Repository navigation
Acceptance: method key 2a marks an answer that leaves the sweep and the fix unordered - #26
Open
LTSCommerce wants to merge 21 commits into
Open
LTSCommerce wants to merge 21 commits into
LTSCommerce wants to merge 21 commits into
Conversation
…eys that ask what the question asks Keys list the required elements per part of each question, questions ask for exactly those, a confusion finding is settled run by run and blocks only in text the change wrote or altered (others go to acceptance/ROUTED.md), single misses count against the document only where the key names the reading, and open marking points are settled in the rules before the next run rather than invented per run. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
One route for each kind of change to the test (quotation and new item in the specification pull request, everything else a process change); ROUTED.md and runs/ are records, not process files; question 1 defined once; open points marked in a stated direction; quoting needs a six-word run; a finding lies in the change's text when any sentence of its paragraph changed; wrong readings stated as grade plus reasoning; keys ask only what their questions ask (detector 2a, toolchain 2c); the question 3 tables separate the condition from the explanation. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Question 1 defined once (first six bullets, same clause counts once, a bullet on neither list not counted); the verdict items of question 3 ask for their reason and the keys state each as an accepted answer with a condition; a finding lies in the change's text also where the readers set it against that text, read against the merge base; the cohort's model is the version the editor names; a keyed miss whose fix would change an obligation is routed and waited for; the question set is the one list of load-bearing questions; ROUTED.md defines its status column and links its clauses. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Two routes for changing the test, with a changed or removed obligation's key item following the text in the specification pull request; an open point holds up only its own pull request; a fresh run follows a change to the document, not to the record; detector 2b names both things; the section 7 and section 9 reasons accept every failing clause; the restatement rule reads plainly; ROUTED.md defines a finding as ACCEPTANCE.md does. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The method key lists fixing the original defect with a reproducing test among the obligations, says a bullet on the verdict resting on reproduction describes the reviewer, and says that an answer to 2a naming no step does not state the steps. The toolchain key lists the governing principle, says a bullet on how conformance is measured is neither correct nor wrong, and accepts a section 9 reason that points to the grades given. acceptance/ROUTED.md gains the findings runs 53 to 59 routed, and the runs that raised existing rows again. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The toolchain key counts a bullet on not describing partial conformance as conformance, and says a bullet calling section 7 recommended or a SHOULD asserts no obligation. acceptance/ROUTED.md gains clause 3.4's "tremendous" sentence from run 61 and notes that run on the two rows it raised again. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
acceptance/ROUTED.md gains the detector's clause 6.1 paragraph on a project's own rule, from run 63, and notes run 64 on the four method rows it raised again. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…ows from run 67 acceptance/ROUTED.md gains a Closed table, with the detector's clauses 7.1, 8.1, 5.3 and 6.1 rows closed by editor/detector-route-rule's run 66, notes run 66 on the clause 6.1 row on a project's own rule, and gains the toolchain's clause 6.2 heading and documented-check paragraph from run 67. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
… run 64 acceptance/ROUTED.md gains the passages runs 19 to 30 on the semantic-detectors change named in text that change no longer touches (the Narrowing entry, section 4's lead-in to the owner's decisions, clause 3.1's paragraph on independent techniques and the section 3 table's 3.1 row), notes those runs on the rows they raised again, and closes the method's two-bounds paragraph and bundled-defence paragraph by editor/defined-terms's run 64. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…s 68 to 71 The method key lists the sentence behind a narrowing, and the owner's decision where it cannot be written, among the obligations, after three readers of run 70 restated it. acceptance/ROUTED.md gains Appendix A's closing paragraph from run 70 and the detector's clause 5.3 from run 69, and notes runs 68, 70 and 71 on the rows they raised again. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…ED 5.3 row adds run 75 Run 72's open point: three readers graded clause 4.3 on the condition that the ignore comment is Lintomatic's only suppression route, and the key did not say which case the fixture presents. The 4.3 row now says so, and such a grade is the grade for this case. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…parted paragraph is the change's text Settles the open points of runs 76, 77, 78 and 80. ACCEPTANCE.md says a remark that another document was not supplied, or that a term is defined only there, is a note however much of the document it quotes to locate the reference; and that a paragraph the pull request parts from what it refers to, by inserting a paragraph between them or moving either, is the change's text. The Lintomatic fixture says `check --only` prints its findings as `check` does, and the detector key's 4.2 row says so and which case a conditional grade is for. ROUTED gains the toolchain 6.1 Project record sentence (run 76) and the detector 4.2 sentence on a detector failing 4.1 (run 78, taken by editor/defined-terms); the 4.3 row links the section, whose heading the toolchain change rewrites. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
… 6.2 and 6.3 speak only of exceptions Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…, from run 83 Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…es 6.1, 6.2 and 6.4 Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
… 6.4 again Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…inst 6.2 new Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…does not state the order The question asks in what order, so element (2) is stated only where the answer puts the sweep before the fix of the defect handed. An answer saying the defect is fixed after some steps and, elsewhere, that every instance is swept and fixed, without saying which comes first, does not state it; a quotation such as clause 3.4's "before fixing anything" does; an answer whose own sentences put the fix before the sweep is wrong. Settles the open point run 89 recorded. A process change, recorded in acceptance/CHANGES.md; no cohort. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This branch has not been deployed
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What this changes
A change to the acceptance process, not to a specification:
acceptance/method/KEY.md, item2a, and a line in
acceptance/CHANGES.md. No cohort runs on it, as ACCEPTANCE.md's "Changes tothis process" says.
This branch is cut from
editor/acceptance-coherent(#22), which is not merged yet, so the diffagainst
nextincludes #22. This change is the last commit only. Merge #22 first.2a asks what a practitioner does before fixing the defect they were handed, and in what order.
Element (2) is the order, with the fix after the sweep. The key now says:
that fix;
swept and fixed, without saying which comes first, does not state element (2);
to the item's wrong assertions).
The observed case
Run 89 (pull request #18) recorded this as an open point. One reader's 2a was "...and only then
fix. Sweep and fix every instance.", with no quotation of clause 3.4's sweep sentence. The
open-point rule marked it for the reader. Since the question asks in what order, the key's own
purpose supports marking such an answer as not stating the order. This settles the point for
runs whose readers start after it merges and changes no mark already given.
Review
Two independent reviews by a fresh agent that did not draft the change, reading ACCEPTANCE.md,
acceptance/README.mdand both changed files in full.sentence could be read as conflicting (now reconciled). A quotation could rescue a contrary
answer (now ruled out, and fix-before-sweep added to the wrong assertions). The CHANGES.md
line said "runs that start after" where ACCEPTANCE.md says "readers start after it merges"
(now corrected).
of a sentence"), and the CHANGES.md line listed as new a rule the key already had (removed).
Nothing in the change contradicts ACCEPTANCE.md or
acceptance/README.md.spec-qa.pyis clean, the unit tests pass andtools/changes.pyis clean againstnext.🤖 Generated with Claude Code