feat(workspace): loop tonight's first section on the map - #903
feat(workspace): loop tonight's first section on the map#903seonghobae wants to merge 15 commits into
Conversation
Replace the dead Loop section coming-soon control with a rehearsal action that arms the first role or focus window and jumps to that Section Roadmap card. Timeline chips start the same loop. Isolation playback stays uninvented.
|
Bugbot is not enabled for your account, so this pull request was not reviewed. Enable Bugbot in the Cursor dashboard to get automatic reviews on future PRs. |
|
Exact-current-head @opencode-agent review Read-only review of this unchanged SHA. Do not self-approve, update the branch, or merge. Inherited #783 npm HIGH findings stay #783-owned. |
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 31 minutes Limit details: You’ve used all 1 included review currently available under your plan. You've used all free OSS reviews for now. Wait for the free limit to reset to keep reviewing this public repository. How can I continue?After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews. How do review limits work?CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability. For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window. Please refer docs for additional details. Review details⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (13)
✨ Finishing Touches 💡 1🛠️ Fix failing CI checks 💡
📝 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 |
Merge the canonical #903 loop lane into the count-in work so the live Workspace owns and passes loopedSectionId into SectionRoadmap. Preserve the loop controls/locales and add an integration regression for a non-first loop target while scoping the Workspace timeline assertion to its region.
Keep the canonical #903 loop guidance while recording the Section Roadmap count-in, update the architecture date, and make the changelog reflect first-or-looped runtime behavior.
Preserve #903's existing test layout, scope malformed-time assertions to the timeline region, and add only the non-first-loop integration regression needed to prove Workspace passes the selected map loop into the count-in.
![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 head3f193bf01b7f059454ba13f192865bccbf091aac. -
Head SHA:
3f193bf01b7f059454ba13f192865bccbf091aac -
Workflow run: 32045676667
-
Workflow attempt: 1
Coverage evidence
Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Changed file (10 files)"]
S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (10 files)"]
R1 --> V1["required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Docs: component-contract.md"]
S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs: component-contract.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 evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence. Changed-File Evidence Mapflowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Changed file (12 files)"]
S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (12 files)"]
R1 --> V1["required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Docs: component-contract.md"]
S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs: component-contract.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 headc03d84d8f5797684136b7b4b4ca1fed90efbc7bd. -
Head SHA:
c03d84d8f5797684136b7b4b4ca1fed90efbc7bd -
Workflow run: 32090847879
-
Workflow attempt: 1
Coverage evidence
Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Changed file (12 files)"]
S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (12 files)"]
R1 --> V1["required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Docs: component-contract.md"]
S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs: component-contract.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 head7d143339be4a26d34ef5a636ebcad6f139722d5c. -
Head SHA:
7d143339be4a26d34ef5a636ebcad6f139722d5c -
Workflow run: 32106883076
-
Workflow attempt: 1
Coverage evidence
Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Changed file (12 files)"]
S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (12 files)"]
R1 --> V1["required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Docs: component-contract.md"]
S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs: component-contract.md"]
R2 --> V2["docs review"]
Stale predecessor-head central-infrastructure review. This review is bound to 3f193bf01b7f059454ba13f192865bccbf091aac; the canonical PR head is now 1f3e8c75c57232208d2b723aa37137e47ccf46de. The review reports no BandScope product-code finding and only a failed central coverage-evidence prerequisite. Dismissing it does not approve the current head or satisfy any required coverage/OpenCode/independent-approval gate.
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 head1f3e8c75c57232208d2b723aa37137e47ccf46de. -
Head SHA:
1f3e8c75c57232208d2b723aa37137e47ccf46de -
Workflow run: 32110723763
-
Workflow attempt: 1
Coverage evidence
Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Changed file (12 files)"]
S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (12 files)"]
R1 --> V1["required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Docs: component-contract.md"]
S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs: component-contract.md"]
R2 --> V2["docs review"]
|
Queued @opencode-agent ; Already queued @cwl-noema-review on this exact request for PR #903 at head |
1 participant
Buyer-visible gap
After analysis, the role strip still said Loop section coming soon and the song-structure chips did not start anything. A bandmate who had just picked a part still had to invent the first listen.
Cites Figma 19-457 Song Structure Timeline and
docs/design-system/component-contract.md.Product outcome
Renderer-owned focus repair
Fresh review found that the original focus target used accepted analysis-domain
section.idvalues directly as HTMLidvalues. BandScope accepts arbitrary string section IDs, so whitespace-bearing IDs can violate the renderer ID contract and duplicate analysis IDs can make a later timeline chip focus the wrong card.The repair stays in this canonical owner:
90f7a9957c748602fd8c656358a9a542a89b5f16requires renderer-owned focus authority even when an analysis ID contains whitespace.workspace-section-card-1.Exact current identity and repository evidence
1f3e8c75c57232208d2b723aa37137e47ccf46de.develop@acdbea6344fe1231c39535b575f4de35e4c607c9.Terminal-success repository workflows on this unchanged head:
ci32107456428;release32107456346;build-baseline32107456365;sbom32107456344;bandit32107456335;SAST Semgrep32107456442; andsecret-scan-gate32107456369.security-audit32107456342and aggregateSecurity Scan32107456381are terminal-failure/non-passing. The exact security-audit merge checkout isfaafdfa557570e636ad4173a09c557f3aa8dfda7; its first substantive failure isnpm audit --workspaces --audit-level=highon the protected-basenanoid <3.3.18,pdfjs-dist >=5.6.83 <6.2.108, andundici <=7.28.0set. This branch has no dependency/root-lock/suppression delta, so canonical #783 remains the owning dependency root.The three recorded OpenCode
CHANGES_REQUESTEDreviews were all bound to predecessor heads (3f193bf...,c03d84d...,7d14333...) and contained no BandScope product-code finding; each reported only the failed central coverage-evidence prerequisite. After verifying the current head and confirming zero inline review threads, those stale predecessor reviews were dismissed. Their dismissal is not approval and does not satisfy current-head OpenCode, central coverage, Strix, or qualifying independent-review requirements.Security notes
Merge gate
Keep unmerged until one unchanged exact head has every applicable repository and central required gate terminal-success, including clean dependency/security evidence after #783 reaches protected
develop, exact required coverage/docstring evidence, current-head OpenCode/Strix and other live required contexts, zero valid unresolved findings, and a qualifying independent non-author last-push approval. Branch protection must permit merge without bypass.Queued, pending, skipped-required, cancelled, failed, predecessor-head, protected-base, model-only, self/author, or administrative-bypass evidence is not success.