Repository navigation
fix(artifacts): bound evaluation content before durable admission - #485
Conversation
|
Warning Review limit reachedYou've used all free OSS reviews for now. Wait for the free limit to reset to keep reviewing this public repository. Next included review available in 59 minutes. View limit detailsLimit details: You’ve used the included review currently available. Review configuration: ⚙️ Run configuration
📒 Files selected for processing (51)
No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉 ℹ️ Recent review info⚙️ Run configuration
📒 Files selected for processing (51)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
Included review availability: This review used your included allowance. Your plan provides up to 1 included review per hour; 0 remain after this review. 📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe change adds bounded post-submission evaluation content and integrates its validation into submission preparation. TASK supplies validated policy lineage and acceptance criteria. ART rejects invalid content before reservation or durable admission. Tests and project records are updated to reflect the new boundary. ChangesSubmission evaluation content
Priority: ➖ Normal Estimated code review effort: 4 (Complex) | ~45 minutes Change: Bug fix Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant ART preparation
participant TASK and PROJECTS
participant CHECKERS
participant Evidence reservation
participant Durable put
ART preparation->>TASK and PROJECTS: obtain locked submission and policy facts
ART preparation->>CHECKERS: project packet, file facts, archive hash, and locked facts
CHECKERS-->>ART preparation: bounded content or validation error
ART preparation->>Evidence reservation: reserve evidence after validation
ART preparation->>Durable put: admit prepared artifact
Merge Risk: ⚪ Minimal · up to The change rejects oversized evaluation input before any attempt or durable upload is created. No concrete merge-blocking issue was identified. Wait for the hosted test results to finish before merging. 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3 | ❌ 2❌ Failed checks (2 warnings)
✅ Passed checks (3 passed)
Full details: Docstring CoverageExplanation Docstring coverage is 58.62% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%. Docstring coverage is scoped to functions touched by this diff. Analyzed 58 functions across 35 files. (15 skipped: 15 unsupported.) Full details: Description checkExplanation The description provides strong context for the change, intent, design, scope, tests, evidence, risks, and human review. It does not follow the required template fully and omits or combines required sections such as Goal, What Changed, Why it Changed, Scope Control, Product Behavior, Commands Run, Result Summary, Acceptance Criteria Proof, Impact-Routed Reviewer Results, External Review, CI And Gate Integrity, Follow-Up Work, and the Human Review Ownership checklist. Resolution Update the description to use the required template headings. Add the missing sections and provide explicit evidence for commands, results, acceptance criteria, reviewer outcomes, CI and gate integrity, follow-up work, and human merge ownership. ✨ Finishing Touches 💡 1📝 Generate docstrings 💡
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
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 |
…ity-alignment # Conflicts: # .commitrail/INDEX.md
Change
ARCH-04E1B-B5 — reject unrepresentable evaluation input before durable admission.
A ZIP can fit ART's container limits but exceed the locked checker request limits. Preparation now rejects that input before reserving a pre-check attempt or uploading durable bytes, so successful preparation cannot strand an oversized evaluation input.
Intent and design
Bounded change record · First contributor milestone, step 2
Preparation does not execute post-submit evaluation. Initial Submission/dispatch is next and must verify stored Submission lineage before reusing the projection. No new route, authority activation, migration, compatibility path or catalogue-limit change.
Scope and test delta
One cohesive ART/TASK/CHECKERS boundary with affected caller/fixture updates and current documentation reconciliation. The file count includes required public-contract consumers and initiative navigation. No unrelated owner implementation or CI gate changes.
New real PostgreSQL/ZIP tests exercise excessive count/path, same-input retry, no new attempt/put/admission, scratch release and a verified positive control. Projection proof covers exact files/evidence, nullable criteria, independent locked-policy substitutions, foreign context and both review modes as detached values. The prior aggregate test now protects the shared content ceiling plus the maximum request envelope, including UTF-8 and one-byte overflow. No tests were skipped or deleted.
Evidence and review
Final reviewed head:
72a973557dc6beea4a9353d214f6e634c94891d4, reconciled with merged CLI-08 atc0c4fe70. The INDEX retains both CLI-08 and ARCH B5; current README/roadmap claims match both boundaries.205c2eaaequals the reviewed branch tree. Slowest test lane: 1,136.668 seconds under the unchanged 1,200-second cap.17468618with no actionable comments. Its latest reconciliation review was rate-limited, not substantive; the backend is unchanged between those heads. No unresolved review threads.Remaining risks and human focus
Review early no-effect rejection, scratch lifetime, exact policy and file projection, and the shared content budget. This remains hidden preparation; it does not deliver the complete contributor journey. Step 3 is atomic initial Submission/ART binding/AUTH receipt/evaluation reservation/outbox dispatch with fresh-authorized replay.
Human approval and merge remain required. No approval is inferred from CI.