TEMP: sync main into determinant order-64 port - #1330
Conversation
* fix(topology): preserve non-maximal facet diagnostics * test(external-sat): remove stale producer conclusions * ci: shard ordinary Python checks by semantic lane
|
Bugbot is not enabled for your account, so this pull request was not reviewed. Enable Bugbot in the Cursor dashboard to get automatic reviews on future PRs. |
a873d72
into
agent/port-determinant-order-64-v2
![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: 413e3846c2
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".
| def _operation_with_canonical_gaussian_input(operation: Any) -> Any: | ||
| if operation.spec.operation_id != "probability.gaussian_polynomial.moment.compute": | ||
| return operation |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
FINITE_PROBABILITY_CAPABILITIES already declares this operation with CanonicalGaussianPolynomialMomentRequest in operations.py, so this Any-typed, string-ID-based reconstruction changes no behavior while creating a second owner for the request contract. If the installed-operation structure or request model changes, this copy can silently diverge because type checking cannot validate it; keep the canonical request type in the operation declaration and pass the capability tuple through unchanged.
AGENTS.md reference: AGENTS.md:L98-L106
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| Each verifier checks one complete typed candidate against the exact submitted finite | ||
| simple undirected graph: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For callers following the new inline verifier contract, this section says the verifier checks an exact submitted graph, while line 26 still says it does not certify a directly supplied graph. Those statements give contradictory guidance about the supported verification input; clarify that the record does not certify a different graph rather than excluding the graph supplied in {input, candidate}.
AGENTS.md reference: AGENTS.md:L200-L201
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
1 participant
Temporary branch synchronization for #1302. Merge current
maininto the feature branch only if conflict-free.