Add pipeline-scoped working directories - #3863
Conversation
|
CI diagnosis: all six failures fan out from Fast fail. The template pipeline itself succeeds, then the smoke test fails |
|
Refreshed onto current main at ccea314 after the prior Fast-fail artifact-upload failure. Current-head validation: PipelineWorkingDirectoryTests 3/3; PipelineBuilderRegistrationTests 16/16; core Release build 0 warnings / 0 errors. Please re-review current head. |
Code reviewNice cleanup — this replaces the template's 53-line One design point worth discussing before merge, plus one follow-up suggestion:
|
|
Addressed the current-head review at Revalidation: |
Code review (re-review at
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 15e9687778
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".
|
@claude review |
|
@codex review |
Code review (re-review at
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 48b417cc26
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".
48b417c to
91b1c46
Compare
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 8 minutes Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available. How can I continue?After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews. How do review limits work?CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability. For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window. Please refer docs for additional details. Review details⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (28)
Comment |
Code review (re-review at
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 9c1cbed275
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".
Resolve explicit relative DownloadFileOptions.SavePath values against PipelineWorkingDirectory before directory creation and atomic replacement. Keep implicit downloads in the system temp directory. Refs #3863
Code review (full pass, current HEAD
|
Resolve explicit relative DownloadFileOptions.SavePath values against PipelineWorkingDirectory before directory creation and atomic replacement. Keep implicit downloads in the system temp directory. Refs #3863
566cb79 to
1319e7f
Compare
|
Fixed current-head CI/review findings in 1319e7f after rebasing onto current main:
Validation: DependencyInjectionTests 3/3; FilesContextTests 2/2; ChecksumTests 3/3; PipelineWorkingDirectoryTests 5/5; DownloaderTests 15/15; core Release build 0 warnings/errors; targeted format verification clean. Resolved the two older cache/downloader threads after exact-head Claude confirmed those fixes. @codex review @claude review |
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Can't wait for the next one! 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". |
Code review (current head
|
|
Ubuntu pipeline failure is unrelated to this working-directory PR: |
|
Reran the failed Ubuntu job once. The prior failure was the unrelated |
|
@claude review |
|
@codex review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 1319e7fa35
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".
Resolve explicit relative DownloadFileOptions.SavePath values against PipelineWorkingDirectory before directory creation and atomic replacement. Keep implicit downloads in the system temp directory. Refs #3863
1319e7f to
7629eeb
Compare
|
Refreshed onto current Validation:
Targeted test compilation used the known current-main local-only |
|
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". |
Code review (current head
|
|
Addressed the current-head Claude findings in f61492d:
Added focused coverage for all four blank-path APIs. Validation: 9/9 focused tests; core Release build 0 warnings/errors. @claude review @codex review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: f61492d834
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".
Code review (current head
|
Resolve explicit relative DownloadFileOptions.SavePath values against PipelineWorkingDirectory before directory creation and atomic replacement. Keep implicit downloads in the system temp directory. Refs #3863
f61492d to
cf8c27a
Compare
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Chef's kiss. 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". |
Code review (current head
|
Closes #3770
Summary
Validation
ModularPipelines.slnxRelease build: 0 warnings, 0 errorsPipelineWorkingDirectoryTests: 3/3 passedPipelineBuilderRegistrationTests: 16/16 passedThe focused test project currently needs the unrelated stale
RunReportTestsinitializers for removedPrintLogo/PrintResultsproperties omitted locally to compile; those lines were restored and are not part of this PR.