Repository navigation
[Docs] Review the correct pull request scope - #442
Merged
Merged
Conversation
|
Warning Review limit reachedNext included review available in 53 minutes. View limit detailsLimit details: You’ve used the included review currently available. You've used all free OSS reviews for now. Wait for the free limit to reset to keep reviewing this public repository. Review configuration: ⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml Review profile: CHILL Plan: Advanced Run ID: 📒 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 |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Why
The review procedure always compared against
origin/trunk, which includes earlier changes when a PR is stacked. It also listed local changes without requiring staged and untracked content to be inspected, and could misattribute a baseline check failure to the branch.What changes
Make the configured PR base the review base, with an explicit
trunkchoice only for a confirmed no-PR review. Require separate inspection of unstaged, staged, and untracked work, and require base verification before attributing a deterministic failure to the branch.How to test this
Starting state: This branch, with
.github/instructions/code-review.instructions.mdopen.trunk; the no-PR path explicitly setsbase=trunk.git diff,git diff --cached, and untracked-file discovery.What must not have happened: A stacked PR must not be reviewed as though its earlier stack layers were newly introduced, and a GitHub lookup failure must not create a false
trunkbaseline.Platforms: any — repository Markdown only.
Risks and limitations
This is process guidance, not an automated guard. A reviewer must still inspect untracked-file contents and explicitly confirm the no-PR state before using
trunk.Related
Follow-up to the review-scope audit finding.
Design decisions and alternatives considered
The procedure deliberately fails closed when it cannot query a PR base. A fallback based on any
ghfailure would conflate an absent PR with an authentication, network, or API failure.Review outcome (required — see AGENTS.md)
0 [fix here] · 0 [follow-up]
/root/fresh_review_after_rebase(fresh agent context); reviewed uncommitted scope on413c2a951a3b33e119f72e55dc36b208933c3956/413c2a951a3b33e119f72e55dc36b208933c3956; local independent judgement review with no findings;npm run lintandnpm testpassed (1,258 tests); published diff verified against the reviewed work.413c2a951a3b33e119f72e55dc36b208933c3956worktree →9c2fa58284ef157e5c7719bb692c880e8f0a44ffchecked; no additional changes and no findings.Implementation notes
No application code or dependencies changed.
Screenshots or recording
No user-visible application surface changed.