Classify already-landed PRs as reconciliation-only, not review eligible #295

New Issue

2026-07-07T00:26:21-05:00

jcwalker3 commented

2026-07-07 00:26:21 -05:00

Reviewer workflows now detect already-landed PRs before validation, approval, or merge, but final reports still describe the selected already-landed PR as oldest eligible PR or next eligible PR.

Observed behavior:

PR #278 was open in Gitea.
Its head SHA was already an ancestor of prgs/master.
The workflow correctly stopped before validation, approval, and merge.
The final report produced ALREADY_LANDED_RECONCILE_REQUIRED.
However, the report still claimed:
- oldest eligible PR: PR #278
- next eligible PR: PR #278
- Pinned reviewed head: ...

Problem:

An already-landed PR is not eligible for normal review or merge. It is a reconciliation item. Calling it eligible creates ambiguity and may cause future LLMs to approve, merge, or continue queue work incorrectly.

Required behavior:

If a PR head is already an ancestor of the target branch, classify it as ALREADY_LANDED_RECONCILE_REQUIRED.
Do not call the PR review eligible, merge eligible, oldest eligible, or next eligible.
Use separate terms:
- Oldest open PR requiring action
- Eligibility class
- Next review/merge eligible PR
If policy blocks queue advancement until reconciliation, say so explicitly.
If policy allows skipping reconciliation-only PRs, require explicit rule proof before selecting the next PR.
Do not use reviewed head SHA unless validation and diff review passed.
Use candidate head SHA for pre-review ancestry checks.

Acceptance criteria:

Already-landed PRs are reported as reconciliation-only.
Final reports reject oldest eligible PR when the selected PR is already landed.
Final reports reject reviewed head SHA when no validation/diff review occurred.
Controller handoffs use candidate head SHA and reviewed head SHA: none for already-landed cases.
Tests cover already-landed open PRs, normal review-eligible PRs, and queue advancement policy.

Reviewer workflows now detect already-landed PRs before validation, approval, or merge, but final reports still describe the selected already-landed PR as `oldest eligible PR` or `next eligible PR`. Observed behavior: * PR #278 was open in Gitea. * Its head SHA was already an ancestor of `prgs/master`. * The workflow correctly stopped before validation, approval, and merge. * The final report produced `ALREADY_LANDED_RECONCILE_REQUIRED`. * However, the report still claimed: * `oldest eligible PR: PR #278` * `next eligible PR: PR #278` * `Pinned reviewed head: ...` Problem: An already-landed PR is not eligible for normal review or merge. It is a reconciliation item. Calling it eligible creates ambiguity and may cause future LLMs to approve, merge, or continue queue work incorrectly. Required behavior: 1. If a PR head is already an ancestor of the target branch, classify it as `ALREADY_LANDED_RECONCILE_REQUIRED`. 2. Do not call the PR `review eligible`, `merge eligible`, `oldest eligible`, or `next eligible`. 3. Use separate terms: * `Oldest open PR requiring action` * `Eligibility class` * `Next review/merge eligible PR` 4. If policy blocks queue advancement until reconciliation, say so explicitly. 5. If policy allows skipping reconciliation-only PRs, require explicit rule proof before selecting the next PR. 6. Do not use `reviewed head SHA` unless validation and diff review passed. 7. Use `candidate head SHA` for pre-review ancestry checks. Acceptance criteria: * Already-landed PRs are reported as reconciliation-only. * Final reports reject `oldest eligible PR` when the selected PR is already landed. * Final reports reject `reviewed head SHA` when no validation/diff review occurred. * Controller handoffs use `candidate head SHA` and `reviewed head SHA: none` for already-landed cases. * Tests cover already-landed open PRs, normal review-eligible PRs, and queue advancement policy.

jcwalker3 referenced this issue

2026-07-07 01:51:24 -05:00

Add final-report validator rules for reviewer and reconciliation handoffs #327

jcwalker3 added the status:in-progress label 2026-07-07 08:21:52 -05:00

jcwalker3 referenced this issue from a commit

2026-07-07 08:23:57 -05:00

feat: classify already-landed PRs as reconciliation-only (Closes #295)

jcwalker3 referenced a pull request that will close this issue

2026-07-07 08:24:22 -05:00

feat: classify already-landed PRs as reconciliation-only (Closes #295) #382

jcwalker3 referenced this issue from a commit

2026-07-07 09:20:56 -05:00