Repository navigation
fix(ci): bind QSR coverage evidence to each run - #2648
Open
seonghobae wants to merge 2 commits into
Open
seonghobae wants to merge 2 commits into
seonghobae wants to merge 2 commits into
Conversation
Contributor
|
No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉 ℹ️ Recent review info
📝 Walkthrough
Merge Risk: ⚪ Minimal · up to
|
| Check name | Status | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Docstring Coverage |  |
Docstring coverage is 100.00% which is sufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%. Docstring coverage is scoped to functions touched by this diff. Analyzed 20 functions across 1 files. (2 skipped: 2… |
| Linked Issues check | |
Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request. |
| Out of Scope Changes check | |
Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request. |
| Description Check | |
Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled. |
| Title check | |
제목은 QSR 커버리지 증거를 각 실행에 바인딩하는 핵심 변경을 정확하고 간결하게 설명합니다. |
✨ Finishing Touches: 💡 1
-
📝 Generate docstrings
-
- Commit to this branch
- Create a new PR
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
-
- Commit to this branch
- Create a new PR
🛠️ Fix failing CI checks: 💡
-
- Commit to this branch
- Create a new PR
-
- Autofix · Keep fixing CodeRabbit findings and required CI, and resolving merge conflicts
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.
Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.
Add 42 parametrized synthetic controls for identity, checkout drift, counted reads, metadata changes, manifest bounds and lane commands. Independent test-delta review: 37d957cce6df45a134c9cb8179c5c2324d254ee723eb5b83dc9ac4c83e276343. Embedded source coverage is 100% per body; central full-gate and runtime acceptance remain separate.
![opencode-agent[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1549082?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
OpenCode reviewed the current-head product diff. Coverage is a separate gate.
Changed files
.github/workflows/quarantine-sandbox-runtime-ci.yml— GitHub Actions review jobdocs/doctoring/quarantine-sandbox-runtime-self-hosted-ci.md— operator or user guidancetests/test_quarantine_sandbox_runtime_ci_contract.py— regression suite
Changed behavior
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Workflow: quarantine-sandbox-runtime-ci.yml"]
S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: quarantine-sandbox-runtime-ci.yml"]
R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Docs: quarantine-sandbox-runtime-self-hosted-ci.md"]
S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs: quarantine-sandbox-runtime-self-hosted-ci.md"]
R2 --> V2["docs review"]
Evidence --> S3["Test: test_quarantine_sandbox_runtime_ci_contract.py"]
S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test: test_quarantine_sandbox_runtime_ci_contract.py"]
R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
Findings
No source-backed product finding is synthesized from the coverage gate. A coverage miss belongs in the status comment.
- Head SHA:
fbc6db1a22da5026dc5d2352d18d3d62d0e7292f - Workflow run: 38531446132
- Workflow attempt: 1
- Coverage gate:
failure
Review outcome
Coverage is a gate, not the review. This body reviews the changed product files.
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Workflow: quarantine-sandbox-runtime-ci.yml"]
S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: quarantine-sandbox-runtime-ci.yml"]
R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Docs: quarantine-sandbox-runtime-self-hosted-ci.md"]
S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs: quarantine-sandbox-runtime-self-hosted-ci.md"]
R2 --> V2["docs review"]
Evidence --> S3["Test: test_quarantine_sandbox_runtime_ci_contract.py"]
S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test: test_quarantine_sandbox_runtime_ci_contract.py"]
R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
Contributor
OpenCode Review Overview
Coverage evidence did not pass, so approval is blocked. The formal pull-request review is the source-backed diff review, not this status comment. |
This branch has not been deployed
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
1 participant
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.
Summary
Narrow SRC03 evidence-consistency slice for the central QSR reusable workflow. This does not complete hostile-workload isolation.
Refs ContextualWisdomLab/quarantine-sandbox-runtime#136, #1590, #2083. Earlier producer PR #2601 and caller PR #154 are already merged; this is their separate narrow evidence-consistency follow-up, not a retry of them.
Exact source evidence
acb8b34f9e7b8649fa1478139fa21c2217bdfbc7fbc6db1a22da5026dc5d2352d18d3d62d0e7292f0b24fabf980882576df1a083a9a7cd4f146ffc7dac4b11cee923749545834a873c248cbbd6dd24c094dfbdc5854c243d7b9cee63b6f4dba8c4491b25b57f256ddf83661ed351ace8f4bf4b0c8cced85c88ccc2d7bb7624b854f8d25b144813a885e3466ea88ccb1725fc2d91405fd71e4da33144b2ee3cf745a0e6d395730b8eacfb0010cc8e1d8aeb6e15d2097a5becb5faea9b6730055639db3335. B01/B02/R03 resolved; unchanged workflow/doc bytes retain that scope.37d957cce6df45a134c9cb8179c5c2324d254ee723eb5b83dc9ac4c83e276343. Patchb8562afef3133fc7c0c6257dfa79eef92195542e30574c38d165bbf28b3eb67b; no blocking security or logic findings. This is not full-gate or runtime approval.Actual local verification
72a5d22e6ce38f2e8dee4ab74bcc6493885a9ccce7b9536747e691b2487ee83b; independent raw-data consistency review found no mutation/historical-data contamination.scripts/cibranch coverage with unchanged fail-under 100: FAIL on that admitted selection. Statements 10,758/19,668 (54.698%), branches 3,900/8,064 (48.363%), combined 52.856%. Pytest exit 0, report and JSON exits 2. Omitted mocked/static tests require finer safety classification; this is not proof that the full baseline suite fails. All 110 measuredscripts/cifile bytes match the exact base.qsr-138/history/20261014-src03-review-repair/.Remaining gates and limits
Summary by CodeRabbit
품질 개선
문서
테스트