Repository navigation
Clarify dispute targets for body-only PR findings - #184
Conversation
Specify the author reaction path for inline and fallback issue comments, its bounded recovery and retained source across heads. Clarify that an ordinary reply is not an unambiguous dispute, and name the scanner's own request budget and missing-target acceptance cases.
Codex Review SummaryThis comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings. |
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 37461723fc
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| cannot cause a duplicate. These requests count against the separate | ||
| `DISPUTE_SCAN_REQUEST_BUDGET`; the existing daily feedback scan is too slow |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Charging these reads to a separate DISPUTE_SCAN_REQUEST_BUDGET contradicts the reconciler contract at lines 511–514, which says every cycle is bounded by PR_STATE_REQUEST_BUDGET reads. The new budget is not otherwise defined with a default or an aggregate relationship to that cap, so on PRs with many unresolved findings an implementation following this paragraph can exceed the documented per-cycle request limit. Specify the new budget and update the overall cycle-cap contract to account for it.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
The PR state RFC says authors can dispute blockers by replying in a review thread, while the implemented scanner uses explicit 👎 reactions. A body-only blocker has no inline reaction target at all. The companion ReviewBot PR #95 supplies a marker-deduplicated issue comment for that case.
This documentation change states the reaction path for both inline and fallback comments, keeps an ordinary clarification reply from silently clearing a blocker, and records how missing IDs and uncertain comments are recovered. It also corrects the request-budget name and adds acceptance cases for wrong-finding/same-anchor recovery and duplicate prevention.
Validation: staged code-review gate approved on the first pass;
git diff --checkpassed. Documentation only; no SDK or runtime change.