too: expected 1006 to be less than 1000 测的是实验前提:它守护的那条不变式当时是绿的,同一个 head 原样重排一次即成功。
穿着 AssertionError 外衣的时间测量,仍然是时间测量。(⛔ 这只改「怎么读一次红」,不改「哪些测试可以重排」——后者由别处管。)

跨 PR 相同签名(24h,按失败测试文件聚合):

历史信号:

  • ⚠️本 PR 过去 24h 已在队列失败 2 次(不含本次)。 内容未变而反复失败 ⇒ 高度怀疑 flaky 测试或与同组 PR 的语义冲突,重排不解决。
  • 过去 24h 队列共有 59 个失败构建(不含本次)。

分诊清单:

  1. 失败测试在本 PR 改动的包里 → 真回归,修 PR。
  2. 失败测试与本 PR 无关 → 看上面的「跨 PR 相同签名」;已有汇总 issue ⇒ flaky/环境问题实锤,去那张 issue 上谈,修好前重排只会再烧一轮全队列。
  3. 两者都不是 → 可能与同组 PR 语义冲突;等前面的 PR 落地或失败出队后再重排一次即可,不要连续重排。

Generated by Claude Code · merge-queue-triage workflow (#4859)

Merged via the queue into main with commit 13ade4dSep 3, 2026
36 checks passed
@baozhoutao
baozhoutao deleted the claude/issue-14729-i18n-coverage-ratchet-race-header branch September 3, 2026 04:51
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

size/sskip-changesetPR has no user-facing published change; bypasses the changeset gate

Projects

None yet

2 participants

@baozhoutao@claude
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Auto-enable theater mode on YouTube\n(function() {\n function tryTheater() {\n var btn = document.querySelector('button[aria-label=\"Theater mode\"], ytd-player #player button[title=\"Theater mode\"]');\n if (btn && !btn.classList.contains('activated')) {\n btn.click();\n }\n }\n \n // Try immediately\n tryTheater();\n \n // Try after navigation (SPA)\n var lastUrl = location.href;\n setInterval(function() {\n if (location.href !== lastUrl) {\n lastUrl = location.href;\n setTimeout(tryTheater, 500);\n }\n }, 1000);\n \n // Also try on player load\n var observer = new MutationObserver(tryTheater);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "YouTube Theater Mode Default"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:YouTube Theater Mode Default]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Skip to content

docs(i18n): name the measurement-widening race in check-i18n-coverage's header - #14799

Merged
baozhoutao merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
claude/issue-14729-i18n-coverage-ratchet-race-header
Sep 3, 2026
Merged

docs(i18n): name the measurement-widening race in check-i18n-coverage's header#14799
baozhoutao merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
claude/issue-14729-i18n-coverage-ratchet-race-header

Conversation

@claude

@claudeclaudeBot commented Sep 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Fixes#14729

What changed

scripts/check-i18n-coverage.mjs only, two additions, adopted as filed by
triage (comment 5518536856) — no baseline split, no dropped DOWN direction,
no computed number.

1. One sentence on the DOWN-direction remedy (was :1340-1341)

Before:

${file}: untranslated declared strings improved ${allowed} → ${now} — ratchet DOWN: run `node scripts/check-i18n-coverage.mjs --update` and commit the baseline.

After:

${file}: untranslated declared strings improved ${allowed} → ${now} — ratchet DOWN: run `node scripts/check-i18n-coverage.mjs --update` and commit the baseline. If you did not touch this population, merge `origin/main` first — the movement is probably not yours.

2. One header paragraph naming the class generally

Appended at the end of the file's header (which already opens with the #3370
narrative), stating the property in general form — not i18n-specific — plus
the campaign observation (the two collisions were not independent draws) and
the forward-looking exposure as of 224f8ea: app-showcase 0 untranslated
rule messages remaining (that leg is finished); app-crm 5, app-todo 4;
bulkActions 18 and datasets 62 nobody is currently working — any of those
starting to move will race this gate the same way.

Diff

$ git diff --stat origin/main
scripts/check-i18n-coverage.mjs | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

One file, comment/string additions only — no logic change, no baseline
movement.

Tests

  • pnpm check:i18n-coverage (self-test + real run) at 674bb4afe8:
    check-i18n-coverage: OK (13 config(s), 691 baselined untranslated string(s), none new).
    — same 691 total as the issue's forward-exposure snapshot; no movement from
    this comment/string-only edit.
  • node scripts/pm/dispatch-gates.mjs --repo objectstack-ai/objectstack --commands scripts/check-i18n-coverage.mjs
    derived 18 runnable gates for this file surface; all 18 ran, 17 green,
    1 NOT MEASURED (check-test-completeness.mjs — its own text: "PREREQUISITE
    NOT MET… no local log… not a red, nothing here to fix").
  • No self-test in this file pins the exact remedy string (grepped), so none
    needed updating.

Excluded (binding, per triage)

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_01WLJQhde67SeTccsmnBVarV


Generated by Claude Code

…'s header
The DOWN-direction remedy read as "your diff improved something" when the
usual cause was "main moved under you" — a PR that widens what this ratchet
measures races every in-flight PR that changes what is measured, invisibly,
because the instrument does not exist on main. Append one sentence to the
remedy pointing the reader at merging main first, and name the class
generally in the file's own header, alongside the campaign observation and
the forward-looking exposure (app-crm, app-todo, bulkActions, datasets).
Fixes#14729
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01WLJQhde67SeTccsmnBVarV
@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

⛔ merge queue 构建失败 — 先分诊,再决定要不要重排

队列构建 33712976158 红了。队列跑的是全量套件(PR 侧 CI 只跑 affected 子集),
所以失败的测试可能在本 PR 没碰过的包里 —— 那不是重排能修的。每次盲目重排都会让排在后面的所有 PR 重建一轮。

失败的 job(日志抽取,best effort):

  • Test Core (1/6) — 失败步骤: Run this shard's tests

    @objectstack/cli:test: FAIL integration test/run-dev-unbuilt-workspace.e2e.test.ts > the mirror direction: a reader that is never coming back > gives up and exits instead of waiting forever
    ↳ 失败原因: @objectstack/cli:test: AssertionError: the harness SIGKILLed the child — it was still alive at the ceiling. cap 180000 ms (RUN_TIMEOUT_MS, constant and load-independent by design); this child ran 1801
    

↳ 失败原因 是判读的关键:超时Test timed out in … / Hook timed out in …)多半是负载/时序,不是本 PR 的回归;
断言AssertionError: …)才指向真实的行为改变。两者的 FAIL 行长得一模一样,只有这一行能区分。

⚠️断言这一侧有一类例外,判据是断言在测什么,不是它是不是 AssertionError 断言的对象是产品行为(一个值、一个形状、一次拒收)⇒ 照上面读:真实的行为改变,去查,⛔ 不要重排掉;
断言的对象是这次实验自身的有效性前提(跑完的耗时、负载下的先后、任何只在时间预算内才成立的条件)⇒ 它跟超时是同一类,同样对负载敏感,重排一次是合法的判别手段。
识别是机械的:断言的消息或它比较的值本身点名了一段时长、一个时间戳、一个耗时计数。实测过的一对 —— AssertionError: SecurityPlugin.init() ran: expected false to be true 测的是产品行为(真回归);
AssertionError: this run took over a second, so second-precision stamps could have differed too: expected 1006 to be less than 1000 测的是实验前提:它守护的那条不变式当时是绿的,同一个 head 原样重排一次即成功。
穿着 AssertionError 外衣的时间测量,仍然是时间测量。(⛔ 这只改「怎么读一次红」,不改「哪些测试可以重排」——后者由别处管。)

跨 PR 相同签名(24h,按失败测试文件聚合):

历史信号:

  • 本 PR 过去 24h 无队列失败记录(首次)。
  • 过去 24h 队列共有 51 个失败构建(不含本次)。

分诊清单:

  1. 失败测试在本 PR 改动的包里 → 真回归,修 PR。
  2. 失败测试与本 PR 无关 → 看上面的「跨 PR 相同签名」;已有汇总 issue ⇒ flaky/环境问题实锤,去那张 issue 上谈,修好前重排只会再烧一轮全队列。
  3. 两者都不是 → 可能与同组 PR 语义冲突;等前面的 PR 落地或失败出队后再重排一次即可,不要连续重排。

Generated by Claude Code · merge-queue-triage workflow (#4859)

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

⛔ merge queue 构建失败 — 先分诊,再决定要不要重排

队列构建 33712949207 红了。队列跑的是全量套件(PR 侧 CI 只跑 affected 子集),
所以失败的测试可能在本 PR 没碰过的包里 —— 那不是重排能修的。每次盲目重排都会让排在后面的所有 PR 重建一轮。

失败的 job(日志抽取,best effort):

  • Test Core (1/6) — 失败步骤: Run this shard's tests

    @objectstack/cli:test: FAIL integration test/run-dev-unbuilt-workspace.e2e.test.ts > the mirror direction: a reader that is never coming back > gives up and exits instead of waiting forever
    ↳ 失败原因: @objectstack/cli:test: AssertionError: the harness SIGKILLed the child — it was still alive at the ceiling. cap 180000 ms (RUN_TIMEOUT_MS, constant and load-independent by design); this child ran 1801
    

↳ 失败原因 是判读的关键:超时Test timed out in … / Hook timed out in …)多半是负载/时序,不是本 PR 的回归;
断言AssertionError: …)才指向真实的行为改变。两者的 FAIL 行长得一模一样,只有这一行能区分。

⚠️断言这一侧有一类例外,判据是断言在测什么,不是它是不是 AssertionError 断言的对象是产品行为(一个值、一个形状、一次拒收)⇒ 照上面读:真实的行为改变,去查,⛔ 不要重排掉;
断言的对象是这次实验自身的有效性前提(跑完的耗时、负载下的先后、任何只在时间预算内才成立的条件)⇒ 它跟超时是同一类,同样对负载敏感,重排一次是合法的判别手段。
识别是机械的:断言的消息或它比较的值本身点名了一段时长、一个时间戳、一个耗时计数。实测过的一对 —— AssertionError: SecurityPlugin.init() ran: expected false to be true 测的是产品行为(真回归);
AssertionError: this run took over a second, so second-precision stamps could have differed too: expected 1006 to be less than 1000 测的是实验前提:它守护的那条不变式当时是绿的,同一个 head 原样重排一次即成功。
穿着 AssertionError 外衣的时间测量,仍然是时间测量。(⛔ 这只改「怎么读一次红」,不改「哪些测试可以重排」——后者由别处管。)

跨 PR 相同签名(24h,按失败测试文件聚合):

历史信号:

  • ⚠️本 PR 过去 24h 已在队列失败 1 次(不含本次)。 内容未变而反复失败 ⇒ 高度怀疑 flaky 测试或与同组 PR 的语义冲突,重排不解决。
  • 过去 24h 队列共有 53 个失败构建(不含本次)。

分诊清单:

  1. 失败测试在本 PR 改动的包里 → 真回归,修 PR。
  2. 失败测试与本 PR 无关 → 看上面的「跨 PR 相同签名」;已有汇总 issue ⇒ flaky/环境问题实锤,去那张 issue 上谈,修好前重排只会再烧一轮全队列。
  3. 两者都不是 → 可能与同组 PR 语义冲突;等前面的 PR 落地或失败出队后再重排一次即可,不要连续重排。

Generated by Claude Code · merge-queue-triage workflow (#4859)

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

⛔ merge queue 构建失败 — 先分诊,再决定要不要重排

队列构建 33714188793 红了。队列跑的是全量套件(PR 侧 CI 只跑 affected 子集),
所以失败的测试可能在本 PR 没碰过的包里 —— 那不是重排能修的。每次盲目重排都会让排在后面的所有 PR 重建一轮。

失败的 job(日志抽取,best effort):

  • Test Core (1/6) — 失败步骤: Run this shard's tests

    @objectstack/cli:test: FAIL integration test/run-dev-unbuilt-workspace.e2e.test.ts > the mirror direction: a reader that is never coming back > gives up and exits instead of waiting forever
    ↳ 失败原因: @objectstack/cli:test: AssertionError: the harness SIGKILLed the child — it was still alive at the ceiling. cap 180000 ms (RUN_TIMEOUT_MS, constant and load-independent by design); this child ran 1801
    

↳ 失败原因 是判读的关键:超时Test timed out in … / Hook timed out in …)多半是负载/时序,不是本 PR 的回归;
断言AssertionError: …)才指向真实的行为改变。两者的 FAIL 行长得一模一样,只有这一行能区分。

⚠️断言这一侧有一类例外,判据是断言在测什么,不是它是不是 AssertionError 断言的对象是产品行为(一个值、一个形状、一次拒收)⇒ 照上面读:真实的行为改变,去查,⛔ 不要重排掉;
断言的对象是这次实验自身的有效性前提(跑完的耗时、负载下的先后、任何只在时间预算内才成立的条件)⇒ 它跟超时是同一类,同样对负载敏感,重排一次是合法的判别手段。
识别是机械的:断言的消息或它比较的值本身点名了一段时长、一个时间戳、一个耗时计数。实测过的一对 —— AssertionError: SecurityPlugin.init() ran: expected false to be true 测的是产品行为(真回归);
AssertionError: this run took over a second, so second-precision stamps could have differed too: expected 1006 to be less than 1000 测的是实验前提:它守护的那条不变式当时是绿的,同一个 head 原样重排一次即成功。
穿着 AssertionError 外衣的时间测量,仍然是时间测量。(⛔ 这只改「怎么读一次红」,不改「哪些测试可以重排」——后者由别处管。)

跨 PR 相同签名(24h,按失败测试文件聚合):

历史信号:

  • ⚠️本 PR 过去 24h 已在队列失败 2 次(不含本次)。 内容未变而反复失败 ⇒ 高度怀疑 flaky 测试或与同组 PR 的语义冲突,重排不解决。
  • 过去 24h 队列共有 59 个失败构建(不含本次)。

分诊清单:

  1. 失败测试在本 PR 改动的包里 → 真回归,修 PR。
  2. 失败测试与本 PR 无关 → 看上面的「跨 PR 相同签名」;已有汇总 issue ⇒ flaky/环境问题实锤,去那张 issue 上谈,修好前重排只会再烧一轮全队列。
  3. 两者都不是 → 可能与同组 PR 语义冲突;等前面的 PR 落地或失败出队后再重排一次即可,不要连续重排。

Generated by Claude Code · merge-queue-triage workflow (#4859)

Merged via the queue into main with commit 13ade4dSep 3, 2026
36 checks passed
@baozhoutao
baozhoutao deleted the claude/issue-14729-i18n-coverage-ratchet-race-header branch September 3, 2026 04:51
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

size/sskip-changesetPR has no user-facing published change; bypasses the changeset gate

Projects

None yet

2 participants

@baozhoutao@claude
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Remove or un-stick sticky/fixed headers that block content\n(function() {\n function unstick() {\n document.querySelectorAll('header, nav, [role=\"banner\"], .header, .navbar, .sticky, .fixed-top, [style*=\"position: fixed\"], [style*=\"position:sticky\"]').forEach(function(el) {\n if (el.style.position === 'fixed' || el.style.position === 'sticky' || \n getComputedStyle(el).position === 'fixed' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'sticky') {\n el.style.position = 'static';\n el.style.top = 'auto';\n el.style.zIndex = 'auto';\n }\n });\n }\n \n unstick();\n \n var observer = new MutationObserver(unstick);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true, attributes: true, attributeFilter: ['style', 'class'] });\n})();", "Kill Sticky Headers"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Kill Sticky Headers]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Skip to content

docs(i18n): name the measurement-widening race in check-i18n-coverage's header - #14799

Merged
baozhoutao merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
claude/issue-14729-i18n-coverage-ratchet-race-header
Sep 3, 2026
Merged

docs(i18n): name the measurement-widening race in check-i18n-coverage's header#14799
baozhoutao merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
claude/issue-14729-i18n-coverage-ratchet-race-header

Conversation

@claude

@claudeclaudeBot commented Sep 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Fixes#14729

What changed

scripts/check-i18n-coverage.mjs only, two additions, adopted as filed by
triage (comment 5518536856) — no baseline split, no dropped DOWN direction,
no computed number.

1. One sentence on the DOWN-direction remedy (was :1340-1341)

Before:

${file}: untranslated declared strings improved ${allowed} → ${now} — ratchet DOWN: run `node scripts/check-i18n-coverage.mjs --update` and commit the baseline.

After:

${file}: untranslated declared strings improved ${allowed} → ${now} — ratchet DOWN: run `node scripts/check-i18n-coverage.mjs --update` and commit the baseline. If you did not touch this population, merge `origin/main` first — the movement is probably not yours.

2. One header paragraph naming the class generally

Appended at the end of the file's header (which already opens with the #3370
narrative), stating the property in general form — not i18n-specific — plus
the campaign observation (the two collisions were not independent draws) and
the forward-looking exposure as of 224f8ea: app-showcase 0 untranslated
rule messages remaining (that leg is finished); app-crm 5, app-todo 4;
bulkActions 18 and datasets 62 nobody is currently working — any of those
starting to move will race this gate the same way.

Diff

$ git diff --stat origin/main
scripts/check-i18n-coverage.mjs | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

One file, comment/string additions only — no logic change, no baseline
movement.

Tests

  • pnpm check:i18n-coverage (self-test + real run) at 674bb4afe8:
    check-i18n-coverage: OK (13 config(s), 691 baselined untranslated string(s), none new).
    — same 691 total as the issue's forward-exposure snapshot; no movement from
    this comment/string-only edit.
  • node scripts/pm/dispatch-gates.mjs --repo objectstack-ai/objectstack --commands scripts/check-i18n-coverage.mjs
    derived 18 runnable gates for this file surface; all 18 ran, 17 green,
    1 NOT MEASURED (check-test-completeness.mjs — its own text: "PREREQUISITE
    NOT MET… no local log… not a red, nothing here to fix").
  • No self-test in this file pins the exact remedy string (grepped), so none
    needed updating.

Excluded (binding, per triage)

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_01WLJQhde67SeTccsmnBVarV


Generated by Claude Code

…'s header
The DOWN-direction remedy read as "your diff improved something" when the
usual cause was "main moved under you" — a PR that widens what this ratchet
measures races every in-flight PR that changes what is measured, invisibly,
because the instrument does not exist on main. Append one sentence to the
remedy pointing the reader at merging main first, and name the class
generally in the file's own header, alongside the campaign observation and
the forward-looking exposure (app-crm, app-todo, bulkActions, datasets).
Fixes#14729
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01WLJQhde67SeTccsmnBVarV
@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

⛔ merge queue 构建失败 — 先分诊,再决定要不要重排

队列构建 33712976158 红了。队列跑的是全量套件(PR 侧 CI 只跑 affected 子集),
所以失败的测试可能在本 PR 没碰过的包里 —— 那不是重排能修的。每次盲目重排都会让排在后面的所有 PR 重建一轮。

失败的 job(日志抽取,best effort):

  • Test Core (1/6) — 失败步骤: Run this shard's tests

    @objectstack/cli:test: FAIL integration test/run-dev-unbuilt-workspace.e2e.test.ts > the mirror direction: a reader that is never coming back > gives up and exits instead of waiting forever
    ↳ 失败原因: @objectstack/cli:test: AssertionError: the harness SIGKILLed the child — it was still alive at the ceiling. cap 180000 ms (RUN_TIMEOUT_MS, constant and load-independent by design); this child ran 1801
    

↳ 失败原因 是判读的关键:超时Test timed out in … / Hook timed out in …)多半是负载/时序,不是本 PR 的回归;
断言AssertionError: …)才指向真实的行为改变。两者的 FAIL 行长得一模一样,只有这一行能区分。

⚠️断言这一侧有一类例外,判据是断言在测什么,不是它是不是 AssertionError 断言的对象是产品行为(一个值、一个形状、一次拒收)⇒ 照上面读:真实的行为改变,去查,⛔ 不要重排掉;
断言的对象是这次实验自身的有效性前提(跑完的耗时、负载下的先后、任何只在时间预算内才成立的条件)⇒ 它跟超时是同一类,同样对负载敏感,重排一次是合法的判别手段。
识别是机械的:断言的消息或它比较的值本身点名了一段时长、一个时间戳、一个耗时计数。实测过的一对 —— AssertionError: SecurityPlugin.init() ran: expected false to be true 测的是产品行为(真回归);
AssertionError: this run took over a second, so second-precision stamps could have differed too: expected 1006 to be less than 1000 测的是实验前提:它守护的那条不变式当时是绿的,同一个 head 原样重排一次即成功。
穿着 AssertionError 外衣的时间测量,仍然是时间测量。(⛔ 这只改「怎么读一次红」,不改「哪些测试可以重排」——后者由别处管。)

跨 PR 相同签名(24h,按失败测试文件聚合):

历史信号:

  • 本 PR 过去 24h 无队列失败记录(首次)。
  • 过去 24h 队列共有 51 个失败构建(不含本次)。

分诊清单:

  1. 失败测试在本 PR 改动的包里 → 真回归,修 PR。
  2. 失败测试与本 PR 无关 → 看上面的「跨 PR 相同签名」;已有汇总 issue ⇒ flaky/环境问题实锤,去那张 issue 上谈,修好前重排只会再烧一轮全队列。
  3. 两者都不是 → 可能与同组 PR 语义冲突;等前面的 PR 落地或失败出队后再重排一次即可,不要连续重排。

Generated by Claude Code · merge-queue-triage workflow (#4859)

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

⛔ merge queue 构建失败 — 先分诊,再决定要不要重排

队列构建 33712949207 红了。队列跑的是全量套件(PR 侧 CI 只跑 affected 子集),
所以失败的测试可能在本 PR 没碰过的包里 —— 那不是重排能修的。每次盲目重排都会让排在后面的所有 PR 重建一轮。

失败的 job(日志抽取,best effort):

  • Test Core (1/6) — 失败步骤: Run this shard's tests

    @objectstack/cli:test: FAIL integration test/run-dev-unbuilt-workspace.e2e.test.ts > the mirror direction: a reader that is never coming back > gives up and exits instead of waiting forever
    ↳ 失败原因: @objectstack/cli:test: AssertionError: the harness SIGKILLed the child — it was still alive at the ceiling. cap 180000 ms (RUN_TIMEOUT_MS, constant and load-independent by design); this child ran 1801
    

↳ 失败原因 是判读的关键:超时Test timed out in … / Hook timed out in …)多半是负载/时序,不是本 PR 的回归;
断言AssertionError: …)才指向真实的行为改变。两者的 FAIL 行长得一模一样,只有这一行能区分。

⚠️断言这一侧有一类例外,判据是断言在测什么,不是它是不是 AssertionError 断言的对象是产品行为(一个值、一个形状、一次拒收)⇒ 照上面读:真实的行为改变,去查,⛔ 不要重排掉;
断言的对象是这次实验自身的有效性前提(跑完的耗时、负载下的先后、任何只在时间预算内才成立的条件)⇒ 它跟超时是同一类,同样对负载敏感,重排一次是合法的判别手段。
识别是机械的:断言的消息或它比较的值本身点名了一段时长、一个时间戳、一个耗时计数。实测过的一对 —— AssertionError: SecurityPlugin.init() ran: expected false to be true 测的是产品行为(真回归);
AssertionError: this run took over a second, so second-precision stamps could have differed too: expected 1006 to be less than 1000 测的是实验前提:它守护的那条不变式当时是绿的,同一个 head 原样重排一次即成功。
穿着 AssertionError 外衣的时间测量,仍然是时间测量。(⛔ 这只改「怎么读一次红」,不改「哪些测试可以重排」——后者由别处管。)

跨 PR 相同签名(24h,按失败测试文件聚合):

历史信号:

  • ⚠️本 PR 过去 24h 已在队列失败 1 次(不含本次)。 内容未变而反复失败 ⇒ 高度怀疑 flaky 测试或与同组 PR 的语义冲突,重排不解决。
  • 过去 24h 队列共有 53 个失败构建(不含本次)。

分诊清单:

  1. 失败测试在本 PR 改动的包里 → 真回归,修 PR。
  2. 失败测试与本 PR 无关 → 看上面的「跨 PR 相同签名」;已有汇总 issue ⇒ flaky/环境问题实锤,去那张 issue 上谈,修好前重排只会再烧一轮全队列。
  3. 两者都不是 → 可能与同组 PR 语义冲突;等前面的 PR 落地或失败出队后再重排一次即可,不要连续重排。

Generated by Claude Code · merge-queue-triage workflow (#4859)

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

⛔ merge queue 构建失败 — 先分诊,再决定要不要重排

队列构建 33714188793 红了。队列跑的是全量套件(PR 侧 CI 只跑 affected 子集),
所以失败的测试可能在本 PR 没碰过的包里 —— 那不是重排能修的。每次盲目重排都会让排在后面的所有 PR 重建一轮。

失败的 job(日志抽取,best effort):

  • Test Core (1/6) — 失败步骤: Run this shard's tests

    @objectstack/cli:test: FAIL integration test/run-dev-unbuilt-workspace.e2e.test.ts > the mirror direction: a reader that is never coming back > gives up and exits instead of waiting forever
    ↳ 失败原因: @objectstack/cli:test: AssertionError: the harness SIGKILLed the child — it was still alive at the ceiling. cap 180000 ms (RUN_TIMEOUT_MS, constant and load-independent by design); this child ran 1801
    

↳ 失败原因 是判读的关键:超时Test timed out in … / Hook timed out in …)多半是负载/时序,不是本 PR 的回归;
断言AssertionError: …)才指向真实的行为改变。两者的 FAIL 行长得一模一样,只有这一行能区分。

⚠️断言这一侧有一类例外,判据是断言在测什么,不是它是不是 AssertionError 断言的对象是产品行为(一个值、一个形状、一次拒收)⇒ 照上面读:真实的行为改变,去查,⛔ 不要重排掉;
断言的对象是这次实验自身的有效性前提(跑完的耗时、负载下的先后、任何只在时间预算内才成立的条件)⇒ 它跟超时是同一类,同样对负载敏感,重排一次是合法的判别手段。
识别是机械的:断言的消息或它比较的值本身点名了一段时长、一个时间戳、一个耗时计数。实测过的一对 —— AssertionError: SecurityPlugin.init() ran: expected false to be true 测的是产品行为(真回归);
AssertionError: this run took over a second, so second-precision stamps could have differed too: expected 1006 to be less than 1000 测的是实验前提:它守护的那条不变式当时是绿的,同一个 head 原样重排一次即成功。
穿着 AssertionError 外衣的时间测量,仍然是时间测量。(⛔ 这只改「怎么读一次红」,不改「哪些测试可以重排」——后者由别处管。)

跨 PR 相同签名(24h,按失败测试文件聚合):

历史信号:

  • ⚠️本 PR 过去 24h 已在队列失败 2 次(不含本次)。 内容未变而反复失败 ⇒ 高度怀疑 flaky 测试或与同组 PR 的语义冲突,重排不解决。
  • 过去 24h 队列共有 59 个失败构建(不含本次)。

分诊清单:

  1. 失败测试在本 PR 改动的包里 → 真回归,修 PR。
  2. 失败测试与本 PR 无关 → 看上面的「跨 PR 相同签名」;已有汇总 issue ⇒ flaky/环境问题实锤,去那张 issue 上谈,修好前重排只会再烧一轮全队列。
  3. 两者都不是 → 可能与同组 PR 语义冲突;等前面的 PR 落地或失败出队后再重排一次即可,不要连续重排。

Generated by Claude Code · merge-queue-triage workflow (#4859)

Merged via the queue into main with commit 13ade4dSep 3, 2026
36 checks passed
@baozhoutao
baozhoutao deleted the claude/issue-14729-i18n-coverage-ratchet-race-header branch September 3, 2026 04:51
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

size/sskip-changesetPR has no user-facing published change; bypasses the changeset gate

Projects

None yet

2 participants

@baozhoutao@claude
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Universal Dark Mode - works on any site\n(function() {\n var enabled = true;\n \n function applyDarkMode() {\n if (!enabled) return;\n \n // Create style element if it doesn't exist\n var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');\n if (!style) {\n style = document.createElement('style');\n style.id = 'universal-dark-mode-style';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n }\n \n // Dark mode CSS - inverts colors but preserves images/video\n style.textContent = '\n /* Invert everything except media */\n html {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n background: #1a1a2e !important;\n }\n \n /* Restore images, videos, iframes, canvas */\n img, video, iframe, canvas, svg, picture, [style*=\"background-image\"] {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n }\n \n /* Preserve specific elements that should not be inverted */\n .no-dark-mode, .no-dark-mode *,\n [data-theme=\"light\"], [data-theme=\"light\"],\n .ace_editor, .ace_editor *,\n .CodeMirror, .CodeMirror *,\n .monaco-editor, .monaco-editor *,\n .markdown-body pre, .markdown-body pre *,\n .highlight, .highlight *,\n pre code, pre code * {\n filter: none !important;\n }\n \n /* Fix common UI elements */\n .modal, .popup, .dropdown-menu, .tooltip, .popover {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n background: #2d2d44 !important;\n border-color: #444 !important;\n }\n \n /* Scrollbars */\n ::-webkit-scrollbar { background: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb { background: #444 !important; }\n ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb:hover { background: #555 !important; }\n \n /* Selection */\n ::selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ::-moz-selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ';\n }\n \n function removeDarkMode() {\n var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');\n if (style) style.remove();\n }\n \n // Toggle with Alt+Shift+D\n document.addEventListener('keydown', function(e) {\n if (e.altKey && e.shiftKey && e.key === 'D') {\n e.preventDefault();\n enabled = !enabled;\n if (enabled) {\n applyDarkMode();\n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Enabled');\n } else {\n removeDarkMode();\n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Disabled');\n }\n }\n });\n \n // Apply on load\n applyDarkMode();\n \n // Re-apply on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n if (enabled && !document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style')) {\n applyDarkMode();\n }\n });\n observer.observe(document.head, { childList: true });\n \n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Loaded - Press Alt+Shift+D to toggle');\n})();", "Universal Dark Mode"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Universal Dark Mode]', __e); } })(); })();
Skip to content

docs(i18n): name the measurement-widening race in check-i18n-coverage's header - #14799

Merged
baozhoutao merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
claude/issue-14729-i18n-coverage-ratchet-race-header
Sep 3, 2026
Merged

docs(i18n): name the measurement-widening race in check-i18n-coverage's header#14799
baozhoutao merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
claude/issue-14729-i18n-coverage-ratchet-race-header

Conversation

@claude

@claudeclaudeBot commented Sep 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Fixes#14729

What changed

scripts/check-i18n-coverage.mjs only, two additions, adopted as filed by
triage (comment 5518536856) — no baseline split, no dropped DOWN direction,
no computed number.

1. One sentence on the DOWN-direction remedy (was :1340-1341)

Before:

${file}: untranslated declared strings improved ${allowed} → ${now} — ratchet DOWN: run `node scripts/check-i18n-coverage.mjs --update` and commit the baseline.

After:

${file}: untranslated declared strings improved ${allowed} → ${now} — ratchet DOWN: run `node scripts/check-i18n-coverage.mjs --update` and commit the baseline. If you did not touch this population, merge `origin/main` first — the movement is probably not yours.

2. One header paragraph naming the class generally

Appended at the end of the file's header (which already opens with the #3370
narrative), stating the property in general form — not i18n-specific — plus
the campaign observation (the two collisions were not independent draws) and
the forward-looking exposure as of 224f8ea: app-showcase 0 untranslated
rule messages remaining (that leg is finished); app-crm 5, app-todo 4;
bulkActions 18 and datasets 62 nobody is currently working — any of those
starting to move will race this gate the same way.

Diff

$ git diff --stat origin/main
scripts/check-i18n-coverage.mjs | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

One file, comment/string additions only — no logic change, no baseline
movement.

Tests

  • pnpm check:i18n-coverage (self-test + real run) at 674bb4afe8:
    check-i18n-coverage: OK (13 config(s), 691 baselined untranslated string(s), none new).
    — same 691 total as the issue's forward-exposure snapshot; no movement from
    this comment/string-only edit.
  • node scripts/pm/dispatch-gates.mjs --repo objectstack-ai/objectstack --commands scripts/check-i18n-coverage.mjs
    derived 18 runnable gates for this file surface; all 18 ran, 17 green,
    1 NOT MEASURED (check-test-completeness.mjs — its own text: "PREREQUISITE
    NOT MET… no local log… not a red, nothing here to fix").
  • No self-test in this file pins the exact remedy string (grepped), so none
    needed updating.

Excluded (binding, per triage)

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_01WLJQhde67SeTccsmnBVarV


Generated by Claude Code

…'s header
The DOWN-direction remedy read as "your diff improved something" when the
usual cause was "main moved under you" — a PR that widens what this ratchet
measures races every in-flight PR that changes what is measured, invisibly,
because the instrument does not exist on main. Append one sentence to the
remedy pointing the reader at merging main first, and name the class
generally in the file's own header, alongside the campaign observation and
the forward-looking exposure (app-crm, app-todo, bulkActions, datasets).
Fixes#14729
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01WLJQhde67SeTccsmnBVarV
@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

⛔ merge queue 构建失败 — 先分诊,再决定要不要重排

队列构建 33712976158 红了。队列跑的是全量套件(PR 侧 CI 只跑 affected 子集),
所以失败的测试可能在本 PR 没碰过的包里 —— 那不是重排能修的。每次盲目重排都会让排在后面的所有 PR 重建一轮。

失败的 job(日志抽取,best effort):

  • Test Core (1/6) — 失败步骤: Run this shard's tests

    @objectstack/cli:test: FAIL integration test/run-dev-unbuilt-workspace.e2e.test.ts > the mirror direction: a reader that is never coming back > gives up and exits instead of waiting forever
    ↳ 失败原因: @objectstack/cli:test: AssertionError: the harness SIGKILLed the child — it was still alive at the ceiling. cap 180000 ms (RUN_TIMEOUT_MS, constant and load-independent by design); this child ran 1801
    

↳ 失败原因 是判读的关键:超时Test timed out in … / Hook timed out in …)多半是负载/时序,不是本 PR 的回归;
断言AssertionError: …)才指向真实的行为改变。两者的 FAIL 行长得一模一样,只有这一行能区分。

⚠️断言这一侧有一类例外,判据是断言在测什么,不是它是不是 AssertionError 断言的对象是产品行为(一个值、一个形状、一次拒收)⇒ 照上面读:真实的行为改变,去查,⛔ 不要重排掉;
断言的对象是这次实验自身的有效性前提(跑完的耗时、负载下的先后、任何只在时间预算内才成立的条件)⇒ 它跟超时是同一类,同样对负载敏感,重排一次是合法的判别手段。
识别是机械的:断言的消息或它比较的值本身点名了一段时长、一个时间戳、一个耗时计数。实测过的一对 —— AssertionError: SecurityPlugin.init() ran: expected false to be true 测的是产品行为(真回归);
AssertionError: this run took over a second, so second-precision stamps could have differed too: expected 1006 to be less than 1000 测的是实验前提:它守护的那条不变式当时是绿的,同一个 head 原样重排一次即成功。
穿着 AssertionError 外衣的时间测量,仍然是时间测量。(⛔ 这只改「怎么读一次红」,不改「哪些测试可以重排」——后者由别处管。)

跨 PR 相同签名(24h,按失败测试文件聚合):

历史信号:

  • 本 PR 过去 24h 无队列失败记录(首次)。
  • 过去 24h 队列共有 51 个失败构建(不含本次)。

分诊清单:

  1. 失败测试在本 PR 改动的包里 → 真回归,修 PR。
  2. 失败测试与本 PR 无关 → 看上面的「跨 PR 相同签名」;已有汇总 issue ⇒ flaky/环境问题实锤,去那张 issue 上谈,修好前重排只会再烧一轮全队列。
  3. 两者都不是 → 可能与同组 PR 语义冲突;等前面的 PR 落地或失败出队后再重排一次即可,不要连续重排。

Generated by Claude Code · merge-queue-triage workflow (#4859)

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

⛔ merge queue 构建失败 — 先分诊,再决定要不要重排

队列构建 33712949207 红了。队列跑的是全量套件(PR 侧 CI 只跑 affected 子集),
所以失败的测试可能在本 PR 没碰过的包里 —— 那不是重排能修的。每次盲目重排都会让排在后面的所有 PR 重建一轮。

失败的 job(日志抽取,best effort):

  • Test Core (1/6) — 失败步骤: Run this shard's tests

    @objectstack/cli:test: FAIL integration test/run-dev-unbuilt-workspace.e2e.test.ts > the mirror direction: a reader that is never coming back > gives up and exits instead of waiting forever
    ↳ 失败原因: @objectstack/cli:test: AssertionError: the harness SIGKILLed the child — it was still alive at the ceiling. cap 180000 ms (RUN_TIMEOUT_MS, constant and load-independent by design); this child ran 1801
    

↳ 失败原因 是判读的关键:超时Test timed out in … / Hook timed out in …)多半是负载/时序,不是本 PR 的回归;
断言AssertionError: …)才指向真实的行为改变。两者的 FAIL 行长得一模一样,只有这一行能区分。

⚠️断言这一侧有一类例外,判据是断言在测什么,不是它是不是 AssertionError 断言的对象是产品行为(一个值、一个形状、一次拒收)⇒ 照上面读:真实的行为改变,去查,⛔ 不要重排掉;
断言的对象是这次实验自身的有效性前提(跑完的耗时、负载下的先后、任何只在时间预算内才成立的条件)⇒ 它跟超时是同一类,同样对负载敏感,重排一次是合法的判别手段。
识别是机械的:断言的消息或它比较的值本身点名了一段时长、一个时间戳、一个耗时计数。实测过的一对 —— AssertionError: SecurityPlugin.init() ran: expected false to be true 测的是产品行为(真回归);
AssertionError: this run took over a second, so second-precision stamps could have differed too: expected 1006 to be less than 1000 测的是实验前提:它守护的那条不变式当时是绿的,同一个 head 原样重排一次即成功。
穿着 AssertionError 外衣的时间测量,仍然是时间测量。(⛔ 这只改「怎么读一次红」,不改「哪些测试可以重排」——后者由别处管。)

跨 PR 相同签名(24h,按失败测试文件聚合):

历史信号:

  • ⚠️本 PR 过去 24h 已在队列失败 1 次(不含本次)。 内容未变而反复失败 ⇒ 高度怀疑 flaky 测试或与同组 PR 的语义冲突,重排不解决。
  • 过去 24h 队列共有 53 个失败构建(不含本次)。

分诊清单:

  1. 失败测试在本 PR 改动的包里 → 真回归,修 PR。
  2. 失败测试与本 PR 无关 → 看上面的「跨 PR 相同签名」;已有汇总 issue ⇒ flaky/环境问题实锤,去那张 issue 上谈,修好前重排只会再烧一轮全队列。
  3. 两者都不是 → 可能与同组 PR 语义冲突;等前面的 PR 落地或失败出队后再重排一次即可,不要连续重排。

Generated by Claude Code · merge-queue-triage workflow (#4859)

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

⛔ merge queue 构建失败 — 先分诊,再决定要不要重排

队列构建 33714188793 红了。队列跑的是全量套件(PR 侧 CI 只跑 affected 子集),
所以失败的测试可能在本 PR 没碰过的包里 —— 那不是重排能修的。每次盲目重排都会让排在后面的所有 PR 重建一轮。

失败的 job(日志抽取,best effort):

  • Test Core (1/6) — 失败步骤: Run this shard's tests

    @objectstack/cli:test: FAIL integration test/run-dev-unbuilt-workspace.e2e.test.ts > the mirror direction: a reader that is never coming back > gives up and exits instead of waiting forever
    ↳ 失败原因: @objectstack/cli:test: AssertionError: the harness SIGKILLed the child — it was still alive at the ceiling. cap 180000 ms (RUN_TIMEOUT_MS, constant and load-independent by design); this child ran 1801
    

↳ 失败原因 是判读的关键:超时Test timed out in … / Hook timed out in …)多半是负载/时序,不是本 PR 的回归;
断言AssertionError: …)才指向真实的行为改变。两者的 FAIL 行长得一模一样,只有这一行能区分。

⚠️断言这一侧有一类例外,判据是断言在测什么,不是它是不是 AssertionError 断言的对象是产品行为(一个值、一个形状、一次拒收)⇒ 照上面读:真实的行为改变,去查,⛔ 不要重排掉;
断言的对象是这次实验自身的有效性前提(跑完的耗时、负载下的先后、任何只在时间预算内才成立的条件)⇒ 它跟超时是同一类,同样对负载敏感,重排一次是合法的判别手段。
识别是机械的:断言的消息或它比较的值本身点名了一段时长、一个时间戳、一个耗时计数。实测过的一对 —— AssertionError: SecurityPlugin.init() ran: expected false to be true 测的是产品行为(真回归);
AssertionError: this run took over a second, so second-precision stamps could have differed too: expected 1006 to be less than 1000 测的是实验前提:它守护的那条不变式当时是绿的,同一个 head 原样重排一次即成功。
穿着 AssertionError 外衣的时间测量,仍然是时间测量。(⛔ 这只改「怎么读一次红」,不改「哪些测试可以重排」——后者由别处管。)

跨 PR 相同签名(24h,按失败测试文件聚合):

历史信号:

  • ⚠️本 PR 过去 24h 已在队列失败 2 次(不含本次)。 内容未变而反复失败 ⇒ 高度怀疑 flaky 测试或与同组 PR 的语义冲突,重排不解决。
  • 过去 24h 队列共有 59 个失败构建(不含本次)。

分诊清单:

  1. 失败测试在本 PR 改动的包里 → 真回归,修 PR。
  2. 失败测试与本 PR 无关 → 看上面的「跨 PR 相同签名」;已有汇总 issue ⇒ flaky/环境问题实锤,去那张 issue 上谈,修好前重排只会再烧一轮全队列。
  3. 两者都不是 → 可能与同组 PR 语义冲突;等前面的 PR 落地或失败出队后再重排一次即可,不要连续重排。

Generated by Claude Code · merge-queue-triage workflow (#4859)

Merged via the queue into main with commit 13ade4dSep 3, 2026
36 checks passed
@baozhoutao
baozhoutao deleted the claude/issue-14729-i18n-coverage-ratchet-race-header branch September 3, 2026 04:51
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

size/sskip-changesetPR has no user-facing published change; bypasses the changeset gate

Projects

None yet

2 participants

@baozhoutao@claude