feat: surface privacy-safe Podman reclaim evidence - #133
Conversation
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 53 minutes You've used all free OSS reviews for now. Wait for the free limit to reset to keep reviewing this public repository. How can I continue?After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews. How do review limits work?CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability. For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window. Please refer docs for additional details. Review details⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (4)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughPodman reclaim 정보를 읽기 전용 개인정보 안전 evidence로 변환하고 Tauri와 Cleanup UI에 연결했습니다. 프런트엔드·Rust 계약, 개인정보 보호, 문서화 및 CI 검사를 추가했습니다. CI는 정확한 head의 Rust coverage evidence를 생성하고 검증합니다. ChangesPodman 증거 통합
Estimated code review effort: 4 (Complex) | ~45 minutes Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant CleanupUI
participant podmanEvidence
participant Tauri
participant podman_desktop
participant Podman
CleanupUI->>podmanEvidence: loadPodmanEvidence()
podmanEvidence->>Tauri: invoke("inspect_podman_reclaim")
Tauri->>podman_desktop: inspect_podman_reclaim()
podman_desktop->>Podman: 읽기 전용 argv probe
Podman-->>podman_desktop: PodmanReclaimPlan
podman_desktop-->>Tauri: redacted PodmanDesktopEvidence
Tauri-->>podmanEvidence: 검증된 JSON
podmanEvidence-->>CleanupUI: 표시 상태
Possibly related PRs
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 4 | ❌ 1❌ Failed checks (1 warning)
✅ Passed checks (4 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches📝 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 |
![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 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 headdcb7cb687cfe2661b7276f75db768aa22e3a6c46. -
Head SHA:
dcb7cb687cfe2661b7276f75db768aa22e3a6c46 -
Workflow run: 31022151593
-
Workflow attempt: 1
Coverage evidence
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: test.yml"]
S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: test.yml"]
R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Changed file (8 files)"]
S2 --> I2["repository behavior"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Changed file (8 files)"]
R2 --> V2["required checks"]
Evidence --> S3["Docs: podman-desktop-evidence.md"]
S3 --> I3["operator or user guidance"]
I3 --> R3["Review risk: Docs: podman-desktop-evidence.md"]
R3 --> V3["docs review"]
OpenCode Review Overview
Pull request overviewOpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass. Review outcome1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence
Coverage evidenceCoverage Decision
Changed-File Evidence Mapflowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Workflow: test.yml"]
S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: test.yml"]
R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Changed file (16 files)"]
S2 --> I2["repository behavior"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Changed file (16 files)"]
R2 --> V2["required checks"]
Evidence --> S3["Docs (2 files)"]
S3 --> I3["operator or user guidance"]
I3 --> R3["Review risk: Docs (2 files)"]
R3 --> V3["docs review"]
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@src-tauri/src/podman_desktop.rs`:
- Around line 1-470: Run cargo fmt --manifest-path src-tauri/Cargo.toml and
apply the formatter’s generated changes, including any formatting adjustments in
redact_podman_reclaim_plan and its surrounding code. Commit the resulting
formatting-only changes so cargo fmt --check passes in CI.
🪄 Autofix
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Organization UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro Plus
Run ID: 2ed7a2a3-26c4-47d8-a19e-c9c4f0b7877e
📒 Files selected for processing (10)
.github/workflows/test.ymlCHANGELOG.mddocs/architecture/podman-desktop-evidence.mdsrc-tauri/src/lib.rssrc-tauri/src/podman_desktop.rssrc/lib/Cleanup.sveltesrc/lib/PodmanEvidence.sveltesrc/lib/podmanEvidence.test.tssrc/lib/podmanEvidence.tsvitest.config.ts
2fb9a8b to
4063824
Compare
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 head6fd3c627f02125dc20926a049ca901eae9b344fd. -
Head SHA:
6fd3c627f02125dc20926a049ca901eae9b344fd -
Workflow run: 31287211091
-
Workflow attempt: 1
Coverage evidence
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: test.yml"]
S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: test.yml"]
R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Changed file (15 files)"]
S2 --> I2["repository behavior"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Changed file (15 files)"]
R2 --> V2["required checks"]
Evidence --> S3["Docs (2 files)"]
S3 --> I3["operator or user guidance"]
I3 --> R3["Review risk: Docs (2 files)"]
R3 --> V3["docs review"]
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In @.github/workflows/test.yml:
- Around line 76-126: Update .github/workflows/test.yml lines 76-126 to generate
coverage-diagnostic.json with the restricted coverage totals and exact-head
identifiers even when coverage validation fails, then upload it using if:
always() and the artifact name coverage-diagnostic-${{ env.HEAD_SHA }}. Keep the
existing success-only coverage-evidence.json upload unchanged.
src/lib/coverageEvidenceWorkflow.test.ts lines 33-42 requires no direct change;
preserve its artifact contract assertions.
🪄 Autofix
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Organization UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro Plus
Run ID: 95e1e2f8-e521-432c-b67e-8bb2cdf6bbc8
📒 Files selected for processing (7)
.github/workflows/test.ymlCHANGELOG.mddocs/development/coverage-evidence.mdsrc-tauri/src/lib.rssrc-tauri/tests/podman_desktop_branch_coverage.rssrc-tauri/tests/podman_desktop_documentation_contract.rssrc/lib/coverageEvidenceWorkflow.test.ts
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
- src-tauri/tests/podman_desktop_documentation_contract.rs
- CHANGELOG.md
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 headf3dc01aeae287bb65ad4101b7b99b1e9d7218517. -
Head SHA:
f3dc01aeae287bb65ad4101b7b99b1e9d7218517 -
Workflow run: 31296633314
-
Workflow attempt: 1
Coverage evidence
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: test.yml"]
S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: test.yml"]
R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Changed file (16 files)"]
S2 --> I2["repository behavior"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Changed file (16 files)"]
R2 --> V2["required checks"]
Evidence --> S3["Docs (2 files)"]
S3 --> I3["operator or user guidance"]
I3 --> R3["Review risk: Docs (2 files)"]
R3 --> V3["docs review"]
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 head8cbb057666736b7cff56435960b142f42e6ef181. -
Head SHA:
8cbb057666736b7cff56435960b142f42e6ef181 -
Workflow run: 31304597224
-
Workflow attempt: 1
Coverage evidence
Coverage Decision
- Result: FAIL
- Test evidence: not proven passing
- Docstring evidence: not proven passing when configured
- Failure count: 3
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Workflow: test.yml"]
S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: test.yml"]
R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Changed file (16 files)"]
S2 --> I2["repository behavior"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Changed file (16 files)"]
R2 --> V2["required checks"]
Evidence --> S3["Docs (2 files)"]
S3 --> I3["operator or user guidance"]
I3 --> R3["Review risk: Docs (2 files)"]
R3 --> V3["docs review"]
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 head7d69ffdc738571d1b7738b43cd01af0d5f77b316. -
Head SHA:
7d69ffdc738571d1b7738b43cd01af0d5f77b316 -
Workflow run: 31315193527
-
Workflow attempt: 1
Coverage evidence
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: test.yml"]
S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: test.yml"]
R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Changed file (16 files)"]
S2 --> I2["repository behavior"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Changed file (16 files)"]
R2 --> V2["required checks"]
Evidence --> S3["Docs (2 files)"]
S3 --> I3["operator or user guidance"]
I3 --> R3["Review risk: Docs (2 files)"]
R3 --> V3["docs review"]
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 head24fe2d4e5190d437e737035d7131372a470cac10. -
Head SHA:
24fe2d4e5190d437e737035d7131372a470cac10 -
Workflow run: 31321667097
-
Workflow attempt: 1
Coverage evidence
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: test.yml"]
S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: test.yml"]
R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Changed file (16 files)"]
S2 --> I2["repository behavior"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Changed file (16 files)"]
R2 --> V2["required checks"]
Evidence --> S3["Docs (2 files)"]
S3 --> I3["operator or user guidance"]
I3 --> R3["Review risk: Docs (2 files)"]
R3 --> V3["docs review"]
|
Implement the still-valid component-behavior testing gap on exact current head Add the smallest maintainable direct Svelte component test using the repository's actual Svelte/Vitest toolchain. Cover at minimum: initial Inspect action, loading/busy state, stable privacy-safe error alert, complete evidence rendering, and incomplete/partial evidence rendering with image/stopped-container/volume review domains remaining separate. Mock only the Tauri invocation boundary; use realistic versioned evidence payloads and assert user-visible semantics/accessibility roles rather than component source strings. If a DOM test environment or testing-library dependency is required, add the minimum current compatible dev dependency and regenerate the lockfile normally; do not hand-edit lock resolution or add unrelated packages. Keep 100% production statement/branch/function/line coverage and beginner-readable tests. Run the focused component test, full frontend tests/coverage, typecheck/build as applicable, and do not touch Rust/product authority, workflows, credentials, or unrelated files. Push only after GREEN. |
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 head24fe2d4e5190d437e737035d7131372a470cac10. -
Head SHA:
24fe2d4e5190d437e737035d7131372a470cac10 -
Workflow run: 31322787306
-
Workflow attempt: 1
Coverage evidence
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: test.yml"]
S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: test.yml"]
R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Changed file (16 files)"]
S2 --> I2["repository behavior"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Changed file (16 files)"]
R2 --> V2["required checks"]
Evidence --> S3["Docs (2 files)"]
S3 --> I3["operator or user guidance"]
I3 --> R3["Review risk: Docs (2 files)"]
R3 --> V3["docs review"]
|
Superseded by clean current-main replacements with the original semantic delta split by ownership rather than discarded. Fresh file-level comparison shows PR #150 preserves every Podman desktop/source/UI/test/doctoring path from this PR, while PR #147 owns the three generic coverage paths that #150 intentionally excludes: |
|
@opencode-agent fix Refetch PR #133's exact current head, current The last verified repository-local state had Test, Release, Security Scan, and SAST successful, while central OpenCode coverage/review was the remaining gate. Reproduce the current failure and perform RCA rather than treating it as a generic external blocker. Separate product-code defects from central coverage-tooling defects, stale test contracts, infrastructure/quota failures, and approval-path defects. Generate materially distinct remedies and apply the realism gate before acting. If the live failure is still coverage-related:
Preserve the read-only Podman evidence contract: no prune/remove/VM mutation API; no raw local paths, machine names, graph roots, image IDs/tags, credentials, or unbounded stderr in shared evidence; stable reason codes; exact candidate-set digest; verified physical reclaim only from before/after host free-space evidence. While central review runs, continue one non-conflicting bounded DiskSage buyer-visible slice instead of waiting. Resolve only current-head addressed threads. Enable auto-merge or merge only after live required checks, independent approval, security gates, and branch protection are satisfied, then immediately refetch the queue. |
|
@coderabbitai review Re-review only the exact current head after the current RCA/repair. Confirm that repository-local and central coverage evidence run on the same head, all required jobs/steps actually execute, read-only Podman evidence cannot mutate local state, private local identifiers remain outside shared output, logical candidates are never presented as verified physical reclaim, and all tests/docstrings/coverage/package checks pass. Ignore predecessor-head verdicts. |
🧩 Analysis chain🏁 Script executed: #!/bin/bash
set -euo pipefail
repo="ContextualWisdomLab/disksage"
pr="133"
echo '=== PR identity and branch state ==='
gh pr view "$pr" --repo "$repo" --json number,state,isDraft,headRefName,headRefOid,baseRefName,baseRefOid,url,mergeStateStatus,reviewDecision,statusCheckRollup
echo '=== Current main tip ==='
gh api "repos/$repo/git/ref/heads/main" --jq '.object.sha'
echo '=== Branch protection / required checks ==='
gh api "repos/$repo/branches/main/protection" 2>&1 || true
echo '=== Pull-request review threads ==='
gh api graphql -F owner="ContextualWisdomLab" -F name="disksage" -F number="$pr" -f query='
query($owner: String!, $name: String!, $number: Int!) {
repository(owner: $owner, name: $name) {
pullRequest(number: $number) {
reviewThreads(first: 100) {
nodes {
isResolved
isOutdated
path
line
comments(first: 10) { nodes { author { login } body url createdAt } }
}
}
}
}
}' 2>&1 || true
head="$(gh pr view "$pr" --repo "$repo" --json headRefOid --jq '.headRefOid')"
echo "=== Workflow runs for current head $head ==="
gh run list --repo "$repo" --commit "$head" --limit 100 --json databaseId,name,workflowName,status,conclusion,event,headSha,createdAt,updatedAt,url
echo '=== Jobs and steps for current-head workflow runs ==='
for run_id in $(gh run list --repo "$repo" --commit "$head" --limit 100 --json databaseId --jq '.[].databaseId'); do
echo "--- run $run_id ---"
gh run view "$run_id" --repo "$repo" --json name,workflowName,status,conclusion,headSha,jobs,url \
--jq '{name, workflowName, status, conclusion, headSha, url, jobs: [.jobs[] | {name,status,conclusion,startedAt,completedAt,steps: [.steps[] | {name,status,conclusion,number}]}]}'
done
echo '=== Local checkout identity ==='
git rev-parse HEAD
git status --short
git show -s --format='%H%n%P%n%s' HEAD
echo '=== Map changed implementation files ==='
git diff --name-status "$(gh pr view "$pr" --repo "$repo" --json baseRefOid --jq '.baseRefOid')" HEAD
fd -a '^(podman_desktop\.rs|podmanEvidence\.ts|PodmanEvidence\.svelte|lib\.rs|test\.yml)$' . \
-E node_modules -E target -E dist | sortLength of output: 2571 🏁 Script executed: #!/bin/bash
set -uo pipefail
repo="ContextualWisdomLab/disksage"
pr="133"
call() {
local label="$1"
shift
echo "=== $label ==="
if ! "$@"; then
echo "[request failed: $label]" >&2
fi
echo
}
call "PR identity" \
gh api "repos/$repo/pulls/$pr" \
--jq '{number,state,draft,html_url,head:{ref:.head.ref,sha:.head.sha},base:{ref:.base.ref,sha:.base.sha},mergeable,mergeable_state}'
call "Current main tip" \
gh api "repos/$repo/git/ref/heads/main" --jq '.object.sha'
head="$(gh api "repos/$repo/pulls/$pr" --jq '.head.sha' 2>/dev/null || true)"
if [ -n "$head" ]; then
call "Check runs for current PR head $head" \
gh api "repos/$repo/commits/$head/check-runs?per_page=100" \
--jq '[.check_runs[] | {name,status,conclusion,details_url,started_at,completed_at,app:.app.slug}]'
call "Workflow runs for current PR head $head" \
gh api "repos/$repo/actions/runs?head_sha=$head&per_page=100" \
--jq '[.workflow_runs[] | {id,name,display_title,event,status,conclusion,head_sha,html_url,created_at,updated_at}]'
runs="$(gh api "repos/$repo/actions/runs?head_sha=$head&per_page=100" --jq '.workflow_runs[].id' 2>/dev/null || true)"
for run_id in $runs; do
call "Jobs and steps for workflow run $run_id" \
gh api "repos/$repo/actions/runs/$run_id/jobs?per_page=100" \
--jq '[.jobs[] | {name,status,conclusion,started_at,completed_at,steps:[.steps[] | {number,name,status,conclusion}]}]'
done
fi
call "Local checkout identity" bash -c \
'git rev-parse HEAD && git status --short && git show -s --format="%H%n%P%n%s" HEAD'
echo "=== Candidate source file outlines ==="
for file in $(fd -a '^(podman_desktop\.rs|podmanEvidence\.ts|PodmanEvidence\.svelte|lib\.rs|test\.yml)$' . -E node_modules -E target -E dist | sort); do
echo "--- $file ---"
ast-grep outline "$file" --items all 2>&1 || true
doneLength of output: 51879 🏁 Script executed: #!/bin/bash
set -uo pipefail
repo="ContextualWisdomLab/disksage"
pr="133"
run="31319066739"
echo '=== Failed coverage job log ==='
gh run view "$run" --repo "$repo" --log-failed 2>&1 || true
echo '=== Coverage workflow artifacts ==='
gh api "repos/$repo/actions/runs/$run/artifacts?per_page=100" \
--jq '[.artifacts[] | {id,name,size_in_bytes,expired,created_at,updated_at,archive_download_url}]' 2>&1 || true
echo '=== Current-head review status and comments ==='
gh api "repos/$repo/pulls/$pr/reviews?per_page=100" \
--jq '[.[] | {id,user:.user.login,state,commit_id,submitted_at,body}]' 2>&1 || true
gh api "repos/$repo/pulls/$pr/comments?per_page=100" \
--jq '[.[] | {user:.user.login,path,line,original_line,commit_id,body,html_url,created_at}]' 2>&1 || true
echo '=== Current-head diff file list ==='
git diff --name-status 9bcb14ff9719029411591036b249537b22d2f3fd HEAD
echo '=== Command registration and Podman desktop implementation ==='
sed -n '70,115p' src-tauri/src/lib.rs 2>&1 || true
sed -n '1,340p' src-tauri/src/podman_desktop.rs 2>&1 || true
echo '=== TypeScript contract and component ==='
sed -n '1,380p' src/lib/podmanEvidence.ts 2>&1 || true
sed -n '1,300p' src/lib/PodmanEvidence.svelte 2>&1 || true
sed -n '1,100p' src/lib/Cleanup.svelte 2>&1 || true
echo '=== Relevant test and workflow outlines ==='
for file in \
.github/workflows/test.yml \
vitest.config.ts \
src/lib/podmanEvidence.test.ts \
src/lib/podmanEvidence.error.test.ts \
src/lib/podmanEvidence.docstrings.test.ts \
src-tauri/tests/podman_desktop_branch_coverage.rs \
src-tauri/tests/podman_desktop_command_coverage.rs \
src-tauri/tests/podman_desktop_documentation_contract.rs \
src-tauri/tests/podman_desktop_issue_privacy.rs; do
if [ -f "$file" ]; then
echo "--- $file ---"
ast-grep outline "$file" --items all 2>&1 || true
fi
done
echo '=== Static scan for mutation and sensitive-output primitives in Podman desktop boundary ==='
rg -n -i -C2 \
'(prune|remove|rm\s|delete|machine\s+(start|stop|rm|init)|trim|fstrim|qemu-img|shell|Command::new|args_os|stderr|stdout|graph[_ -]?root|image[_ -]?id|tag)' \
src-tauri/src/podman_desktop.rs src/lib/podmanEvidence.ts src/lib/PodmanEvidence.svelte 2>&1 || trueLength of output: 200935
Result: non-passingPR The repository
The repository
The failure is an actual exact-100% gate failure. It is not a pending, skipped, or infrastructure-only result. The central required job named Podman boundary reviewThe inspected current-head implementation has these correct properties:
I found no new static violation of the read-only, privacy, or logical-versus-physical boundary in the inspected desktop code. The coverage failure and the non-executing central coverage context remain blockers for this exact head. 🧠 Learnings used
|
1 participant
Summary
Privacy and safety
podman-evidence-unavailableUI codeinspect_podman_reclaimVerification contract
missing_docsenforcement and a source-level integration contract require beginner-readable rustdoc for every Podman desktop function, including private helpers and regression testspodmanEvidence.tsandpodmanEvidenceError.tsare included in the 100% statement/branch/function/line coverage gaterole=statusandrole=alertdocs/architecture/podman-desktop-evidence.mdRequired before merge
No version is bumped and no release is published by this change.
Summary by CodeRabbit
새로운 기능
버그 수정
문서