Issue 179 resolution #180
Issue 179 resolution #180
Conversation
Co-authored-by: dominikus.nold <dominikus.nold@web.de>
Co-authored-by: dominikus.nold <dominikus.nold@web.de>
Co-authored-by: dominikus.nold <dominikus.nold@web.de>
|
Cursor Agent can help with this pull request. Just |
SpecFact CLI Validation Report✅ All validations passed! |
Co-authored-by: dominikus.nold <dominikus.nold@web.de>
![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: e112789a2e
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".
| if suggest_next and n > 1: | ||
| pending = [i for i in items if not i.assignees or item.story_points is not None] | ||
| if pending: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The pending-item filter for --suggest-next uses item.story_points from the currently selected story instead of each candidate (i.story_points). That means the pool of candidates changes depending on which story you are viewing: if the current story has story points, every item is considered (even those without story points); if it doesn’t, assigned items with story points are incorrectly excluded. This can skip the actual highest-value pending item or produce inconsistent recommendations across selections. Use the candidate item’s story points (i.story_points) to make the filter stable and accurate.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
Co-authored-by: dominikus.nold <dominikus.nold@web.de>
SpecFact CLI Validation Report✅ All validations passed! |
Co-authored-by: dominikus.nold <dominikus.nold@web.de>
SpecFact CLI Validation Report✅ All validations passed! |
Description
This PR addresses issue #179 by updating the patch version to 0.26.17 and introducing the
--comments(alias--annotations) flag for thespecfact backlog dailycommand. This new flag enables the inclusion of item descriptions and comment annotations in--copilot-exportand--summarize/--summarize-tooutputs, leveraging adapter capabilities (e.g., GitHub'sget_comments).Additionally, this PR includes minor formatting fixes in
openspec/config.yamlto comply withyamllintrules and updates relevant documentation to reflect the new flags and their usage.Fixes #179
New Features
--comments/--annotationsflags forspecfact backlog dailycommand.Contract References: None.
Type of Change
@icontractdecorators)Contract-First Testing Evidence
Required for all changes affecting CLI commands or public APIs:
Contract Validation
@icontractdecorators on public APIs)@beartypedecorators applied)hatch run contract-test-explorationTest Execution
hatch run contract-test-contracts✅hatch run contract-test-exploration✅hatch run contract-test-scenarios✅hatch run contract-test-full❌ (Pre-existing failures)Test Quality
How Has This Been Tested?
Contract-First Approach:
The changes were validated using existing contract tests and new unit tests.
hatch run contract-test-contractsandhatch run contract-test-scenariospassed.Manual Testing
Automated Testing
hatch test --cover -vwere observed, as detailed in the conversation summary. New unit tests for comment inclusion pass.)Test Environment
Checklist
@icontract,@beartype)Quality Gates Status
hatch run type-check)hatch run lint) (Failed due to pre-existing issues)hatch run contract-test-contracts)hatch run contract-test-exploration)hatch run contract-test-scenarios)Screenshots/Recordings (if applicable)
N/A