Merge branch 'master' into codex/remove-experimental
This commit is contained in:
Turtle
@@ -2,5 +2,5 @@
|
||||
# side as of the last confirmed-consistent state. Both languages carry equal authority;
|
||||
# after editing either side, bring the other along and re-record with:
|
||||
# pnpm run verify-translation-pairing --write .agents/notes/implemented/feature/2026-07-28-feedback-command.md
|
||||
2026-07-28-feedback-command.md: 3edb29283c289d6d006891a4c19087b01fa8166f
|
||||
2026-07-28-feedback-command.zh.md: c2513d2570474cbbaf8d94f87603d8ce10d40c14
|
||||
2026-07-28-feedback-command.md: d3b2774e41a82f6edb4303280f813ddbed75ebd1
|
||||
2026-07-28-feedback-command.zh.md: 3eeef92f2ed39c9546f013f217dd7f851d30c78c
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ The package declares the log-only `feedback/record { text }` session event and e
|
||||
|
||||
`dsh-commands` still writes its `command/run` / `command/done` lifecycle pair around `/feedback`, but this command sets `recordInput: false`. Its `command/run` therefore carries the command identity and source without `args`; the feedback text exists only in `feedback/record`, while `command/done` carries the acknowledgement outcome. All three records are log-only and non-surface. Their appends enter persistence's ordinary bounded write path; nothing forces a flush, so acknowledgement reports that the feedback is in the log rather than already on disk.
|
||||
|
||||
Capture remains inert for the running agent and model. The optional OTel telemetry package later adds one infrastructure consumer: it observes `feedback/record` as a release trigger in `FEEDBACK_ONLY` mode and as the local-only warning trigger in `DISABLED` mode, without changing the feedback event or command path. See [Feedback-gated session telemetry](2026-08-05-feedback-gated-session-telemetry.md).
|
||||
Capture remains inert for the running agent and model. The optional OTel telemetry package later adds one infrastructure consumer: it observes `feedback/record` as a release trigger in `FEEDBACK_ONLY` mode and as the local-only warning trigger in `DISABLED` mode, without changing the feedback event or command path. See [Feedback-gated session telemetry](2026-08-05-feedback-gated-session-telemetry.md) and the [acknowledgement sharing disclosure](2026-08-07-feedback-acknowledgement-sharing-disclosure.md).
|
||||
|
||||
### Why feedback owns an event
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ Status: implemented
|
||||
|
||||
`dsh-commands` 仍会围绕 `/feedback` 写入 `command/run` / `command/done` 生命周期配对，但该命令设置了 `recordInput: false`。因此，它的 `command/run` 携带命令标识与来源，但不携带 `args`；反馈文本只存在于 `feedback/record` 中，而 `command/done` 携带确认结果。三个记录都仅写入日志且非 surface。它们的追加会进入持久化的常规有界写入路径；没有任何环节强制 flush，因此确认文本报告的是反馈已进入日志，而非已经落盘。
|
||||
|
||||
采集对正在运行的 agent（智能体）与模型仍不产生后续动作。可选的 OTel 遥测包后续增加了一个基础设施消费方：它在 `FEEDBACK_ONLY` 模式下将 `feedback/record` 作为释放触发器，在 `DISABLED` 模式下将其作为仅限本地的警告触发器，且不改变反馈事件或命令路径。见[反馈门控的会话遥测](2026-08-05-feedback-gated-session-telemetry.md)。
|
||||
采集对正在运行的 agent（智能体）与模型仍不产生后续动作。可选的 OTel 遥测包后续增加了一个基础设施消费方：它在 `FEEDBACK_ONLY` 模式下将 `feedback/record` 作为释放触发器，在 `DISABLED` 模式下将其作为仅限本地的警告触发器，且不改变反馈事件或命令路径。见[反馈门控的会话遥测](2026-08-05-feedback-gated-session-telemetry.md)与[确认文本中的共享披露](2026-08-07-feedback-acknowledgement-sharing-disclosure.md)。
|
||||
|
||||
### 为何反馈拥有自己的事件
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
|
||||
# Bilingual-pair consistency record (docs/i18n/README.md): the git blob hash of each
|
||||
# side as of the last confirmed-consistent state. Both languages carry equal authority;
|
||||
# after editing either side, bring the other along and re-record with:
|
||||
# pnpm run verify-translation-pairing --write .agents/notes/implemented/feature/2026-08-07-feedback-acknowledgement-sharing-disclosure.md
|
||||
2026-08-07-feedback-acknowledgement-sharing-disclosure.md: 1e9cd0fb95d78aff9f6434e0583154e2c3f847da
|
||||
2026-08-07-feedback-acknowledgement-sharing-disclosure.zh.md: ac26b18ad523feeabc297b212210dd73eff93a0a
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
|
||||
# Agent Note: Feedback acknowledgement sharing disclosure
|
||||
|
||||
Status: implemented
|
||||
|
||||
English | [中文](2026-08-07-feedback-acknowledgement-sharing-disclosure.zh.md)
|
||||
|
||||
## Problem
|
||||
|
||||
The `/feedback` command records a log-only `feedback/record` event and acknowledges the user, but the acknowledgement carried no durable context about what happened to the session: deployments that mount session telemetry (`FULL`, `FEEDBACK_ONLY`, or `DISABLED`) had no way to tell the user whether their feedback and session left the process, and the receiving session id was not echoed. The command plugin could not read the sharing policy because the telemetry seam exposed capture only, and the OTel mode enum lived in the optional backend package.
|
||||
|
||||
## Decision
|
||||
|
||||
The telemetry seam (`@deepseek-ai/dsh-session-telemetry`) now owns a backend-independent sharing vocabulary: `TelemetrySharingStatus` (`full` | `feedback-only` | `disabled`) plus a required abstract `sharing` member on the `Telemetry` service class — every backend must disclose its policy, so a consumer renders "not configured" only when no telemetry service is mounted. `@deepseek-ai/dsh-session-telemetry-otel` maps its serialized `TelemetryMode` (the [feedback-gated delivery decision](2026-08-05-feedback-gated-session-telemetry.md) owns the mode semantics) onto that status in the constructor and discloses it, including in `DISABLED`. The `/feedback` handler reads the mounted service through the plugin context (`ctx.get('telemetry')`, never a declared injection, so the command loads and runs without telemetry) and appends one sharing sentence to the acknowledgement: `Feedback recorded for session {id}. <sentence>`. No service → `Session sharing is not configured.`; `disabled` → `Session sharing is disabled.`; `feedback-only` → `Session sharing is feedback-gated; recording feedback releases the session prefix for sharing.`; `full` → `Session sharing is enabled.`
|
||||
|
||||
The disclosure states the current sharing policy only; it never promises delivery or retention. Handoff is the backend's non-blocking enqueue and batching, retry, and loss policy stay the backend SDK's, and a later reconfiguration can change what was shared, so the sentences claim nothing about what reached a collector or about future retention. The disclosure adds no session event and never reaches the model surface; the web client renders it through the existing command row (`CommandNode` outcome text) with no client change.
|
||||
|
||||
## Alternatives considered
|
||||
|
||||
**A client-side status RPC and badge.** Rejected because the acknowledgement is host-produced and the web client already renders the command result text verbatim in the command row; a separate RPC would duplicate the status in a second surface and add a wire contract for a sentence.
|
||||
|
||||
**Declared `telemetry` injection in `command-feedback`.** Rejected because telemetry is optional: a declared injection fails plugin load when the service is absent, while the command must work without it. The plugin reads the service with `ctx.get('telemetry')` at handler time instead.
|
||||
|
||||
**OTel package owns the vocabulary.** Rejected because `command-feedback` must not depend on the optional OTel backend package. The seam owns `TelemetrySharingStatus` so any backend can disclose a policy.
|
||||
|
||||
## Consequences
|
||||
|
||||
The acknowledgement is user-visible: it names the receiving session and reports the current sharing policy, honest about the fire-and-forget handoff. Package tests pin the sentence for each status and for the absent-service case; the assembled-browser e2e mounts the shipped telemetry row in FULL mode against a local dead endpoint and pins the shipped default sentence (`Session sharing is enabled.`) as a golden. The seam member is required, so a mounted backend always discloses a policy and the "not configured" sentence truthfully means no telemetry service; the `/feedback` command keeps working with no telemetry mounted. A still-blank web session renders no command row, so feedback recorded before the first message gets no visible acknowledgement (documented under the package README's limitations).
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
|
||||
# Agent Note: 反馈确认中的会话共享披露
|
||||
|
||||
Status: implemented
|
||||
|
||||
[English](2026-08-07-feedback-acknowledgement-sharing-disclosure.md) | 中文
|
||||
|
||||
## 问题
|
||||
|
||||
`/feedback` 命令会记录一个仅写入日志的 `feedback/record` 事件并确认用户，但确认文本没有携带关于会话去向的持久信息：挂载了会话遥测（`FULL`、`FEEDBACK_ONLY` 或 `DISABLED`）的部署无法告知用户其反馈和会话是否离开了进程，确认文本也没有回显接收会话的 id。命令插件无法读取共享策略，因为遥测 seam 只暴露采集能力，而 OTel 模式枚举位于可选的后端包中。
|
||||
|
||||
## 决策
|
||||
|
||||
遥测 seam（`@deepseek-ai/dsh-session-telemetry`）现在拥有与后端无关的共享词汇：`TelemetrySharingStatus`（`full` | `feedback-only` | `disabled`），并在 `Telemetry` 服务类上增加一个必需的抽象 `sharing` 成员——每个后端都必须披露其策略，因此消费方只有在未挂载任何遥测服务时才渲染「未配置」。`@deepseek-ai/dsh-session-telemetry-otel` 在构造函数中把序列化的 `TelemetryMode`（模式语义由[反馈门控投递决策](2026-08-05-feedback-gated-session-telemetry.md)负责）映射到该状态并披露，包括 `DISABLED` 模式。`/feedback` 处理器通过插件上下文读取已挂载的服务（`ctx.get('telemetry')`，绝不是声明的注入，因此命令在无遥测时也能加载和运行），并在确认文本后追加一句共享披露：`Feedback recorded for session {id}. <句子>`。无服务 → `Session sharing is not configured.`；`disabled` → `Session sharing is disabled.`；`feedback-only` → `Session sharing is feedback-gated; recording feedback releases the session prefix for sharing.`；`full` → `Session sharing is enabled.`
|
||||
|
||||
披露只陈述当前的共享策略，绝不承诺投递或留存：交接是后端的非阻塞入队，批处理、重试与丢失策略仍归后端 SDK，且后续重新配置可能改变已共享的内容，因此句子不声称任何内容已到达采集端，也不声称未来的留存。披露不新增任何会话事件，也绝不会进入模型 surface；Web 客户端通过现有的命令行（`CommandNode` 的结果文本）原样渲染，无需客户端改动。
|
||||
|
||||
## 备选方案
|
||||
|
||||
**客户端新增状态 RPC 与徽标。** 拒绝，因为确认文本由宿主生成，Web 客户端已经在命令行中原样渲染命令结果文本；单独的 RPC 会在第二个 surface 重复该状态，并为一句文案新增线上契约。
|
||||
|
||||
**在 `command-feedback` 中声明 `telemetry` 注入。** 拒绝，因为遥测是可选的：服务缺失时声明注入会导致插件加载失败，而命令必须在无遥测时可用。插件改为在处理器执行时用 `ctx.get('telemetry')` 读取服务。
|
||||
|
||||
**由 OTel 包拥有词汇。** 拒绝，因为 `command-feedback` 不能依赖可选的 OTel 后端包。seam 拥有 `TelemetrySharingStatus`，任何后端都能披露策略。
|
||||
|
||||
## 后果
|
||||
|
||||
确认文本对用户可见：它点名接收会话并报告当前的共享策略，如实说明 fire-and-forget 交接。包级测试为每种状态以及无服务场景固定句子；组装浏览器 e2e 以 FULL 模式挂载随附的遥测行（指向本地 dead 端点），并以 golden 固定随附默认句子（`Session sharing is enabled.`）。seam 成员是必需的，因此已挂载的后端总会披露策略，「未配置」句子如实地表示没有遥测服务；`/feedback` 命令在未挂载遥测时仍能正常工作。仍为空白的新 Web 会话不渲染命令行，因此首条消息之前记录的反馈没有可见确认（已在包 README 的限制中记录）。
|
||||
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
|
||||
# Bilingual-pair consistency record (docs/i18n/README.md): the git blob hash of each
|
||||
# side as of the last confirmed-consistent state. Both languages carry equal authority;
|
||||
# after editing either side, bring the other along and re-record with:
|
||||
# pnpm run verify-translation-pairing --write .agents/notes/implemented/process/2026-08-04-forward-only-pr-issue-status.md
|
||||
2026-08-04-forward-only-pr-issue-status.md: dd567707bc7fccd0a631943ab3ffd2838a7f2f76
|
||||
2026-08-04-forward-only-pr-issue-status.zh.md: f7fee58d6afb812f97569ae4d86c3d6504f35752
|
||||
# pnpm run verify-translation-pairing --write .agents/notes/implemented/feature/2026-08-10-creator-guidance-introduce-cue.md
|
||||
2026-08-10-creator-guidance-introduce-cue.md: 888fee7b3def585ed3098fedcb7bc6169ee26a22
|
||||
2026-08-10-creator-guidance-introduce-cue.zh.md: d80260abd1995df1f95e3f24fefcb265bda64c11
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
|
||||
# Agent Note: Creator guidance lands as an introduce cue on the preset chip
|
||||
|
||||
Status: implemented
|
||||
|
||||
English | [中文](2026-08-10-creator-guidance-introduce-cue.zh.md)
|
||||
|
||||
## Problem
|
||||
|
||||
Authoring a preset happens inside a Creator-mode session, but the settings section gave no path into that fact. The creator entry sat outside the roster groups, the custom group vanished entirely while it had no member, and clicking the entry dropped the user onto the new-session screen with nothing marking what had changed: the staged preset chip rendered exactly as if the user had picked it by hand. Users reported not understanding that the flow had moved, or that the session they were about to start was the place where the preset gets built (#2184).
|
||||
|
||||
## Decision
|
||||
|
||||
The custom group stays on screen while empty — heading plus the creator entry, which lives inside the group as the standing "your preset will appear here" affordance rather than floating below the roster.
|
||||
|
||||
A pick staged from another screen carries a one-shot `introduce` flag through the seat store (`stage(id, introduce)`), and the chip announces it: the preset icon eases in over 150ms, then the name's characters fade up on a stagger the moment the icon lands. The stagger is capped twice — 40ms per tick for short CJK names, and one shared 200ms reveal window (`min(40, 200/(n-1))`) so a long Latin name finishes in the same time as its CJK counterpart instead of dragging the run out per character. CSS owns the motion; the component arms it and acknowledges the cue once the run is over, so the flag never replays on a later mount. `prefers-reduced-motion` and an empty display name acknowledge immediately with no run.
|
||||
|
||||
The cue is pure presentation: it is client-side seat-store state, never a session event, because the model-visible composition is already carried by the staged preset itself.
|
||||
|
||||
## Alternatives considered
|
||||
|
||||
**A toast or callout on the new-session screen.** It explains more, but it points at nothing — the chip is the artifact the user must find again later, and a dismissable box teaches the box, not the control. The cue puts the motion on the control itself.
|
||||
|
||||
**A fixed per-character tick.** The first implementation used 60ms per character unconditionally; an English preset name took over three times as long as its four-character Chinese counterpart, reading as lag rather than emphasis. The shared reveal window makes duration a property of the cue, not of the locale.
|
||||
|
||||
**Animating the pick inside the settings dialog before leaving.** The dialog closes as part of the gesture — leaving settings is how the flow says the work happens in the session — so anything played there would be cut off or would delay the navigation it exists to explain.
|
||||
|
||||
## Consequences
|
||||
|
||||
The intro timeline lives in two places that must agree: the component's `INTRO_TEXT_DELAY_MS` and the `.introIcon` CSS animation duration. The component's constants are the source of the character delays and the acknowledgement timeout; the CSS comment names the coupling. The seat store gains one bit of UI state (`introduce`) that every stage decides explicitly, and the section keeps rendering a group with no members — a shape the section golden and unit tests now pin.
|
||||
|
||||
## Testing
|
||||
|
||||
Component tests pin the capped stagger (11-character Latin name at 20ms steps, 4-character CJK name at the 40ms tick, single character with no stagger), the acknowledgement timing, and the reduced-motion and empty-name skips. `apply.spec.ts` drives the cross-screen stage end to end: the creator draft stages with the cue set, one acknowledgement clears it, and a repeat acknowledgement leaves the snapshot untouched. The `agent-preset-authoring` web e2e holds the empty custom group (heading plus creator entry) in its goldens.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
|
||||
# Agent Note: 创造模式引导以介绍动效落在预设 chip 上
|
||||
|
||||
Status: implemented
|
||||
|
||||
[English](2026-08-10-creator-guidance-introduce-cue.md) | 中文
|
||||
|
||||
## 问题
|
||||
|
||||
预设的创作发生在创造模式 session 内部，但设置分区没有把这条路径讲清楚。创建入口游离在名册分组之外；自定义分组在没有成员时整个消失；点击入口后用户被抛到新会话屏幕，没有任何标记说明发生了什么变化：暂存的预设 chip 渲染得和用户亲手挑选时一模一样。用户反馈看不懂流程已经移动，也不明白即将开始的 session 正是构建预设的地方（#2184）。
|
||||
|
||||
## 决定
|
||||
|
||||
自定义分组在空的时候也常驻屏幕——分组标题加创建入口，入口移入分组内部，作为"你的预设会出现在这里"的常设指引，而不是漂在名册下方。
|
||||
|
||||
从另一屏幕暂存的选择会经由 seat store 携带一次性的 `introduce` 标志（`stage(id, introduce)`），chip 据此自我介绍：预设图标在 150ms 内缓入，落定的瞬间名称逐字符错峰浮现。错峰有两重上限——短的中文名按每字符 40ms 的节拍，同时共享一个 200ms 的整体揭示窗口（`min(40, 200/(n-1))`），让长的拉丁名与中文名在相同时间内完成，而不是按字符数拖长整轮动画。动效由 CSS 负责；组件只负责触发，并在一轮结束后确认该提示，因此标志不会在后续挂载时重放。`prefers-reduced-motion` 与空显示名会立即确认、不播放动画。
|
||||
|
||||
该提示纯属呈现层：它是客户端 seat-store 状态，永远不是 session 事件，因为模型可见的组合已由暂存的预设本身承载。
|
||||
|
||||
## 曾考虑的替代方案
|
||||
|
||||
**在新会话屏幕上弹 toast 或提示框。** 它能解释更多，但什么也没指向——chip 才是用户之后必须再次找到的对象，可关闭的提示框教会的是提示框本身，不是控件。介绍动效把动作放在控件本体上。
|
||||
|
||||
**固定的每字符节拍。** 第一版实现无条件使用每字符 60ms；英文预设名的时长超过四字中文名的三倍，读起来像卡顿而非强调。共享揭示窗口让时长成为提示的属性，而不是语言的属性。
|
||||
|
||||
**离开前在设置对话框内播放选中动画。** 关闭对话框本身就是这个手势的一部分——离开设置正是流程在表达"工作发生在 session 里"——在那里播放的任何内容要么被截断，要么会拖延它本要解释的跳转。
|
||||
|
||||
## 后果
|
||||
|
||||
介绍时间线存在于两处且必须一致：组件的 `INTRO_TEXT_DELAY_MS` 与 `.introIcon` 的 CSS 动画时长。组件常量是字符延迟与确认超时的来源；CSS 注释点明了这层耦合。seat store 多出一位 UI 状态（`introduce`），每次暂存都显式决定它；分区则会渲染没有成员的分组——这一形态现由分区 golden 与单元测试钉住。
|
||||
|
||||
## 测试
|
||||
|
||||
组件测试钉住带上限的错峰（11 字符拉丁名走 20ms 步进、4 字中文名走 40ms 节拍、单字符无错峰）、确认时机，以及 reduced-motion 与空名的跳过路径。`apply.spec.ts` 端到端驱动跨屏暂存：创造模式草稿携带提示暂存，一次确认将其清除，重复确认让快照原样不动。`agent-preset-authoring` web e2e 在 golden 中保持空自定义分组（标题加创建入口）。
|
||||
@@ -1,39 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# Agent Note: Forward-only PR-to-Issue status projection
|
||||
|
||||
Status: implemented
|
||||
|
||||
English | [中文](2026-08-04-forward-only-pr-issue-status.zh.md)
|
||||
|
||||
## Problem
|
||||
|
||||
The Issue Project status represents the phase of the work, while an exact same-repository resolving keyword establishes the authoritative PR-to-Issue relationship. Restricting lifecycle advancement to Issues already in `Ready` leaves an Issue in `Inbox` or `Backlog` after implementation has demonstrably started. Requiring otherwise valid PR metadata before projecting the phase also conflates policy compliance with the work's observable state.
|
||||
|
||||
## Decision
|
||||
|
||||
PR and PR-review events project the current PR phase to every exact same-repository resolving Issue. A draft PR, or a non-draft PR without a review request or submitted review, targets `In progress`. A non-draft PR with either form of review activity targets `In review`.
|
||||
|
||||
The active statuses have the order `Inbox`, `Backlog`, `Ready`, `In progress`, and `In review`. Projection writes only when the target is later in that order. It does not move an Issue backward, alter `Done` or `No action`, or add an Issue that has no Project status. The lifecycle path is independent of PR metadata validation; the separate required PR policy check continues to enforce labels, references, and priority consistency.
|
||||
|
||||
This projection is intentionally one-way. It does not query from an Issue to related PRs, and it does not add a scheduled reconciler. PR events are the source of lifecycle advancement. The pure transition decision is exercised by the Issue-management test and that test runs in the `check-all`, `ci-primary`, and `ci-static` gates.
|
||||
|
||||
## Verification
|
||||
|
||||
`.github/issue-management/policy.test.mjs` covers advancement from every earlier active status, the draft and review distinctions, metadata-policy independence, and protection against backward or terminal transitions. `scripts/run-gates.ts` owns execution of that focused policy test in top-level local and CI gate modes.
|
||||
|
||||
## Alternatives considered
|
||||
|
||||
**Require `Ready` as the only source status.** This preserves a manual prerequisite but leaves stale `Inbox` and `Backlog` items even though the resolving PR proves implementation has begun.
|
||||
|
||||
**Add bidirectional or scheduled reconciliation.** Looking up PRs from Issue events or sweeping the Project could repair more histories, but it adds another authority direction and recurring API work beyond the required PR-driven lifecycle.
|
||||
|
||||
**Gate projection on complete PR metadata.** Labels, references, and priority still require enforcement, but a metadata defect does not make the implementation or review phase untrue.
|
||||
|
||||
**Move statuses backward when a PR becomes a draft or loses reviewers.** That would make transient PR state overwrite a later observed work phase and complicate status ownership. Projection therefore remains monotonic.
|
||||
|
||||
## Consequences
|
||||
|
||||
- A PR event self-corrects a resolving Issue left in `Inbox`, `Backlog`, or `Ready`.
|
||||
- An Issue created after the last relevant PR event waits for a later PR event or a manual status update because there is no reverse lookup or scheduled sweep.
|
||||
- A draft PR remains `In progress` even if it has historical review activity; only a non-draft PR targets `In review`.
|
||||
- Terminal statuses and later active statuses remain protected from regression.
|
||||
- PR metadata failures remain visible through the required policy check without suppressing lifecycle projection.
|
||||
@@ -1,39 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# Agent Note: PR 到 Issue 的状态仅向前投射
|
||||
|
||||
Status: implemented
|
||||
|
||||
[English](2026-08-04-forward-only-pr-issue-status.md) | 中文
|
||||
|
||||
## 问题
|
||||
|
||||
Issue Project 状态表示工作所处阶段，同仓库内精确匹配的解决型关键字引用则建立权威的 PR（Pull Request）到 Issue 关系。若仅允许已处于 `Ready` 的 Issue 推进生命周期，即使实现已经明确开始，处于 `Inbox` 或 `Backlog` 的 Issue 仍会停留在原状态。只有 PR 元数据在其他方面均有效时才投射工作阶段，也会把政策合规性与可观察到的工作状态混为一谈。
|
||||
|
||||
## 决策
|
||||
|
||||
PR 事件和 PR 评审事件会把当前 PR 阶段投射到同仓库内由解决型关键字精确引用的每个 Issue。草稿 PR，或既没有评审请求也没有已提交评审的非草稿 PR，目标状态为 `In progress`。具备上述任一类评审活动的非草稿 PR，目标状态为 `In review`。
|
||||
|
||||
活跃状态依次为 `Inbox`、`Backlog`、`Ready`、`In progress` 和 `In review`。只有目标状态在该顺序中位于当前状态之后时，投射才会写入。投射不会把 Issue 状态向后移动，不会改动 `Done` 或 `No action`，也不会把没有 Project 状态的 Issue 加入 Project。生命周期路径独立于 PR 元数据校验；另行执行的必需 PR 政策检查继续强制落实标签、引用和优先级一致性。
|
||||
|
||||
这项投射刻意保持单向。它不会从 Issue 反查关联 PR，也不会添加定时对账任务。PR 事件是推进生命周期的来源。Issue 管理测试会验证纯函数实现的状态转换决策，并且该测试会在 `check-all`、`ci-primary` 和 `ci-static` 门禁中运行。
|
||||
|
||||
## 验证
|
||||
|
||||
`.github/issue-management/policy.test.mjs` 覆盖从所有更早活跃状态推进、区分草稿与评审状态、独立于元数据政策，以及防止状态倒退或改动终态。`scripts/run-gates.ts` 负责在顶层本地门禁模式和 CI 门禁模式中执行这项专项政策测试。
|
||||
|
||||
## 考虑过的替代方案
|
||||
|
||||
**仅允许从 `Ready` 状态推进。** 这种方案保留了人工前置条件，但解决型 PR 已经证明实现开始后，仍会让处于 `Inbox` 和 `Backlog` 的条目保持陈旧状态。
|
||||
|
||||
**增加双向或定时对账。** 由 Issue 事件反查 PR，或定期扫描 Project，可以修复更多历史遗留状态；但这会新增一条反向的权威状态更新路径，并增加周期性 API 工作量，超出所需的 PR 驱动生命周期范围。
|
||||
|
||||
**以完整的 PR 元数据作为投射前提。** 标签、引用和优先级仍须强制落实，但元数据缺陷并不能否定工作实际处于实现或评审阶段。
|
||||
|
||||
**PR 转为草稿或失去评审人时将状态向后移动。** 这会让临时的 PR 状态覆盖已经观察到的更靠后工作阶段，也会使状态所有权更复杂。因此，投射保持单调。
|
||||
|
||||
## 后果
|
||||
|
||||
- PR 事件会自动纠正由该 PR 解决但仍停留在 `Inbox`、`Backlog` 或 `Ready` 的 Issue。
|
||||
- 若 Issue 创建于最后一个相关 PR 事件之后，则必须等待后续 PR 事件或人工更新状态，因为系统不会反向查找或定时扫描。
|
||||
- 即使存在历史评审活动，草稿 PR 仍保持 `In progress`；只有非草稿 PR 才会以 `In review` 为目标状态。
|
||||
- 终态以及顺序中更靠后的活跃状态不会倒退。
|
||||
- 必需的政策检查仍会暴露 PR 元数据错误，而不会因此阻止生命周期投射。
|
||||
@@ -1,31 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# Agent Note: Review-driven Issue lifecycle triggers
|
||||
|
||||
Status: implemented
|
||||
|
||||
English | [中文](2026-08-08-review-driven-issue-lifecycle-triggers.zh.md)
|
||||
|
||||
## Problem
|
||||
|
||||
The Issue lifecycle workflow reads the current pull request after each subscribed repository event and projects resolving Issues forward to `In progress` or `In review`. A resolving draft already reaches `In progress` from its `opened` event. Changing that draft to ready creates no new lifecycle outcome until a reviewer is requested or submits a review, yet subscribing to `ready_for_review` launches another hosted job and creates another GitHub App token.
|
||||
|
||||
Draft-to-ready automation commonly submits a review moments later. In that sequence the ready job cannot advance the Issue, while the review job is still required to observe the `In review` phase.
|
||||
|
||||
## Decision
|
||||
|
||||
[Issue lifecycle](../../../../.github/workflows/issue-lifecycle.yml) does not subscribe to `pull_request.ready_for_review`. It retains `pull_request.review_requested` and `pull_request_review.submitted`, so either a requested reviewer or a submitted review can advance a resolving Issue to `In review`. The handler continues to fetch the live pull request instead of deriving phase from the triggering payload.
|
||||
|
||||
[Issue policy](../../../../.github/workflows/issue-policy.yml) still subscribes to `ready_for_review`. That workflow owns the required check when a human pull request enters review; removing a lifecycle trigger does not weaken policy enforcement.
|
||||
|
||||
The workflow test parses both files and pins this split. The lifecycle policy tests separately pin that draft and open resolving pull requests reach `In progress`, while a review request or submitted review reaches `In review`.
|
||||
|
||||
## Alternatives considered
|
||||
|
||||
- **Keep both events and cancel an in-progress run** - rejected because concurrency can discard a pending run but cannot combine two webhook payloads into one execution. Cancelling the earlier mutation also makes correctness depend on arrival order, while a completed ready job still consumes the full runner setup.
|
||||
- **Remove the submitted-review event** - rejected because a review may arrive without an explicit review request. In that path `pull_request_review.submitted` is the only repository event that exposes the transition to `In review`.
|
||||
- **Delay every pull request event behind a debounce dispatcher** - rejected because another queue or scheduled workflow adds latency and control-plane state to eliminate a trigger that carries no lifecycle information.
|
||||
|
||||
## Consequences
|
||||
|
||||
A draft becoming ready no longer launches Issue lifecycle work. The resolving Issue remains `In progress` from an earlier pull request event until a review is requested or submitted, at which point one review-driven run can advance it to `In review`. The required Issue policy check still runs at the ready boundary.
|
||||
|
||||
If a future lifecycle phase depends on ready status itself, that change must restore the trigger and update the workflow test and this decision. Until then, omitting `ready_for_review` saves one hosted run from the common ready-then-review sequence without dropping a status transition.
|
||||
@@ -1,31 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# Agent Note: 由评审驱动的 Issue 生命周期触发器
|
||||
|
||||
Status: implemented
|
||||
|
||||
[English](2026-08-08-review-driven-issue-lifecycle-triggers.md) | 中文
|
||||
|
||||
## 问题
|
||||
|
||||
Issue 生命周期工作流会在每个已订阅的仓库事件发生后读取当前 PR（Pull Request），并将解决型 Issue 的状态向前推进到 `In progress` 或 `In review`。解决型草稿 PR 已通过其 `opened` 事件进入 `In progress`。在请求评审人或评审人提交评审之前，把该草稿转为可评审状态不会产生新的生命周期结果；但订阅 `ready_for_review` 仍会启动另一个托管作业，并创建另一个 GitHub App token。
|
||||
|
||||
草稿转为可评审状态的自动化通常会在片刻后提交评审。在这一事件序列中，转为可评审状态的作业无法推进 Issue，而要观察到 `In review` 阶段，仍必须运行评审作业。
|
||||
|
||||
## 决策
|
||||
|
||||
[Issue 生命周期](../../../../.github/workflows/issue-lifecycle.yml)不订阅 `pull_request.ready_for_review`。它保留 `pull_request.review_requested` 和 `pull_request_review.submitted`，因此无论是请求评审人还是提交评审，都可以将解决型 Issue 推进至 `In review`。处理程序仍会获取实时 PR，而不是根据触发事件的载荷推导阶段。
|
||||
|
||||
[Issue 政策](../../../../.github/workflows/issue-policy.yml)仍订阅 `ready_for_review`。该工作流负责在由人类发起的 PR 进入评审时执行必需检查；移除生命周期触发器不会削弱政策执行。
|
||||
|
||||
工作流测试会解析这两个文件，并固定这种划分。生命周期政策测试另行固定以下行为：草稿及开放状态的解决型 PR 会进入 `In progress`，评审请求或已提交评审则会使其进入 `In review`。
|
||||
|
||||
## 考虑过的替代方案
|
||||
|
||||
- **保留两个事件并取消正在进行的工作流运行**：不予采纳，因为并发控制可以丢弃待处理的工作流运行，却无法把两个 webhook 载荷合并为一次执行。取消较早的状态变更操作也会使正确性依赖事件到达顺序；而已经完成的转为可评审状态作业仍会产生完整的运行器初始化开销。
|
||||
- **移除已提交评审事件**：不予采纳，因为评审可能在没有明确评审请求的情况下直接提交。在这条路径中，`pull_request_review.submitted` 是唯一能让系统观察到进入 `In review` 这一状态转换的仓库事件。
|
||||
- **让每个 PR 事件都先经过防抖分派器再处理**：不予采纳，因为新增一条队列或一个定时工作流会引入延迟和控制平面状态，只为消除一个不携带生命周期信息的触发器。
|
||||
|
||||
## 后果
|
||||
|
||||
草稿转为可评审状态后，不再启动 Issue 生命周期工作。解决型 Issue 会保持在更早的 PR 事件所设定的 `In progress`，直到请求或提交评审；届时，一次由评审驱动的工作流运行即可将其推进至 `In review`。必需的 Issue 政策检查仍会在转为可评审状态的边界运行。
|
||||
|
||||
如果未来某个生命周期阶段依赖可评审状态本身，相关变更必须恢复该触发器，并更新工作流测试和本决策。在此之前，省略 `ready_for_review` 可使常见的先转为可评审状态、再提交评审这一序列少启动一次托管工作流运行，而不会遗漏状态转换。
|
||||
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
|
||||
# Bilingual-pair consistency record (docs/i18n/README.md): the git blob hash of each
|
||||
# side as of the last confirmed-consistent state. Both languages carry equal authority;
|
||||
# after editing either side, bring the other along and re-record with:
|
||||
# pnpm run verify-translation-pairing --write .agents/notes/implemented/process/2026-08-08-review-driven-issue-lifecycle-triggers.md
|
||||
2026-08-08-review-driven-issue-lifecycle-triggers.md: 8a2d48ee23da4c20bb832ae0109e2ea9912dac83
|
||||
2026-08-08-review-driven-issue-lifecycle-triggers.zh.md: 004739ff471815b0fe12e111eba0ec7aaaef9507
|
||||
# pnpm run verify-translation-pairing --write .agents/notes/implemented/process/2026-08-10-event-directed-pr-review-status.md
|
||||
2026-08-10-event-directed-pr-review-status.md: 9db9c64fc87c1701028ae825357c3cbd7fef44d1
|
||||
2026-08-10-event-directed-pr-review-status.zh.md: 381a3f64a62930a584f48cfbc3571679bbcbcef7
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
|
||||
# Agent Note: Event-directed PR review status commands
|
||||
|
||||
Status: implemented
|
||||
|
||||
English | [中文](2026-08-10-event-directed-pr-review-status.zh.md)
|
||||
|
||||
## Problem
|
||||
|
||||
The Issue Project status records who owns the next step of resolving work. Aggregate pull-request review state answers whether GitHub considers the pull request mergeable, but it cannot represent that handoff: an earlier `CHANGES_REQUESTED` review can remain effective after the author fixes the code and requests review again.
|
||||
|
||||
A monotonic projection also cannot return an automation-owned Issue from `In review` to `In progress` when a reviewer requests changes. Reconstructing review rounds or reviewer blockers would add state that the required two-event contract does not need.
|
||||
|
||||
## Decision
|
||||
|
||||
The Issue lifecycle workflow treats review webhooks as commands. `pull_request.review_requested`, including a repeated request, targets `In review`. `pull_request_review.submitted` targets `In progress` only when `review.state` is `changes_requested`; the submitted event remains necessary because a reviewer can request changes without an earlier review-request event. Approved and commented submissions skip their lifecycle job before it creates a Project token, while dismissed reviews are not subscribed.
|
||||
|
||||
Ordinary subscribed pull-request events remain forward-only implementation signals: they can move `Inbox`, `Backlog`, or `Ready` to `In progress`, but they cannot move `In review` backward. Review-request commands can move any earlier active status to `In review`. Changes-requested commands can move earlier active statuses forward to `In progress` and can move `In review` back only when the latest status event for the target Project was written by the configured lifecycle actor. A human or unknown latest actor preserves the current status.
|
||||
|
||||
The handler resolves only exact same-repository `Fixes`, `Closes`, or `Resolves` references. It does not alter terminal statuses, add an Issue with no Project status, depend on PR metadata validity, query `reviewDecision`, reconstruct review rounds, look up pull requests from Issues, or run a scheduled reconciler.
|
||||
|
||||
[Issue lifecycle](../../../../.github/workflows/issue-lifecycle.yml) remains unsubscribed from `pull_request.ready_for_review`; neither event command depends on that action. [Issue policy](../../../../.github/workflows/issue-policy.yml) retains `ready_for_review` because it owns required-check enforcement when a human pull request enters review.
|
||||
|
||||
## Verification
|
||||
|
||||
[Issue-management tests](../../../../.github/issue-management/policy.test.mjs) pin the event-to-command mapping, the repeated-review-request transition after a changes-requested command, the changes-requested regression, terminal protection, and human override preservation. [Workflow tests](../../../../scripts/ci-workflow.spec.ts) pin the subscribed events, the changes-requested job condition, and the separate `ready_for_review` policy trigger.
|
||||
|
||||
## Alternatives considered
|
||||
|
||||
**Derive status from `reviewDecision` or a reconstructed review round.** GitHub's aggregate can remain `CHANGES_REQUESTED` after a repeated review request, while a round reducer introduces reviewer and ordering semantics beyond the two explicit handoffs.
|
||||
|
||||
**Keep the forward-only projection.** Monotonic advancement protects later statuses, but it leaves an Issue in `In review` while the author is implementing requested changes.
|
||||
|
||||
**Apply every review command unconditionally.** This is the smallest event handler, but it lets automation overwrite a human-owned Project status. The latest target-Project status actor therefore guards the only backward transition.
|
||||
|
||||
**Restore `ready_for_review` or add a debounce queue.** Ready status carries neither review handoff, while another queue adds latency and control-plane state without changing either command.
|
||||
|
||||
## Consequences
|
||||
|
||||
A repeated review request moves an automation-managed resolving Issue to `In review` even while GitHub still reports an older blocking review. A later changes-requested review returns it to `In progress`; approval, comments, dismissal, pushes, and reviewer removal leave the most recent command's status unchanged.
|
||||
|
||||
The projection remains event-driven and does not repair an event that never runs. Replaying an old workflow run can replay its old command, and ProjectV2 still provides no atomic compare-and-swap between the latest-state read and mutation. Per-pull-request workflow concurrency and the human-ownership guard reduce these races without introducing durable lifecycle state.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
|
||||
# Agent Note: 由事件直接指定的 PR 评审状态命令
|
||||
|
||||
Status: implemented
|
||||
|
||||
[English](2026-08-10-event-directed-pr-review-status.md) | 中文
|
||||
|
||||
## 问题
|
||||
|
||||
Issue 所在 Project 中的状态记录了解决工作的下一步由谁负责。PR（Pull Request）的汇总评审状态可以回答 GitHub 是否认为该 PR 可合并，却无法表示这次交接：作者修复代码并重新请求评审后，先前的 `CHANGES_REQUESTED` 评审仍可能继续生效。
|
||||
|
||||
单调投影也无法在评审人提出修改要求时，将由自动化管理的 Issue 从 `In review` 退回 `In progress`。重建评审轮次或评审人阻塞项会引入既定双事件约定并不需要的状态。
|
||||
|
||||
## 决策
|
||||
|
||||
Issue 生命周期工作流把评审 webhook 视为命令。`pull_request.review_requested`（包括重复请求）将目标状态指定为 `In review`。`pull_request_review.submitted` 将目标状态指定为 `In progress`，但仅在 `review.state` 为 `changes_requested` 时生效；submitted 事件仍不可省略，因为评审人即使没有先触发 review-request 事件，也可以直接提出修改要求。对于 approved 和 commented 提交，工作流会在生命周期作业创建 Project token 前跳过该作业；dismissed 评审则不在订阅范围内。
|
||||
|
||||
工作流订阅的普通 PR 事件仍是只向前推进的实现信号：它们可以将 `Inbox`、`Backlog` 或 `Ready` 推进至 `In progress`，但不能让 `In review` 倒退。请求评审命令可将任意较早的活跃状态推进至 `In review`。请求修改命令可将较早的活跃状态推进至 `In progress`；它也可以让 `In review` 状态回退，但仅在目标 Project 的最新状态事件由配置的生命周期执行主体写入时进行。若最新状态事件的执行主体是人工用户或未知主体，则保留当前状态。
|
||||
|
||||
处理器仅解析同一仓库内严格匹配的 `Fixes`、`Closes` 或 `Resolves` 引用。它不会更改终态、将没有 Project 状态的 Issue 添加到 Project、依赖 PR 元数据是否有效、查询 `reviewDecision`、重建评审轮次、从 Issue 反向查找 PR，或运行定时协调器。
|
||||
|
||||
[Issue 生命周期](../../../../.github/workflows/issue-lifecycle.yml)仍不订阅 `pull_request.ready_for_review`；两条事件命令均不依赖该动作。[Issue 策略](../../../../.github/workflows/issue-policy.yml)保留 `ready_for_review`，因为人工提交的 PR 进入评审时，该工作流负责执行必需检查门禁。
|
||||
|
||||
## 验证
|
||||
|
||||
[Issue 管理测试](../../../../.github/issue-management/policy.test.mjs)锁定事件到命令的映射、请求修改命令后重复请求评审所触发的状态转换、请求修改后的状态回退、终态保护，以及保留人工覆盖状态。[工作流测试](../../../../scripts/ci-workflow.spec.ts)锁定订阅事件、请求修改作业的条件，以及独立的 `ready_for_review` 策略触发器。
|
||||
|
||||
## 考虑过的替代方案
|
||||
|
||||
**根据 `reviewDecision` 或重建的评审轮次派生状态。** GitHub 的汇总状态在重复请求评审后仍可能保持为 `CHANGES_REQUESTED`，而轮次归约器会引入超出两个显式交接动作所需范围的评审人语义和顺序语义。
|
||||
|
||||
**保留只向前推进的投影。** 单调推进可保护较后的状态不被回退，但作者正在按要求修改代码时，Issue 会一直停留在 `In review`。
|
||||
|
||||
**无条件应用每条评审命令。** 这是最精简的事件处理器，但会让自动化覆盖由人工管理的 Project 状态。因此，处理器通过目标 Project 最新状态事件的执行主体保护唯一允许的回退转换。
|
||||
|
||||
**恢复 `ready_for_review` 或添加防抖队列。** Ready 状态并不表示两种评审交接中的任何一种；新增队列只会增加延迟和控制平面状态，不会改变任一命令。
|
||||
|
||||
## 后果
|
||||
|
||||
即使 GitHub 仍报告一个较早的阻塞性评审，重复请求评审也会将正由当前 PR 解决且由自动化管理的 Issue 推进至 `In review`。后续提出修改要求的评审会将其退回 `In progress`；批准、评论、撤销评审、推送和移除评审人都不会改变最近一条命令设定的状态。
|
||||
|
||||
投影仍由事件驱动；如果某个事件从未触发工作流运行，投影不会自行修复。回放旧的工作流运行可能会再次执行其中的旧命令；ProjectV2 仍不提供在读取最新状态与执行变更之间进行原子比较并交换（compare-and-swap）的能力。以单个 PR 为粒度的工作流并发控制和人工状态所有权保护机制可减少这些竞态，而无需引入持久化生命周期状态。
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user