Add walkthrough artifact generation#58
Conversation
Architecture review · no architectural changesgraph LR
n_Analysis_Orchestrator["Analysis Orchestrator"]
n_Visual_Diffing_Rendering_Engine["Visual Diffing #38; Rendering Engine"]
n_Documentation_CTA_Generator["Documentation #38; CTA Generator"]
n_Telemetry_Feedback_Provider["Telemetry #38; Feedback Provider"]
n_Analysis_Orchestrator -- "Orchestrates structural comparison and visualiz…" --> n_Visual_Diffing_Rendering_Engine
n_Analysis_Orchestrator -- "Provides health metrics for navigation context" --> n_Documentation_CTA_Generator
n_Analysis_Orchestrator -- "Reports execution status and quota metrics" --> n_Telemetry_Feedback_Provider
n_Visual_Diffing_Rendering_Engine -- "Supplies visual context for component documenta…" --> n_Documentation_CTA_Generator
n_Documentation_CTA_Generator -- "Resolves symbol-to-file mappings for deep-linki…" --> n_Visual_Diffing_Rendering_Engine
classDef added fill:#1f883d,stroke:#0b5d23,color:#ffffff;
classDef modified fill:#bf8700,stroke:#7d4e00,color:#ffffff;
classDef deleted fill:#cf222e,stroke:#82071e,color:#ffffff,stroke-dasharray:5 3;
Colors indicate component changes compared to target branch Download the PR analysis artifacts from this workflow artifact. Explore this PR’s architecture in your browser or VS Code. codeboarding-action · run 29453088149 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 70d2c8f334
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".
| python3 - "$PR_URL" <<'PY' | curl --fail-with-body --silent --show-error \ | ||
| --retry 3 --retry-all-errors --max-time 900 \ | ||
| -X POST "$endpoint" \ | ||
| -H "Authorization: Bearer $LICENSE_KEY" \ | ||
| -H "X-GitHub-Token: $GITHUB_TOKEN" \ | ||
| -H "Content-Type: application/json" \ | ||
| --data @- \ | ||
| --output "$WALKTHROUGH_PATH" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Preserve review comment when walkthrough fails
When walkthrough_url is configured and this Lambda call returns non-2xx/times out or the response fails JSON validation, the step fails after the review artifact and sticky architecture comment have already been published. Because the existing failure() handler later rewrites the same sticky header with the generic “architecture diff couldn't be generated” message, a walkthrough outage hides a successful review; make this optional post-processing non-fatal or keep the failure comment scoped to pre-comment analysis failures.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
What changed
walkthrough_urlreview-mode input for the paid walkthrough Lambda.walkthrough.jsonas acodeboarding-walkthrough-<pr>-<sha>Actions artifact and exposes its URL aswalkthrough_artifact_url.actions: readpermission.Why
Consumers need the walkthrough generated from the completed CodeBoarding review and retained alongside the existing PR analysis artifact.
Validation
uv run pytest(178 passed)action.ymlgit diff --check