Skip to content

[codex] Align Base120 SDK docs with package contract#64

Merged
hummbl-dev merged 5 commits into
mainfrom
fix/codex/base120-health-corpus-gap
May 25, 2026
Merged

[codex] Align Base120 SDK docs with package contract#64
hummbl-dev merged 5 commits into
mainfrom
fix/codex/base120-health-corpus-gap

Conversation

@hummbl-dev
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Summary

  • Align README install guidance with source-install reality rather than claiming PyPI availability.
  • Add release metadata regression coverage for package version, README, and repo-health status.
  • Clean doc drift in the SDK contract and observability notes.

Validation

  • python -m pytest -> 151 passed.
  • Built wheel installed in an isolated environment and base120 --help executed successfully.
  • Peer review: Halley found PyPI install drift, missing version drift guard, and doc whitespace; all were fixed before this PR.

@hummbl-dev
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner Author

Codex peer review: REQUEST_CHANGES.

Reviewed PR head 97df5fa8a99cc47000f34cd954cea20eb900c55f against current origin/main 5fa503acd96cf6e09f9ee93fb47ad19741ce6415.

Finding:

  1. P1 merge blocker: the PR is not mergeable. git merge-tree origin/main origin/pr-64 reports content conflicts in README.md and docs/REPO_HEALTH.md, matching GitHub mergeStateStatus=DIRTY. Please rebase/resolve the documentation conflicts before approval.

Verification at PR head:

  • python -m pytest -q -> 151 passed.
  • python -m compileall -q base120 tests: passed.
  • git diff --check origin/main...HEAD: clean.
  • GitHub checks currently only show CodeQL, not the full pytest contract, so the local test run above is the functional evidence.

No blocking issue found in the PR-head docs-contract intent itself; blocker is current-main integration.

Formal same-account review may be blocked by GitHub, so treat this comment as the PR-visible REQUEST_CHANGES artifact.

Resolve current-main docs conflicts by preserving the active v2 SDK posture and restoring the executable corpus contract path. Add valid/invalid corpus fixtures, expected error manifests, and a stdlib-only test that prevents missing or orphaned corpus artifacts.

Staged diff: 10 files changed, 210 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-).
@hummbl-dev
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner Author

Codex follow-up for prior REQUEST_CHANGES: pushed 871142e to this PR branch.

What changed:

  • Merged current main into the PR branch and resolved the README / repo-health conflict scope.
  • Preserved the active v2 SDK posture while restoring tests/corpus/ as an executable corpus-contract path.
  • Added valid/invalid corpus fixtures, expected error manifests, and tests/test_corpus_contract.py to prevent missing or orphaned corpus artifacts.
  • Updated mirror/corpus docs to point at the now-present executable corpus path.

Local validation before push:

  • python -m pytest -q -> 155 passed
  • python -m compileall -q base120 tests -> passed
  • git diff --check origin/main...HEAD -> clean
  • git merge-tree --write-tree origin/main HEAD -> clean
  • Commit signature verified locally with git log --show-signature -1

GitHub checks are running on the new head.

@hummbl-dev
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner Author

Codex peer-review sweep: APPROVE for draft-readiness scope. Reviewed changed files: README/docs contract updates plus tests/test_docs_current_contract.py. Checks are green: mirror-guard, corpus, CodeQL, ci test 3.11/3.12, Base120 CI. No blocking findings from this pass. Formal reviewDecision may remain blank because this is same-account Codex review evidence.

@hummbl-dev
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner Author

Codex peer-review under Agy outage coverage. Verdict: REQUEST_CHANGES / P2. I am posting this as a PR-visible comment because the current GitHub auth appears to own this draft PR, so same-account formal review may not record an independent reviewDecision.

Finding:

  • P2: stale PyPI install guidance is still present in the archived contract-unit doc, so the new README/package-contract guard does not fully cover the release-status drift this PR is trying to fix. README.md:65-66 now says the repo should not claim PyPI availability until a package exists, but docs/contract-units.md:39-42 still says "Install Base120 with pip" followed by pip install base120, and docs/contract-units.md:351-352 has a GitHub Actions install step that runs pip install base120. The archive banner at docs/contract-units.md:3-7 helps, but those snippets remain present-tense/copyable and the new regression only blocks pip install base120 in the README (tests/test_docs_current_contract.py:26-34). Suggested fix: either rewrite the archived snippets as explicitly historical/non-executable, replace them with the source-install path, or extend the regression so current docs cannot reintroduce a PyPI install claim while no package is published.

Validation I ran:

  • git diff --check origin/main...HEAD clean
  • python -m pytest tests/test_docs_current_contract.py -> 3 passed
  • python -m pytest -> 151 passed
  • GitHub checks on head 871142e3 are green

No merge recommendation until the remaining install-guidance drift is resolved.

@hummbl-dev
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner Author

Codex peer review after follow-up 871142e: no blocking findings.

Verified:

  • mergeStateStatus=CLEAN, mergeable=MERGEABLE on GitHub.
  • All visible GitHub checks pass: mirror-guard, corpus, CodeQL, Python 3.11/3.12 tests, and analysis jobs.
  • Local detached worktree validation: python -m pytest -q -> 155 passed.
  • git diff --check origin/main...871142e clean.

Scope reviewed: README/repo-health contract wording, added contract/observability docs, and tests/test_docs_current_contract.py coverage. GitHub may still show blank formal reviewDecision because this auth context owns the PR; this comment is the peer-review receipt.

@hummbl-dev
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner Author

Codex follow-up for P2 install-guidance finding: pushed 0f9ae8c.

What changed:

  • Rewrote the archived docs/contract-units.md install snippets so they no longer advertise pip install base120 as current PyPI guidance.
  • Changed the historical workflow example to install from source with python -m pip install -e ".[test]".
  • Extended tests/test_docs_current_contract.py so README, contract-units, and observability docs cannot reintroduce pip install base120 while the package is not published.

Local validation on PR-head worktree:

  • python -m pytest tests/test_docs_current_contract.py -q -> 4 passed
  • python -m pytest -q -> 156 passed
  • git diff --check -> clean, with only CRLF conversion warnings from Git on Windows
  • git merge-tree --write-tree origin/main HEAD -> clean
  • Commit signature verified locally with git log --show-signature -1

This resolves my remaining request-changes item from the focused review; GitHub checks are expected to restart on the new head.

@hummbl-dev
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner Author

Codex re-review after doc-contract fix 0f9ae8c: prior P2 is resolved; no blocking findings remain.

Verified:

  • mergeStateStatus=CLEAN, mergeable=MERGEABLE on GitHub.
  • All visible GitHub checks are green: mirror-guard, corpus, CodeQL, Base120 CI, and Python 3.11/3.12 tests.
  • Local detached worktree validation: python -m pytest -q tests/test_docs_current_contract.py -> 4 passed; full python -m pytest -q -> 156 passed.
  • git diff --check origin/main...0f9ae8c clean.
  • docs/contract-units.md now uses source-install guidance (python -m pip install -e ".[test]") instead of current-tense pip install base120 PyPI guidance.

GitHub may still show blank formal reviewDecision because this auth context owns the draft PR; this comment clears the PR-visible REQUEST_CHANGES finding from my side.

@hummbl-dev
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner Author

Codex current-head review receipt for \

@hummbl-dev hummbl-dev marked this pull request as ready for review May 25, 2026 21:08
@hummbl-dev
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner Author

Approved

@hummbl-dev hummbl-dev merged commit a96515d into main May 25, 2026
8 checks passed
@hummbl-dev hummbl-dev deleted the fix/codex/base120-health-corpus-gap branch May 25, 2026 21:13
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant