superseded: option-validation edge contract inherited by #126

[seonghobae]

Superseded by #126

Fresh exact-head audit at 31949e9fcd033036eaf2d12d9ecb626a146bba5b found the same exported nested/adj/conf.level validation semantics as canonical #126 plus one useful focused regression: unsupported adjustment strings including "" and "aic " are rejected before model processing and the package-owned error has a null condition call.

That unique regression has now been inherited by Draft #126@4af198147f33a83cb62d1e66f6d95eaf2b06d838. Its persistent exported-boundary suite covers those two values in addition to NA/NULL/wrong-type/vector/boundary cases and asserts conditionCall(err) == NULL for all package-owned option-validation failures. #126 therefore carries a strict superset of this branch's valid source/test contract.

The generated .jules/sentinel.md rule and MEDIUM/info-leak exploit wording are not admissible unique evidence and are intentionally omitted from the canonical lane. No other valid statistical, fixture, or release delta remains only here.

This closure follows complete successor inheritance; it transfers neither predecessor GREEN nor merge authority.

[google-labs-jules]

👋 Jules, reporting for duty! I'm here to lend a hand with this pull request.

When you start a review, I'll add a 👀 emoji to each comment to let you know I've read it. I'll focus on feedback directed at me and will do my best to stay out of conversations between you and other bots or reviewers to keep the noise down.

I'll push a commit with your requested changes shortly after. Please note there might be a delay between these steps, but rest assured I'm on the job!

For more direct control, you can switch me to Reactive Mode. When this mode is on, I will only act on comments where you specifically mention me with @jules. You can find this option in the Pull Request section of your global Jules UI settings. You can always switch back!

New to Jules? Learn more at jules.google/docs.

---

For security, I will only act on instructions from the user who triggered this task.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

Next included review available in 39 minutes.

View limit details

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.

Learn how review limits work.

Review configuration:

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: e1049fc5-27d6-412d-bb4c-bbb861aea73f

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 6792da3 and 31949e9.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• R/vuongtest.R

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

icci()와 vuongtest()의 진입점에 입력 검증을 추가했습니다. 잘못된 입력은 모델 처리 전에 명시적 오류를 발생시킵니다. 관련 오류 테스트와 보안 학습 문서도 추가했습니다.

Changes

내보낸 함수 입력 검증

Layer / File(s)	Summary
함수 진입점 검증 R/icci.R, R/vuongtest.R, tests/testthat/test_vuongtest_errors.R, .jules/sentinel.md	icci()는 conf.level이 단일 숫자이고 0과 1 사이인지 검증합니다. vuongtest()는 nested와 adj의 유형과 길이를 검증합니다. 지원하지 않는 adj 값에 대한 오류 테스트와 입력 검증 보안 문서를 추가했습니다.

Estimated code review effort: 2 (Simple) | ~10 minutes

Merge Risk: 🟡 Moderate · up to 6792d

vuongtest() still accepts unsupported adjustment values such as "AIC" or "aic " and may return a statistic without the adjustment the caller requested. The related tests are expected to fail, so the PR is not merge-ready until the allowed values are enforced.

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	제목은 icci와 vuongtest 같은 내보낸 함수에 입력 검증을 추가한 주요 변경 사항을 정확히 설명합니다. 🛡️ Sentinel: [MEDIUM] 접두사는 부가 정보이지만 제목의 핵심 의미를 훼손하지 않습니다.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check. Docstring coverage is scoped to functions touched by this diff. Analyzed 0 functions across 0…
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.

Full details: Docstring Coverage

Explanation

No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check. Docstring coverage is scoped to functions touched by this diff. Analyzed 0 functions across 0 files. (4 skipped: 4 unsupported.)

✨ Finishing Touches 💡 1

🛠️ Fix failing CI checks 💡

• Create stacked PR
• Commit on current branch

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch sentinel-input-validation-14153892756077763940

---

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.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[devin-ai-integration]

Note

This report is out of date. Scroll down for Devin Review's latest report on this PR.

Devin Review found 0 new potential issues.

[devin-ai-integration]

Devin Review found 1 new potential issue.

[devin-ai-integration]

📝 Info: nested no longer accepts numeric 0/1

The old if(nested) accepted numeric truthy values; the new check requires a single logical, so nested=1/nested=0 now error. No existing caller passes numeric.

---

Was this helpful? React with 👍 or 👎 to provide feedback.