Repository navigation
fix: recognize CRLF fenced dispute examples - #168
Merged
Merged
Conversation
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
What changes
Codex/result JSON replies can contain CRLF inside their decoded text. The reply parser failed to recognize Markdown fences ending in CRLF, so a quoted
DISPUTE:example could reopen a settled finding despite approval and assign quoted text to the wrong rebuttal.Strip the trailing carriage return only while recognizing reply syntax, preserving original evidence text. Add eight regressions covering both JSON formats, LF/CRLF, backtick/tilde fences, withdrawn examples and subsequent live disputes. Integrates merged #166 while retaining its mixed-reply and restatement behavior.
Validation
Final head:
19460adf5a1ed3250dee5726e61f4cceb96e140e, based on merged master9f587399f86b119e5fcee36580de0732f4fc3d31.node --test test/language-replies.test.js test/contested-resume.test.js: 62 passed.node scripts/ci-check.mjs test: 545 passed, exit 0.node scripts/ci-check.mjs test:package: fresh pack/install and installed CLI regressions passed, exit 0.git diff --check: passed.NO NEW FINDINGSin 55.8 seconds. Codex was selected as reviewer and judge; no judge triage was needed. Checkout remained clean.Exact actual review command:
GIT_AUTHOR_NAME=zzxwill GIT_COMMITTER_NAME=zzxwill node bin/jury.js review --dir /Users/bytedance/Documents/Codex/2026-10-20/task/codejury-crlf-disputes --trunk master --reviewer codex --judge codex --rounds 2 --summary 'Verify the focused CRLF fence fix after integrating merged PR166. JSON reply formats preserve CRLF inside decoded response strings; the old fence matcher treated quoted DISPUTE markers as live and could reopen settled findings or misassign evidence. Strip only the trailing CR for syntax matching while preserving original rebuttal text. Four CRLF regression cases fail on unpatched merged master while four LF controls pass; the fixed tests cover Codex JSON and result JSON with backtick and tilde fences. Preserve the merged mixed-reply and restatement behavior. Keep scope to this fix; no release, credential, security, or unrelated changes.' --web=false --push=falseLimitations
CRLF behavior was reproduced with deterministic local protocol fixtures; the live Jury run reviewed the change but did not itself produce a CRLF reply. Final-head GitHub CI remains required before merge. No publication or release settings changed. The concurrent cache-management PR #167 overlaps only in CHANGELOG.md; its implementation is untouched.