cleveragents/cleveragents-core
4
0
Fork 3
Code Issues 6.0k Pull Requests 115 Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

test(actor): add regression test for issue 4321 nested config extraction #11126

Merged
CoreRasurae merged 1 commits from fix/actor-registry-provider-extraction into master 2026-05-12 13:03:03 +00:00
Conversation 4 Commits 1 Files Changed 3
+31
CoreRasurae commented 2026-05-11 11:28:22 +00:00
Member
Copy Link
Copy Source

Summary

  • Add BDD regression test for Forgejo issue #4321: ActorRegistry.add() fails to extract provider and model from nested actor config
  • The test verifies that when type is only at the nested actors.<name> level (not at top level), provider and model are correctly extracted from the nested config block
  • This scenario was already fixed in #4300; the test ensures the fix remains in place and prevents future regressions
  • CHANGELOG entry added under ### Fixed

Changes

  • features/actor_registry_spec_yaml.feature: Added scenario with @tdd_issue @tdd_issue_4321 tags
  • features/steps/actor_registry_spec_yaml_steps.py: Added step definition for new scenario
  • CHANGELOG.md: Added entry documenting the regression test

Testing

  • All 22 scenarios in actor_registry_spec_yaml.feature pass
  • nox -s lint: All checks passed
  • nox -s typecheck: 0 errors, 3 warnings (optional langchain deps)

Closes #4321

## Summary - Add BDD regression test for Forgejo issue #4321: ActorRegistry.add() fails to extract provider and model from nested actor config - The test verifies that when `type` is only at the nested `actors.<name>` level (not at top level), provider and model are correctly extracted from the nested `config` block - This scenario was already fixed in #4300; the test ensures the fix remains in place and prevents future regressions - CHANGELOG entry added under ### Fixed ## Changes - `features/actor_registry_spec_yaml.feature`: Added scenario with `@tdd_issue @tdd_issue_4321` tags - `features/steps/actor_registry_spec_yaml_steps.py`: Added step definition for new scenario - `CHANGELOG.md`: Added entry documenting the regression test ## Testing - All 22 scenarios in `actor_registry_spec_yaml.feature` pass - `nox -s lint`: All checks passed - `nox -s typecheck`: 0 errors, 3 warnings (optional langchain deps) Closes #4321
CoreRasurae added the
State
In Review
Type
Testing
 labels 2026-05-11 11:28:56 +00:00
CoreRasurae added this to the v3.5.0 milestone 2026-05-11 11:29:10 +00:00
HAL9000 was assigned by CoreRasurae 2026-05-11 11:33:38 +00:00
CoreRasurae requested review from HAL9001 2026-05-11 11:33:54 +00:00
CoreRasurae force-pushed fix/actor-registry-provider-extraction from 219f49d741 to 78b6b49974 2026-05-11 11:36:52 +00:00 Compare
HAL9001 requested changes 2026-05-12 02:49:49 +00:00
HAL9001 left a comment
Owner
Copy Link
Copy Source

First Review — PR #11126: test(actor): add regression test for issue 4321 nested config extraction

Thank you for the clear PR description and well-structured test. The regression test scenario itself is correctly written and follows the existing patterns in the codebase. All required CI gates pass (lint, typecheck, security, unit_tests, coverage, integration_tests, status-check). However, I have found four blocking issues that must be resolved before this PR can be approved.

❌ Blockers (must be resolved)

1. Commit message does not match the issue Metadata prescription
Issue #4321's ## Metadata section prescribes the exact commit message:

fix(actor-registry): extract provider and model from nested actor LLM config

The actual commit uses:

test(actor): add regression test for issue 4321 nested config extraction

Per CONTRIBUTING.md, the commit first line must be used verbatim from the issue Metadata. The current message also has the wrong type prefix (test vs fix) and a different scope.

2. No companion TDD issue created for bug #4321
Issue #4321 is Type/Bug. CONTRIBUTING.md requires that every Type/Bug issue have a companion Type/Testing issue (with a TDD: title prefix), and the bug issue must depend on the TDD issue (TDD blocks the bug fix). No such companion issue was created for #4321. The current PR adds a test, which is good, but the process requires the TDD issue to exist separately so the dependency chain is explicit and traceable.

3. Wrong branch prefix for the work being done
Branch fix/actor-registry-provider-extraction uses the fix/ prefix. Per CONTRIBUTING.md, fix/mN- branches are for bug fix implementation and tdd/mN- branches are for TDD test-only work. This PR only adds a test with no production code changes. The correct prefix for a test-only regression guard is tdd/m6-actor-registry-provider-extraction.

Note: I acknowledge the issue Metadata says Branch: fix/actor-registry-provider-extraction. If the original intention was to fix the bug AND add the test in a single commit on this branch, but the fix ended up in #4300 instead, the issue Metadata needs to be updated to reflect the current state of the work.

4. Type/Bug issue closed by a test-only PR without verifying all acceptance criteria
Issue #4321 has six acceptance criteria — all of them describe behavioral requirements that the fix should satisfy (provider/model extraction working, actors registerable, plan execution not failing, etc.). This PR only adds a regression test. It relies on the fix from #4300 already being in master. Closing a Type/Bug issue with Closes #4321 on a Type/Testing PR bypasses the acceptance criteria verification process.

To properly close #4321, either:

  • (a) This PR should include the fix (production code changes) AND the test, OR
  • (b) The fix PR (which was #4300 or the original fix/actor-registry-provider-extraction work) should carry Closes #4321, and this test PR should reference a separate TDD issue with a Refs #4321 note only

⚠️ CI Failure — benchmark-regression

The CI / benchmark-regression job is failing (run #20256, job #1). While this check is NOT in the required-for-merge status-check gate, a failing CI job should always be explained. Please confirm whether this failure pre-dates this PR (i.e., was failing on master before this branch was cut) or was introduced by these changes. Given that this PR adds only test/changelog/feature files with no production code changes, this failure is most likely a pre-existing flake, but it should be explicitly acknowledged.

✅ What is correct

  • The test scenario itself is well-written and follows existing patterns (see @tdd_issue_4300 scenario for comparison)
  • YAML construction and step definition are clear and correctly structured
  • @tdd_issue @tdd_issue_4321 tags are used consistently with the codebase convention
  • All required CI gates pass (status-check: ✅)
  • CHANGELOG entry is present and clear
  • Forgejo dependency direction is correct: PR blocks issue ✅
  • Milestone v3.5.0 matches the linked issue ✅
  • Type/Testing label is present ✅
  • Commit footer ISSUES CLOSED: #4321 is present ✅

Summary

This PR is close to correct but has four process violations that must be addressed. The most critical are the missing companion TDD issue (per the required workflow for bug tickets) and the commit message mismatch with the issue Metadata. Please address all four blockers and push a corrected commit.

Automated by CleverAgents Bot
Supervisor: PR Review | Agent: pr-review-worker

## First Review — PR #11126: `test(actor): add regression test for issue 4321 nested config extraction` Thank you for the clear PR description and well-structured test. The regression test scenario itself is correctly written and follows the existing patterns in the codebase. All required CI gates pass (lint, typecheck, security, unit_tests, coverage, integration_tests, status-check). However, I have found **four blocking issues** that must be resolved before this PR can be approved. --- ### ❌ Blockers (must be resolved) **1. Commit message does not match the issue Metadata prescription** Issue #4321's `## Metadata` section prescribes the exact commit message: ``` fix(actor-registry): extract provider and model from nested actor LLM config ``` The actual commit uses: ``` test(actor): add regression test for issue 4321 nested config extraction ``` Per CONTRIBUTING.md, the commit first line **must be used verbatim** from the issue Metadata. The current message also has the wrong `type` prefix (`test` vs `fix`) and a different scope. **2. No companion TDD issue created for bug #4321** Issue #4321 is `Type/Bug`. CONTRIBUTING.md requires that every `Type/Bug` issue have a **companion `Type/Testing` issue** (with a `TDD:` title prefix), and the bug issue must *depend on* the TDD issue (TDD blocks the bug fix). No such companion issue was created for #4321. The current PR adds a test, which is good, but the process requires the TDD issue to exist separately so the dependency chain is explicit and traceable. **3. Wrong branch prefix for the work being done** Branch `fix/actor-registry-provider-extraction` uses the `fix/` prefix. Per CONTRIBUTING.md, `fix/mN-` branches are for **bug fix implementation** and `tdd/mN-` branches are for **TDD test-only work**. This PR only adds a test with no production code changes. The correct prefix for a test-only regression guard is `tdd/m6-actor-registry-provider-extraction`. Note: I acknowledge the issue Metadata says `Branch: fix/actor-registry-provider-extraction`. If the original intention was to fix the bug AND add the test in a single commit on this branch, but the fix ended up in #4300 instead, the issue Metadata needs to be updated to reflect the current state of the work. **4. `Type/Bug` issue closed by a test-only PR without verifying all acceptance criteria** Issue #4321 has six acceptance criteria — all of them describe behavioral requirements that the fix should satisfy (provider/model extraction working, actors registerable, plan execution not failing, etc.). This PR only adds a regression test. It relies on the fix from #4300 already being in master. Closing a `Type/Bug` issue with `Closes #4321` on a `Type/Testing` PR bypasses the acceptance criteria verification process. To properly close #4321, either: - (a) This PR should include the fix (production code changes) AND the test, OR - (b) The fix PR (which was #4300 or the original `fix/actor-registry-provider-extraction` work) should carry `Closes #4321`, and this test PR should reference a separate TDD issue with a `Refs #4321` note only --- ### ⚠️ CI Failure — benchmark-regression The `CI / benchmark-regression` job is failing (run #20256, job #1). While this check is NOT in the required-for-merge `status-check` gate, a failing CI job should always be explained. Please confirm whether this failure pre-dates this PR (i.e., was failing on master before this branch was cut) or was introduced by these changes. Given that this PR adds only test/changelog/feature files with no production code changes, this failure is most likely a pre-existing flake, but it should be explicitly acknowledged. --- ### ✅ What is correct - The test scenario itself is well-written and follows existing patterns (see `@tdd_issue_4300` scenario for comparison) - YAML construction and step definition are clear and correctly structured - `@tdd_issue @tdd_issue_4321` tags are used consistently with the codebase convention - All required CI gates pass (status-check: ✅) - CHANGELOG entry is present and clear - Forgejo dependency direction is correct: PR blocks issue ✅ - Milestone v3.5.0 matches the linked issue ✅ - `Type/Testing` label is present ✅ - Commit footer `ISSUES CLOSED: #4321` is present ✅ --- ### Summary This PR is close to correct but has four process violations that must be addressed. The most critical are the missing companion TDD issue (per the required workflow for bug tickets) and the commit message mismatch with the issue Metadata. Please address all four blockers and push a corrected commit. --- Automated by CleverAgents Bot Supervisor: PR Review | Agent: pr-review-worker
features/actor_registry_spec_yaml.feature
HAL9001 commented 2026-05-12 02:49:49 +00:00
Owner
Copy Link
Copy Source

BLOCKER — Wrong branch prefix and missing companion TDD issue

Two related process violations:

  1. Branch name: fix/actor-registry-provider-extraction uses the fix/ prefix which is reserved for bug fix implementation PRs (production code). This PR only adds a test. Per CONTRIBUTING.md, test-only work for a bug regression guard should use a tdd/mN- branch. The correct name would be tdd/m6-actor-registry-provider-extraction.

  2. Missing companion TDD issue: Issue #4321 is Type/Bug. CONTRIBUTING.md requires a companion Type/Testing issue (titled TDD: <same title>) to be created for every bug, and the bug issue must depend on (be blocked by) the TDD issue. This companion issue was never created. Please create the TDD companion issue and link it correctly before this test work can be merged.

Note: The @tdd_issue_4321 tag itself is correct — it correctly identifies this scenario as the regression guard for issue #4321.

Automated by CleverAgents Bot
Supervisor: PR Review | Agent: pr-review-worker

**BLOCKER — Wrong branch prefix and missing companion TDD issue** Two related process violations: 1. **Branch name**: `fix/actor-registry-provider-extraction` uses the `fix/` prefix which is reserved for bug fix implementation PRs (production code). This PR only adds a test. Per CONTRIBUTING.md, test-only work for a bug regression guard should use a `tdd/mN-` branch. The correct name would be `tdd/m6-actor-registry-provider-extraction`. 2. **Missing companion TDD issue**: Issue #4321 is `Type/Bug`. CONTRIBUTING.md requires a companion `Type/Testing` issue (titled `TDD: <same title>`) to be created for every bug, and the bug issue must depend on (be blocked by) the TDD issue. This companion issue was never created. Please create the TDD companion issue and link it correctly before this test work can be merged. Note: The `@tdd_issue_4321` tag itself is correct — it correctly identifies this scenario as the regression guard for issue #4321. --- Automated by CleverAgents Bot Supervisor: PR Review | Agent: pr-review-worker
features/actor_registry_spec_yaml.feature
HAL9001 commented 2026-05-12 02:49:49 +00:00
Owner
Copy Link
Copy Source

BLOCKER — Type/Bug issue should not be closed by a test-only PR

Closes #4321 in the PR body will close issue #4321 (Type/Bug) when this PR is merged. However:

  • Issue #4321 has six acceptance criteria that describe the fix (provider/model extraction working correctly, custom actors registerable, plan execution not failing)
  • This PR adds only a regression test, not the fix itself
  • The fix was supposedly already made in #4300, but that PR did not carry Closes #4321

Why this is a problem: Closing a Type/Bug issue via a test-only PR means there is no traceable record that the acceptance criteria were validated as part of the fix work. The proper workflow is:

  • The fix PR (which landed in #4300 or its branch) should carry Closes #4321 with evidence the acceptance criteria were met
  • This test PR should use Refs #4321 only (or reference the separate TDD companion issue)

Please update the PR body to replace Closes #4321 with Refs #4321, and ensure the bug issue is closed by the PR that implements the actual fix.

Automated by CleverAgents Bot
Supervisor: PR Review | Agent: pr-review-worker

**BLOCKER — `Type/Bug` issue should not be closed by a test-only PR** `Closes #4321` in the PR body will close issue #4321 (`Type/Bug`) when this PR is merged. However: - Issue #4321 has six acceptance criteria that describe the *fix* (provider/model extraction working correctly, custom actors registerable, plan execution not failing) - This PR adds only a regression test, not the fix itself - The fix was supposedly already made in #4300, but that PR did not carry `Closes #4321` **Why this is a problem**: Closing a `Type/Bug` issue via a test-only PR means there is no traceable record that the acceptance criteria were validated as part of the fix work. The proper workflow is: - The fix PR (which landed in #4300 or its branch) should carry `Closes #4321` with evidence the acceptance criteria were met - This test PR should use `Refs #4321` only (or reference the separate TDD companion issue) Please update the PR body to replace `Closes #4321` with `Refs #4321`, and ensure the bug issue is closed by the PR that implements the actual fix. --- Automated by CleverAgents Bot Supervisor: PR Review | Agent: pr-review-worker
CoreRasurae commented 2026-05-12 10:41:52 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy Link
Copy Source

That request cannot be satisfied. the PR #4300 has already been merged to master and cannot be changed anymore. Consider opening an exception for this case, where the current master fails to have a regression test for part of what it implemented. It is better to have a test even if later, than nothing, as it is in master right now.

That request cannot be satisfied. the PR #4300 has already been merged to master and cannot be changed anymore. Consider opening an exception for this case, where the current master fails to have a regression test for part of what it implemented. It is better to have a test even if later, than nothing, as it is in master right now.
features/actor_registry_spec_yaml.feature
HAL9001 commented 2026-05-12 02:49:49 +00:00
Owner
Copy Link
Copy Source

BLOCKER — Commit message mismatch with issue Metadata

Issue #4321 ## Metadata section prescribes this exact commit message:

fix(actor-registry): extract provider and model from nested actor LLM config

The actual commit on this PR uses:

test(actor): add regression test for issue 4321 nested config extraction

Per CONTRIBUTING.md, the commit first line must match verbatim the Commit Message field in the issue Metadata section. Please amend the commit to use the prescribed message exactly.

If the prescribed message no longer accurately describes this PR (since the fix was done in #4300 and this PR only adds the test), then the issue Metadata should first be updated to reflect the actual work, and then the commit message should match that updated Metadata.

Automated by CleverAgents Bot
Supervisor: PR Review | Agent: pr-review-worker

**BLOCKER — Commit message mismatch with issue Metadata** Issue #4321 `## Metadata` section prescribes this exact commit message: ``` fix(actor-registry): extract provider and model from nested actor LLM config ``` The actual commit on this PR uses: ``` test(actor): add regression test for issue 4321 nested config extraction ``` Per CONTRIBUTING.md, the commit first line **must match verbatim** the `Commit Message` field in the issue Metadata section. Please amend the commit to use the prescribed message exactly. If the prescribed message no longer accurately describes this PR (since the fix was done in #4300 and this PR only adds the test), then the issue Metadata should first be updated to reflect the actual work, and then the commit message should match that updated Metadata. --- Automated by CleverAgents Bot Supervisor: PR Review | Agent: pr-review-worker
CoreRasurae commented 2026-05-12 10:43:53 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy Link
Copy Source

While that is true, this commit does not include code changes, only tests, so it is better to use the more accurate description, maybe issue #4321 metadata should be updated instead, to math what we are actually doing.

While that is true, this commit does not include code changes, only tests, so it is better to use the more accurate description, maybe issue #4321 metadata should be updated instead, to math what we are actually doing.
HAL9001 commented 2026-05-12 02:49:55 +00:00
Owner
Copy Link
Copy Source

Formal review submitted (review ID: 8630) — REQUEST_CHANGES.

Four blocking issues were identified. See the review for full details and inline comments on the specific violations. Once all blockers are addressed, please re-request review.

Automated by CleverAgents Bot
Supervisor: PR Review | Agent: pr-review-worker

Formal review submitted (review ID: 8630) — **REQUEST_CHANGES**. Four blocking issues were identified. See the review for full details and inline comments on the specific violations. Once all blockers are addressed, please re-request review. --- Automated by CleverAgents Bot Supervisor: PR Review | Agent: pr-review-worker
hamza.khyari approved these changes 2026-05-12 11:16:07 +00:00
hamza.khyari reviewed 2026-05-12 11:17:18 +00:00
hamza.khyari left a comment
Member
Copy Link
Copy Source

@tdd_issue_4321 the issues is not related to the test

`@tdd_issue_4321` the issues is not related to the test
CoreRasurae force-pushed fix/actor-registry-provider-extraction from 78b6b49974 to ad55c3a8e9 2026-05-12 12:26:13 +00:00 Compare
CoreRasurae force-pushed fix/actor-registry-provider-extraction from ad55c3a8e9 to f6ca9b7291 2026-05-12 12:43:04 +00:00 Compare
CoreRasurae scheduled this pull request to auto merge when all checks succeed 2026-05-12 12:43:40 +00:00
CoreRasurae merged commit 3b83438e7d into master 2026-05-12 13:03:03 +00:00
CoreRasurae deleted branch fix/actor-registry-provider-extraction 2026-05-12 13:03:05 +00:00
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No Reviewers
HAL9001
hamza.khyari
Labels
Clear labels
auto/needs-reevaluation
Controller deferred this PR; awaiting Phase 6+ scope-evaluator or operator re-enablement.
 controller-managed
Auto-agents controller manages this PR/issue (see tools/controller/deploy/RUNBOOK.md). Remove this label to abandon controller management.
 overdue
auto/blocked-by-deps
PR blocked by an open issue dependency. Operator must close the dep (or remove the dependency link) before the merge driver can act. Auto-cleared by merge_drive when no open deps remain.
 auto/ci-timeout
Most recent merge cycle hit CI timeout. Driver excludes this PR while last merge_cycle row is < 30 min old; label persists thereafter as visible history.
 auto/claimed-implementer
Currently being processed by an implementer worker.
 auto/claimed-merge
Currently being processed by the merge driver.
 auto/claimed-reviewer
Currently being processed by a reviewer worker.
 auto/driver-down
Merge driver heartbeat stale; pipeline halted. Closed automatically on next clean tick.
 auto/invariant-violation
Detected master commit violating the strict merge invariant. Tracked as an issue (not a PR label); kept here for label completeness.
 auto/last-attempt-tier-0
In-cycle escalation: most recent attempt ran at the Tier 0 slot (`tier-0`). Slot's model defined in .opencode/models/tiers.yaml.
 auto/last-attempt-tier-1
In-cycle escalation: most recent attempt ran at the Tier 1 slot (`tier-1`). Slot's model defined in .opencode/models/tiers.yaml.
 auto/last-attempt-tier-2
In-cycle escalation: most recent attempt ran at the Tier 2 slot (`tier-2`). Slot's model defined in .opencode/models/tiers.yaml. Gated behind IMPLEMENTER_ESCALATION_TIER2_ENABLED.
 auto/last-attempt-tier-min
In-cycle escalation: most recent attempt ran at the Tier -1 slot (`tier-min`). Slot's model defined in .opencode/models/tiers.yaml. Suffix is ``-min`` (not ``--1``) so the Forgejo UI reads naturally.
 Automation Tracking
Tracking issues used by the AI Automation system for agents to communicate and report.
 auto/needs-conflict-resolution
Rebase conflict needs LLM conflict-resolver.
 auto/needs-implementer
Failing CI needs implementer attention.
 auto/postmortem
Documenting a driver incident or rollback.
 auto/ready-to-merge
Reviewer has APPROVED this PR and no later REQUEST_CHANGES is outstanding. The merge driver requires this label to even consider a PR for merging. Set by the reviewer worker on APPROVE; cleared on REQUEST_CHANGES.
 auto/restart-throttled
Train repeatedly lost master-tempo races. Driver excludes via merge_cycle until cooldown elapses; label persists as visible history.
 auto/revert
Revert PR backing out an invariant violation. Fast-tracked through the merge driver.
 auto/sentinel
Sentinel PR duplicated from upstream into a personal fork by tools/duplicate_prs_to_fork.py for pipeline testing. Lives only in the fork; the canonical pipeline never sees it.
 auto/stale-inactivity
No implementer activity for N days. Flagged for human review. Auto-cleared on next push to head branch.
 auto/unstable
Repeatedly fails on current master (>= 3 ci-fail-on-rebased-sha releases in 12 h). Excluded from driver until human triage.
 Blocked
A ticket in a blocked state and unable to complete until some other task is completed first.
Bounty
$100
A bounty of $100 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue
Bounty
$1000
A bounty of $1000 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue
Bounty
$10000
A bounty of $10000 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue
Bounty
$20
A bounty of $20 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue
Bounty
$2000
A bounty of $2000 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue
Bounty
$250
A bounty of $250 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue
Bounty
$50
A bounty of $50 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue
Bounty
$500
A bounty of $500 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue
Bounty
$5000
A bounty of $5000 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue
Bounty
$750
A bounty of $750 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue
MoSCoW
Could have
Could have feature in order to satisfy the epic/legendary.
MoSCoW
Must have
Must have feature in order to satisfy the epic/legendary.
MoSCoW
Should have
Should have feature in order to satisfy the epic/legendary.
Needs Feedback
There are questions in the ticket that can not be completed until the project owner provides clarity.
Points
1
1 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.
Points
13
13 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.
Points
2
2 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.
Points
21
21 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.
Points
3
3 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.
Points
34
34 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.
Points
5
5 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.
Points
55
55 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.
Points
8
8 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.
Points
88
88 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.
Priority
Backlog
This ticket has backlogged priority and is not to be worked on yet
Priority
CI Blocker
Critical priority issue that blocks CI/CD pipeline and prevents PR merges
Priority
Critical
The priority is critical
Priority
High
The priority is high
Priority
Low
The priority is low
Priority
Medium
The priority is medium
Signed-off: Owner
When an epic or legendary is in review it must be signed off by owner, tech lead, and scrum master before being marked as completed.
 Signed-off: Scrum Master
When an epic or legendary is in review it must be signed off by owner, tech lead, and scrum master before being marked as completed.
 Signed-off: Tech Lead
When an epic or legendary is in review it must be signed off by owner, tech lead, and scrum master before being marked as completed.
 Spike
A ticket for learning a tool or technology that is needed to be able to do future planning and design.
State
Completed
The ticket has been fully implemented, completed, and merged with the source code. This label should only be applied once a ticket is closed.
State
Duplicate
A ticket that represents the same content as an existing ticket.
State
In Progress
A ticket that is actively being developed.
State
In Review
A ticket that has had some code completed to implement but is waiting to pass peer review and is not yet merged in.
State
Paused
This ticket's work started but wasn't finished. It's on hold (likely in a feature branch) and will be resumed later, either due to a blocker or a delay.
State
Unverified
All new tickets start in this state. A developer may set it to show the ticket is unverified. This means we haven't agreed to work on it. It will either move to a verified state or be closed as wontdo.
State
Verified
The issue has been verified by a developer as legitimate. It will be worked on and verified tickets are now considered part of the backlog.
State
Wont Do
This ticket has been decided it wont be done. This may mean the bug has been determined to not be real (cant verify) or the feature is one we have decided we dont want to adopt.
Type
Automation
Any edits or discussion about the AI automated coding system.
Type
Bug
Something that doesnt work as intended.
Type
Discussion
Anytime a ticket represents a discussion about a subject and doesnt fall into one of the other categories.
Type
Documentation
An error or improvement needed in the documentation.
Type
Epic
Any first tier epic. That is, an epic which contains only issues as children and will not have sub-epics.
Type
Feature
Some new functionality not present.
Type
Legendary
A type of Epic which will contain other Epics.
Type
Refactor
A code change that restructures existing code without changing its external behavior.
Type
Support
Someone needs help using the project.
Type
Task
A generic task that doesnt fit into the other type categories.
Type
Testing
Work exclusively focusing on fixing or expanding testing.
No Label
State
In Review
Type
Testing
Milestone
No items
No Milestone v3.5.0
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
aditya (Aditya Chhabra) aleenaumair (Aleena Umair) brent.edwards (Brent Edwards) CoreRasurae (Luis Mendes) drew (Drew Morris) eugen.thaci (Eugen Thaci) freemo (Jeffrey Phillips Freeman) HAL9000 (HAL 9000) HAL9001 (HAL9001) hamza.khyari (Hamza Khyari) hurui200320 (Rui Hu) justin.morris khird (Kyle Hird) org.cleveragents
No Assignees HAL9000
3 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Blocks
#4321 ActorRegistry.add() fails to extract provider and model from nested actor config
cleveragents/cleveragents-core
Reference: cleveragents/cleveragents-core#11126
Delete Branch "fix/actor-registry-provider-extraction"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?