Conversation
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 13 minutes Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available. 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: Path: .coderabbit.yaml Review profile: ASSERTIVE Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (3)
Comment |
|
✅ Deterministic PR hygiene checks passed. |
⏳ DRAFT
What to do
Its title has been prefixed with |
github-actions
Bot
changed the title
|
Closing this wrong-base fork PR after validating a corrected |
* fix(pr-quality): break CodeRabbit review feedback loop in gate comment The readiness gate wrote a literal '@coderabbitai review' command into its status comment, and it rewrote an unchanged comment body on every wake. - Remove the inline CodeRabbit command from the ready notice. - Skip updateComment when the rebuilt body is unchanged. - Add regression tests for both behaviors. * test(pr-quality): cover unchanged CodeRabbit status wake * test(pr-quality): keep status-wake regression focused * test(pr-quality): cover legacy migration on no-op wake * test(pr-quality): reproduce stale gate comment body * fix(pr-quality): track gate comment body after writes * test(pr-quality): restore trust-boundary context * test(pr-quality): pin repeated failure comment target * test: fix gate body helper
…idge-jun#4426) The adapter asserted that Cognition has no reasoning-replay field and dropped every assistant thinking block, so a reasoning model restarted its chain on each turn of a tool loop and paid for it again. The field exists. Two independent clients of the same service write it on the assistant prompt: #11 thinking, #12 signature, #18 signature_type. The response side was half-missing too. delta_thinking (#9) was decoded but delta_signature (#10) was not, so even once the prompt could carry a signature there was never one to carry: the replay would always have been unsigned. #10 now surfaces as a thinking_signature event. Reasoning still stays out of the replayed assistant TEXT, which is what the original comment was right about — folding chain-of-thought into the visible content makes the model treat it as something it said to the user. It rides its own field instead. A turn that produced only reasoning is now replayed rather than skipped, since dropping it is what forces the next turn to re-derive the same chain.
1 participant
Motivation
__proto__could resolve to inherited non-string values and causeTypeErrorduring reasoning-effort lookup.Description
canonicalCommandCodeModelId(modelId)that usesObject.hasOwnto resolve aliases and treat prototype names literally.params.modelfield so legacy aliases still work.commandCodeReasoningEfforts/ profile access withObject.hasOwnguards to avoid reading inherited prototype properties as effort arrays.treats prototype property names as literal model idscovering__proto__,constructor, andtoStringto ensure those IDs are forwarded literally and do not produce areasoning_effortvalue.Testing
bun run test tests/command-code-provider.test.tsand the focused Command Code suite passed (23 tests passed).bun run typecheckandbun run privacy:scan, both completed successfully.bun run testwhere the Command Code tests passed but the full suite hit a pre-existing, unrelated timeout intests/codex-catalog-sync-hardening.test.ts(that failure is not caused by these changes).