Add regression coverage for pull_request_read DIFC labeling - #10735
Conversation
Co-authored-by: lpcox <15877973+lpcox@users.noreply.github.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
Adds regression coverage for DIFC labeling parity between pull_request_read and get_pull_request.
Changes:
- Compares both tools’ labels and descriptors.
- Verifies the PR descriptor format.
Show a summary per file
| File | Description |
|---|---|
guards/github-guard/rust-guard/src/labels/mod.rs |
Adds the labeling parity regression test. |
Review details
Tip
Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.
- Files reviewed: 1/1 changed files
- Comments generated: 1
- Review effort level: Balanced
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Co-authored-by: Copilot Autofix powered by AI <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
🔒 mcpg Read-Only Stress — gVisorSurface coverage: MCP tool calls + proxied CLI (REST) + GraphQL mutations
Part B enforcement detail: Gateway exposes only 22 read-only tools in its manifest ( Overall: PASS References: §31055085681
|
🔒 mcpg Read-Only Stress — default AWFSurface coverage: MCP tool calls + proxied CLI (REST) + GraphQL mutations
Notes:
Overall: PASS Run: §31055085692
|
🔒 mcpg Read-Only Stress — docker-sbxSurface coverage: MCP tool calls + proxied CLI (REST) + GraphQL mutations
Overall: PASS
References: §31055085637
|
pull_request_readis a canonical PR read surface and must retain the same repo-scoped secrecy and PR-aware integrity handling asget_pull_request.pull_request_readproduces identical labels and descriptor toget_pull_request.apply_tool_labelsPR match arm from future inventory or refactoring drift.