mirror of
https://github.com/QwenLM/qwen-code.git
synced 2026-08-26 09:04:37 +00:00
24db7f6ef2
* feat(review): say when the approach, not the patch, is the open question Every finding /review emits is anchored to a `file:line` in the current diff. That is what a finding is — and it means a review can report where an approach leaks, but never that a different approach would retire all of the leaks at once. Measured: one change to `extractAndStripMeta` took three attempts across two PRs. #9097 (3 rounds, 18 findings) added a timeout to the vm call; #9136 (6 rounds, 56 findings) moved the walk inside the vm and ended up spawning a child process per call, growing 228 -> 920 source diff lines. #9325 landed it in one commit by not evaluating the literal at all. All 74 findings were individually correct, and every one of them went away with the mechanism. The signal was already there and filed as the wrong kind of thing: `did not converge within the reverse-audit round cap` appeared four times across the two PRs, as a coverage gap — "we did not finish looking" — rather than as a conclusion about the change. Nothing was responsible for reading it as "stop patching". Add one advisory paragraph, and one clause on the terminal verdict line, when a non-Approve round is past the round threshold AND its source diff has grown at least 3x since the review first measured it. This round's round-cap stop rides along as corroborating text when present; it is never a trigger on its own. It is deliberately not a finding. Findings are what the autofix loop consumes, and that loop patching each finding in turn is the pattern being interrupted — a finding here would be fixed rather than read. It addresses the human deciding what happens next, so it is a body paragraph and a verdict-line clause, it adds no cap, and it never moves the event. The baseline is a baseline, not the previous round's size: 228 -> 920 across six rounds is ~1.3x per round, which no per-round delta would notice, but 4.0x cumulatively. `Ledger.src0` records the first measurement and is carried forward unchanged, so a diff that later shrinks cannot rewrite its own baseline. It is the one marker field that survives truncation — the ruling that withholds an anchor from a partial finding list does not extend to a measurement of the diff. Known limits, documented rather than papered over: it cannot see across pull requests, so the three-attempt shape that motivated it would have fired only on a second forgeable persisted counter; and it is retroactively blank, staying silent until a PR has posted two rounds after this ships. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> * fix(review): suppress approach signal for downgraded approvals * fix(review): measure approach growth over full diff * fix(review): validate approach signal evidence * fix(review): pin approach-signal boundaries and validator coverage Round-5 review findings: boundary tests for the round threshold, growth factor, and source-diff floor; the round-cap corroborating clause and its zh rendering; src0 survival through the pr-context persist seam and the incremental marker carry-forward; artifact validator refusal/absence tests for approachSignal; design doc firing list names the pre-cap verdict. * fix(review): clamp the approach signal's round at the ledger cap (R9-1) The signal computed its displayed round with an unclamped `prevRound + 1` while the ledger marker stamp and the deferred-suggestions clause both clamp with `Math.min(prevRound + 1, LEDGER_MAX_ROUND)`. `parseLedger` accepts `round == LEDGER_MAX_ROUND`, so a side file at the cap is representable and carries forward: one composed body announced "⚠️ Round 10001" beside a marker stamping `"round":10000`, and the terminal verdict line printed 10001 too — the doc comment in this same diff claims all three consumers cannot disagree "at the cap included". The new test pins the cap for the third consumer, mirroring the existing deferred-clause cap test; mutation-verified that reverting the clamp turns it red with `round: 10001`. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: qqqys <266654365+qqqys@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Shaojin Wen <shaojin.wensj@alibaba-inc.com> Co-authored-by: qwen-code-dev-bot <qwen-code-dev@service.alibaba.com> |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| assets | ||
| design | ||
| developers | ||
| e2e-tests | ||
| images | ||
| plans | ||
| superpowers | ||
| users | ||
| verification/abort-controller-refactor | ||
| _meta.ts | ||
| index.md | ||