Skip to content

Lock app-safe missing retention posture#622

Merged
flyingrobots merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
cycle/573-app-safe-missing-retention-semantics
Jun 28, 2026
Merged

Lock app-safe missing retention posture#622
flyingrobots merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
cycle/573-app-safe-missing-retention-semantics

Conversation

@flyingrobots

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Closes #573

Summary

  • Add retained_reading_missing_payload_is_not_empty_success to lock app-safe missing-retention behavior for reading payload bytes, reading envelope bytes, and retained receipt support.
  • Keep applied/rejected intent outcomes intact when retained receipt support is unavailable, while NoMatchingReceiptEntry remains a typed MissingRetention obstruction.
  • Add the exact witness to the durability-release slice and update the workflow/changelog signposts.

Validation

  • cargo fmt --check
  • cargo test -p warp-core --test retained_evidence_ref_tests retained_reading_missing_payload_is_not_empty_success
  • cargo test -p warp-core --test retained_evidence_ref_tests
  • cargo clippy -p warp-core --test retained_evidence_ref_tests -- -D warnings
  • cargo test -p xtask test_slice_durability_release_stays_explicit
  • npx markdownlint-cli2 CHANGELOG.md docs/workflows.md
  • git diff --check
  • Pre-commit hook: cargo clippy -p warp-core --lib, cargo check -p warp-core, markdownlint
  • Pre-push hook: cargo fmt --all -- --check, cargo test -p warp-core --test retained_evidence_ref_tests, Prettier markdown check

Test speed note

  • The app-safe retained-evidence witness is now an exact integration-test target in durability-release, avoiding Cargo's package-level name filter and keeping local iteration on this slice focused.

@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Jun 28, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Warning

Review limit reached

@flyingrobots, we couldn't start this review because you've reached your PR review rate limit.

More reviews will be available in 22 minutes and 48 seconds. Learn how PR review limits work.

Your organization has run out of usage credits. Purchase more credits in the billing tab to continue.

⌛ How to resolve this issue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

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 credits.

🚦 How do rate 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 see our Fair Usage Limits Policy for further information.

ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 594d835e-5f08-4571-9a34-abfc5e6bb7ed

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 2576de2 and 08be838.

📒 Files selected for processing (4)
  • CHANGELOG.md
  • crates/warp-core/tests/retained_evidence_ref_tests.rs
  • docs/workflows.md
  • xtask/src/main.rs
✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests
  • Commit unit tests in branch cycle/573-app-safe-missing-retention-semantics

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.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner Author

Code Lawyer update

Item Status Evidence Resolving commit
#573 App-safe missing retention semantics Resolved Added retained_reading_missing_payload_is_not_empty_success; durability-release now includes the exact witness; changelog/workflow signposts updated. 08be838
CI Clean 36/36 reported checks passed, including CI, det-gates, Security Audit, SPDX Header Check, and CodeRabbit status. 08be838
Review threads Clean GraphQL reviewThreads(first:100) returned zero nodes. 08be838
CodeRabbit Non-blocking Status context is SUCCESS; top-level comment reports review rate limit/credits only, with no actionable inline review. 08be838

Local validation before opening:

  • cargo fmt --check
  • cargo test -p warp-core --test retained_evidence_ref_tests retained_reading_missing_payload_is_not_empty_success
  • cargo test -p warp-core --test retained_evidence_ref_tests
  • cargo clippy -p warp-core --test retained_evidence_ref_tests -- -D warnings
  • cargo test -p xtask test_slice_durability_release_stays_explicit
  • npx markdownlint-cli2 CHANGELOG.md docs/workflows.md
  • git diff --check
  • pre-commit and pre-push hooks passed

@flyingrobots
flyingrobots merged commit 68b3875 into main Jun 28, 2026
36 checks passed
@flyingrobots
flyingrobots deleted the cycle/573-app-safe-missing-retention-semantics branch June 28, 2026 04:50
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

Status: Done

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[GP4-S5] App-Safe Missing Retention Semantics

1 participant