Repository navigation
content: record completed Topic 01 human review - #153
vinicius-ssantos wants to merge 4 commits into
Conversation
Codex Review SummaryThis comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings. |
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 7872b547b3
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".
| reviewer: record.reviewer, | ||
| reviewedOn: record.reviewedOn, | ||
| reviewer: entry.reviewer ?? record.reviewer, | ||
| reviewedOn: entry.reviewedOn ?? record.reviewedOn, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When any of these newly approved questions is published, deploy/publish-pack.mjs still builds its approval comment from record.reviewedOn at line 153 rather than status.reviewedOn, so the 13 reviews recorded here as 2026-10-07 will be stored and reported as having occurred on 2026-10-02. The dry-run summary likewise reports all 33 approvals with the old date. Propagate the per-question date returned here through the publisher so the editorial provenance matches the review record.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| "t01-bigdecimal-equals-scale": { | ||
| "verdict": "APPROVED", | ||
| "digest": "sha256:9ef4fd637d6c94153ba2213f7b71028a6ee0cdb9613b5ff5af8fee0aeb9eb69a", | ||
| "verified": "sha256:cb8918a0b255d75b7e746fff3d0527b997e5b67e2895c87b9f4180152ea66093", | ||
| "reviewedOn": "2026-10-07" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Recording this and the other 12 Topic 01 approvals makes the repository's authoring documentation incorrect: content/README.md:5,11, docs/engineering/content-authoring.md:9,174, and the corresponding Portuguese guide still state that exactly 20 questions are reviewed and all 130 later questions remain unreviewed. Update those status sections to reflect 33 reviewed and 117 awaiting review so contributors do not rely on a stale review inventory.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
1 participant
Summary
Human review
All 13 items tracked by #139 were explicitly reviewed and accepted. Three initially incorrect learner answers were discussed and then explicitly accepted after the Java 21 behavior was explained.
Closes #139