fix: restore configurable depth and bootstrap missing review baselines directly - #120
Conversation
…s directly Amp-Thread-ID: https://ampcode.com/threads/T-01a081b5-9435-7555-a03c-caf44e0d0dbf Co-authored-by: Ivan Milev <ivanmilevtues@gmail.com>
Codex Review SummaryThis comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings. |
CodeBoarding reviewStatus: 0 changed components See the full change in CodeBoarding. graph LR
n_GitHub_Action_Automation_Scripts["GitHub Action Automation Scripts"]
classDef added fill:#1f883d,stroke:#0b5d23,color:#ffffff;
classDef modified fill:#bf8700,stroke:#7d4e00,color:#ffffff;
classDef deleted fill:#cf222e,stroke:#82071e,color:#ffffff,stroke-dasharray:5 3;
|
|
Integration setup for @ivanmilevtues is ready:
Action PR CI: lint, unit tests, and pinned-engine compatibility checks passed. Live eShop analysis results are pending. |
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 8d35275b01
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".
Amp-Thread-ID: https://ampcode.com/threads/T-01a081b5-9435-7555-a03c-caf44e0d0dbf Co-authored-by: Ivan Milev <ivanmilevtues@gmail.com>
Amp-Thread-ID: https://ampcode.com/threads/T-01a081b5-9435-7555-a03c-caf44e0d0dbf Co-authored-by: Ivan Milev <ivanmilevtues@gmail.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 9bde03542d
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".
| str(output_dir), | ||
| "--depth-level", | ||
| args.depth_level, | ||
| "--depth-cap", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Every full-analysis path now invokes Core with --depth-cap, but action.yml:356-360 still installs CodeBoarding 0.14.0, and the added release-blocker note in README.md:334-338 explicitly confirms that this version does not support the flag. Consequently, cold review baselines, missing or incompatible sync baselines, force_full, and incremental fallbacks all exit before producing an analysis. Continue translating the public depth_cap input to 0.14.0's supported --depth-level flag, or bump the engine pin and provider table to a compatible release.
AGENTS.md reference: AGENTS.md:L12-L16
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
Amp-Thread-ID: https://ampcode.com/threads/T-01a081b5-9435-7555-a03c-caf44e0d0dbf Co-authored-by: Ivan Milev <ivanmilevtues@gmail.com>
3 participants
Summary
Requested by @ivanmilevtues: restore configurable maximum hierarchy depth as
depth_cap, simplify review-only cold starts, and apply the final no-alias product decision throughout the action and engine CLI adapter.Previous behavior
Main exposes no analysis-depth input. Full analysis inherits
metadata.depth_cap, falls back to legacy generatedmetadata.depth_level, then defaults to 2. A missing baseline still causes an incremental attempt on empty state before full analysis.Final behavior and naming
depth_cap(default 2). It means the maximum hierarchy depth allowed, not a target depth.--depth-cap. Removed the previous--depth-levelboundary spelling; there is no compatibility alias. Local preview also uses--depth-cap.analysis.jsonmetadata.depth_cap records the configured ceiling. metadata.depth_level is output only: the depth actually generated/reached. A shallower result must not lower the configured cap or invalidate valid state.Verification of final no-alias changes
python3 -m unittest discover -s tests: 163 tests, 156 passed, 7 engine-dependent skips.Coordinated PRs and RELEASE BLOCKER
Release order: action.yml and supported-providers.json now pin Core 0.14.1, as requested. Publish Core 0.14.1 before releasing the action. Provider-table drift tests passed against the local 0.14.1 Core build (7 tests); action input tests passed (12 tests).
Historical eShop integration evidence
The earlier implementation (before removing the final Core CLI boundary spelling) passed a real review-only cold start. This is not verification of the final breaking CLI migration against released Core.
Downloaded base and head analysis.json files both contain metadata.depth_cap: 3 and metadata.depth_level: 3. Logs showed full merge-base generation followed by incremental head analysis, artifact uploads and one changed component. The default cap is unchanged by the no-alias naming decision.