-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
Validate review-summary edge cases #17
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
+66
−2
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
7bc6051
Validate review summary edge cases
mchwang 66ac3b3
Strengthen edge case validation evidence
mchwang b8f428e
Require direct evidence in summary concern fixtures
mchwang 08327a1
Type rename validation paths explicitly
mchwang c4d580b
Make rename fixture plan scope explicit
mchwang 2708ae9
Clarify validation evidence provenance
mchwang File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
Some comments aren't visible on the classic Files Changed page.
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ | ||
| # Review-summary edge-case validation (#10) | ||
|
|
||
| Validated on 2026-09-23 before selecting real issues for the plan-indexed review experiment. The validation branch started from baseline `5a2685c`; final exact-head results are recorded in PR #17. These were summary-only concerns from PR #9, not reproduced defects. No production behavior changed during this validation. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Renamed-file reassignment | ||
|
|
||
| A real-Git fixture reduces the demo plan to P1, declares `retry.ts` → `renamed.ts`, then creates an unplanned rename with a content edit. The review exposes removed and added text segments with `-` and `+` operations. The fixture resolves the removed side through `oldPath` and the added side through `path`, verifies both declared names, then manually assigns both segments. Each remains in scope. | ||
|
|
||
| Result: no defect reproduced. `ReviewService` evaluates a manual assignment against both `path` and `renamed_from`. The integration fixture remains as coverage. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Literal pathspec metacharacters | ||
|
|
||
| A planting fixture uses the literal declared filename `*.txt` beside a decoy `a.txt`. An owned commit edits the literal file; a later commit removes it while retaining the decoy. Direct controls prove `git ls-tree ... -- '*.txt'` returns no match and that `ls-tree` rejects `:(glob)` pathspec magic as unsupported. The plant helper then rejects the history at its declared-file transition check with `Declared plant needs a regular file retained through the remaining history.` | ||
|
|
||
| Result: no defect reproduced. The decoy does not satisfy the literal transition check. The fixture remains as coverage for Git pathspec metacharacters. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Accepted-change status styling | ||
|
|
||
| The existing browser flow accepts an unplanned change, opens the Accepted row, and reloads it. The status reads `Accepted outside plan` and uses the existing muted treatment. A proposed error-color assertion failed because the rendered class is `muted`, confirming the summary did not describe the current styling accurately enough to imply a patch. | ||
|
|
||
| Result: no defect reproduced. The summary supplied no expected color, state token, contrast failure, or browser failure. The explicit label already distinguishes the acknowledged exception, so no new color semantics were inferred and the existing browser coverage remains unchanged. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Gate result | ||
|
|
||
| All three concerns are resolved as validated behavior. No issue supplied a failing case that justified a production patch. Issue #3's manual assignment and paired human go/no-go experiment remain pending and must use the frozen protocol in `review-protocol.md`. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.