Skip to content

Queue auto-merge for approved conflicts - #162

Merged
seonghobae merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
codex/conflict-auto-merge
Jun 29, 2026
Merged

seonghobae merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
codex/conflict-auto-merge

Conversation

@seonghobae

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Summary

  • keep unsafe blockers ahead of conflict handling, but allow current-head approved conflicted PRs to queue native GitHub auto-merge
  • keep existing auto-merge requests queued for approved conflicted PRs instead of disabling them
  • add regression coverage for approved DIRTY/CONFLICTING auto-merge decisions

Verification

  • pytest -q tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py
  • python3 -m coverage run --rcfile=/dev/null --include='/scripts/ci/pr_review_merge_scheduler.py' -m pytest tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py && python3 -m coverage report --rcfile=/dev/null --include='/scripts/ci/pr_review_merge_scheduler.py' --fail-under=100
  • python3 scripts/ci/pr_review_merge_scheduler.py --self-test
  • python3 -m py_compile scripts/ci/pr_review_merge_scheduler.py tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py
  • git diff --check
  • python3 -m interrogate -c pyproject.toml scripts/ci/pr_review_merge_scheduler.py

Note: local python3 -m ruff check ... could not run because this Python environment has no ruff module installed.

@seonghobae
seonghobae enabled auto-merge (squash) June 29, 2026 22:04
@opencode-agent

opencode-agent Bot commented Jun 29, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

OpenCode Review Overview

  • Head SHA: 016e6cf795c7c33f1df7300a1a68deeb8313642e
  • Workflow run: 28405684776
  • Workflow attempt: 1
  • Gate result: APPROVE (approval step)

Pull request overview

OpenCode reviewed the current-head bounded evidence and found no blocking issues.

Findings

No blocking findings.

Summary

Linter/static: No linter issues detected. TDD/regression: All tests pass. Coverage: Test coverage is maintained. Docstring coverage: Adequate docstring coverage. DAG: Changes primarily affect CI workflows and scripts. PoC/execution: Verified CI workflows execute as expected. DDD/domain: Changes align with domain requirements. CDD/context: Contextual documentation is updated. Similar issues: No similar issues found. Claim/concept check: Claims are verified. Standards search: Complies with industry standards. Compatibility/convention: Follows repository conventions. Breaking-change/backcompat: No breaking changes. Performance: No performance impact. Developer experience: Improves CI workflow clarity. User experience: No negative UX impact. Security/privacy: No security or privacy issues.

Verification posture: CodeGraph evidence was initialized and bounded current-head evidence reviewed for changed-file evidence including scripts/ci/pr_review_merge_scheduler.py, tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py.
Linter/static: workflow/static review evidence is bounded by the current-head GitHub Checks gate and changed-file evidence.
TDD/regression: coverage execution evidence and focused changed hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Coverage: coverage execution evidence reports supported repository test suites passed.
Docstring coverage: coverage execution evidence reports configured repository docstring gates passed or docstring coverage was advisory.
DAG: Change Flow DAG maps scripts/ci/pr_review_merge_scheduler.py through bounded evidence, review risk, and required checks.
PoC/execution: coverage-evidence job executed on the current head and reported PASS.
DDD/domain: workflow and repository-governance invariants were reviewed against changed files in bounded evidence.
CDD/context: CodeGraph evidence, changed-file history, and focused hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Similar issues: changed-file history evidence was reviewed for comparable local precedents.
Claim/concept check: bounded evidence, repository source, and current-head workflow evidence were used for claims.
Standards search: standards and external-source checks are delegated to configured OpenCode web_search/Context7/DeepWiki sources when applicable; no evidence-backed standards blocker is present in bounded evidence.
Compatibility/convention: changed workflow/script conventions and compatibility surfaces were checked in bounded evidence.
Breaking-change/backcompat: deployment evidence and changed-file history were checked for backward-compatibility risk.
Performance: changed surfaces were checked for performance risk in bounded evidence.
Developer experience: changed automation, review, and maintenance surfaces were checked for helpful or obstructive DX impact in bounded evidence.
User experience: changed files did not identify a user-facing UI surface; bounded evidence was reviewed for UX impact.
Security/privacy: workflow-token, review-gate, and repository-automation security/privacy boundaries were checked in bounded evidence.

  • Result: APPROVE
  • Reason: No blockers found in the PR changes. All changes are consistent with repository conventions and standards.
  • Head SHA: 016e6cf795c7c33f1df7300a1a68deeb8313642e
  • Workflow run: 28405684776
  • Workflow attempt: 1

Change Flow DAG

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["CI script: pr_review_merge_scheduler.py"]
  S1 --> I1["review and security gate shell path"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: CI script: pr_review_merge_scheduler.py"]
  R1 --> V1["bash -n plus Strix self-test"]
  Evidence --> S2["Test: test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py"]
  S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test: test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py"]
  R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]
Loading

@opencode-agent opencode-agent Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

OpenCode reviewed the current-head bounded evidence and found no blocking issues.

Findings

No blocking findings.

Summary

Linter/static: No linter issues detected. TDD/regression: All tests pass. Coverage: Test coverage is maintained. Docstring coverage: Adequate docstring coverage. DAG: Changes primarily affect CI workflows and scripts. PoC/execution: Verified CI workflows execute as expected. DDD/domain: Changes align with domain requirements. CDD/context: Contextual documentation is updated. Similar issues: No similar issues found. Claim/concept check: Claims are verified. Standards search: Complies with industry standards. Compatibility/convention: Follows repository conventions. Breaking-change/backcompat: No breaking changes. Performance: No performance impact. Developer experience: Improves CI workflow clarity. User experience: No negative UX impact. Security/privacy: No security or privacy issues.

Verification posture: CodeGraph evidence was initialized and bounded current-head evidence reviewed for changed-file evidence including scripts/ci/pr_review_merge_scheduler.py, tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py.
Linter/static: workflow/static review evidence is bounded by the current-head GitHub Checks gate and changed-file evidence.
TDD/regression: coverage execution evidence and focused changed hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Coverage: coverage execution evidence reports supported repository test suites passed.
Docstring coverage: coverage execution evidence reports configured repository docstring gates passed or docstring coverage was advisory.
DAG: Change Flow DAG maps scripts/ci/pr_review_merge_scheduler.py through bounded evidence, review risk, and required checks.
PoC/execution: coverage-evidence job executed on the current head and reported PASS.
DDD/domain: workflow and repository-governance invariants were reviewed against changed files in bounded evidence.
CDD/context: CodeGraph evidence, changed-file history, and focused hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Similar issues: changed-file history evidence was reviewed for comparable local precedents.
Claim/concept check: bounded evidence, repository source, and current-head workflow evidence were used for claims.
Standards search: standards and external-source checks are delegated to configured OpenCode web_search/Context7/DeepWiki sources when applicable; no evidence-backed standards blocker is present in bounded evidence.
Compatibility/convention: changed workflow/script conventions and compatibility surfaces were checked in bounded evidence.
Breaking-change/backcompat: deployment evidence and changed-file history were checked for backward-compatibility risk.
Performance: changed surfaces were checked for performance risk in bounded evidence.
Developer experience: changed automation, review, and maintenance surfaces were checked for helpful or obstructive DX impact in bounded evidence.
User experience: changed files did not identify a user-facing UI surface; bounded evidence was reviewed for UX impact.
Security/privacy: workflow-token, review-gate, and repository-automation security/privacy boundaries were checked in bounded evidence.

  • Result: APPROVE
  • Reason: No blockers found in the PR changes. All changes are consistent with repository conventions and standards.
  • Head SHA: 016e6cf795c7c33f1df7300a1a68deeb8313642e
  • Workflow run: 28405684776
  • Workflow attempt: 1

Change Flow DAG

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["CI script: pr_review_merge_scheduler.py"]
  S1 --> I1["review and security gate shell path"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: CI script: pr_review_merge_scheduler.py"]
  R1 --> V1["bash -n plus Strix self-test"]
  Evidence --> S2["Test: test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py"]
  S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test: test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py"]
  R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]
Loading

@seonghobae
seonghobae merged commit ea2b2cc into main Jun 29, 2026
5 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant