fix(miner): carry assignees through normalizeCandidate in opportunity-ranker

[jeffrey701]

What

RankedCandidateIssue = RawCandidateIssue & {...score fields} in
packages/loopover-miner/lib/opportunity-ranker.ts, and RawCandidateIssue carries
assignees: string[] (populated by normalizeIssue/assigneeLogins in opportunity-fanout.ts,
#7040). But normalizeCandidate re-copied every other field onto its return object — owner,
repo, repoFullName, issueNumber, title, labels, commentsCount, createdAt, updatedAt,
htmlUrl, aiPolicyAllowed, aiPolicySource — and silently dropped assignees. So discover --json's
result.ranked (and options.onResult's payload) omitted a field the RankedCandidateIssue type
promises. The pre-ranking exclusion filter isn't affected — it runs on raw fan-out candidates — but
consumers of the ranked output lose the field.

Change

normalizeCandidate now copies assignees, validated exactly the way the sibling labels field is
(array-of-strings, defaulting to [] when missing or malformed). No .trim() — the producer
(assigneeLogins) already emits clean GitHub logins filtered to length > 0, so the check mirrors
that (typeof assignee === "string" && assignee.length > 0). No other field's normalization,
RawCandidateIssue, RankedCandidateIssue, or normalizeIssue is touched.

Validation

Two new tests in test/unit/miner-opportunity-ranker.test.ts:

• a candidate with a populated assignees array survives rankCandidateIssues with assignees
  present and correct in the ranked output;
• missing (undefined), non-array ("not-an-array"), and mixed-invalid ([42, "", "keep"])
  assignees fields normalize to [] / ["keep"] rather than throwing or propagating invalid values
  — exercising both sides of the Array.isArray guard and both operands of the filter predicate.

npx vitest run test/unit/miner-opportunity-ranker.test.ts → 22 pass. Every changed line and branch
is covered.

Closes #9330

[superagent-security]

Superagent didn't find any vulnerabilities or security issues in this PR.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 75.40%. Comparing base (1227894) to head (d3a7359).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #9343      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   75.38%   75.40%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         275      276       +1     
  Lines       58023    58082      +59     
  Branches     6181     6205      +24     
==========================================
+ Hits        43739    43798      +59     
  Misses      14014    14014              
  Partials      270      270              

Flag	Coverage Δ
backend	100.00% <100.00%> (?)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
packages/loopover-miner/lib/opportunity-ranker.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

[loopover-orb]

Tip

✅ LoopOver review result - approve/merge recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-27 13:39:01 UTC}

2 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · readiness 95/100 · CI green · clean

✅ Suggested Action - Approve/Merge

• safe to merge

Review summary
The AI review returned non-blocking notes for this change but did not include a separate narrative summary. Review the nits below before deciding this PR.

Nits — 3 non-blocking

• opportunity-ranker.ts's `assignees` filter doesn't trim whitespace-only strings the way `labels` does, so a stray `" "` entry from a non-conforming producer would survive as `[" "]` instead of being dropped — low risk given the documented upstream guarantee, but worth a one-line comment reference to that trust boundary if the producer ever changes.
• The inline comment at opportunity-ranker.ts (`// ams: opportunity-ranker silently drops assignees despite RankedCandidateIssue's type promising it #9330: ...`) is fairly long for a single field; could be trimmed to one line since the rationale is already in the PR description.
• Consider asserting in the discovery-index-contract.ts cross-check (or a shared test) that `normalizeCandidate` and `normalizeDiscoveryIndexCandidate` stay in sync on `assignees` handling, since the two implementations duplicate the same validation logic independently.

Decision drivers

• ✅ Code review — No blockers (1 reviewer)
• ✅ Gate result — Passing (No configured blocker found.)

Context & advisory signals — never blocks the verdict

Signal	Result	Evidence
Linked issue	✅ Linked	#9330
Related work	✅ No active overlap found	No same-issue or scoped active PR overlap found.
Change scope	✅ 20/20	Low review scope from cached public metadata (1 linked issue).
Validation posture	✅ 25/25	PR body includes validation/test evidence.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 83 registered-repo PR(s), 38 merged, 17 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	jeffrey701; Gittensor profile; 83 PR(s), 17 issue(s).
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: clean · value: minor · LLM: minor

Linked issue satisfaction

Addressed
normalizeCandidate now copies and validates assignees using the same array-of-strings pattern as labels, defaulting to [] on missing/malformed input, and new tests cover both a populated-assignees case and missing/malformed cases including mixed-invalid arrays.

Review context

• Author: jeffrey701
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: Rust, TypeScript, Clojure, JavaScript
• Official Gittensor activity: 83 PR(s), 17 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Start here: Triage stale or unlinked PRs.

Signal definitions

• Related work = same linked issue, overlapping active PRs, or title/path similarity.
• Change scope = cached public metadata such as size labels, draft state, and review-burden hints.
• Validation posture = whether the PR provides enough public validation/test evidence for maintainer review.
• Contributor workload = public contributor activity and cleanup pressure, not a repo-wide quality failure.
• Contributor context = public GitHub/Gittensor identity context; non-Gittensor status is not a blocker.

🧪 Chat with LoopOver

Ask LoopOver a question about this PR directly in a comment — grounded only in the same cached, public-safe facts shown above, never a new claim.

• @loopover ask <question> answers contribution-quality Q&A with source citations and freshness.
• @loopover chat <question> answers in natural prose from cached decision-pack facts via local inference (maintainer/collaborator; read-only).
• A plain-language @loopover mention with a real question is routed to the closest matching read-only command automatically — no exact syntax required.

Full command reference: https://loopover.ai/docs/loopover-commands

🧪 Experimental — new and may change.

_{🟩 Safe / merged · 🟦 Advisory · 🟨 Held for review · 🟥 Blocked / closed}

---

💰 Earn for open-source contributions like this. Gittensor lets GitHub contributors earn for the work they already do — register to start earning →.

Checked by LoopOver, a quiet PR intelligence layer for OSS maintainers.

• Re-run LoopOver review

[loopover-orb]

LoopOver approves — the gate is satisfied and CI is green.