docs(operator): mark July-8 ingestion/tenancy batch verified live#528
Conversation
All six batch migrations (20260708 130000/140000/150000/160001/170000/310000) are already applied on production Clinical KB Database (sjrfecxgysukkwxsowpy); apply was a no-op. Verified read-only on live: retrieval_owner_matches fail-closed truth table, jsonb_merge_deep deep-merge, complete_ingestion_job p_worker_id lease fence, and the R17 partial-unique index (indisvalid/indisready true, queue 0/0). Stamp the runbook so the batch is not re-applied; apply steps retained for staging/DR replay. Remaining: ingestion worker redeploy. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 33 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: Organization UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
✨ Simplify code
Comment |
|
This pull request has been ignored for the connected project Preview Branches by Supabase. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: c78a4d7ff5
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".
Summary
Stamps the July-8 batch operator runbook as verified live. Closes the verification
half of task 1.1 (apply + verify PRs #380/#405/#408/#409 on production).
Docs-only — no code, schema, migration, or behavior change. The migration files
themselves are unchanged.
What was verified (read-only, against production
Clinical KB Databasesjrfecxgysukkwxsowpy)All six batch migrations were already applied on live (apply = no-op; live history
carries them plus ~15 later migrations). Batch probes replicated as read-only SQL — all green:
retrieval_owner_matchesfail-closed truth table (NULL→false, sentinel/owner isolation correct)jsonb_merge_deepdeep-merges (R5, fix(ingestion): R5 — deep-merge document metadata instead of full replace #408)complete_ingestion_jobacceptsp_worker_idlease fence (R1/R2, step 2)ingestion_jobs_one_open_per_document_uidx— partial-unique on(document_id)WHERE status IN (pending,processing),indisvalid/indisreadytrue, queue 0/0Clinical governance note
No ingestion / answer-generation / retrieval / access / privacy code is touched — this PR
only edits an operator markdown doc. Verification was performed read-only via the Supabase
connector; nothing was written to the database. The one retrieval-affecting migration
(
retrieval_owner_matchesfail-closed) was proven correct on live and its sentinel path — theone the golden eval exercises — is unchanged.
Remaining (not in this PR)
Ingestion worker redeploy (Railway) so R5 merge +
p_worker_idfences are activeend-to-end — an operator/deployment step, low-urgency (worker code already passes
p_worker_id).🤖 Generated with Claude Code