mirror of
https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb.git
synced 2026-10-23 08:09:02 +03:00
ec5106b3b8
Summary: The Claude/Codex CI reviewer was posting PR comments like "the review has been written to review-findings.md" instead of the review itself, and the comment footer cited claude_md/code_review.md as the review methodology even though CI stopped feeding that file to the model in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/14507 (it switched to claude_md/ci_review_prompt.md). code_review.md had been orphaned from CI for months while still advertising itself as the CI methodology, so edits to it (e.g. the "post directly in your response" note) had no effect on CI. Separately, an over-long review exceeded GitHub's per-comment character limit and was rejected outright, losing the whole review. Changes: - ci_review_prompt.md: make the final response the review -- it becomes the PR comment verbatim -- and forbid ending the turn with a meta-summary such as "written to review-findings.md". review-findings.md is demoted to a recovery backstop; the per-phase incremental writes and the turn-limit recovery path are unchanged, so both the normal and recovery comment paths still produce a real review. - Repoint the "Review methodology" footer in parse-claude-review.js and parse-codex-review.js to claude_md/ci_review_prompt.md (the file CI actually uses), so the citation no longer points at a deleted file. - build-ai-review-comment.js: cap the assembled comment at GitHub's 65536-char limit, trimming only the model response (the sole unbounded input) and appending a pointer to the execution-log artifact, so an oversized review is truncated cleanly instead of rejected by GitHub. The header, footer, and <details> scaffolding are always preserved. - Delete claude_md/code_review.md (CI-dead since https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/14507; superseded locally). - Add claude_md/manual_code_review.md: a lightweight, single-reviewer local wrapper around ci_review_prompt.md (no multi-agent team/debate, no scratch files, inline output) for running a modest review by hand. It sources its methodology from ci_review_prompt.md so it cannot drift. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/15087 Test Plan: - The workflow scripts have no CI unit coverage; verified both parse-*-review.js still parse, and that no reference to code_review.md remains anywhere. - Dry-ran manual_code_review.md by reviewing the current commit locally; it produced a right-sized single-reviewer report without spawning agents or writing files, and helped find+fix the comment limit issue. - Exercised the end-to-end GitHub CI path (per https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/14696, review-workflow changes not yet on main can only be tested from a branch on facebook/rocksdb): pushed these changes to the fix_hidden_review_details_test branch and ran the Claude Code Review workflow (claude-review.yml) via "Run workflow" against PR https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/15079, confirming the posted comment carries the full review inline (not a review-findings.md summary) with the ci_review_prompt.md footer. https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/actions/runs/31537781229 https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/15079#issuecomment-5259127037 Reviewed By: xingbowang Differential Revision: D115635558 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: d3ca7188162a086cd42d7b8bd8e60f3fc3df3bad