fix(queue): observe unresolved required-contexts lookups (#8358)

[claytonlin1110]

Summary

• Direction (a): keep RequiredStatusContextsLookup.resolved and consume it at the live-gate call site in runAgentMaintenancePlanAndExecute.
• When a branch-protection required-contexts read fails (resolved: false), emit loopover_required_contexts_unresolved_total and a structured required_contexts_branch_protection_unresolved warn — gate/merge/close disposition is unchanged.
• Cover the previously untested onFetchFailure path in cachedRequiredStatusContexts plus both branches of the new observer helper.

Closes #8358

Scope

• The PR title follows type(scope): short summary Conventional Commit format, for example fix(api): restore profile access checks.
• This PR is focused and does not mix unrelated backend, UI, MCP, docs, dependency, and deploy changes.
• This follows CONTRIBUTING.md and does not reintroduce GitHub Pages, VitePress, site/, or CNAME.
• I linked a currently open issue this PR resolves (e.g. Closes #123) — a linked open issue is required for every contributor PR.

Validation

• git diff --check
• npm run actionlint
• npm run typecheck
• npm run test:coverage locally; codecov/patch requires ≥99% coverage of the lines AND branches you changed (aim for 100% on your diff so CI variance does not fail near the threshold). Global coverage is a non-blocking trend with a loose 90% backstop, not the gate.
• npm run test:workers
• npm run build:mcp
• npm run test:mcp-pack
• npm run ui:openapi:check
• npm run ui:lint
• npm run ui:typecheck
• npm run ui:build
• npm audit --audit-level=moderate
• New or changed behavior has unit/integration tests for new branches, fallback paths, and sanitizer boundaries

If any required check was skipped, explain why:

• Backend-only queue change. Validated with focused vitest (test/unit/ci-resolution.test.ts + the existing queue memoization regression that hits the processors call site under a 403 branch-protection response), git diff --check, and npm audit --audit-level=moderate. Full npm run test:ci left to CI.

Safety

• No secrets, wallet details, hotkeys, coldkeys, user PATs, private keys, raw trust scores, private rankings, or private maintainer evidence are exposed.
• Public GitHub text stays sanitized, low-noise, and does not imply compensation guarantees or optimization tactics.
• Auth, cookie, CORS, GitHub App, Cloudflare, or session changes include negative-path tests.
• API/OpenAPI/MCP behavior is updated and tested where needed.
• UI changes use live API data or real empty/error/loading states, not production mock/demo fallbacks.
• Visible UI changes include a UI Evidence section below with JPG/JPEG or PNG screenshots arranged as organized, captioned, clickable thumbnails. SVG screenshots are not used as review evidence. Review-only screenshots or recordings are not committed to the repository.
• Public docs/changelogs are updated where needed; changelogs are only edited for release-prep PRs.

UI Evidence

N/A — no visible UI change (queue observability only).

State / title	JPG/PNG evidence
N/A

Notes

• Chose observability over deletion: resolved already gates durable CI-state write-through in cachedFetchLiveCiAggregate; this wires the remaining silent live-gate call site.
• Helper lives in ci-resolution.ts next to cachedRequiredStatusContexts; processors only calls it (no disposition change).

[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 90.36%. Comparing base (9075a2c) to head (40efbdd).
⚠️ Report is 6 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #8433      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   89.58%   90.36%   +0.77%     
==========================================
  Files          97       99       +2     
  Lines       22706    25947    +3241     
  Branches     3872     5014    +1142     
==========================================
+ Hits        20341    23446    +3105     
- Misses       2187     2233      +46     
- Partials      178      268      +90     

Flag	Coverage Δ
shard-1	80.43% <83.33%> (?)
shard-2	31.90% <100.00%> (?)
shard-3	40.01% <33.33%> (?)

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/queue/ci-resolution.ts	98.64% <100.00%> (ø)
src/queue/processors.ts	95.73% <100.00%> (ø)

[loopover-orb]

Caution

🛑 LoopOver review result - fixes required

_{Review updated: 2026-07-24 13:19:31 UTC}

4 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · CI failing · blocked

🛑 Suggested Action - Fix Blockers

Review summary
This PR wires the previously-computed but never-consumed `RequiredStatusContextsLookup.resolved` flag into an observability call at the live-gate call site in `runAgentMaintenancePlanAndExecute`, adding a metric increment and structured warn when a branch-protection read fails, with gate/merge/close disposition left unchanged as claimed. The change is correctly traced to source: `cachedRequiredStatusContexts` (src/queue/ci-resolution.ts:79-105) already set `resolved: !branchProtectionFetchFailed` before this PR, and this PR is the first to read it downstream — closing the exact gap #8358 identifies. Tests cover both branches of the new observer plus the previously-untested `onFetchFailure` path, and the queue.test.ts regression asserts the metric increments on an actual 403 branch-protection failure, which is a real (not fabricated) path.

Nits — 5 non-blocking

• src/queue/ci-resolution.ts:122 uses `console.warn` directly for structured logging; confirm this matches the repo's existing convention (other call sites in this file appear to use similar console.warn/JSON.stringify patterns, so this is likely consistent, but worth a quick check).
• The PR only wires `observeRequiredContextsLookup` at the `runAgentMaintenancePlanAndExecute` call site (src/queue/processors.ts:2881); `cachedRequiredStatusContexts` has other internal callers (e.g. `fetchLiveCiAggregateWithRequiredContexts` in ci-resolution.ts) whose `resolved:false` outcomes remain unobserved — worth confirming in the PR description whether that's intentional scope-limiting or a gap.
• The FAILED `validate-code`/`validate` checks show no detail and this branch is 6 commits behind default — per the base-branch-status note, this is more likely explained by the branch being stale than a defect in this diff; a rebase would clarify.
• Consider whether the other `cachedRequiredStatusContexts` callers (not just the maintenance-plan disposition path) should also call `observeRequiredContextsLookup`, or document why only this one call site needs it.
• Rebase onto the current default branch to rule out the undetailed `validate-code`/`validate` CI failures being caused by drift rather than this diff.

CI checks failing

• validate
• validate-code

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	#8358
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: 399 registered-repo PR(s), 251 merged, 92 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	claytonlin1110; Gittensor profile; 399 PR(s), 92 issue(s).
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: clean · value: minor · LLM: moderate

Linked issue satisfaction

Addressed
The PR chooses direction (a): it consumes `resolved` at the sole call site via a new `observeRequiredContextsLookup` helper that emits a metric and structured warn when `resolved === false`, without altering gate/merge/close disposition, and adds tests covering both the `onFetchFailure` path in `cachedRequiredStatusContexts` and the observer's branches.

Review context

• Author: claytonlin1110
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: Python, JavaScript, TypeScript, Rust
• Official Gittensor activity: 399 PR(s), 92 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 is closing this pull request on the maintainer's behalf (CI is failing (validate, validate-code)). This is an automated maintenance action — to pursue this change, please open a new pull request with the issues resolved. Closed PRs may be analyzed later to improve review accuracy, but they are not automatically reopened or re-reviewed.