fix(model-comparison): replay casewise trust boundary on current review workflow - #1009
Conversation
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 40 minutes Limit details: You’ve used the included review currently available. 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?Wait for the limit to reset, then comment An organization admin can change what happens after included review limits in Billing. How do review limits work?CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits within each organization. For paid Pro and Pro+ reviews, CodeRabbit uses a developer's included PR review attempts over the past 7 days to set the current hourly allowance. At typical activity levels, the full plan allowance applies. Higher sustained activity can lower the allowance until earlier attempts leave the 7-day window. Please refer docs for additional details. Review details⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (4)
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 @cwl-noema-review Please independently review exact current head |
![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 headf59c74f79cd5a37e8c1bd74e1f83a1924a11b508. -
Head SHA:
f59c74f79cd5a37e8c1bd74e1f83a1924a11b508 -
Workflow run: 32213331140
-
Workflow attempt: 1
Coverage evidence
Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Docs: 608-model-comparison-casewise-trust-boundary.md"]
S1 --> I1["operator or user guidance"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Docs: 608-model-comparison-casewise-trust-boundary.md"]
R1 --> V1["docs review"]
Evidence --> S2["Changed file: model_comparison.py"]
S2 --> I2["repository behavior"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Changed file: model_comparison.py"]
R2 --> V2["required checks"]
Evidence --> S3["Test (2 files)"]
S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test (2 files)"]
R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
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 evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence. Changed-File Evidence Mapflowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Docs: 608-model-comparison-casewise-trust-boundary.md"]
S1 --> I1["operator or user guidance"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Docs: 608-model-comparison-casewise-trust-boundary.md"]
R1 --> V1["docs review"]
Evidence --> S2["Changed file: model_comparison.py"]
S2 --> I2["repository behavior"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Changed file: model_comparison.py"]
R2 --> V2["required checks"]
Evidence --> S3["Test (2 files)"]
S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test (2 files)"]
R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
|
|
@opencode-agent review Fresh re-review request: ContextualWisdomLab/.github#1136 has merged, fixing the central Generated by Claude Code |
|
@opencode-agent Please re-review unchanged exact head |
|
@opencode-agent review Re-dispatch unchanged exact head |
|
@opencode-agent review Please re-review exact current head |
|
Current-head review for f59c74f: required checks are terminal-success on this exact head. Existing formal review state predates the current evidence or was tied to an earlier coverage-evidence attempt; no source failure is shown. Please reacquire approval against this exact head. @opencode-agent review @cwl-noema-review review |
|
@opencode-agent review Re-evaluate exact unchanged head |
|
@opencode-agent review\n@cwl-noema-review review\n\nPlease review exact current head f59c74f. Bind every review and approval decision to this SHA and current main. Existing review state is not sufficient evidence for this head; use current Checks and changed-file evidence only. |
|
Current-head re-review request for |
|
@opencode-agent review @cwl-noema-review review Please re-review exact current HEAD f59c74f against current protected main; do not transfer predecessor coverage verdicts. |
seonghobae
left a comment
seonghobae
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Current-head re-review request for f59c74f. The existing REQUEST_CHANGES cites superseded central coverage-evidence infrastructure; current repository checks are terminal-success. Bind any new decision to this exact HEAD and live central workflow; no source patch is warranted without a current-head finding.
|
@opencode-agent @cwl-noema-review Re-review the exact current head The prior current-head REQUEST_CHANGES only reported unavailable/failed coverage evidence from an earlier run. Current CI, Security Scan, SAST Semgrep, and CodeQL runs for this exact head are terminal-success. Re-evaluate this head and publish independent approvals only from fresh evidence; do not reuse prior-head reviews. Protected merge policy remains unchanged. |
|
@opencode-agent Please perform a review-only formal review of exact current PR head |
|
Current-head fix for 4c4a22d:
|
![devin-ai-integration[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/811515?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
opencode-agent
Bot
added
area: ci-cd
1 participant
Supersedes #990 without changing its corrected product tree.
Exact source head:
f59c74f79cd5a37e8c1bd74e1f83a1924a11b508. Repository CI, Security Scan, CodeQL, and Semgrep are terminal-success on this SHA, with no unresolved review threads.The public nonnested-model comparison boundary rejects arbitrary numeric protocols/subclasses without dispatch while preserving exact built-in and supported NumPy scalars. Python validates and marshals only; casewise log-likelihood-ratio mean, omega, BIC correction, Vuong z, and p-value arithmetic remain compiled-Rust owned.
#990's formal OpenCode
CHANGES_REQUESTEDis solely central coverage-evidence run32167081903. This successor creates a fresh pull-request event for the current central workflow without source churn, force-push, review dismissal, or gate weakening.