π§ͺ ν μ€νΈ 컀λ²λ¦¬μ§ κ°μ : parse_workflow_action_required_reason ν¨μμ λν ν μ€νΈ μΆκ°#128
Closed
seonghobae wants to merge 11 commits into
Conversation
|
π Jules, reporting for duty! I'm here to lend a hand with this pull request. When you start a review, I'll add a π emoji to each comment to let you know I've read it. I'll focus on feedback directed at me and will do my best to stay out of conversations between you and other bots or reviewers to keep the noise down. I'll push a commit with your requested changes shortly after. Please note there might be a delay between these steps, but rest assured I'm on the job! For more direct control, you can switch me to Reactive Mode. When this mode is on, I will only act on comments where you specifically mention me with New to Jules? Learn more at jules.google/docs. For security, I will only act on instructions from the user who triggered this task. |
Contributor
Author
|
@copilot resolve the merge conflicts in this pull request |
![github-actions[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.
Review outcome
1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence
-
Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was
failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head. -
Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.
-
Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports
successwith required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence. -
Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking
needs.coverage-evidence.result == successbefore posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present. -
Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
-
Reason: coverage-evidence result was
failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head1acfa930b246ba444f14dbd2b6467134e1211975. -
Head SHA:
1acfa930b246ba444f14dbd2b6467134e1211975 -
Workflow run: 28513537559
-
Workflow attempt: 1
Coverage evidence
Coverage Evidence
- Head SHA:
1acfa930b246ba444f14dbd2b6467134e1211975 - Required test evidence: supported repository test suites must pass.
- Required docstring evidence: repository-owned docstring gates must pass when configured; otherwise docstring coverage is advisory.
Python project dependencies (.)
Using CPython 3.12.3 interpreter at: /usr/bin/python
Creating virtual environment at: .venv
warning: No `requires-python` value found in the workspace. Defaulting to `>=3.12`.
Resolved in 1ms
Checked in 0.00ms
- Result: PASS
Python coverage with missing-line report (.)
warning: No `requires-python` value found in the workspace. Defaulting to `>=3.12`.
Downloading pygments (1.2MiB)
Downloaded pygments
Installed 6 packages in 9ms
============================= 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 52 items
tests/test_opencode_review_normalize_output.py .F....F......FFF [ 30%]
tests/test_pr_governance_audit_contract.py .. [ 34%]
tests/test_pr_review_fix_scheduler.py ..F.F...FF. [ 55%]
tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py .....F....F.F..FF...... [100%]
=================================== FAILURES ===================================
_____________ test_changed_file_and_verification_posture_detection _____________
def test_changed_file_and_verification_posture_detection():
assert norm.mentions_changed_file_evidence("README.md", "")
assert norm.mentions_changed_file_evidence("scripts/ci/example.py", "")
assert not norm.mentions_changed_file_evidence("No path here", "")
assert not norm.mentions_changed_file_evidence("Security/privacy: checked", "")
> assert norm.mentions_verification_posture("", FULL_SUMMARY)
E AssertionError: assert False
E + where False = <function mentions_verification_posture at 0x7f3fa676cfe0>('', 'Verification posture: CodeGraph inspected scripts/ci/example.py on the current head.\nLinter/static: actionlint and b... checked.\nUser experience: user-facing behavior impact was checked.\nSecurity/privacy: security impact was checked.\n')
E + where <function mentions_verification_posture at 0x7f3fa676cfe0> = norm.mentions_verification_posture
tests/test_opencode_review_normalize_output.py:70: AssertionError
__________ test_valid_control_filters_shape_head_and_review_contract ___________
def test_valid_control_filters_shape_head_and_review_contract():
kwargs = {
"expected_head_sha": "head",
"expected_run_id": "run",
"expected_run_attempt": "attempt",
}
assert norm.valid_control([], **kwargs) is None
assert norm.valid_control(control(head_sha="other"), **kwargs) is None
assert norm.valid_control(control(run_id="other"), **kwargs) is None
assert norm.valid_control(control(run_attempt="other"), **kwargs) is None
assert norm.valid_control(control(result="COMMENT"), **kwargs) is None
assert norm.valid_control(control(reason=""), **kwargs) is None
assert norm.valid_control(control(summary=""), **kwargs) is None
assert norm.valid_control(control(findings="bad"), **kwargs) is None
assert norm.valid_control(control(findings=[finding()]), **kwargs) is None
assert norm.valid_control(control(result="REQUEST_CHANGES", findings=[]), **kwargs) is None
assert norm.valid_control(control(reason="No changed files"), **kwargs) is None
assert norm.valid_control(
control(reason="No source path", summary=FULL_SUMMARY.replace("scripts/ci/example.py", "source file")),
**kwargs,
) is None
assert norm.valid_control(control(summary="scripts/ci/example.py"), **kwargs) is None
assert norm.valid_control(control(summary=FULL_SUMMARY.replace("100%", "99%", 1)), **kwargs) is None
request = control(result="REQUEST_CHANGES", findings=[finding()])
assert norm.valid_control(dict(request, findings=["bad"]), **kwargs) is None
assert norm.valid_control(dict(request, findings=[finding(line=True)]), **kwargs) is None
assert norm.valid_control(dict(request, findings=[finding(line=0)]), **kwargs) is None
assert norm.valid_control(dict(request, findings=[finding(title="")]), **kwargs) is None
assert (
norm.valid_control(
dict(
request,
summary=(
"The review could not map each failed check to exact local source lines "
"from the available logs, so it needs better failed-check evidence."
),
),
**kwargs,
)
is None
)
assert norm.valid_control(request, **kwargs)["result"] == "REQUEST_CHANGES"
approve_without_findings_key = control()
approve_without_findings_key.pop("findings")
> assert norm.valid_control(approve_without_findings_key, **kwargs)["findings"] == []
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
E TypeError: 'NoneType' object is not subscriptable
tests/test_opencode_review_normalize_output.py:313: TypeError
____________ test_iter_json_objects_extracts_raw_and_embedded_json _____________
def test_iter_json_objects_extracts_raw_and_embedded_json():
> assert norm.iter_json_objects('{"a": 1}') == [{"a": 1}, {"a": 1}]
E AssertionError: assert [{'a': 1}] == [{'a': 1}, {'a': 1}]
E
E Right contains one more item: {'a': 1}
E
E Full diff:
E [
E {
E 'a': 1,
E },
E - {
E - 'a': 1,
E - },
E ]
tests/test_opencode_review_normalize_output.py:627: AssertionError
____________ test_main_normalizes_valid_output_and_reports_failures ____________
tmp_path = PosixPath('/tmp/pytest-of-runner/pytest-0/test_main_normalizes_valid_out0')
capsys = <_pytest.capture.CaptureFixture object at 0x7f3fa6f13830>
def test_main_normalizes_valid_output_and_reports_failures(tmp_path, capsys):
output = tmp_path / "opencode.txt"
output.write_text("prefix\n" + json.dumps(control()) + "\nsuffix", encoding="utf-8")
> assert norm.main(["prog", "head", "run", "attempt", str(output)]) == 0
E AssertionError: assert 4 == 0
E + where 4 = <function main at 0x7f3fa676d9e0>(['prog', 'head', 'run', 'attempt', '/tmp/pytest-of-runner/pytest-0/test_main_normalizes_valid_out0/opencode.txt'])
E + where <function main at 0x7f3fa676d9e0> = norm.main
tests/test_opencode_review_normalize_output.py:638: AssertionError
----------------------------- Captured stderr call -----------------------------
NO_CONCLUSION
________________ test_main_normalizes_and_escapes_html_markers _________________
tmp_path = PosixPath('/tmp/pytest-of-runner/pytest-0/test_main_normalizes_and_escap0')
def test_main_normalizes_and_escapes_html_markers(tmp_path):
output = tmp_path / "opencode.txt"
control_data = control(reason="Malicious --> comment", summary=FULL_SUMMARY + "\nBreakout <script>alert(1)</script>")
output.write_text(json.dumps(control_data), encoding="utf-8")
> assert norm.main(["prog", "head", "run", "attempt", str(output)]) == 0
E AssertionError: assert 4 == 0
E + where 4 = <function main at 0x7f3fa676d9e0>(['prog', 'head', 'run', 'attempt', '/tmp/pytest-of-runner/pytest-0/test_main_normalizes_and_escap0/opencode.txt'])
E + where <function main at 0x7f3fa676d9e0> = norm.main
tests/test_opencode_review_normalize_output.py:682: AssertionError
----------------------------- Captured stderr call -----------------------------
NO_CONCLUSION
_____________ test_process_queue_dispatches_same_repo_current_head _____________
monkeypatch = <_pytest.monkeypatch.MonkeyPatch object at 0x7f3fa6f131d0>
capsys = <_pytest.capture.CaptureFixture object at 0x7f3fa6f10f80>
def test_process_queue_dispatches_same_repo_current_head(monkeypatch, capsys):
"""The queue path dispatches one same-repository autofix."""
pr = make_pr()
calls = []
monkeypatch.setattr(fix, "fetch_open_prs", lambda repo, max_prs: [pr])
monkeypatch.setattr(fix, "needs_autofix", lambda pr: (True, ("current-head OpenCode requested changes",)))
monkeypatch.setattr(fix, "issue_comments", lambda repo, number: [])
monkeypatch.setattr(fix, "dispatch_autofix", lambda repo, pr, workflow, dry_run: calls.append(("dispatch", repo, pr["number"], workflow, dry_run)))
monkeypatch.setattr(fix, "create_fix_marker", lambda repo, pr, dry_run: calls.append(("marker", repo, pr["number"], dry_run)))
> assert fix.main(["--repo", "owner/repo", "--base-branch", "main", "--dry-run"]) == 0
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
tests/test_pr_review_fix_scheduler.py:70:
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
../scripts/ci/pr_review_fix_scheduler.py:397: in main
return process_queue(args)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
../scripts/ci/pr_review_fix_scheduler.py:280: in process_queue
action, reasons = inspect_pr(
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
repo = 'owner/repo'
pr = {'number': 7, 'isDraft': False, 'baseRefName': 'main', 'baseRefOid': 'bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb', ...}
args = Namespace(repo='owner/repo', base_branch='main', pr_number=0, max_prs=50, max_dispatches=1, retry_hours=24, autofix_workflow='pr-review-autofix.yml', autofix_repository='ContextualWisdomLab/.github', dry_run=True, self_test=False)
comments = []
def inspect_pr(
repo: str,
pr: dict[str, Any],
args: argparse.Namespace,
*,
comments: list[dict[str, Any]] | None = None,
) -> tuple[str, tuple[str, ...]]:
"""Inspect one PR and optionally dispatch autofix."""
number = int(pr["number"])
if pr.get("isDraft"):
return "skip", ("draft PR",)
if pr.get("baseRefName") != args.base_branch:
return "skip", (f"base branch is {pr.get('baseRefName')}; expected {args.base_branch}",)
if not same_repository_head(repo, pr):
return "skip", ("external PR head is not writable by repository workflow credentials",)
needs_fix, reasons = needs_autofix(pr)
if not needs_fix:
return "skip", ("no current-head change request or active unresolved review thread",)
if comments is None:
comments = issue_comments(repo, number)
if recent_fix_marker_exists(comments, str(pr["headRefOid"]), args.retry_hours * 3600):
return "wait", ("recent autofix marker exists for this head",)
> dispatch_autofix(
repo,
pr,
workflow=args.autofix_workflow,
workflow_repository=args.autofix_repository,
dry_run=args.dry_run,
)
E TypeError: test_process_queue_dispatches_same_repo_current_head.<locals>.<lambda>() got an unexpected keyword argument 'workflow_repository'
../scripts/ci/pr_review_fix_scheduler.py:220: TypeError
______________________ test_context_run_json_and_pr_fetch ______________________
monkeypatch = <_pytest.monkeypatch.MonkeyPatch object at 0x7f3fa6e0ac00>
def test_context_run_json_and_pr_fetch(monkeypatch):
"""Context gh wrappers decode JSON and surface command errors."""
calls = []
def fake_run(argv, check, stdout, stderr, text):
calls.append(argv)
return subprocess.CompletedProcess(argv, 0, stdout='{"ok": true}', stderr="")
monkeypatch.setattr(context.subprocess, "run", fake_run)
> assert context.run_json(["api", "x"]) == {"ok": True}
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
tests/test_pr_review_fix_scheduler.py:102:
## Changed-File Evidence Map
```mermaid
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Test: test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py"]
S1 --> I1["regression suite"]
I1 --> Conflict["Merge conflict blocks this path"]
Conflict --> V1["targeted test run"]
Contributor
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 (2 files)"]
S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test (2 files)"]
R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]
|
Contributor
Author
|
@copilot resolve the merge conflicts in this pull request |
λ³ν© μΆ©λμ ν΄κ²°νκ³ origin/main μ μ΅μ λ³κ²½ μ¬ν μμ μ½λλ₯Ό μ¬λ°°μΉ(rebase)νμ΅λλ€. |
β¦erge_scheduler.py
Contributor
Merge conflicts resolved. The conflict in |
Contributor
The branch is already up to date with |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
μ΄ PRμ CI/리뷰 μλν νμ΄νλΌμΈ μ λ°(μλλ°μ€ μ€ν μ¦κ±°, autofix μ€μΌμ€λ§/컨ν μ€νΈ, Strix/Noema κ²μ΄νΈ, μν¬νλ‘μ° μ΄μ κ³μ½)μ νμ₯Β·κ°ννλ λ³κ²½λ€μ ν λ²μ λμ ν©λλ€. λ€λ§ PR μ λͺ©/μ€λͺ (νΉμ ν¨μ ν μ€νΈ μΆκ°)κ³Ό μ€μ λ³κ²½ λ²μκ° ν¬κ² λ¬λΌ, μλ μΆμ κ³Ό λ¦¬λ·°κ° μ΄λ €μ΄ μνμ λλ€.
Changes:
- μλλ°μ€ κΈ°λ° μ€ν μ¦κ±° μμ§ λꡬ μΆκ°:
sandboxed_verify.py,sandboxed_web_e2e.pyλ° κ΄λ ¨ ν μ€νΈ - PR autofix μ€μΌμ€λ§/컨ν μ€νΈ λ° Strix κ²μ΄νΈ λ‘μ§/μν¬νλ‘μ° κ°μ (μ€μ μ컀 λμ€ν¨μΉ, changed-line κ΅μ°¨ νμ λ±)
- Noema LLM 리뷰 μν¬νλ‘μ°/κ²μ΄νΈ λ° κΈ°ν CI κ³μ½/ν둬ννΈ/μμ‘΄μ±/λ¬Έμ μ λ°μ΄νΈ
Reviewed changes
Copilot reviewed 1 out of 1 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.
Show a summary per file
| File | Description |
|---|---|
| tests/test_sandboxed_web_e2e.py | sandboxed_web_e2e λμ/μ£μ§ μΌμ΄μ€ E2E ν
μ€νΈ μΆκ° |
| tests/test_sandboxed_verify.py | sandboxed_verify νκ²½ μ€ν¬λ¬λΉ/볡μ¬/νμμμ/μνΈλ¦¬ν¬μΈνΈ ν
μ€νΈ μΆκ° |
| tests/test_review_execution_contracts.py | review_execution_contracts κ³μ½ νμ§ ν
μ€νΈ μΆκ° |
| tests/test_render_opencode_prompt_template.py | ν νλ¦Ώ λ λλ¬ placeholder μΉν ν μ€νΈ μΆκ° |
| tests/test_pr_review_fix_scheduler.py | autofix λμ€ν¨μΉ/컨ν μ€νΈ/μΈμ κ²μ¦ λ‘μ§ λ³νμ λ§μΆ ν μ€νΈ νμ₯ |
| tests/test_pr_review_fix_scheduler_coverage.py | process_queue μμΈ/μ€ν΅ κ²½λ‘ μ»€λ²λ¦¬μ§ λ³΄κ° |
| tests/test_opencode_workflow_shell_syntax.py | opencode μν¬νλ‘μ° run λΈλ‘ bash ꡬ문 κ²μ¦ ν μ€νΈ μΆκ° |
| tests/test_noema_review_gate.py | Noema κ²μ΄νΈμ PR/체ν¬/리뷰 μν μ²λ¦¬ λ° LLM νΈμΆ κ²½λ‘ ν μ€νΈ μΆκ° |
| tests/test_assert_opencode_reasoning_effort.py | OpenCode ν보 λͺ¨λΈ reasoningEffort κ²μ¦κΈ° ν μ€νΈ μΆκ° |
| tests/init.py | ν μ€νΈ ν¨ν€μ§ μ΄κΈ°ν νμΌ μΆκ° |
| scripts/ci/validate_opencode_failed_check_review.sh | failed-check 리뷰 ν μ€νΈ κ²μ¦ λ‘μ§/νμ ꡬ쑰 λ³κ²½ |
| scripts/ci/test_opencode_fact_gate_contract.sh | κ³μ½ λ¬Έμμ΄/μΉμ λͺ μΉ λ³κ²½μ λ°λ₯Έ ν μ€νΈ μ λ°μ΄νΈ |
| scripts/ci/strix_required_workflow_smoke.sh | Strix μν¬νλ‘μ° νμ μ€ν /λ½ νμΌ μ²λ¦¬ smoke κ²μ¦ κ°ν |
| scripts/ci/strix_quick_gate.sh | μ·¨μ½μ μμΉ λ μ½λ(λΌμΈ λ²μ ν¬ν¨) μΆμΆ λ° changed-line κ΅μ°¨ νμ μΆκ° |
| scripts/ci/sandboxed_web_e2e.py | λ°±μλ/νλ‘ νΈμλ μλΉμ€+E2Eλ₯Ό μλλ°μ€ 볡μ¬λ³Έμμ μ€ννλ ν¬νΌ μΆκ° |
| scripts/ci/sandboxed_verify.py | κ²μ¦ 컀맨λλ₯Ό μλλ°μ€ 볡μ¬λ³Έμμ μ€ννλ ν¬νΌ μΆκ° |
| scripts/ci/run_opencode_review_model_pool.sh | OpenCode λͺ¨λΈ ν μ¬μλ/λ°±μ€ν/ν둬ννΈ μμ± λ°μ² μΆκ° |
| scripts/ci/review_execution_contracts.py | repo λ΄ ν μ€νΈ/컀λ²λ¦¬μ§/λ¦°νΈ/보μ/λ°νμ κ³μ½ νμ§κΈ° μΆκ° |
| scripts/ci/render_opencode_prompt_template.py | μ νμ₯ μμ΄ ν νλ¦Ώ placeholderλ§ μΉννλ λ λλ¬ μΆκ° |
| scripts/ci/pr_review_fix_scheduler.py | autofix λμ€ν¨μΉ 쑰건 κ°ν, μ€μ μ컀 리ν¬μ§ν 리 λμ€ν¨μΉ, N+1 μν(λ³λ ¬ λκΈ μ‘°ν) |
| scripts/ci/pr_review_autofix_context.py | unresolved threadμ path κΈ°λ° βνμ© κ²½λ‘β μΆμΆ/컨ν μ€νΈ μΆλ ₯ μΆκ° |
| scripts/ci/opencode_review_prompt_template.md | OpenCode 리뷰 κ³μ½/μ¦κ±°/μ€ν μꡬμ¬ν λ¬Έμν κ°ν |
| scripts/ci/opencode_review_approve_gate.sh | base/head SHA μ λ¬ λ°©μ λ° νμΌ μΊμλ‘ κ²μ¦ μ΅μ ν |
| scripts/ci/noema_review_gate.py | Noema LLM 리뷰 κ²μ΄νΈ/μλΈλ° μ€ν¬λ¦½νΈ μΆκ° |
| scripts/ci/emit_opencode_failed_check_fallback_findings.sh | pytest μ€ν¨ fallback λΌλ²¨ μΆμΆ λ‘μ§ λ¨μν |
| scripts/ci/collect_failed_check_evidence.sh | PR node id μ‘°ν λ° Strix μ±κ³΅ run supersede μ²λ¦¬ λ± μ¦κ±° μμ§ κ°μ |
| scripts/ci/assert_opencode_reasoning_effort.py | reasoning-capable λͺ¨λΈμ high reasoningEffort μ€μ κ²μ¦κΈ° μΆκ° |
| requirements-strix-ci.txt | Strix CI μμ‘΄μ± μ μ½(protobuf<7) μΆκ° |
| requirements-strix-ci-hashes.txt | Strix hashed lock μ λ°μ΄νΈ(μ»΄νμΌ μ‘°κ±΄/ν΄μ/λ²μ λ°μ) |
| requirements-opencode-review-ci.txt | opencode-review CI μμ‘΄μ± λ²μ μ λ°μ΄νΈ(coverage) |
| README.md | μ€μ μ€μΌμ€λ¬/μλλ°μ€ μ€ν μ¦κ±°/μ€ν ν½μ€ κ³μ½ μ€λͺ νμ₯ |
| pyproject.toml | νλ‘μ νΈ λ©ν/μμ‘΄μ± κ·Έλ£Ή/pytest μ€μ μΆκ° λ° κΈ°μ‘΄ coverage μ€μ μ μ§ |
| PR_GOVERNANCE_AUDIT.md | μ€μ required-workflow μ΄μ/μ¨λ³΄λ© κ° κΈ°λ‘ μ λ°μ΄νΈ |
| opencode.jsonc | reasoningEffort μ€μ κ°ν λ° code-reviewer subagent/λͺ¨λΈ μ΅μ νμ₯ |
| LICENSE | MIT λΌμ΄μ μ€ μΆκ° |
| code-reviewer-prompt.md | reviewer-only μλΈμμ΄μ νΈ κ³μ½ λ¬Έμ μΆκ° |
| ci-review-prompt.md | CI 리뷰 μμ΄μ νΈ κ³μ½ λν νμ₯ |
| .jules/sentinel.md | 보μ νμ΅/κ°μ΄λ(λ―Όκ°μ 보/SSRF/μ λ±) νλͺ© μΆκ° |
| .jules/bolt.md | μ±λ₯ μ΅μ ν νμ΅/κ°μ΄λ νλͺ© μΆκ°/μ 리 |
| .github/workflows/strix.yml | target_repository μ λ ₯, ν ν° κ΅ν, μν publish, νμμμ/μ€μ λ³κ²½ λ± νμ₯ |
| .github/workflows/scorecard-analysis.yml | Scorecard λΆμ μν¬νλ‘μ° μΆκ° |
| .github/workflows/pr-review-merge-scheduler.yml | νΈλ¦¬κ±°/μ λ ₯/λμμ±/ν ν° κ΅ν λ° λμ€ν¨μΉ μ ν λ± μ€μΌμ€λ¬ νμ₯ |
| .github/workflows/pr-review-fix-scheduler.yml | target/autofix repository μ λ ₯ λ° μ€μ λμ€ν¨μΉ κ³μ½ λ°μ |
| .github/workflows/noema-review.yml | Required Noema Review μν¬νλ‘μ° μΆκ° |
| .github/dependabot.yml | GitHub Actions/pip μ£Όκ° μ λ°μ΄νΈ μ€μ μΆκ° |
π‘ Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
OpenCode exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed review can establish approval sufficiency or identify concrete fixes.
Findings
1. HIGH review evidence:1 - OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency
- Problem: every configured model path failed to produce a usable current-head control block.
- Root cause: model execution, timeout, export, normalization, or approval-gate validation did not complete after exponential retry across the configured model pool.
- Impact: approving from deterministic check state alone would miss PR-intent mismatches, missing files, edge-case bugs, robustness gaps, UX/DX regressions, security issues, and CodeGraph-backed base/head flow changes.
- Fix: rerun OpenCode after model availability recovers, or update the PR with the missing files, tests, docs, generated artifacts, and verification evidence needed for a source-backed review conclusion.
- Regression test: keep the approval gate posting REQUEST_CHANGES, not APPROVE or check-only failure, when no model produces a valid current-head review.
Summary
- Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
- Reason: coverage-evidence passed and peer GitHub Checks completed without failures, but no model produced a valid review control block.
- Deterministic evidence checked but not used for approval: current-head changed-file evidence (tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
- Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
- Head SHA:
1189d372027b30f79e2678fe1ebd4db8635df0d4 - Workflow run: 28515936363
- 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["Test: test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py"]
S1 --> I1["regression suite"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Test: test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py"]
R1 --> V1["targeted test run"]
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
OpenCode exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed review can establish approval sufficiency or identify concrete fixes.
Findings
1. HIGH review evidence:1 - OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency
- Problem: every configured model path failed to produce a usable current-head control block.
- Root cause: model execution, timeout, export, normalization, or approval-gate validation did not complete after exponential retry across the configured model pool.
- Impact: approving from deterministic check state alone would miss PR-intent mismatches, missing files, edge-case bugs, robustness gaps, UX/DX regressions, security issues, and CodeGraph-backed base/head flow changes.
- Fix: rerun OpenCode after model availability recovers, or update the PR with the missing files, tests, docs, generated artifacts, and verification evidence needed for a source-backed review conclusion.
- Regression test: keep the approval gate posting REQUEST_CHANGES, not APPROVE or check-only failure, when no model produces a valid current-head review.
Summary
- Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
- Reason: coverage-evidence passed and peer GitHub Checks completed without failures, but no model produced a valid review control block.
- Deterministic evidence checked but not used for approval: current-head changed-file evidence (tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
- Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
- Head SHA:
1189d372027b30f79e2678fe1ebd4db8635df0d4 - Workflow run: 28515936363
- 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["Test: test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py"]
S1 --> I1["regression suite"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Test: test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py"]
R1 --> V1["targeted test run"]
Contributor
Author
@copilot ν¨μ¬ λ§μ μκ°μ λ€μ¬μ ν¨μ¬ λ§μ μ¬μλμ exponential sleepμ μΆκ°ν΄μλΌλ λ°λμ μ±κ³΅μμΌλΌ. |
Contributor
μ¬νμΈ κ²°κ³Ό μ΄ PRμλ νμ¬ merge conflictκ° μμ΅λλ€. μΆ©λ ν΄κ²° 컀λ°μ
μμ²νμ λλ‘ OpenCode λͺ¨λΈ νμ ν¨μ¬ ν° μ¬μλ/μ§μ λ°±μ€νλ₯Ό μ μ©νμ΅λλ€. λ°μ 컀λ°μ |
μμ²νμ λλ‘ μ¬μλ νμλ₯Ό λλ¦¬κ³ , Timeout λ° μ§μμ λκΈ°(exponential backoff)μ μ¬μλ μμ°(budget)μ μ¦κ°μν€λ λ΄μ©μΌλ‘ μ€μ μ μ λ°μ΄νΈνμ΅λλ€. |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.
Review outcome
1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence
-
Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was
failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head. -
Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.
-
Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports
successwith required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence. -
Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking
needs.coverage-evidence.result == successbefore posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present. -
Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
-
Reason: coverage-evidence result was
failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head9da9137021170643239fd1e524acf85b0f9aa1f4. -
Head SHA:
9da9137021170643239fd1e524acf85b0f9aa1f4 -
Workflow run: 28519533903
-
Workflow attempt: 1
Coverage evidence
Coverage Evidence
- Head SHA:
9da9137021170643239fd1e524acf85b0f9aa1f4 - Required test evidence: supported repository test suites must pass.
- Required docstring evidence: repository-owned docstring gates must pass when configured; otherwise docstring coverage is advisory.
Python project dependencies (.)
Using CPython 3.12.3 interpreter at: /usr/bin/python3
Creating virtual environment at: .venv
Resolved 17 packages in 116ms
Downloading pygments (1.2MiB)
Downloaded pygments
Prepared 13 packages in 109ms
Installed 13 packages in 11ms
+ attrs==26.1.0
+ click==8.4.2
+ colorama==0.4.6
+ coverage==7.14.3
+ iniconfig==2.3.0
+ interrogate==1.7.0
+ packaging==26.2
+ pluggy==1.6.0
+ py==1.11.0
+ pygments==2.20.0
+ pytest==9.1.1
+ pytest-cov==7.1.0
+ tabulate==0.10.0
- Result: PASS
Python coverage with missing-line report (.)
============================= test session starts ==============================
platform linux -- Python 3.12.3, pytest-9.1.1, pluggy-1.6.0
rootdir: /home/runner/work/.github/.github/pr-head
configfile: pyproject.toml
plugins: cov-7.1.0
collected 160 items
tests/test_assert_opencode_reasoning_effort.py ....... [ 4%]
tests/test_noema_review_gate.py .......... [ 10%]
tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py ...F....... [ 17%]
tests/test_opencode_review_normalize_output.py ......................... [ 33%]
[ 33%]
tests/test_opencode_workflow_shell_syntax.py . [ 33%]
tests/test_pr_governance_audit_contract.py .. [ 35%]
tests/test_pr_review_fix_scheduler.py ................... [ 46%]
tests/test_pr_review_fix_scheduler_coverage.py .. [ 48%]
tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py ................................ [ 68%]
.............................. [ 86%]
tests/test_render_opencode_prompt_template.py .... [ 89%]
tests/test_review_execution_contracts.py .. [ 90%]
tests/test_sandboxed_verify.py ......... [ 96%]
tests/test_sandboxed_web_e2e.py ...... [100%]
=================================== FAILURES ===================================
___________ test_workflow_provisions_sandbox_tool_and_reviewer_agent ___________
def test_workflow_provisions_sandbox_tool_and_reviewer_agent():
"""Guard the runtime OpenCode workspace, not only repo-local config."""
workflow = Path(".github/workflows/opencode-review.yml").read_text(
encoding="utf-8"
)
assert "code-reviewer-prompt.md" in workflow
assert "sandboxed_verify.py" in workflow
assert "sandboxed_web_e2e.py" in workflow
assert "review_execution_contracts.py" in workflow
assert "SANDBOXED_VERIFY_RESULT" in workflow
assert "SANDBOXED_WEB_E2E_RESULT" in workflow
assert "Docker Compose, devcontainer, Nix, or temporary package-install sandbox" in workflow
assert "scientific, statistical, simulation" in workflow
assert "skewed true" in workflow
assert "object naming" in workflow
assert "connected code paths, rendering paths" in workflow
assert "CHECK_LOOKUP_GH_TOKEN" in workflow
assert "retrying with workflow github token" in workflow
assert 'review_write_token="$GH_TOKEN"' in workflow
assert 'review_write_token="$OPENCODE_APP_TOKEN"' in workflow
assert 'review_write_token="$CHECK_LOOKUP_GH_TOKEN"' in workflow
assert 'review_write_token="${OPENCODE_APP_TOKEN:-$GH_TOKEN}"' not in workflow
assert "Review execution contracts" in workflow
assert "Accessibility/i18n:" in workflow
assert "Supply-chain/license:" in workflow
assert "Packaging:" in workflow
assert 'gsub("`"; "\'")' not in workflow
assert 'gsub("`"; "'")' in workflow
assert '"code-reviewer"' in workflow
assert workflow.count('"reasoningEffort": "high"') >= 10
assert '"task": "allow"' in workflow
assert 'cat >"$prompt_file" <<EOF' not in workflow
assert 'cat >"$prompt_file" <<\'EOF\'' not in workflow
assert "Run OpenCode PR Review model pool" in workflow
assert "opencode_review_model_pool" in workflow
assert "run_opencode_review_model_pool.sh" in workflow
assert "OPENCODE_MODEL_CANDIDATES" in workflow
model_pool_runner = Path("scripts/ci/run_opencode_review_model_pool.sh").read_text(encoding="utf-8")
assert "assert_reasoning_effort_for_candidate" in model_pool_runner
assert "assert_opencode_reasoning_effort.py" in model_pool_runner
assert "--config opencode.jsonc" in model_pool_runner
reasoning_effort_guard = Path("scripts/ci/assert_opencode_reasoning_effort.py").read_text(encoding="utf-8")
assert 'options.reasoningEffort=high' in reasoning_effort_guard
assert 'variants.high.reasoningEffort=high' in reasoning_effort_guard
assert "deepseek/deepseek-r1" in reasoning_effort_guard
assert "--config \"$OPENCODE_REVIEW_WORKDIR/opencode.jsonc\"" in workflow
assert 'timeout --kill-after=15s "${export_timeout_seconds}s" opencode export' in model_pool_runner
assert "session export did not complete within %ss" in model_pool_runner
assert "Read and follow the complete review contract" in model_pool_runner
assert "compact launcher as a reduced review policy" in model_pool_runner
assert "is_context_overflow_failure" in model_pool_runner
assert "tokens_limit_reached" in model_pool_runner
assert "skipping remaining attempts for this model" in model_pool_runner
assert "approve_low_risk_review_fallback_after_model_exhaustion" not in workflow
assert "changed_file_is_low_risk_review_fallback" not in workflow
assert "production source λλ package manifest λ³κ²½μ΄ μμ΅λλ€" not in workflow
assert "request_changes_for_coverage_evidence_failure" in workflow
assert '"## Review outcome"' in workflow
assert '"## Check outcome"' not in workflow
assert "publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states" in workflow
assert 'timeout-minutes: 75' in workflow
assert re.search(r"Run OpenCode PR Review model pool[\s\S]{0,240}timeout-minutes: 20", workflow)
assert 'APPROVAL_CHECK_WAIT_ATTEMPTS: "81"' in workflow
assert 'APPROVAL_CHECK_WAIT_SLEEP_SECONDS: "30"' in workflow
assert 'OPENCODE_MODEL_CANDIDATES: "github-models/openai/gpt-5-nano"' in workflow
> assert 'OPENCODE_MODEL_ATTEMPTS: "1"' in workflow
E assert 'OPENCODE_MODEL_ATTEMPTS: "1"' in 'name: Required OpenCode Review\n\non:\n pull_request_target:\n types: [opened, synchronize, reopened, ready_for_r... The scheduled and PR-event scheduler paths remain authoritative.\\n\' "$GH_REPOSITORY" "$base_branch"\n fi\n'
tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py:218: AssertionError
=============================== warnings summary ===============================
tests/test_assert_opencode_reasoning_effort.py::test_module_entrypoint_success
<frozen runpy>:128: RuntimeWarning: 'scripts.ci.assert_opencode_reasoning_effort' found in sys.modules after import of package 'scripts.ci', but prior to execution of 'scripts.ci.assert_opencode_reasoning_effort'; this may result in unpredictable behaviour
tests/test_render_opencode_prompt_template.py::test_module_entrypoint
<frozen runpy>:128: RuntimeWarning: 'scripts.ci.render_opencode_prompt_template' found in sys.modules after import of package 'scripts.ci', but prior to execution of 'scripts.ci.render_opencode_prompt_template'; this may result in unpredictable behaviour
tests/test_review_execution_contracts.py::test_discovers_package_managers_java_r_json_and_main
<frozen runpy>:128: RuntimeWarning: 'scripts.ci.review_execution_contracts' found in sys.modules after import of package 'scripts.ci', but prior to execution of 'scripts.ci.review_execution_contracts'; this may result in unpredictable behaviour
tests/test_sandboxed_verify.py::test_module_main_entrypoint
<frozen runpy>:128: RuntimeWarning: 'scripts.ci.sandboxed_verify' found in sys.modules after import of package 'scripts.ci', but prior to execution of 'scripts.ci.sandboxed_verify'; this may result in unpredictable behaviour
tests/test_sandboxed_web_e2e.py::test_module_import_and_main_entrypoint
<frozen runpy>:128: RuntimeWarning: 'scripts.ci.sandboxed_web_e2e' found in sys.modules after import of package 'scripts.ci', but prior to execution of 'scripts.ci.sandboxed_web_e2e'; this may result in unpredictable behaviour
-- Docs: https://docs.pytest.org/en/stable/how-to/capture-warnings.html
=========================== short test summary info ============================
FAILED tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py::test_workflow_provisions_sandbox_tool_and_reviewer_agent - assert 'OPENCODE_MODEL_ATTEMPTS: "1"' in 'name: Required OpenCode Review\n\non:\n pull_request_target:\n types: [opened, synchronize, reopened, ready_for_r... The scheduled and PR-event scheduler paths remain authoritative.\\n\' "$GH_REPOSITORY" "$base_branch"\n fi\n'
================== 1 failed, 159 passed, 5 warnings in 5.53s ===================
- Result: FAIL (exit 1)
Python docstring coverage advisory
RESULT: PASSED (minimum: 100.0%, actual: 100.0%)
- Result: PASS
Coverage Decision
- Result: FAIL
- Test evidence: not proven passing
- Docstring evidence: not proven passing when configured
- Failure count: 1
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Test: test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py"]
S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test: test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py"]
R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.
Review outcome
1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence
-
Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was
failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head. -
Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.
-
Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports
successwith required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence. -
Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking
needs.coverage-evidence.result == successbefore posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present. -
Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
-
Reason: coverage-evidence result was
failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head9da9137021170643239fd1e524acf85b0f9aa1f4. -
Head SHA:
9da9137021170643239fd1e524acf85b0f9aa1f4 -
Workflow run: 28519533903
-
Workflow attempt: 2
Coverage evidence
Coverage Evidence
- Head SHA:
9da9137021170643239fd1e524acf85b0f9aa1f4 - Required test evidence: supported repository test suites must pass.
- Required docstring evidence: repository-owned docstring gates must pass when configured; otherwise docstring coverage is advisory.
Python project dependencies (.)
Using CPython 3.12.3 interpreter at: /usr/bin/python3
Creating virtual environment at: .venv
Resolved 17 packages in 116ms
Downloading pygments (1.2MiB)
Downloaded pygments
Prepared 13 packages in 109ms
Installed 13 packages in 11ms
+ attrs==26.1.0
+ click==8.4.2
+ colorama==0.4.6
+ coverage==7.14.3
+ iniconfig==2.3.0
+ interrogate==1.7.0
+ packaging==26.2
+ pluggy==1.6.0
+ py==1.11.0
+ pygments==2.20.0
+ pytest==9.1.1
+ pytest-cov==7.1.0
+ tabulate==0.10.0
- Result: PASS
Python coverage with missing-line report (.)
============================= test session starts ==============================
platform linux -- Python 3.12.3, pytest-9.1.1, pluggy-1.6.0
rootdir: /home/runner/work/.github/.github/pr-head
configfile: pyproject.toml
plugins: cov-7.1.0
collected 160 items
tests/test_assert_opencode_reasoning_effort.py ....... [ 4%]
tests/test_noema_review_gate.py .......... [ 10%]
tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py ...F....... [ 17%]
tests/test_opencode_review_normalize_output.py ......................... [ 33%]
[ 33%]
tests/test_opencode_workflow_shell_syntax.py . [ 33%]
tests/test_pr_governance_audit_contract.py .. [ 35%]
tests/test_pr_review_fix_scheduler.py ................... [ 46%]
tests/test_pr_review_fix_scheduler_coverage.py .. [ 48%]
tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py ................................ [ 68%]
.............................. [ 86%]
tests/test_render_opencode_prompt_template.py .... [ 89%]
tests/test_review_execution_contracts.py .. [ 90%]
tests/test_sandboxed_verify.py ......... [ 96%]
tests/test_sandboxed_web_e2e.py ...... [100%]
=================================== FAILURES ===================================
___________ test_workflow_provisions_sandbox_tool_and_reviewer_agent ___________
def test_workflow_provisions_sandbox_tool_and_reviewer_agent():
"""Guard the runtime OpenCode workspace, not only repo-local config."""
workflow = Path(".github/workflows/opencode-review.yml").read_text(
encoding="utf-8"
)
assert "code-reviewer-prompt.md" in workflow
assert "sandboxed_verify.py" in workflow
assert "sandboxed_web_e2e.py" in workflow
assert "review_execution_contracts.py" in workflow
assert "SANDBOXED_VERIFY_RESULT" in workflow
assert "SANDBOXED_WEB_E2E_RESULT" in workflow
assert "Docker Compose, devcontainer, Nix, or temporary package-install sandbox" in workflow
assert "scientific, statistical, simulation" in workflow
assert "skewed true" in workflow
assert "object naming" in workflow
assert "connected code paths, rendering paths" in workflow
assert "CHECK_LOOKUP_GH_TOKEN" in workflow
assert "retrying with workflow github token" in workflow
assert 'review_write_token="$GH_TOKEN"' in workflow
assert 'review_write_token="$OPENCODE_APP_TOKEN"' in workflow
assert 'review_write_token="$CHECK_LOOKUP_GH_TOKEN"' in workflow
assert 'review_write_token="${OPENCODE_APP_TOKEN:-$GH_TOKEN}"' not in workflow
assert "Review execution contracts" in workflow
assert "Accessibility/i18n:" in workflow
assert "Supply-chain/license:" in workflow
assert "Packaging:" in workflow
assert 'gsub("`"; "\'")' not in workflow
assert 'gsub("`"; "'")' in workflow
assert '"code-reviewer"' in workflow
assert workflow.count('"reasoningEffort": "high"') >= 10
assert '"task": "allow"' in workflow
assert 'cat >"$prompt_file" <<EOF' not in workflow
assert 'cat >"$prompt_file" <<\'EOF\'' not in workflow
assert "Run OpenCode PR Review model pool" in workflow
assert "opencode_review_model_pool" in workflow
assert "run_opencode_review_model_pool.sh" in workflow
assert "OPENCODE_MODEL_CANDIDATES" in workflow
model_pool_runner = Path("scripts/ci/run_opencode_review_model_pool.sh").read_text(encoding="utf-8")
assert "assert_reasoning_effort_for_candidate" in model_pool_runner
assert "assert_opencode_reasoning_effort.py" in model_pool_runner
assert "--config opencode.jsonc" in model_pool_runner
reasoning_effort_guard = Path("scripts/ci/assert_opencode_reasoning_effort.py").read_text(encoding="utf-8")
assert 'options.reasoningEffort=high' in reasoning_effort_guard
assert 'variants.high.reasoningEffort=high' in reasoning_effort_guard
assert "deepseek/deepseek-r1" in reasoning_effort_guard
assert "--config \"$OPENCODE_REVIEW_WORKDIR/opencode.jsonc\"" in workflow
assert 'timeout --kill-after=15s "${export_timeout_seconds}s" opencode export' in model_pool_runner
assert "session export did not complete within %ss" in model_pool_runner
assert "Read and follow the complete review contract" in model_pool_runner
assert "compact launcher as a reduced review policy" in model_pool_runner
assert "is_context_overflow_failure" in model_pool_runner
assert "tokens_limit_reached" in model_pool_runner
assert "skipping remaining attempts for this model" in model_pool_runner
assert "approve_low_risk_review_fallback_after_model_exhaustion" not in workflow
assert "changed_file_is_low_risk_review_fallback" not in workflow
assert "production source λλ package manifest λ³κ²½μ΄ μμ΅λλ€" not in workflow
assert "request_changes_for_coverage_evidence_failure" in workflow
assert '"## Review outcome"' in workflow
assert '"## Check outcome"' not in workflow
assert "publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states" in workflow
assert 'timeout-minutes: 75' in workflow
assert re.search(r"Run OpenCode PR Review model pool[\s\S]{0,240}timeout-minutes: 20", workflow)
assert 'APPROVAL_CHECK_WAIT_ATTEMPTS: "81"' in workflow
assert 'APPROVAL_CHECK_WAIT_SLEEP_SECONDS: "30"' in workflow
assert 'OPENCODE_MODEL_CANDIDATES: "github-models/openai/gpt-5-nano"' in workflow
> assert 'OPENCODE_MODEL_ATTEMPTS: "1"' in workflow
E assert 'OPENCODE_MODEL_ATTEMPTS: "1"' in 'name: Required OpenCode Review\n\non:\n pull_request_target:\n types: [opened, synchronize, reopened, ready_for_r... The scheduled and PR-event scheduler paths remain authoritative.\\n\' "$GH_REPOSITORY" "$base_branch"\n fi\n'
tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py:218: AssertionError
=============================== warnings summary ===============================
tests/test_assert_opencode_reasoning_effort.py::test_module_entrypoint_success
<frozen runpy>:128: RuntimeWarning: 'scripts.ci.assert_opencode_reasoning_effort' found in sys.modules after import of package 'scripts.ci', but prior to execution of 'scripts.ci.assert_opencode_reasoning_effort'; this may result in unpredictable behaviour
tests/test_render_opencode_prompt_template.py::test_module_entrypoint
<frozen runpy>:128: RuntimeWarning: 'scripts.ci.render_opencode_prompt_template' found in sys.modules after import of package 'scripts.ci', but prior to execution of 'scripts.ci.render_opencode_prompt_template'; this may result in unpredictable behaviour
tests/test_review_execution_contracts.py::test_discovers_package_managers_java_r_json_and_main
<frozen runpy>:128: RuntimeWarning: 'scripts.ci.review_execution_contracts' found in sys.modules after import of package 'scripts.ci', but prior to execution of 'scripts.ci.review_execution_contracts'; this may result in unpredictable behaviour
tests/test_sandboxed_verify.py::test_module_main_entrypoint
<frozen runpy>:128: RuntimeWarning: 'scripts.ci.sandboxed_verify' found in sys.modules after import of package 'scripts.ci', but prior to execution of 'scripts.ci.sandboxed_verify'; this may result in unpredictable behaviour
tests/test_sandboxed_web_e2e.py::test_module_import_and_main_entrypoint
<frozen runpy>:128: RuntimeWarning: 'scripts.ci.sandboxed_web_e2e' found in sys.modules after import of package 'scripts.ci', but prior to execution of 'scripts.ci.sandboxed_web_e2e'; this may result in unpredictable behaviour
-- Docs: https://docs.pytest.org/en/stable/how-to/capture-warnings.html
=========================== short test summary info ============================
FAILED tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py::test_workflow_provisions_sandbox_tool_and_reviewer_agent - assert 'OPENCODE_MODEL_ATTEMPTS: "1"' in 'name: Required OpenCode Review\n\non:\n pull_request_target:\n types: [opened, synchronize, reopened, ready_for_r... The scheduled and PR-event scheduler paths remain authoritative.\\n\' "$GH_REPOSITORY" "$base_branch"\n fi\n'
================== 1 failed, 159 passed, 5 warnings in 5.53s ===================
- Result: FAIL (exit 1)
Python docstring coverage advisory
RESULT: PASSED (minimum: 100.0%, actual: 100.0%)
- Result: PASS
Coverage Decision
- Result: FAIL
- Test evidence: not proven passing
- Docstring evidence: not proven passing when configured
- Failure count: 1
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Test: test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py"]
S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test: test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py"]
R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
OpenCode exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed review can establish approval sufficiency or identify concrete fixes.
Findings
1. HIGH review evidence:1 - OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency
- Problem: every configured model path failed to produce a usable current-head control block.
- Root cause: model execution, timeout, export, normalization, or approval-gate validation did not complete after exponential retry across the configured model pool.
- Impact: approving from deterministic check state alone would miss PR-intent mismatches, missing files, edge-case bugs, robustness gaps, UX/DX regressions, security issues, and CodeGraph-backed base/head flow changes.
- Fix: rerun OpenCode after model availability recovers, or update the PR with the missing files, tests, docs, generated artifacts, and verification evidence needed for a source-backed review conclusion.
- Regression test: keep the approval gate posting REQUEST_CHANGES, not APPROVE or check-only failure, when no model produces a valid current-head review.
Summary
- Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
- Reason: coverage-evidence passed and peer GitHub Checks completed without failures, but no model produced a valid review control block.
- Deterministic evidence checked but not used for approval: current-head changed-file evidence (.github/workflows/opencode-review.yml, tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py, tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
- Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
- Head SHA:
8b6308464308d4cf1d84cbf35947b00cfb20820f - Workflow run: 28521658978
- Workflow attempt: 1
No PR approval was posted because model-output failure is not evidence that the PR has no blockers.
Inline comment note: OpenCode could not find an added RIGHT-side diff line for this PR, so the model-exhaustion blocker is attached to the PR review body instead of a file line.
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Test (2 files)"]
S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test (2 files)"]
R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
OpenCode exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed review can establish approval sufficiency or identify concrete fixes.
Findings
1. HIGH review evidence:1 - OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency
- Problem: every configured model path failed to produce a usable current-head control block.
- Root cause: model execution, timeout, export, normalization, or approval-gate validation did not complete after exponential retry across the configured model pool.
- Impact: approving from deterministic check state alone would miss PR-intent mismatches, missing files, edge-case bugs, robustness gaps, UX/DX regressions, security issues, and CodeGraph-backed base/head flow changes.
- Fix: rerun OpenCode after model availability recovers, or update the PR with the missing files, tests, docs, generated artifacts, and verification evidence needed for a source-backed review conclusion.
- Regression test: keep the approval gate posting REQUEST_CHANGES, not APPROVE or check-only failure, when no model produces a valid current-head review.
Summary
- Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
- Reason: coverage-evidence passed and peer GitHub Checks completed without failures, but no model produced a valid review control block.
- Deterministic evidence checked but not used for approval: current-head changed-file evidence (.github/workflows/opencode-review.yml, tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py, tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
- Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
- Head SHA:
8b6308464308d4cf1d84cbf35947b00cfb20820f - Workflow run: 28521658978
- Workflow attempt: 2
No PR approval was posted because model-output failure is not evidence that the PR has no blockers.
Inline comment note: OpenCode could not find an added RIGHT-side diff line for this PR, so the model-exhaustion blocker is attached to the PR review body instead of a file line.
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Test (2 files)"]
S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test (2 files)"]
R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
OpenCode exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed review can establish approval sufficiency or identify concrete fixes.
Findings
1. HIGH review evidence:1 - OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency
- Problem: every configured model path failed to produce a usable current-head control block.
- Root cause: model execution, timeout, export, normalization, or approval-gate validation did not complete after exponential retry across the configured model pool.
- Impact: approving from deterministic check state alone would miss PR-intent mismatches, missing files, edge-case bugs, robustness gaps, UX/DX regressions, security issues, and CodeGraph-backed base/head flow changes.
- Fix: rerun OpenCode after model availability recovers, or update the PR with the missing files, tests, docs, generated artifacts, and verification evidence needed for a source-backed review conclusion.
- Regression test: keep the approval gate posting REQUEST_CHANGES, not APPROVE or check-only failure, when no model produces a valid current-head review.
Summary
- Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
- Reason: coverage-evidence passed and peer GitHub Checks completed without failures, but no model produced a valid review control block.
- Deterministic evidence checked but not used for approval: current-head changed-file evidence (.github/workflows/opencode-review.yml, tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py, tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
- Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
- Head SHA:
8b6308464308d4cf1d84cbf35947b00cfb20820f - Workflow run: 28521658978
- Workflow attempt: 3
No PR approval was posted because model-output failure is not evidence that the PR has no blockers.
Inline comment note: OpenCode could not find an added RIGHT-side diff line for this PR, so the model-exhaustion blocker is attached to the PR review body instead of a file line.
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Test (2 files)"]
S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test (2 files)"]
R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
OpenCode exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed review can establish approval sufficiency or identify concrete fixes.
Findings
1. HIGH review evidence:1 - OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency
- Problem: every configured model path failed to produce a usable current-head control block.
- Root cause: model execution, timeout, export, normalization, or approval-gate validation did not complete after exponential retry across the configured model pool.
- Impact: approving from deterministic check state alone would miss PR-intent mismatches, missing files, edge-case bugs, robustness gaps, UX/DX regressions, security issues, and CodeGraph-backed base/head flow changes.
- Fix: rerun OpenCode after model availability recovers, or update the PR with the missing files, tests, docs, generated artifacts, and verification evidence needed for a source-backed review conclusion.
- Regression test: keep the approval gate posting REQUEST_CHANGES, not APPROVE or check-only failure, when no model produces a valid current-head review.
Summary
- Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
- Reason: coverage-evidence passed and peer GitHub Checks completed without failures, but no model produced a valid review control block.
- Deterministic evidence checked but not used for approval: current-head changed-file evidence (.github/workflows/opencode-review.yml, tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py, tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
- Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
- Head SHA:
8b6308464308d4cf1d84cbf35947b00cfb20820f - Workflow run: 28521658978
- Workflow attempt: 4
No PR approval was posted because model-output failure is not evidence that the PR has no blockers.
Inline comment note: OpenCode could not find an added RIGHT-side diff line for this PR, so the model-exhaustion blocker is attached to the PR review body instead of a file line.
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Test (2 files)"]
S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test (2 files)"]
R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
OpenCode exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed review can establish approval sufficiency or identify concrete fixes.
Findings
1. HIGH review evidence:1 - OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency
- Problem: every configured model path failed to produce a usable current-head control block.
- Root cause: model execution, timeout, export, normalization, or approval-gate validation did not complete after exponential retry across the configured model pool.
- Impact: approving from deterministic check state alone would miss PR-intent mismatches, missing files, edge-case bugs, robustness gaps, UX/DX regressions, security issues, and CodeGraph-backed base/head flow changes.
- Fix: rerun OpenCode after model availability recovers, or update the PR with the missing files, tests, docs, generated artifacts, and verification evidence needed for a source-backed review conclusion.
- Regression test: keep the approval gate posting REQUEST_CHANGES, not APPROVE or check-only failure, when no model produces a valid current-head review.
Summary
- Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
- Reason: coverage-evidence passed and peer GitHub Checks completed without failures, but no model produced a valid review control block.
- Deterministic evidence checked but not used for approval: current-head changed-file evidence (.github/workflows/opencode-review.yml, tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py, tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
- Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
- Head SHA:
8b6308464308d4cf1d84cbf35947b00cfb20820f - Workflow run: 28521658978
- 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 (2 files)"]
S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test (2 files)"]
R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
OpenCode exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed review can establish approval sufficiency or identify concrete fixes.
Findings
1. HIGH review evidence:1 - OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency
- Problem: every configured model path failed to produce a usable current-head control block.
- Root cause: model execution, timeout, export, normalization, or approval-gate validation did not complete after exponential retry across the configured model pool.
- Impact: approving from deterministic check state alone would miss PR-intent mismatches, missing files, edge-case bugs, robustness gaps, UX/DX regressions, security issues, and CodeGraph-backed base/head flow changes.
- Fix: rerun OpenCode after model availability recovers, or update the PR with the missing files, tests, docs, generated artifacts, and verification evidence needed for a source-backed review conclusion.
- Regression test: keep the approval gate posting REQUEST_CHANGES, not APPROVE or check-only failure, when no model produces a valid current-head review.
Summary
- Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
- Reason: coverage-evidence passed and peer GitHub Checks completed without failures, but no model produced a valid review control block.
- Deterministic evidence checked but not used for approval: current-head changed-file evidence (.github/workflows/opencode-review.yml, tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py, tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
- Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
- Head SHA:
8b6308464308d4cf1d84cbf35947b00cfb20820f - Workflow run: 28521658978
- 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 (2 files)"]
S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test (2 files)"]
R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
OpenCode exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed review can establish approval sufficiency or identify concrete fixes.
Findings
1. HIGH review evidence:1 - OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency
- Problem: every configured model path failed to produce a usable current-head control block.
- Root cause: model execution, timeout, export, normalization, or approval-gate validation did not complete after exponential retry across the configured model pool.
- Impact: approving from deterministic check state alone would miss PR-intent mismatches, missing files, edge-case bugs, robustness gaps, UX/DX regressions, security issues, and CodeGraph-backed base/head flow changes.
- Fix: rerun OpenCode after model availability recovers, or update the PR with the missing files, tests, docs, generated artifacts, and verification evidence needed for a source-backed review conclusion.
- Regression test: keep the approval gate posting REQUEST_CHANGES, not APPROVE or check-only failure, when no model produces a valid current-head review.
Summary
- Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
- Reason: coverage-evidence passed and peer GitHub Checks completed without failures, but no model produced a valid review control block.
- Deterministic evidence checked but not used for approval: current-head changed-file evidence (.github/workflows/opencode-review.yml, tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py, tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
- Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
- Head SHA:
8b6308464308d4cf1d84cbf35947b00cfb20820f - Workflow run: 28521658978
- Workflow attempt: 7
No PR approval was posted because model-output failure is not evidence that the PR has no blockers.
Inline comment note: OpenCode could not find an added RIGHT-side diff line for this PR, so the model-exhaustion blocker is attached to the PR review body instead of a file line.
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Test (2 files)"]
S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test (2 files)"]
R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
OpenCode exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed review can establish approval sufficiency or identify concrete fixes.
Findings
1. HIGH review evidence:1 - OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency
- Problem: every configured model path failed to produce a usable current-head control block.
- Root cause: model execution, timeout, export, normalization, or approval-gate validation did not complete after exponential retry across the configured model pool.
- Impact: approving from deterministic check state alone would miss PR-intent mismatches, missing files, edge-case bugs, robustness gaps, UX/DX regressions, security issues, and CodeGraph-backed base/head flow changes.
- Fix: rerun OpenCode after model availability recovers, or update the PR with the missing files, tests, docs, generated artifacts, and verification evidence needed for a source-backed review conclusion.
- Regression test: keep the approval gate posting REQUEST_CHANGES, not APPROVE or check-only failure, when no model produces a valid current-head review.
Summary
- Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
- Reason: coverage-evidence passed and peer GitHub Checks completed without failures, but no model produced a valid review control block.
- Deterministic evidence checked but not used for approval: current-head changed-file evidence (.github/workflows/opencode-review.yml, tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py, tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
- Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
- Head SHA:
8b6308464308d4cf1d84cbf35947b00cfb20820f - Workflow run: 28521658978
- Workflow attempt: 8
No PR approval was posted because model-output failure is not evidence that the PR has no blockers.
Inline comment note: OpenCode could not find an added RIGHT-side diff line for this PR, so the model-exhaustion blocker is attached to the PR review body instead of a file line.
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Test (2 files)"]
S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test (2 files)"]
R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]
Contributor
Author
|
Closing during org-wide PR backlog reduction. This looks like a low-priority automated maintenance PR ( |
μκ² μ΅λλ€. μ΄ μμ μ΄ λ μ΄μ μ ν¨νμ§ μμμ νμΈνμμΌλ©°, μ΄ νμ€ν¬μ λν μμ μ μ€μ§νκ² μ΅λλ€. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
π― 무μμ:
parse_workflow_action_required_reasonν¨μμ λν ν μ€νΈκ° λλ½λμ΄ μμ΄μ μ΄λ₯Ό 보μνμ΅λλ€.π 컀λ²λ¦¬μ§:
λͺ¨λ κ²½λ‘λ₯Ό 컀λ²νμ¬
tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.pyμ ν μ€νΈλ₯Ό μΆκ°νμ΅λλ€.β¨ κ²°κ³Ό: ν΄λΉ ν¨μμ λν 컀λ²λ¦¬μ§κ° 100% λ¬μ±λμμΌλ©°,
interrogateλ° CI λͺ λ Ήμ΄μ ν΅κ³Όλ₯Ό νμΈνμ΅λλ€.PR created automatically by Jules for task 17280623075126670709 started by @seonghobae