fix: harden search cancellation and design-audit regressions#861
Conversation
|
This pull request has been ignored for the connected project Preview Branches by Supabase. |
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 12 seconds 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 (8)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThis change adds abort-signal propagation to retrieval and classifier fallback paths, records answer-coalescing telemetry, gates unsupported pathway UI, adjusts universal search result placement, broadens page query typing, updates focus styling, and revises related regression and browser-test assertions. ChangesRetrieval and results experience
Estimated code review effort: 3 (Moderate) | ~25 minutes Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant Retrieval
participant Classifier
participant AbortSignal
participant SupabaseRPC
Retrieval->>Classifier: Await classifier verdict with caller signal
AbortSignal-->>Classifier: Reject pending wait on abort
Retrieval->>SupabaseRPC: Execute retrieval RPC with caller signal
SupabaseRPC-->>Retrieval: Return RPC result or abort
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels: 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 4 | ❌ 1❌ Failed checks (1 warning)
✅ Passed checks (4 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Comment |
…in-safe-20260720-final
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@src/lib/rag-candidate-sources.ts`:
- Around line 91-104: Propagate the abort signal through both retrieval RPC call
sites by passing args.signal as the fifth argument to callVersionedRetrievalRpc
in the hybrid and fallback flows in src/lib/rag.ts (around lines 2837 and 2945).
Leave callVersionedRetrievalRpc and its executeRpc wrapper in
src/lib/rag-candidate-sources.ts (lines 91-104) unchanged, as they already apply
the signal correctly.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
❌ Autofix failed (check again to retry)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro Plus
Run ID: d0827e9b-26d0-4d84-a17f-dcff29499329
📒 Files selected for processing (11)
playwright.config.tssrc/app/page.tsxsrc/components/ClinicalDashboard.tsxsrc/components/forms/forms-search-results-page.tsxsrc/components/route-error-boundary.tsxsrc/lib/rag-candidate-sources.tssrc/lib/rag.tstests/audit-content-services-regressions.test.tstests/audit-navigation-auth-regressions.test.tstests/supabase-schema.test.tstests/ui-tools.spec.ts
![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: f365f26a83
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".
|
@codex resolve actionable Codex review findings for this pull request and current head using the repository instructions. This is the pull request's single automatic repair pass: do not perform a fresh review, create new standalone findings, or request another review. Work only the existing unresolved Codex threads on the current head. Always fix P0 and P1 findings. For P2 and lower findings, fix only clear, scoped, low-risk issues; otherwise disposition them with a concise reason. After fixing or dispositioning a thread, reply in that thread with as the first line, followed by a concise summary; that marker authorizes the workflow to close that exact thread. If human input or new authorization is required, do not use the marker and leave the thread open with the blocker. Finish only after every actionable thread is fixed or dispositioned and closed, or explicitly left open for a human decision. Do not update the branch from main, address unrelated reviews, broaden scope, or create more than one scoped fix commit. Do not use external APIs, paid services, credentials, dependency changes, or broad refactors unless explicitly authorized. Add targeted tests where behavior changes and run the narrowest relevant validation. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: d04d128174
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".
BigSimmo
changed the title
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: c66aad9dd2
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".
CI triageCI failed on this PR. Automated classification of the 2 failed job(s):
Compared with main CI run #3300 (success). Classification is evidence routing, not permission to ignore a failure. Exact quarantined Playwright identities remain governed by the flake ledger. |
|
Note Autofix is a beta feature. Expect some limitations and changes as we gather feedback and continue to improve it. Autofix skipped. No unresolved CodeRabbit review comments with fix instructions found. |
|
Note Autofix is a beta feature. Expect some limitations and changes as we gather feedback and continue to improve it. Autofix skipped. No unresolved CodeRabbit review comments with fix instructions found. |
1 participant
Summary
Verification
git diff --checkon the exact PR diff.npm run ensureon the exact pre-fix branch snapshot; project identity verified athttp://localhost:4298.593d5aa00.Risk and rollout
Clinical Governance Preflight
Clinical KB Database(sjrfecxgysukkwxsowpy)Review disposition
callVersionedRetrievalRpccall site with an abort-signal regression test.