mirror of
https://github.com/rennf93/roboco.git
synced 2026-08-03 07:23:24 +02:00
Renn F
88d00aaa0a
post_pr_review (inbound external/fork PR review) derived both the recorded notes_structured.pr_review.verdict AND the posted GitHub review event solely from its `event` argument, which defaults to REQUEST_CHANGES — and, unlike the in-path gate's pr_fail, it never required any findings. A reviewer that concluded 'approve' in the summary but left event at the default filed (and posted to the contributor's PR) a blocking 'changes requested' with nothing cited, contradicting the approving summary the CEO saw on the PR Reviewer Notes card. Enforce a verdict<->findings invariant before any record or GitHub post: - REQUEST_CHANGES must cite >=1 finding (almost always a forgotten event='APPROVE'), mirroring pr_fail's 'at least one issue' rule; - APPROVE may not carry a blocker/major finding. The check is the pure policy fn pr_review_conflict() wired through the new choreographer _verdict_consistency_gate, rejected with a clear remediate hint. Steer the agent at the source too: the flow MCP tool + request schema now spell out the invariant and to pass event='APPROVE' explicitly for a clean PR.
68 lines
2.5 KiB
Python
68 lines
2.5 KiB
Python
"""The PR-review verdict<->findings invariant.
|
|
|
|
A reviewer's recorded verdict and the GitHub review event both derive from the
|
|
``event`` argument, so they must agree with the findings the reviewer cites.
|
|
``pr_review_conflict`` is the pure predicate the gateway enforces before any
|
|
review is recorded or posted — so an approving review can never be filed (or
|
|
posted to a contributor's PR) as a blocking "changes requested", and an
|
|
approval can never sail over a blocker.
|
|
"""
|
|
|
|
from __future__ import annotations
|
|
|
|
from roboco.foundation.policy.content import pr_review_conflict
|
|
|
|
_BLOCKER = {"file": "a.py", "severity": "blocker", "expected": "x", "actual": "y"}
|
|
_MAJOR = {"file": "a.py", "severity": "major", "expected": "x", "actual": "y"}
|
|
_MINOR = {"file": "a.py", "severity": "minor", "expected": "x", "actual": "y"}
|
|
_NIT = {"file": "a.py", "severity": "nit", "expected": "x", "actual": "y"}
|
|
|
|
|
|
def test_request_changes_with_no_findings_conflicts() -> None:
|
|
# The reported bug: REQUEST_CHANGES (the default) with zero findings — a
|
|
# blocking verdict with nothing cited, contradicting an approving summary.
|
|
conflict = pr_review_conflict("REQUEST_CHANGES", [])
|
|
assert conflict is not None
|
|
message, remediate = conflict
|
|
assert "finding" in message.lower()
|
|
assert "APPROVE" in remediate
|
|
|
|
|
|
def test_request_changes_with_a_finding_is_ok() -> None:
|
|
assert pr_review_conflict("REQUEST_CHANGES", [_MINOR]) is None
|
|
|
|
|
|
def test_approve_over_a_blocker_conflicts() -> None:
|
|
conflict = pr_review_conflict("APPROVE", [_BLOCKER])
|
|
assert conflict is not None
|
|
message, _ = conflict
|
|
assert "approve" in message.lower()
|
|
|
|
|
|
def test_approve_over_a_major_conflicts() -> None:
|
|
assert pr_review_conflict("APPROVE", [_MAJOR]) is not None
|
|
|
|
|
|
def test_approve_with_only_nits_is_ok() -> None:
|
|
assert pr_review_conflict("APPROVE", [_NIT, _MINOR]) is None
|
|
|
|
|
|
def test_approve_with_no_findings_is_ok() -> None:
|
|
assert pr_review_conflict("APPROVE", []) is None
|
|
|
|
|
|
def test_comment_is_never_in_conflict() -> None:
|
|
# A neutral COMMENT carries no verdict, so it is never a contradiction.
|
|
assert pr_review_conflict("COMMENT", []) is None
|
|
assert pr_review_conflict("COMMENT", [_BLOCKER]) is None
|
|
|
|
|
|
def test_findings_none_is_treated_as_empty() -> None:
|
|
assert pr_review_conflict("REQUEST_CHANGES", None) is not None
|
|
assert pr_review_conflict("APPROVE", None) is None
|
|
|
|
|
|
def test_severity_match_is_case_insensitive() -> None:
|
|
upper = {"file": "a.py", "severity": "BLOCKER", "expected": "x", "actual": "y"}
|
|
assert pr_review_conflict("APPROVE", [upper]) is not None
|