fix: fail stale-target scans closed in CI - #273
Conversation
|
@codex review Please review the exact current head |
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 938578c9bc
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
Security review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request. Reviewed commit: Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex. ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHubThis is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:
Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found. |
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Already looking forward to the next diff. Reviewed commit: ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍. Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback". |
…can-lifecycle-metadata
…elo/codex/sync-cross-worker-token-usage
…gelo/codex/repair-deep-scan-schema
…odex/unify-deep-scan-phases
…dex/sync-live-scan-context
…dex/preserve-url-scan-context
…/codex/model-native-deep-workers
…/codex/repair-workbench-migration-collisions
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 69e0409491
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
Security review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request. Reviewed commit: Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex. ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHubThis is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:
Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found. |
…gelo/codex/repair-deep-scan-schema
…odex/unify-deep-scan-phases
…dex/sync-live-scan-context
…dex/preserve-url-scan-context
…/codex/model-native-deep-workers
…/codex/repair-workbench-migration-collisions
…nto mdangelo/codex/optional-diff-scan-artifacts
…elo/codex/fail-stale-scan-targets
|
@codex review Please review the exact updated head |
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Breezy! Reviewed commit: ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍. Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback". |
The base branch was changed.
|
@codex review |
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Nice work! Reviewed commit: ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍. Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback". |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Security Review
Here are some automated security review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 0db2ba3612
Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex.
ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHub
This is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:
- You comment "@codex security review"
- A regular code review gets triggered (for example, "@codex review" or when a PR is opened), and you’re opted in so security review runs alongside code review
Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found.
| targetWarnings.has(warning) | ||
| ? { kind: "target_changed" } | ||
| : undefined, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The SDK now marks target drift only via the optional onWarning callback, then still returns a successful ScanResult. The normal scan command converts that callback into exit 2, but bulk-scan calls security.run() without any warning observer and only fails on incomplete coverage (sdk/typescript/src/multiscan.ts:183-194). A stale-target scan with complete coverage is therefore recorded as completed in bulk/CI workflows. Surface target drift on ScanResult or throw a typed error so bulk-scan can fail/retry it.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
3 participants
Summary
Stack
mdangelo/codex/optional-diff-scan-artifactsso this review contains only its atomic upstream change.Verification