fix(ai): use adaptive orchestration for edit proposals - #30
Conversation
|
No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉 ℹ️ Recent review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (4)
Included review availability: Your plan includes up to 1 review per rolling hour; 0 remain after this review. 📝 WalkthroughWalkthrough편집 제안 요청이 고정 모델 호출 대신 ChangesAdaptive orchestration 요청
Estimated code review effort: 1 (낮음) | ~5 minutes Merge Risk: ⚪ Minimal · up to This localized change makes adaptive orchestration explicit while preserving the existing proposal flow and validation behavior; no actionable merge-blocking risk remains after normal checks and review. 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 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 heade42fd648aa880f3890efb55a9836d96381417dcd. -
Head SHA:
e42fd648aa880f3890efb55a9836d96381417dcd -
Workflow run: 31953020996
-
Workflow attempt: 1
Coverage evidence
Coverage Decision
- Result: FAIL
- Test evidence: not proven passing
- Docstring evidence: not proven passing when configured
- Failure count: 2
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Changed file (3 files)"]
S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (3 files)"]
R1 --> V1["required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Docs: 0008-adaptive-contextual-orchestrator-default.md"]
S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs: 0008-adaptive-contextual-orchestrator-default.md"]
R2 --> V2["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["Changed file (3 files)"]
S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (3 files)"]
R1 --> V1["required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Docs: 0008-adaptive-contextual-orchestrator-default.md"]
S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs: 0008-adaptive-contextual-orchestrator-default.md"]
R2 --> V2["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 heade42fd648aa880f3890efb55a9836d96381417dcd. -
Head SHA:
e42fd648aa880f3890efb55a9836d96381417dcd -
Workflow run: 31958103275
-
Workflow attempt: 1
Coverage evidence
Coverage Decision
- Result: FAIL
- Test evidence: not proven passing
- Docstring evidence: not proven passing when configured
- Failure count: 2
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Changed file (3 files)"]
S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (3 files)"]
R1 --> V1["required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Docs: 0008-adaptive-contextual-orchestrator-default.md"]
S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs: 0008-adaptive-contextual-orchestrator-default.md"]
R2 --> V2["docs review"]
1 participant
Summary
mode: "auto";Why
The proposal consumer should not select one fixed worker. Contextual-orchestrator should decide whether one route is sufficient or a deeper verified workflow is needed, then minimize known cost among quality-sufficient paths. An omitted mode currently maps to auto, but the explicit field makes the consumer contract reviewable and prevents future default drift.
Verification
Test-first bootstrap workflow
31940343995completed successfully. It first demonstrated the new request-body assertion failed on the unchanged adapter, then implemented the field and ran the repository's completenpm run verifycontract, including syntax, tests, 100% coverage, and docstring checks, followed bygit diff --check.Normal pull-request CI, security, review, and protected-branch gates remain authoritative for merge.
Summary by CodeRabbit
개선 사항
문서