Skip to content

fix(kb): include related test assertions in foundation evidence - #317

Closed
tzhouam wants to merge 4 commits into
mainfrom
fix/kb-foundation-related-tests-20261006
Closed

tzhouam wants to merge 4 commits into
mainfrom
fix/kb-foundation-related-tests-20261006

Conversation

@tzhouam

@tzhouam tzhouam commented Oct 5, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Unlimited foundation packets omitted tests already present in the pinned shared index. Packets now include directly related imports and concrete assertion ranges, including nested SDK and late-file assertions. Specific capability tests rank ahead of broad entry-module matches so path order cannot exhaust their evidence budget.

Test excerpts reserve at most 20,000 bytes inside the existing 100,000-byte source budget; documentation retains 30,000 bytes. Actual numbered lines remain bound to the fixed source and native inputs. Production counters exclude tests. Finite mode, old approvals, model configuration, global version4 identity and the three-correction limit are preserved.

Validation: 75 related-test, feedback, context, native-checkpoint and publication tests passed. Read-only localization at JiuwenSwarm f0a69728 found real assertions in the session-messaging, share-image-export, trusted-search and command-sandbox tests; each packet stayed within 20,000 bytes. The initial share-image smoke omission is retained outside Git, and the corrected smoke includes its direct test file. The smoke executed no project tests or native models.

@chatgpt-codex-connector

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Oct 5, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review Status Commit Review trigger
📝 Code Review ✅ Completed 2026-10-05T22:55:20.120987Z 3083ae1 PR opened
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 3083ae181b

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

Comment on lines +62 to +63
if "/src/" in stem:
modules.add(stem.split("/src/", 1)[1].replace("/", "."))

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

P2 Badge Normalize leading src paths before matching imports

For the common Python src layout, a production path such as src/pkg/tool.py produces only src.pkg.tool: the condition does not match because the stem starts with src/ rather than containing /src/. Tests normally import it as from pkg.tool import SpecificTool, so targets & modules is empty and all related assertions are silently omitted from the foundation packet. Handle a leading src/ prefix as well as embedded source directories.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

@tzhouam

tzhouam commented Oct 5, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

Superseded by #318, which includes these reviewed related-test context fixes and the local publication validation fix. Exact head 5d0684e passed independent review and full CI. Branch and original native records are retained; #318 remains unmerged while the frozen initialization batch runs.

@tzhouam tzhouam closed this Oct 5, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant