[PR #7088] [CLOSED] fix(artifacts): name the compare_artifacts side of a rejected summary #7633

Closed
opened 2026-11-03 13:39:15 +00:00 by bsakaguchi · 0 comments
Owner

📋 Pull Request Information

Original PR: https://github.com/morluto/rea/pull/7088
Author: @Adolanium
Created: 10/25/2026
Status: ❌ Closed

Base: main ← Head: fix/compare-artifacts-issue-side


📝 Commits (1)

  • 4ccbe4d fix(artifacts): name the compare_artifacts side of a rejected summary

📊 Changes

3 files changed (+40 additions, -8 deletions)

View changed files

📝 src/application/artifacts/ArtifactComparisonEvidence.test.ts (+35 -7)
📝 src/application/artifacts/ArtifactComparisonEvidence.ts (+3 -1)
📝 src/server/registerArtifactComparisonTool.ts (+2 -0)

📄 Description

Summary

Fixes #7089.

When compare_artifacts is given an inspect_analysis_view Evidence that is not an artifact inventory summary, the input issue names the path ["evidence"]. The tool's input is { left, right }, so that path names no input field and does not say which side was wrong. The issue now names the supplied side.

Problem and expected behavior

resolveArtifactComparisonEvidence in src/application/artifacts/ArtifactComparisonEvidence.ts returned { path: ["evidence"], reason: "invalid_value" }. The comparison input schema in src/domain/artifactComparison.ts is z.strictObject({ left, right }), and the domain owner already reports an invalid inventory at [side].

Expected: { path: ["left"] } or { path: ["right"] } for the side that carried the wrong summary.

Change and scope

  • ArtifactComparisonEvidence.ts: resolveArtifactComparisonEvidence takes the side it resolves and uses it as the issue path.
  • src/server/registerArtifactComparisonTool.ts: passes "left" and "right" from its two call sites.
  • The existing tests pass "left".

Not included: the parent-reference and integrity errors in the same function are unchanged.

Follow the contribution scope.
Unresolved scope, authority, side effects, or required verification block
integration. Link the required maintainer scope decision for new providers or
capabilities involving target execution, injection, mutation, or protection
recovery; ordinary fixes within existing boundaries may state "not applicable".
Draft PRs may leave the scope decision pending and the readiness and merge checklists
unchecked. Maintainers can help resolve open questions.

Contribution scope: not applicable. This is a fix inside the existing artifact comparison.

Contract and boundary impact

  • Semantic owner and earliest changed stage: resolveArtifactComparisonEvidence, which resolves each supplied side.
  • Contribution scope fit and linked maintainer decision: not applicable.
  • CLI and MCP/tool-catalog contract: the error code stays invalid_request; the issue path changes from ["evidence"] to the supplied side.
  • Provider, bridge, target-format, or platform compatibility: none.
  • Evidence, artifact, provenance, or reconstruction contract: none.
  • Target selection, authority, upstream behavior, and cleanup details (if applicable): the fault is reported against the caller's selected input.
  • Generated metadata (docs/public/product-catalog.json), package, or installation impact (CI generates and validates ignored catalogs and skills/; edit authored instructions in .agents/skills/reverse-engineer-anything/ and never commit build outputs): none.

Expected effects (check known effects; use documentation-only on its own).
Unchecked items do not establish absence; leave uncertainties visible.

  • Read existing files or captured data.
  • Launch or attach to a process.
  • Inject instrumentation or run scripts/code.
  • Change process memory, registers, files, or configuration.
  • Contact network services.
  • Recover protected code or work around protections.
  • Documentation or usability only; no target interaction.
  • Not sure yet; investigation or maintainer guidance needed.

Evidence and regression coverage

  • Tests added or updated: src/application/artifacts/ArtifactComparisonEvidence.test.ts, "names the compare_artifacts side whose summary is not an artifact inventory": a summary whose result is not an inventory, resolved as "right", gives AnalysisInputError with issues: [{ path: ["right"], reason: "invalid_value" }].
  • Base reproduction or other evidence: with ArtifactComparisonEvidence.ts from upstream/main 80673b22a and the new test, the test fails.
  • User-visible CLI/MCP output (if applicable): the invalid_request details of compare_artifacts for a wrong summary.
  • Remaining proof gaps: covered at the application function; no MCP round trip for this case.

For evidence-bearing changes:

  • Observed, derived, and inferred claims remain distinguishable.
  • Artifact identity, source provenance, and failed attempts remain preserved.
  • Unsupported, incomplete, unavailable, or uncertain outcomes remain visible.

Validation performed

On Linux (WSL Ubuntu, Node 24.22.1) at 4ccbe4d48 (on upstream/main 80673b22a), after npm ci and npm run build:cached:

  • npx tsc -p . --noEmit passed.
  • npx oxfmt applied to the changed files; node scripts/ci/static-check-report.mjs lint: 0 errors.
  • npx vitest run src/application/artifacts and the artifact comparison boundary and acceptance tests: 39 passed, in two runs.
  • The negative check above failed the new test.

Compatibility, safety, and release

  • Breaking changes or migration steps: none; the error code is unchanged.
  • Real Hopper/Ghidra, browser, or OS coverage: Linux only.
  • Package or release metadata impact: none.
  • Security, privacy, process, or containment review: none.

Author readiness

Human owner: @Adolanium

  • I reviewed the final diff and relevant existing code, understand the change and its edge cases, and take responsibility for the complete PR, including AI-assisted work.
  • I checked the evidence above, confirmed it supports the current change, and recorded meaningful validation gaps.
  • I declare this PR ready for initial maintainer review.

Before merge

  • This PR addresses a concrete problem or an agreed enhancement.
  • Material scope and authority questions are resolved, and any required maintainer scope decision covers the final diff.
  • The PR has one focused outcome and the title follows type(scope): outcome.
  • Related issue is linked, or the reason for not linking one is stated above.
  • Tests cover changed observable behavior and meaningful failure paths.
  • Owning docs, contracts, and generated metadata are updated where needed.
  • User-visible CLI/MCP changes include representative output.
  • I checked the final diff for secrets, unrelated cleanup, and unsupported claims.

🔄 This issue represents a GitHub Pull Request. It cannot be merged through Gitea due to API limitations.

## 📋 Pull Request Information **Original PR:** https://github.com/morluto/rea/pull/7088 **Author:** [@Adolanium](https://github.com/Adolanium) **Created:** 10/25/2026 **Status:** ❌ Closed **Base:** `main` ← **Head:** `fix/compare-artifacts-issue-side` --- ### 📝 Commits (1) - [`4ccbe4d`](https://github.com/morluto/rea/commit/4ccbe4d48ea84f432d181759ca4a5ad96fc36baa) fix(artifacts): name the compare_artifacts side of a rejected summary ### 📊 Changes **3 files changed** (+40 additions, -8 deletions) <details> <summary>View changed files</summary> 📝 `src/application/artifacts/ArtifactComparisonEvidence.test.ts` (+35 -7) 📝 `src/application/artifacts/ArtifactComparisonEvidence.ts` (+3 -1) 📝 `src/server/registerArtifactComparisonTool.ts` (+2 -0) </details> ### 📄 Description ## Summary Fixes #7089. When `compare_artifacts` is given an `inspect_analysis_view` Evidence that is not an artifact inventory summary, the input issue names the path `["evidence"]`. The tool's input is `{ left, right }`, so that path names no input field and does not say which side was wrong. The issue now names the supplied side. ## Problem and expected behavior `resolveArtifactComparisonEvidence` in `src/application/artifacts/ArtifactComparisonEvidence.ts` returned `{ path: ["evidence"], reason: "invalid_value" }`. The comparison input schema in `src/domain/artifactComparison.ts` is `z.strictObject({ left, right })`, and the domain owner already reports an invalid inventory at `[side]`. Expected: `{ path: ["left"] }` or `{ path: ["right"] }` for the side that carried the wrong summary. ## Change and scope - `ArtifactComparisonEvidence.ts`: `resolveArtifactComparisonEvidence` takes the `side` it resolves and uses it as the issue path. - `src/server/registerArtifactComparisonTool.ts`: passes `"left"` and `"right"` from its two call sites. - The existing tests pass `"left"`. Not included: the parent-reference and integrity errors in the same function are unchanged. Follow the [contribution scope](https://github.com/morluto/rea/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#contribution-scope). Unresolved scope, authority, side effects, or required verification block integration. Link the required maintainer scope decision for new providers or capabilities involving target execution, injection, mutation, or protection recovery; ordinary fixes within existing boundaries may state "not applicable". Draft PRs may leave the scope decision pending and the readiness and merge checklists unchecked. Maintainers can help resolve open questions. Contribution scope: not applicable. This is a fix inside the existing artifact comparison. ## Contract and boundary impact - Semantic owner and earliest changed stage: `resolveArtifactComparisonEvidence`, which resolves each supplied side. - Contribution scope fit and linked maintainer decision: not applicable. - CLI and MCP/tool-catalog contract: the error code stays `invalid_request`; the issue path changes from `["evidence"]` to the supplied side. - Provider, bridge, target-format, or platform compatibility: none. - Evidence, artifact, provenance, or reconstruction contract: none. - Target selection, authority, upstream behavior, and cleanup details (if applicable): the fault is reported against the caller's selected input. - Generated metadata (`docs/public/product-catalog.json`), package, or installation impact (CI generates and validates ignored catalogs and `skills/`; edit authored instructions in `.agents/skills/reverse-engineer-anything/` and never commit build outputs): none. Expected effects (check known effects; use documentation-only on its own). Unchecked items do not establish absence; leave uncertainties visible. - [x] Read existing files or captured data. - [ ] Launch or attach to a process. - [ ] Inject instrumentation or run scripts/code. - [ ] Change process memory, registers, files, or configuration. - [ ] Contact network services. - [ ] Recover protected code or work around protections. - [ ] Documentation or usability only; no target interaction. - [ ] Not sure yet; investigation or maintainer guidance needed. ## Evidence and regression coverage - Tests added or updated: `src/application/artifacts/ArtifactComparisonEvidence.test.ts`, "names the compare_artifacts side whose summary is not an artifact inventory": a summary whose result is not an inventory, resolved as `"right"`, gives `AnalysisInputError` with `issues: [{ path: ["right"], reason: "invalid_value" }]`. - Base reproduction or other evidence: with `ArtifactComparisonEvidence.ts` from upstream/main 80673b22a and the new test, the test fails. - User-visible CLI/MCP output (if applicable): the `invalid_request` details of `compare_artifacts` for a wrong summary. - Remaining proof gaps: covered at the application function; no MCP round trip for this case. For evidence-bearing changes: - [x] Observed, derived, and inferred claims remain distinguishable. - [x] Artifact identity, source provenance, and failed attempts remain preserved. - [x] Unsupported, incomplete, unavailable, or uncertain outcomes remain visible. ## Validation performed On Linux (WSL Ubuntu, Node 24.22.1) at 4ccbe4d48 (on upstream/main 80673b22a), after `npm ci` and `npm run build:cached`: - `npx tsc -p . --noEmit` passed. - `npx oxfmt` applied to the changed files; `node scripts/ci/static-check-report.mjs lint`: 0 errors. - `npx vitest run src/application/artifacts` and the artifact comparison boundary and acceptance tests: 39 passed, in two runs. - The negative check above failed the new test. ## Compatibility, safety, and release - Breaking changes or migration steps: none; the error code is unchanged. - Real Hopper/Ghidra, browser, or OS coverage: Linux only. - Package or release metadata impact: none. - Security, privacy, process, or containment review: none. ## Author readiness <!-- The human owner completes these declarations before requesting review. The PR author is the owner by default. A different owner must explicitly accept ownership on this PR. AI agents must leave these declarations to a human to dictate to them or there could be catastrophic consequences for many users of REA. Draft PRs may leave them unchecked. These declarations record initial readiness when opening the PR for review; later pushes do not require a new human sign-off. Keep the description and validation evidence current as the work changes. See CONTRIBUTING.md#pull-request-ownership-and-readiness. --> Human owner: @Adolanium - [x] I reviewed the final diff and relevant existing code, understand the change and its edge cases, and take responsibility for the complete PR, including AI-assisted work. - [x] I checked the evidence above, confirmed it supports the current change, and recorded meaningful validation gaps. - [x] I declare this PR ready for initial maintainer review. ## Before merge <!-- Draft PRs may leave pending items unchecked. Resolve material scope and authority questions before integration. --> - [ ] This PR addresses a concrete problem or an agreed enhancement. - [ ] Material scope and authority questions are resolved, and any required maintainer scope decision covers the final diff. - [ ] The PR has one focused outcome and the title follows `type(scope): outcome`. - [ ] Related issue is linked, or the reason for not linking one is stated above. - [ ] Tests cover changed observable behavior and meaningful failure paths. - [ ] Owning docs, contracts, and generated metadata are updated where needed. - [ ] User-visible CLI/MCP changes include representative output. - [ ] I checked the final diff for secrets, unrelated cleanup, and unsupported claims. --- <sub>🔄 This issue represents a GitHub Pull Request. It cannot be merged through Gitea due to API limitations.</sub>
bsakaguchi 2026-11-03 13:39:15 +00:00
Sign in to join this conversation.
No milestone
No project
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference
morluto/rea#7633
No description provided.