Skip to content

[#372] 🤖 - Keep generated catalogs out of review context - #372

Merged
efraespada merged 1 commit into
developfrom
codex/repository-review-context
Sep 14, 2026
Merged

efraespada merged 1 commit into
developfrom
codex/repository-review-context

Conversation

@efraespada

@efraespada efraespada commented Sep 14, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

📌 Summary

Update the repository-local AI review policy so generated build bundles and specs/CATALOG.md are excluded from Bugbot context across issue, issue-comment, pull-request, and pull-request-comment workflows. Authored SDDs and specs/catalog.json remain available as review evidence.


🎯 Related Issues / Tickets


🧩 Scope of Changes

  • Added:
    • Executable workflow-contract validation for the required Bugbot context exclusion list.
    • Regression tests covering the exclusion contract and drift detection.
  • Updated:
    • Repository workflows to use ai-ignore-files: build/*,specs/CATALOG.md consistently.
  • Removed:
    • None.
  • Refactored:
    • None.

🛠️ Technical Details

  • Defines the repository-specific exclusion contract as the exact value build/*,specs/CATALOG.md.
  • Applies validation only to the four repository Bugbot workflows, leaving public setup templates unchanged.
  • The validator checks every Copilot action step in the targeted workflows and fails when generated build or specification catalog artifacts are restored to review context.
  • The regression test mutates a workflow to remove specs/CATALOG.md and verifies that validation fails with the expected contract error.

🔍 How to Test

  1. Run pnpm test and verify the full test suite passes, including the workflow-contract tests.
  2. Run pnpm run validate:workflows and verify all workflow contracts pass.
  3. Run pnpm run typecheck and pnpm run lint.
  4. Confirm each of .github/workflows/copilot_issue.yml, .github/workflows/copilot_issue_comment.yml, .github/workflows/copilot_pull_request.yml, and .github/workflows/copilot_pull_request_comment.yml contains ai-ignore-files: build/*,specs/CATALOG.md.
  5. Run graphify update . to refresh the repository graph.

🧪 Test Coverage

  • Unit tests
  • Integration tests
  • End-to-end (E2E) tests
  • Manual testing only (explain why)

The validation reports 428 suites / 3,798 tests, including 97 workflow-contract tests.


📸 Screenshots / Recordings (UI changes only)

Not applicable; this PR does not change the UI.


⚠️ Breaking Changes

  • None

🚀 Deployment Notes

  • Requires database migration
  • Requires environment variable changes
  • Requires feature flag toggle
  • No special deployment steps

Details: This is a repository-local workflow policy change. Public setup templates remain unchanged.


🔒 Security Considerations

  • No security impact
  • Input validation changes
  • Authentication / authorization changes
  • Sensitive data handling changes

The change limits generated artifacts in this repository's AI review context without changing authentication, authorization, or public setup behavior.


📈 Performance Impact

  • No performance impact
  • Improves performance
  • Potential performance regression (explain)

The change only adjusts workflow inputs and adds static contract validation.


📝 Notes for Reviewers

Please verify that the exclusion value is identical across all four repository workflows and that setup/workflows/ remains unchanged.


✅ Checklist

  • I have self-reviewed my code
  • Code follows project standards and conventions
  • Tests have been added or updated
  • Documentation has been updated (if applicable)
  • No new warnings or lint errors
  • Breaking contract changes and required consumer updates are documented

📚 Additional Context

The workflow contract intentionally excludes generated build/* bundles and the generated specs/CATALOG.md index while preserving authored specifications and specs/catalog.json for review context.

@vypbot vypbot changed the title Keep generated catalogs out of review context [#372] 🤖 - Keep generated catalogs out of review context Sep 14, 2026
@vypbot
vypbot self-requested a review September 14, 2026 17:29
@vypbot vypbot added this to vypdev Sep 14, 2026
@vypbot vypbot moved this to In Progress in vypdev Sep 14, 2026
@vypbot
vypbot changed the base branch from develop to master September 14, 2026 17:30
@vypbot
vypbot changed the base branch from master to develop September 14, 2026 17:30
@vypbot

vypbot commented Sep 14, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Bugbot: review complete

Current status: No active findings on 6505194.

Pull request · Verified commit · Workflow run

@codecov-commenter

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 92.12%. Comparing base (274db40) to head (6505194).
⚠️ Report is 712 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop     #372      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    90.94%   92.12%   +1.18%     
===========================================
  Files          135      642     +507     
  Lines         6251    16465   +10214     
  Branches      1338     4242    +2904     
===========================================
+ Hits          5685    15169    +9484     
- Misses         172      523     +351     
- Partials       394      773     +379     

see 704 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

@efraespada
efraespada merged commit a736427 into develop Sep 14, 2026
23 checks passed
@efraespada
efraespada deleted the codex/repository-review-context branch September 14, 2026 17:41
@github-project-automation github-project-automation Bot moved this from In Progress to Done in vypdev Sep 14, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

Status: Done

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants