[trissim]

Summary

1 commit, 1 line replaced in pyproject.toml; one observer file identity instead of two. No production Python, checker suppression or baseline comparison change.

Source-root repair

Before: [tool.mypy].mypy_path = ["src", "tools"]. With the existing --explicit-package-bases, selecting tools/physical_ui.py names it physical_ui, while its consumers import tools.physical_ui. Core's ClientTypeErrors.findings selects paths and reads the client's configuration, so both hosted #3873 jobs abort on the duplicate module before checking the dependency change.

After: ["src", "."]. The repository root owns the tools namespace, exactly as tools/physical_ui_candidate.py, tools/physical_ui_admission.py, tools/physical_ui.py, acceptance and performance consumers already import it. src still owns toad.

This removes the competing root declaration; it does not rename imports, wrap the checker, edit captured baseline sources, disable diagnostics, add an alias or suppress a file.

Proof

Mypy's own process_options executed with the same explicit-package-bases flag. Before: both physical UI input paths map to bare names and base_dir=.../tools. After: they map to tools.physical_ui / tools.physical_ui_candidate and repository base_dir, matching module-selected names. Both probes returned 0. Complete import scan of tools/**/*.py found local imports already qualified under tools; no bare observer consumer needs the removed root.

A provisional tools/__init__.py alone did not change the source mapping because the explicit tools root still wins. It was removed before this commit, not kept as a ceremonial fix.

Artifacts: /home/ts/.cache/agent-scratch/pi-ui-performance/mypy-namespace-77.log (before), mypy-namespace-78.log (init alone insufficient), mypy-namespace-79.log (correct root). No pytest or local NRA gate run.

The checker was finding the file so thoroughly it found two of it.

Assumed: the declared qualified imports remain the intended development namespace. Core #3873 must recapture/rerun with this Toad main for both materialized cuts; old immutable failure logs remain unchanged.

[Copilot]

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.