π§ͺ [ν μ€νΈ κ°μ : api.pyμ μΊμ λ‘λ μλ¬ μ²λ¦¬] - #820
π§ͺ [ν
μ€νΈ κ°μ : api.pyμ μΊμ λ‘λ μλ¬ μ²λ¦¬]#820seonghobae wants to merge 2 commits into
Conversation
|
π Jules, reporting for duty! I'm here to lend a hand with this pull request. When you start a review, I'll add a π emoji to each comment to let you know I've read it. I'll focus on feedback directed at me and will do my best to stay out of conversations between you and other bots or reviewers to keep the noise down. I'll push a commit with your requested changes shortly after. Please note there might be a delay between these steps, but rest assured I'm on the job! For more direct control, you can switch me to Reactive Mode. When this mode is on, I will only act on comments where you specifically mention me with New to Jules? Learn more at jules.google/docs. For security, I will only act on instructions from the user who triggered this task. |
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 4 minutes You've used all free OSS reviews for now. Wait for the free limit to reset to keep reviewing this public repository. How can I continue?After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews. How do review limits work?CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability. For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window. Please refer docs for additional details. Review detailsβοΈ Run configurationConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: β Files ignored due to path filters (1)
π Files selected for processing (1)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
![github-code-quality[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/9919?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
![opencode-agent[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1549082?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.
Review outcome
1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence
-
Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was
failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head. -
Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.
-
Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports
successwith required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence. -
Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking
needs.coverage-evidence.result == successbefore posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present. -
Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
-
Reason: coverage-evidence result was
failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current headc3dca7fad222693a97109f04be81f0c84b287e42. -
Head SHA:
c3dca7fad222693a97109f04be81f0c84b287e42 -
Workflow run: 31357022846
-
Workflow attempt: 1
Coverage evidence
Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Changed file (2 files)"]
S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (2 files)"]
R1 --> V1["required checks"]
OpenCode Review Overview
Pull request overviewOpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass. Review outcome1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence
Coverage evidenceCoverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence. Changed-File Evidence Mapflowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Changed file (2 files)"]
S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (2 files)"]
R1 --> V1["required checks"]
|
1 participant
π― What:
api.pyμ_load_cached_local_audio_featuresν¨μ λ΄μμ μμΉ΄μ΄λΈ ν€κ° λλ½λμμ λμ μλ¬ μ²λ¦¬ κ²½λ‘μ λν ν μ€νΈλ₯Ό μΆκ°νμ΅λλ€.π Coverage:
np.loadμμ λ°νλ μμΉ΄μ΄λΈμ μμ²λ ν€κ° μλ μν©μ μ²λ¦¬νλ λ‘μ§μ λν ν μ€νΈ 컀λ²λ¦¬μ§λ₯Ό ν보νμ΅λλ€.β¨ Result: ν μ€νΈ 컀λ²λ¦¬μ§κ° ν₯μλμμΌλ©°, μΊμ λ°μ΄ν° μμ μ μμ νκ² μ²λ¦¬λλμ§ κ²μ¦λμμ΅λλ€.
PR created automatically by Jules for task 8185818887012756253 started by @seonghobae