feat(workspace): guide tonight's first pickup on map and player - #916
feat(workspace): guide tonight's first pickup on map and player#916seonghobae wants to merge 29 commits into
Conversation
Name the incoming part that catches the first corroborated handoff, or an explicit pickup section, so the room can start the next action. Workspace Open always scrolls the renderer-owned map section. Player Hear appears only when the owning playback surface supplies a callback.
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 45 minutes Limit details: You’ve used the included review currently available. 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 within each organization. For paid Pro and Pro+ reviews, CodeRabbit uses a developer's included PR review attempts over the past 7 days to set the current hourly allowance. At typical activity levels, the full plan allowance applies. Higher sustained activity can lower the allowance until earlier attempts leave the 7-day 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 (31)
✨ 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 headb01951dac1573dd269dd08b812d2b98cb2ba7b5b. -
Head SHA:
b01951dac1573dd269dd08b812d2b98cb2ba7b5b -
Workflow run: 32172918025
-
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 (20 files)"]
S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (20 files)"]
R1 --> V1["required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Docs (2 files)"]
S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs (2 files)"]
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 (29 files)"]
S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (29 files)"]
R1 --> V1["required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Docs (2 files)"]
S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs (2 files)"]
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 headb01951dac1573dd269dd08b812d2b98cb2ba7b5b. -
Head SHA:
b01951dac1573dd269dd08b812d2b98cb2ba7b5b -
Workflow run: 32180496421
-
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 (20 files)"]
S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (20 files)"]
R1 --> V1["required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Docs (2 files)"]
S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs (2 files)"]
R2 --> V2["docs review"]
Dismissed as stale predecessor-head evidence. This review is bound to b01951d and reports only the then-failing central coverage-evidence prerequisite, with no BandScope product finding. The canonical branch is now 320d040 after regression-first BandScope repairs. Dismissal is not approval; current-head required review/coverage evidence must still be reacquired.
Dismissed as stale predecessor-head evidence. This review is bound to b01951d and reports only the then-failing central coverage-evidence prerequisite, with no BandScope product finding. The canonical branch is now 320d040 after regression-first BandScope repairs. Dismissal is not approval; current-head required review/coverage evidence must still be reacquired.
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 headac6a72a174b311be918b48a24278602977879ea1. -
Head SHA:
ac6a72a174b311be918b48a24278602977879ea1 -
Workflow run: 32216778147
-
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 (29 files)"]
S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (29 files)"]
R1 --> V1["required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Docs (2 files)"]
S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs (2 files)"]
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 headac6a72a174b311be918b48a24278602977879ea1. -
Head SHA:
ac6a72a174b311be918b48a24278602977879ea1 -
Workflow run: 32220380946
-
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 (29 files)"]
S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (29 files)"]
R1 --> V1["required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Docs (2 files)"]
S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs (2 files)"]
R2 --> V2["docs review"]
|
@opencode-agent review Review exact current head Repository CI/release/build-baseline/SBOM/Bandit/Semgrep/secret-scan are terminal-success on this unchanged head. |
|
Queued @cwl-noema-review and @opencode-agent for PR #916 at head |
|
Already queued @cwl-noema-review and @opencode-agent on this exact request for PR #916 at head |
4 similar comments
|
Already queued @cwl-noema-review and @opencode-agent on this exact request for PR #916 at head |
|
Already queued @cwl-noema-review and @opencode-agent on this exact request for PR #916 at head |
|
Already queued @cwl-noema-review and @opencode-agent on this exact request for PR #916 at head |
|
Already queued @cwl-noema-review and @opencode-agent on this exact request for PR #916 at head |
1 participant
Product outcome
After analysis, the rehearsal map names tonight's first pickup: who catches the handoff, who they take it from, and when. Workspace opens that moment on the renderer-owned map; Player exposes Hear only when its owning playback surface supplies a callback.
Exact current identity
develop@acdbea6344fe1231c39535b575f4de35e4c607c9.ac6a72a174b311be918b48a24278602977879ea1.feat/workspace-first-pickup-handoff.Current bounded behavior
pickupsection with the highest-priority active ranked role at section start.partGraphhandoff with an active ranked outgoing part and a same-section reciprocal incoming edge, naming the incoming catch.scrollIntoView; a missing target stays unarmed.Current-head maintenance
Two predecessor regression-oracle conflicts were repaired without weakening the production safety boundary:
0e9f3750f67cbdc31b0b68651ab173789e326ed7keeps duplicate usable graph identity fail-closed while rewriting the mixed-edge fixture so invalid targets can be skipped without contradicting duplicate-authority rejection.ac6a72a174b311be918b48a24278602977879ea1gives the Workspace integration test an actual renderer target, verifiesscrollIntoView({ block: "nearest", behavior: "smooth" }), and only then expects completion guidance to arm.No filesystem, network, subprocess, IPC, WebView, model, database, dependency, package, or export authority is changed by those repairs.
Exact-current-head repository evidence
On unchanged head
ac6a72a174b311be918b48a24278602977879ea1, the repository-local cycle is now terminal:ci32212855178,release32212855172,sbom32212855193,secret-scan-gate32212855200,build-baseline32212855229, Bandit32212855312, and SAST Semgrep32212855175;security-audit32212855202and aggregateSecurity Scan32212855226.Those failed security lanes are non-passing. This feature branch does not own or copy the protected-base JavaScript dependency remediation; canonical #783 remains the dependency-root owner. After #783 integrates into protected
develop, this branch must be refreshed and the resulting exact head revalidated before merge.Current inline review threads are empty. Predecessor OpenCode
CHANGES_REQUESTEDreviews remain historical/dismissed infrastructure evidence, not approval. There is no qualifying independent non-author current-head approval.Central review authority
The former central SHA/#1136-pending description is stale. Protected
ContextualWisdomLab/.github@mainhas advanced beyond the trusted-uv repair chain. No old central OpenCode/Noema/Strix result transfers to this feature head; require fresh central coverage/docstring/review evidence on the post-#783 refreshed exact head rather than a BandScope-local workaround.Merge gate
Keep unmerged until one unchanged resulting exact head has every applicable repository and central required gate terminal-success, exact required owned coverage/docstring evidence, zero valid unresolved findings, a qualifying independent non-author last-push approval, #783 and other true dependency-root prerequisites integrated/revalidated, and ordinary protected-branch acceptance. Queued, pending, skipped-required, cancelled, failed, stale, predecessor, protected-base, self/author, model-only, rate-limited, or administrative-bypass evidence is non-passing.