Skip to content

docs(calendar): refresh escalation-ladder prose for CI calm-rotation - #21

Merged
sumitake merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
docs/calendar-readme-ci-rotation
Aug 9, 2026
Merged

docs(calendar): refresh escalation-ladder prose for CI calm-rotation#21
sumitake merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
docs/calendar-readme-ci-rotation

Conversation

@sumitake

@sumitake sumitake commented Aug 9, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Follow-up to #20. ci_status no longer draws at PRIORITY_ALERT (60) — its failure/stuck frames rotate at the overlay tier (21). This softens the now-dated "a persistent CI failure alert buries the calendar" framing in the escalation-ladder section so it reflects the new model (the calendar's climb above the overlay tier is what keeps an imminent event visible). Docs only — no behavior change.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

ci_status no longer draws at PRIORITY_ALERT (60); its failure/stuck frames
rotate at the overlay tier (21). Softens the now-dated 'persistent CI failure
alert buries the calendar' framing to reflect that the calendar's climb above
the overlay tier is what keeps an imminent event visible. Docs only.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@sumitake
sumitake merged commit 097e1bb into main Aug 9, 2026
4 checks passed
@sumitake
sumitake deleted the docs/calendar-readme-ci-rotation branch August 9, 2026 07:39

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: eaa5142388

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

## Escalation ladder

An operator-reported UX gap: a persistent CI failure alert (`ci_status`, `PRIORITY_ALERT`) permanently evicted the calendar, hiding an imminent event with no way for the calendar to ever reclaim the screen -- the ambient tier has no dwell/silence contract of its own the way the overlay tier does. v1.5.2's fix is a state-dependent draw priority: as an upcoming event gets closer, the calendar climbs `busybar/display.py`'s shared priority ladder so it can no longer be silently buried, first by the overlay-tier CI badge/quota rotation and then by a genuine alert itself.
An operator-reported UX gap: a persistent CI failure alert (`ci_status`, then drawn at `PRIORITY_ALERT`) permanently evicted the calendar, hiding an imminent event with no way for the calendar to ever reclaim the screen -- the ambient tier has no dwell/silence contract of its own the way the overlay tier does. v1.5.2's fix is a state-dependent draw priority: as an upcoming event gets closer, the calendar climbs `busybar/display.py`'s shared priority ladder so it can no longer be silently buried by the overlay-tier rotation. (As of the calm-rotation change, `ci_status` no longer draws at `PRIORITY_ALERT` at all -- its failure/stuck frames now rotate at the overlay tier (21) alongside the running badge and quota gauges, so the calendar's climb above that tier is what keeps an imminent event visible.)

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

P2 Badge Update the remaining eviction paragraph

This accurately introduces the calm overlay rotation, but it now directly contradicts the later “The eviction/409 interplay” paragraph, which still says ci_status uses an alert with no dwell contract, redraws every poll, and reasserts after receiving 409s. In the reviewed ci_status/main.py, failure and stuck frames instead pass through the overlay dwell/silence gate at PRIORITY_OVERLAY; leaving the old paragraph unchanged gives operators two incompatible descriptions of current behavior in the same section.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant