fix: prevent branch review ledger merge conflicts#1154
Conversation
|
You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard. |
1 similar comment
|
You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard. |
|
This pull request has been ignored for the connected project Preview Branches by Supabase. |
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 21 minutes Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available. How can I continue?After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews. How do review limits work?CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability. For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window. Please refer docs for additional details. Review details⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (7)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
1 participant
Summary
docs/branch-review-ledger.mdwith Git's built-inmerge=uniondriver so concurrent append-only review records are retained automatically.verify:cheapand the Static PR CI job.AGENTS.mdand the review protocol that corrections must be appended rather than rewriting historical records.Why
Multiple active PRs append review records at the shared table tail. Standard three-way merges repeatedly conflict in that single file, and conflict scaffolding has previously been committed. Union merging plus a blocking integrity gate removes the recurring conflict and catches malformed resolutions before merge.
Files and areas touched
.gitattributes.github/workflows/ci.ymlAGENTS.mddocs/branch-review-ledger.mddocs/codex-review-protocol.mdpackage.jsonscripts/check-branch-review-ledger.mjsVerification
npm run check:branch-review-ledger— passed; 688 records, union merge active, negative self-tests passed.npm run check:gate-manifest— passed; all 22 local cheap gates are represented in CI.npm run check:github-actions— passed.npm run check:ci-scope— passed.git diff --check— passed.npm run verify:cheap— static gates, lint, and typecheck passed; unit suite reached 3,284 passed / 1 skipped / 1 failed. The unrelatedtests/reconciliation-preflight.test.tsmetadata-only subprocess exceeded its fixed 30-second timeout.node scripts/run-vitest.mjs run tests/reconciliation-preflight.test.ts --reporter=dot— reproduced the same unrelated timeout with the other 4 tests passing.Checks not run
verify:pr-localwas not repeated because its unit stage would hit the same reproduced unrelated timeout; exact-head hosted required CI is the merge gate.Risk and rollback
Risk is low and limited to Git/process behavior. Union merging can retain both sides in non-deterministic order, which is acceptable for append-only records; the integrity gate blocks conflict markers and exact duplicates. Roll back by reverting this commit, which restores standard merge behavior and removes the new gate.
RAG impact: no retrieval behaviour change — Git merge policy, review documentation, and static CI validation only.