๐งช [scripts/ci] opencode_review_normalize_output.py ํ ์คํธ ์ถ๊ฐ ๋ฐ ์ปค๋ฒ๋ฆฌ์ง 100% ๋ฌ์ฑ#112
๐งช [scripts/ci] opencode_review_normalize_output.py ํ
์คํธ ์ถ๊ฐ ๋ฐ ์ปค๋ฒ๋ฆฌ์ง 100% ๋ฌ์ฑ#112seonghobae wants to merge 6 commits into
Conversation
|
๐ Jules, reporting for duty! I'm here to lend a hand with this pull request. When you start a review, I'll add a ๐ 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. |
![opencode-agent[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1549082?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
OpenCode reviewed the current-head evidence but cannot approve because required coverage evidence did not pass.
Findings
1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence
-
Problem: The OpenCode approval path reached an APPROVE control result while the separate coverage-evidence job result was
failure. -
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. -
Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
-
Reason: coverage-evidence result was
failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head714746772809bca1ba11d959adedc787a3fb26c6. -
Head SHA:
714746772809bca1ba11d959adedc787a3fb26c6 -
Workflow run: 28349417010
-
Workflow attempt: 2
Coverage evidence
Coverage Evidence
- Head SHA:
714746772809bca1ba11d959adedc787a3fb26c6 - Coverage policy: current-head test coverage and docstring coverage must prove 100% before automated approval.
- Approval policy: missing, partial, unavailable, failed, or below-100% coverage evidence is blocking.
Python test coverage
============================= test session starts ==============================
platform linux -- Python 3.12.3, pytest-9.1.1, pluggy-1.6.0
rootdir: /home/runner/work/.github/.github
configfile: pyproject.toml
collected 18 items
tests/scripts/ci/test_opencode_review_normalize_output.py .............. [ 77%]
.... [100%]
============================== 18 passed in 0.18s ==============================
- Result: PASS
Python coverage report
Name Stmts Miss Cover
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
scripts/ci/opencode_review_normalize_output.py 112 0 100%
tests/scripts/ci/test_opencode_review_normalize_output.py 207 0 100%
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 319 0 100%
- Result: PASS
Python docstring coverage
RESULT: FAILED (minimum: 100.0%, actual: 14.0%)
- Result: FAIL (exit 1)
Coverage Decision
- Result: FAIL
- Test coverage: not proven 100%
- Docstring coverage: not proven 100%
- Failure count: 1
Change Flow DAG
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Changed file: .coverage"]
S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file: .coverage"]
R1 --> V1["required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["CI script: opencode_review_normalize_output.cpython-312.pyc"]
S2 --> I2["review and security gate shell path"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: CI script: opencode_review_normalize_output.cpython-312.pyc"]
R2 --> V2["bash -n plus Strix self-test"]
Evidence --> S3["Test (2 files)"]
S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test (2 files)"]
R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
OpenCode Review Overview
Pull request overviewOpenCode 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. Findings1. HIGH review evidence:1 - OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency
Summary
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 Mapflowchart 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_opencode_agent_contract.py"]
S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test: test_opencode_agent_contract.py"]
R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]
|
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
jules-2239572297704133941-6c0d3584cannot 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
mainintojules-2239572297704133941-6c0d3584, resolve conflict markers in the PR branch, rerun the focused checks, and push the same branch. - Repair commands:
gh pr checkout 112 --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:jules-2239572297704133941-6c0d3584
# rebase path only: git push --force-with-lease origin HEAD:jules-2239572297704133941-6c0d3584- 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["Changed file: .coverage"]
S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
I1 --> Conflict["Merge conflict blocks this path"]
Conflict --> V1["required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["CI script (2 files)"]
S2 --> I2["review and security gate shell path"]
I2 --> Conflict["Merge conflict blocks this path"]
Conflict --> V2["bash -n plus Strix self-test"]
Evidence --> S3["Test (2 files)"]
S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
I3 --> Conflict["Merge conflict blocks this path"]
Conflict --> V3["targeted test run"]
- Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
- Reason: mergeStateStatus is
DIRTY; mergeable isCONFLICTING. - Head SHA:
cdb9efecaae1284b05ae3f1f7365c047a984be0f - Workflow run: 28387994219
- Workflow attempt: 1
|
@copilot resolve the merge conflicts in this pull request |
Merge conflicts resolved (commit
|
![github-actions[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
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 (bounded current-head evidence); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
- Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
- Head SHA:
595051b7ba1bc63520f3970bb6f7d846024f48cc - Workflow run: 28515079998
- 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
Evidence["OpenCode evidence"] --> Review["Current PR review path"]
Review --> Verify["Required checks"]
@copilot ํจ์ฌ ๋ง์ ์๊ฐ์ ๋ค์ฌ์ ํจ์ฌ ๋ง์ ์ฌ์๋์ exponential sleep์ ์ถ๊ฐํด์๋ผ๋ ๋ฐ๋์ ์ฑ๊ณต์์ผ๋ผ. |
Done. Changes in the latest commit:
The model pool will now retry up to 5 times with exponential sleep between each attempt, and the job has up to 55 minutes of retry budget before exhaustion. |
Understood. Acknowledging that this work is now obsolete and stopping work on this task. The test files have been renamed and incorporated into the main branch by another pull request. |
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); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
- Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
- Head SHA:
7cd275902b22ddeaed51d90a33b3110c760fd9df - Workflow run: 28525354660
- 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: test_opencode_agent_contract.py"]
S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test: test_opencode_agent_contract.py"]
R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]
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); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
- Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
- Head SHA:
7cd275902b22ddeaed51d90a33b3110c760fd9df - Workflow run: 28525354660
- 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: test_opencode_agent_contract.py"]
S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test: test_opencode_agent_contract.py"]
R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]
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); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
- Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
- Head SHA:
7cd275902b22ddeaed51d90a33b3110c760fd9df - Workflow run: 28525354660
- 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: test_opencode_agent_contract.py"]
S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test: test_opencode_agent_contract.py"]
R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]
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); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
- Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
- Head SHA:
7cd275902b22ddeaed51d90a33b3110c760fd9df - Workflow run: 28525354660
- 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: test_opencode_agent_contract.py"]
S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test: test_opencode_agent_contract.py"]
R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]
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); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
- Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
- Head SHA:
7cd275902b22ddeaed51d90a33b3110c760fd9df - Workflow run: 28525354660
- Workflow attempt: 5
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: test_opencode_agent_contract.py"]
S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test: test_opencode_agent_contract.py"]
R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]
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); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
- Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
- Head SHA:
7cd275902b22ddeaed51d90a33b3110c760fd9df - Workflow run: 28525354660
- Workflow attempt: 6
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: test_opencode_agent_contract.py"]
S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test: test_opencode_agent_contract.py"]
R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]
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); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
- Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
- Head SHA:
70bb3ca86cdfe3055cb87502fc65d06c2d668d97 - Workflow run: 28558666609
- 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: test_opencode_agent_contract.py"]
S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test: test_opencode_agent_contract.py"]
R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]
|
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. |
๐ฏ ๋ฌด์์:
scripts/ci/opencode_review_normalize_output.py์valid_controlํจ์์ ๊ธฐํ ๋ณด์กฐ ํจ์๋ค์ ๋ํ ํฌ๊ด์ ์ธ ๋จ์ ํ ์คํธ๊ฐ ์ถ๊ฐ๋์์ต๋๋ค.๐ ์ปค๋ฒ๋ฆฌ์ง: ์ ๋ ฅ ๊ฒ์ฆ, ์ ํจํ ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ ์ฒ๋ฆฌ, ์ฐพ์ ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ ๋ ผ๋ฆฌ, ๋ฌธ์์ด ์ผ์น ๋์ฐ๋ฏธ, ๊ตฌ์กฐ์ ์น์ธ ์ฒ๋ฆฌ ๋ฑ ๋ชจ๋ ์๋๋ฆฌ์ค์ ์ฃ์ง ์ผ์ด์ค๊ฐ ์ด์ ํ ์คํธ๋ฉ๋๋ค.
โจ ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ: ํ ์คํธ ์ปค๋ฒ๋ฆฌ์ง๊ฐ 100%์ ๋๋ฌํ์์ผ๋ฉฐ ํฅํ ๋ฆฌํฉํ ๋ง ๋ฐ ์์ ์ ๋ํ ์ ๋ขฐ์ฑ์ ํฌ๊ฒ ํฅ์์ํต๋๋ค.
PR created automatically by Jules for task 2239572297704133941 started by @seonghobae