Skip to content

OLS-0000 Sync .ai/spec with current code - #175

Open
xrajesh wants to merge 1 commit into
openshift:mainfrom
xrajesh:spec/OLS-0000-spec-drift-sync
Open

OLS-0000 Sync .ai/spec with current code#175
xrajesh wants to merge 1 commit into
openshift:mainfrom
xrajesh:spec/OLS-0000-spec-drift-sync

Conversation

@xrajesh

@xrajesh xrajesh commented Aug 31, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Automated spec-drift sync from the spec-first health + init (alignment) skills. Compares .ai/spec against current code and corrects stale references, retires [PLANNED] markers for shipped work, and fixes module-map drift. Adds/updates health-report.md.

Highlights: correct OLS-3739 e2e status (scenario scripts landed; feature file/BDD/judge still planned)

Spec-only change (.ai/spec/** only), pre-push reviewed.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

Spec drift fix from spec-first health + init (alignment): correct OLS-3739 e2e status (scenario scripts landed; feature file/BDD/judge still planned)

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@xrajesh xrajesh added the kind/design Categorizes issue or PR as related to design. label Aug 31, 2026
@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Aug 31, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info
⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Enterprise

Run ID: 5da7b04f-1f5c-4ec5-9ff1-f6a7aec43f61

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 5ee7656 and 9dab76e.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)
  • .ai/spec/health-report.md
  • .ai/spec/what/e2e-testing.md
🔗 Linked repositories identified

CodeRabbit considers these linked repositories for cross-repo context during reviews:

  • openshift/lightspeed-agentic-operator (manual)

Included review availability: Your plan provides up to 12 included reviews per hour; 11 remain after this review.


📝 Walkthrough

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Documentation
    • Added a health report covering specification freshness, references, structure, and findability.
    • Updated end-to-end testing documentation to clarify the troubleshooting test’s current status.
    • Documented that supporting scripts and fixtures are available, while the feature file, BDD tests, LLM judge, and cluster execution remain planned.

Walkthrough

The changes correct the troubleshooting E2E implementation status and add a dated health report. The documentation distinguishes existing scenario fixtures from planned feature, BDD, judge, and cluster-run components.

Changes

Troubleshooting E2E documentation

Layer / File(s) Summary
Align troubleshooting implementation status
.ai/spec/what/e2e-testing.md
The verification map marks troubleshooting.feature as planned. The troubleshooting section documents the implemented fixtures and the planned feature, BDD tests, LLM judge, and cluster run mode.
Record specification health findings
.ai/spec/health-report.md
The health report records the stale troubleshooting specification, confirms no structural or findability concerns, and verifies the planned or removed markers for the listed OLS items.

Merge Risk: ⚪ Minimal · up to 9dab7

This is a localized specification-only update with no actionable merge-blocking risk remaining after normal checks and review.

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5
✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
Check name Status Explanation
Description check ✅ Passed The description accurately explains the .ai/spec synchronization, the OLS-3739 status correction, and the spec-only scope.
Title check ✅ Passed The title clearly summarizes the primary change: synchronizing .ai/spec with the current codebase.
Docstring Coverage ✅ Passed No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check. Docstring coverage is scoped to functions touched by this diff. Analyzed 0 functions across 0…
Linked Issues check ✅ Passed Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check ✅ Passed Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Full details: Docstring Coverage

Explanation

No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check. Docstring coverage is scoped to functions touched by this diff. Analyzed 0 functions across 0 files. (2 skipped: 2 unsupported.)


Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.

@openshift-ci
openshift-ci Bot requested review from harche and joshuawilson August 31, 2026 21:24
@openshift-ci

openshift-ci Bot commented Aug 31, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign blublinsky for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Details Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@openshift-ci

openshift-ci Bot commented Aug 31, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@xrajesh: all tests passed!

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

Details

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

@onmete

onmete commented Sep 4, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

The new implementation-status note correctly identifies make e2e-cluster as unimplemented, but the top-level Commands section still presents make e2e-cluster openai-agents as runnable. Please remove or mark this command as planned so the spec is internally consistent; otherwise users following the documented command get make: No rule to make target 'e2e-cluster'.

@onmete

onmete commented Sep 4, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Is .ai/spec/health-report.md intended to be a tracked repository artifact, or was it accidentally committed as generated/tool output? If it is intentional, please remove the trailing </content> and </invoke> tags—they appear to be tool-output residue and make the durable report structurally untrustworthy. If it is not intended to be tracked, please remove the file instead.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

kind/design Categorizes issue or PR as related to design.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants