Skip to content

test: guard kernel architecture boundaries - #204

Merged
bigboateng merged 4 commits into
mainfrom
test/kernel-delivery-boundary-guards
Aug 12, 2026
Merged

test: guard kernel architecture boundaries#204
bigboateng merged 4 commits into
mainfrom
test/kernel-delivery-boundary-guards

Conversation

@bigboateng

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Summary

  • parse every kernel Go import declaration and reject software-delivery dependencies or fixtures
  • add an expected-failure marker for the pending generic-runtime production consumer migration
  • run the full Go race suite on Ubuntu and a focused race job for the kernel and software-delivery effects
  • add an append-only release note

Boundary conformance

  • Boundary: general kernel to software-delivery domain and CI execution
  • Control law: kernel source and tests remain domain-neutral; race-sensitive packages run under the detector; the missing production consumer stays visible until migration T5
  • Failure behavior: repository-contract or CI fails closed
  • Production semantics: unchanged

Verification

  • python3 -m unittest discover -s .github/tests -p 'test_*.py' -q (35 tests, one expected T5 failure)
  • go test -race ./...
  • go test -race ./kernel ./internal/softwaredelivery/effects
  • go vet ./...
  • go build ./...
  • release-note validation and preflight
  • git diff --check

@cursor

cursor Bot commented Aug 12, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Bugbot is not enabled for your account, so this pull request was not reviewed.

Enable Bugbot in the Cursor dashboard to get automatic reviews on future PRs.

@github-actions github-actions Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Codex automated review

Verdict: patch is incorrect
Confidence: 0.96

The new import parser does not cover a legal, gofmt-preserved Go import form, so the migration guard can silently miss a real production consumer. Model-level verification is not recommended because this patch changes repository checks and CI rather than control-state semantics.

Comment thread .github/tests/test_repository_contract.py Outdated

@github-actions github-actions Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Codex automated review

Verdict: patch is incorrect
Confidence: 0.98

The new architecture guard misses a valid Go import form, so a forbidden kernel dependency can be committed while CI remains green. Model-level verification is not recommended; a parser regression test is sufficient.

Comment thread .github/tests/test_repository_contract.py Outdated

@github-actions github-actions Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Codex automated review

Verdict: patch is incorrect
Confidence: 0.99

The CI workflow rename disconnects the existing automatic release trigger, blocking release publication. Model-level verification is not recommended; the failure is deterministic and directly established by the workflow configuration.

Comment thread .github/workflows/ci.yml

@github-actions github-actions Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Codex automated review

Verdict: patch is correct
Confidence: 0.93

No actionable defect was established. The CI rename remains aligned with the automatic-release trigger, and the added architecture/race checks do not change runtime control behavior. Model-level verification is not recommended before merge.

@bigboateng
bigboateng merged commit 68668ec into main Aug 12, 2026
17 checks passed
@bigboateng
bigboateng deleted the test/kernel-delivery-boundary-guards branch August 12, 2026 13:32
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.

1 participant