Repository navigation
parts-verdict: read the issue-list verdict (act@5, /4) and publish draft panels - #378
Conversation
Co-Authored-By: Jinni <342598851+fj-jinni[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
|
@codex review |
Codex Review Summary: ✅ CompletedThis 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: bba716bc44
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".
| animations: [], checkpoints: [], authoring: files.filter(file => /\/(rig|motion|mesh_report)\.json$/.test(String(file.path))) | ||
| .map(file => ({ label: String(file.path).split('/').at(-1), path: file.path })) }; | ||
| .map(file => ({ label: String(file.path).split('/').at(-1), path: file.path })), | ||
| panels: { schema: 'rig-review/panels@1', left: ['parts.list'], stage: ['parts.canvas'], toolbar: ['parts.layers'], side: ['parts.issues', 'act.submit'] } }; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For a project whose draft was published before this change, reopening it in a new job or reconciling a pending publication now fails: adding panels changes the generated manifest bytes, while the existing-file comparison below refuses the original review-draft-<id>.json with JOB_PUBLICATION_INVALID. Both openDraftPublication and publishPending in src/job-host.ts reach this preparation path, so an otherwise unchanged retained draft becomes unpublishable, and restoring its original bytes cannot resolve the refusal. Accept the previous manifest format or provide a migration that preserves existing publication bindings rather than unconditionally requiring the new bytes. The repository's contract-date rule also requires earlier records to remain usable rather than acquiring a new refusal.
AGENTS.md reference: AGENTS.md:L72-L78
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
Co-Authored-By: Jinni <342598851+fj-jinni[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
…377) Co-Authored-By: Jinni <342598851+fj-jinni[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
|
Codex P1 (retained draft manifests without panels) adopted: a retained legacy manifest will be accepted unchanged, and new publications write panels. The fix follows on this branch. |
Co-Authored-By: Jinni <342598851+fj-jinni[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Closes #377.
What changes
decodeReviewActacceptsrig-review/act@5forparts-verdict:{verdict, issues[], words}. Each issue's parts are bound tosource.parts.images(rolepart,parts/<name>.png, matching sha256). Ids and part names must be unique, andapprovedholds exactly when there are zero issues.act@2is unchanged.assertPartsActSource: for act@5, every issue part name must be in the bound manifest (inclusion). The act@2 equality check is unchanged.decodePartsReadreadsrig-review-parts-verdict/4(issues, no per-part rows). For /4,partsVerdictNamesreturns the issue part names de-duplicated in issue order. An act receipt's evidence spec is the act's own schema.prepareDraftManifestwritespanels: rig-review/panels@1(parts.list / parts.canvas / parts.layers / parts.issues + act.submit).Out of scope
Review-side writers, fix-ledger and next.
Verification
bun test tests/parts-verdict-v2.test.ts tests/parts-act.test.tsbun run typecheckbun run lint🤖 Generated with Claude Code