Skip to content

docs(release): refresh PRODUCTION-CONTRACT ledger + v1.0 release gate (H-5)#263

Merged
pilotspacex-byte merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
docs/production-contract-refresh
Jul 10, 2026
Merged

docs(release): refresh PRODUCTION-CONTRACT ledger + v1.0 release gate (H-5)#263
pilotspacex-byte merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
docs/production-contract-refresh

Conversation

@pilotspacex-byte

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

ROADMAP v0.6.1 H-5: rebuilds the stale v0.1.3-era PRODUCTION-CONTRACT.md into a 56-row evidence-linked ledger (33 shipped / 22 GA-blocking gaps matching the roadmap reality-check) across 9 categories. Adds scripts/check-production-contract.sh (grep-based: report-mode always exits 0; enforce-mode --tag v1.x exits 1 on any unticked GA row) wired into release.yml's setup job using the safe env: job-output pattern (mirrors the RELEASES.md ledger gate).

Surfaced two real defects (left unticked, tracked separately): a nightly fuzz shard is red every run (fuzz.yml references a missing graph_props_record target), and deny.toml claims a CI "safety-audit" job that doesn't exist.

@qodo-code-review

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Qodo reviews are paused for this user.

Troubleshooting steps vary by plan Learn more →

On a Teams plan?
Reviews resume once this user has a paid seat and their Git account is linked in Qodo.
Link Git account →

Using GitHub Enterprise Server, GitLab Self-Managed, or Bitbucket Data Center?
These require an Enterprise plan - Contact us
Contact us →

@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Jul 10, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Warning

Review limit reached

@TinDang97, you've reached your PR review limit, so we couldn't start this review.

Next review available in: 2 minutes

Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available.
You're only billed for reviews past your plan's rate limits ($0.25/file).

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews.

How do review limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window.

Please refer docs for additional details.

Review details
⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: b64fd194-85f1-4189-8421-35395ccf7ecb

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 797f688 and f382c4d.

📒 Files selected for processing (4)
  • .github/workflows/release.yml
  • CHANGELOG.md
  • docs/PRODUCTION-CONTRACT.md
  • scripts/check-production-contract.sh
✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests
  • Commit unit tests in branch docs/production-contract-refresh

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.

@TinDang97 TinDang97 force-pushed the docs/production-contract-refresh branch from 1426758 to 795c9ff Compare July 10, 2026 03:42
… ledger

docs/PRODUCTION-CONTRACT.md was stale at v0.1.3-era phase numbering and
provisional SLOs while Moon shipped through v0.6.0. Refreshed it into a
checked, evidence-linked ledger (56 GA-blocking rows across toolchain/CI,
correctness hardening, durability, replication & HA, cluster mode,
security, observability, compatibility, and release engineering); every
ticked row cites a file, CI job, or script that was read and confirmed
during this pass. 33/56 GA-blocking rows are shipped; 22 stay honestly
unticked, matching docs/roadmap/ROADMAP.md's reality-check table
(multi-shard replication, WAIT/keyspace-notifications/MONITOR, monoio
cluster wiring, encryption at rest, and others already tracked there).

The verification pass also surfaced two previously undocumented defects,
left unticked rather than assumed fixed: deny.toml's header comment
claims a ci.yml "safety-audit" job that does not exist (cargo
audit/cargo deny are not CI-blocking today), and fuzz/Cargo.toml plus
.github/workflows/fuzz.yml both reference a 12th fuzz target
(graph_props_record) whose source file is missing from the tree, so
that nightly fuzz matrix shard fails every run.

Added scripts/check-production-contract.sh (grep-based, mirrors
scripts/audit-unsafe.sh's style) and wired it into
.github/workflows/release.yml's setup job, alongside the existing
RELEASES.md release-ledger gate: it reports unticked GA-blocking rows
on every tag but only hard-fails a v1.0* tag, using the same
job-output env-var interpolation pattern as the release-ledger gate
(never inline untrusted context in a run: script). Verified locally:
report mode passes at v0.6.1 with the real 22 unticked rows, enforce
mode fails at v1.0.0 with the same rows, and an all-ticked fixture
passes enforce mode at v1.0.0.

author: Tin Dang <tindang.ht97@gmail.com>
@TinDang97 TinDang97 force-pushed the docs/production-contract-refresh branch from 795c9ff to f382c4d Compare July 10, 2026 03:58
@pilotspacex-byte pilotspacex-byte merged commit 5da8246 into main Jul 10, 2026
9 checks passed
pilotspacex-byte added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 12, 2026
…les (#290)

The GitHub Pages deploy (docs.yml, mkdocs build --strict) has failed on
every main push since 2026-07-08: PR #245 added two links from
docs/guides/tuning.md to ../../BENCHMARK.md and PR #263's
docs/PRODUCTION-CONTRACT.md links ../RELEASES.md,
../.github/workflows/release.yml and ../BENCHMARK.md — all repo-root
files outside the MkDocs docs/ tree, each producing a strict-mode
warning (5 total → abort).

Convert the 5 links to absolute GitHub blob URLs, which strict mode
does not validate. Verified locally: mkdocs build --strict completes
with zero warnings (material + include-markdown + glightbox plugin
set matching requirements-docs.txt).

Docs-only; no code changes.

author: Tin Dang

Co-authored-by: Tin Dang <tindang.ht97@gmail.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants