Fix repeated default registry contract tests - #1043
Conversation
|
Bugbot is not enabled for your account, so this pull request was not reviewed. Enable Bugbot in the Cursor dashboard to get automatic reviews on future PRs. |
|
@codex review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 6fe75f195e
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".
| const implName = "test-default-impl-unique-12345" | ||
| // The default registry intentionally persists for the process lifetime, so | ||
| // each `-count` invocation must own a distinct name. | ||
| implName := fmt.Sprintf("test-default-impl-%d", defaultRegistryTestSequence.Add(1)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Gate the repeated invocation regression
Add an automated repeat case to a required test path. I checked .github/workflows/test-fast.yml and .github/workflows/test-regression.yml; both ultimately run this package with go test without -count, so replacing this generated name with the original fixed name would still pass every checked-in gate and the defect would recur whenever a developer manually repeats the suite. Encode at least two invocations in a permanent regression test or make the repeat command part of the gate.
AGENTS.md reference: AGENTS.md:L55-L55
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
6fe75f1 to
1d56687
Compare
|
Reverification after rebase
|
|
@codex review |
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Already looking forward to the next diff. Reviewed commit: ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
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". |
1d56687 to
4e5e462
Compare
|
Reverification after rebase onto merged #1063/#1062
|
|
@codex review |
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Delightful! Reviewed commit: ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
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". |
4e5e462 to
d8bb245
Compare
|
Rebuild and reverification after #1066 landed
|
|
@codex review |
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Can't wait for the next one! Reviewed commit: ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
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". |
d8bb245 to
f3fb4d8
Compare
|
Rebuild and reverification after #1041 landed
|
|
@codex review |
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Another round soon, please! Reviewed commit: ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
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". |
Closes #1042
Related: #1000, #1039, #1040
What changed
Verification