Skip to content

Exclude observe-auto issues from reflect ledger parsing#585

Closed
tristanmanchester wants to merge 1 commit into
peteromallet:mainfrom
tristanmanchester:fix/reflect-observe-auto-ledger-scope
Closed

Exclude observe-auto issues from reflect ledger parsing#585
tristanmanchester wants to merge 1 commit into
peteromallet:mainfrom
tristanmanchester:fix/reflect-observe-auto-ledger-scope

Conversation

@tristanmanchester
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@tristanmanchester tristanmanchester commented Apr 17, 2026

Summary

  • use accounting_ids rather than valid_ids when parsing the reflect coverage ledger
  • keep observe-auto issues out of the reflect disposition ledger so their decision_source stays preserved
  • add a direct reflect-stage regression proving observe-auto issues are excluded from the parser input

Testing

  • uv run --with pytest python -m pytest desloppify/tests/commands/plan/test_triage_stage_flow_observe_reflect_organize_direct.py -k "reflect_rejects_incomplete_issue_accounting or excludes_observe_auto_from_disposition_ledger"

@peteromallet
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Thanks for the fix. I accepted the underlying issue, but implemented it with changes on this branch in 589216d0 rather than merging this PR directly.

Decision: IMPLEMENT_WITH_CHANGES. Reflect disposition parsing now uses the same accounting ID set that excludes observe-auto skips, and fresh reflect persistence preserves existing observe_auto decisions instead of clearing their decision, target, and source. I added an end-to-end persistence regression to cover the case Stage 1 called out.

Validation: PYENV_VERSION=3.11.11 python -m pytest desloppify/tests/commands/plan/test_reflect_disposition_ledger.py desloppify/tests/commands/plan/test_triage_runner.py desloppify/tests/commands/plan/test_triage_split_modules_direct.py desloppify/tests/commands/plan/test_triage_stage_flow_observe_reflect_organize_direct.py desloppify/tests/plan/test_unified_disposition_map.py -q

@peteromallet
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Closing as superseded by 589216d0 on the review branch.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants