Repository navigation
Retain an explicit reviewer for self-assigned delivery claims - #3878
Merged
Merged
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Copilot was unable to review this pull request because the user who requested the review has insufficient remaining quota. Try requesting a review at a lower effort level.
An organization owner can choose the repository organization as the billing source for reviews requested by members with a paid Copilot license. Learn about Copilot code review billing.
|
debt-tools at 344ba1c, every finding: |
|
debt-src at 344ba1c, every finding: |
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Summary
Three files add one explicit review-recipient declaration to a delivery claim. Consenting to an assignment no longer has to mean receiving one's own delivery DM. Peer-assigned orders retain the existing assignment-derived default.
Actual failure and owner
P1090's canonical record has creator
pi-commander, but owner, assignment parent and request author are the samepi-toad-errorsincarnation. The installed tool refusedThread 'pi-toad-errors' cannot message itselfbefore storing a claim. Targeted reads at revisions14 and15 showedclaims=[]; no claim was retried or assignment hand-edited.#3874 fixed ordinary peer routing but did not cover this legitimate self-assignment. I previously treated a self-parent fixture as obsolete; the live record disproved that judgment.
Before / after structure
Before:
OrderClaimalways reconstructed its destination from the assignment's consenting actor. That actor can be the holder; choosing the historical request author or creator instead is not a declared reviewer policy.After:
ClaimReviewerowns identity-to-incarnation-target behavior.AssignedClaimReviewerderives its identity from the existing assignment, the omitted default for ordinary claims.SelectedClaimReviewerdeclares the independent reviewer's exact name and birth.CommsOrderDeliverTool.reviewerexposes that choice;OrderClaim.reviewerretains it through storage and resume.No automatic creator/commander fallback, self-send exception, message rewrite, extra queue, rank restriction or migration. Existing claims omit the default reviewer field; their assignment-derived meaning is unchanged. Explicit reviewer identity is a new required fact for a caller choosing it, not a copied destination cache.
Evidence
Source trace: native delivery tool -> claim factory -> NativeCapture admission -> exact-revision Todo write -> ordinary publication; identical-call resume retains its no-reclaim transaction and address checks. Review/debt consumers still read the claim's existing message and head; none derives the chosen reviewer from a second roster.
All runs use the existing environment, shared host lease, owned PYTHONPATH, durable explicit basetemp, INT300 bound and faulthandler60. No full suite, local NRA gate, provider run or original-input replay.
Assumed: an explicit independent reviewer is selected by the holder; that records a delivery assertion, not review acceptance. P1090's visible queue parity, source gates and application run remain Errors' work. This change does not claim those fixed, nor does it replay the previously refused call.