Skip to content

Improve DDUw Step 1c with direct content verification before Step 2 fallback #28101

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
pelikhan merged 3 commits into from
Apr 23, 2026
Merged

Improve DDUw Step 1c with direct content verification before Step 2 fallback #28101

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
63c07a1
Initial plan
Copilot Apr 23, 2026
792c4ed
docs: add direct content verification fallback in DDUw step 1c
Copilot Apr 23, 2026
d88e188
chore: drop unintended spec_test formatting change
Copilot Apr 23, 2026
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
5 changes: 5 additions & 0 deletions .github/workflows/daily-doc-updater.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -111,6 +111,11 @@ For each closed issue:
2. Search for merged PRs in a tight window around issue closure (prefer ±60 minutes) that modify `pkg/<package>/README.md`.
3. Example query: `repo:${{ github.repository }} is:pr is:merged merged:>=<issue_closed_at-60m> merged:<=<issue_closed_at+60m> path:pkg/<package>/README.md`.
4. If such a PR exists and the README change fully resolves the issue gap, treat the issue as already addressed and skip it.
- If the fallback heuristic still finds no PR, run a direct content check before Step 2:
1. Parse the issue body for referenced file paths and the specific missing symbols/constants/phrases.
2. Read only those referenced files directly.
3. Verify whether each listed gap is still present.
4. If all listed items are already documented, treat the issue as already addressed and skip it (do not continue to Step 2 for this issue).
Comment on lines +116 to +118
Copy link

Copilot AI Apr 23, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The new “direct content check” flow can incorrectly treat an issue as resolved if the issue body doesn’t contain any parseable file paths/items (empty extraction => ‘all listed items are documented’ becomes vacuously true). Add an explicit guard: only early-skip when you successfully extract at least one referenced file/item and verify each one; otherwise proceed with the normal Step 2 flow. Also clarify what to do if a referenced file path does not exist (e.g., treat as unresolved and continue).

Suggested change
2. Read only those referenced files directly.
3. Verify whether each listed gap is still present.
4. If all listed items are already documented, treat the issue as already addressed and skip it (do not continue to Step 2 for this issue).
2. Only use this early-skip path if you successfully extract at least one referenced file/item pair to verify; if extraction yields no parseable references, do not treat the issue as resolved and continue with the normal Step 2 flow.
3. Read only the referenced files that were successfully extracted. If any referenced file path does not exist, treat that item as unresolved and continue with the normal Step 2 flow (do not early-skip).
4. Verify whether each extracted listed gap is still present.
5. Only if at least one referenced file/item was successfully extracted and every extracted item is already documented, treat the issue as already addressed and skip it (do not continue to Step 2 for this issue).

Copilot uses AI. Check for mistakes.
- Otherwise, treat it as an unaddressed gap and follow the normal Step 2 flow.
- **closed as not_planned**: Do not create documentation based solely on this issue. Instead, cross-reference the issue's subject matter against commits from the same 7-day window (Step 2). If a related code change is found, treat it as a new documentation gap (independent of the original issue decision) and follow the normal Step 2 flow for that code change.

Expand Down
Loading