chore(seidroid): remove xreview while its approach is reconsidered - #54
Conversation
xreview drove the sei-droid agent inside a managed omnigent Kubernetes sandbox so a review could build, test and inspect a tree rather than only read its diff. It reached working end to end: the reusable workflow, the Python session driver, idempotency, policy, and the structured verdict post. Removing it now is not a retreat from that result. Having the whole shape running is what made the design questions legible, and they are easier to answer on a clean base than by amending a working implementation nobody has committed to yet. The team wants to iterate on the approach before it becomes the thing other repos depend on. Nothing breaks. The caller workflows in sei-chain and platform pin uci v0.0.15 for both `uses:` and `uci-ref`, so they resolve this workflow from history and keep working unchanged. They do continue to advertise a `seidroid xreview` trigger for a feature that is no longer maintained on main, so they should be removed separately rather than left to rot. ai-review is untouched. It is the other seidroid review path and shares nothing with this one beyond the folder. The implementation stays in history at this commit's parent for whatever the next approach reuses. Signed-off-by: bdchatham <bdchatham@gmail.com>
PR SummaryMedium Risk Overview
Callers that still Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 1fd3277. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here. |
1 participant
What this does
Removes
xreviewfrom.github/seidroid/, along with its reusable workflow. 2,064 lines deleted across 16 files.ai-reviewis untouched.Why now, given it works
xreview reached working end to end. It drove the
sei-droidagent inside a managed omnigent Kubernetes sandbox with a realgit/ghtoolchain, so a review could build, test and inspect a tree rather than only read its diff, and it came back with one structured verdict. The reusable workflow, the session driver, idempotency, policy and the verdict post all landed and ran.Having the whole shape running is exactly what made the design questions legible, and those questions are cheaper to answer on a clean base than by amending a working implementation nobody has committed to yet. Better to iterate on the approach before it becomes something other repos depend on.
The implementation is not lost. It stays in history at this PR's merge-base, and the callers below pin it by SHA, so it remains runnable while we decide.
Nothing breaks
Two repos call the reusable workflow:
sei-protocol/sei-chain…@65901242(uci v0.0.15),uci-refsame commitsei-protocol/platform…@65901242(uci v0.0.15),uci-refsame commitBoth pin a specific commit for both
uses:anduci-ref, so they resolve this workflow from git history and keep working unchanged after this merge. I verified both files rather than assuming.But they should not be left as they are. Each still advertises a
seidroid xreviewPR-comment trigger for a feature no longer maintained onmain, so a contributor could invoke it and get a result from code we have stopped iterating on. I would rather remove those two callers in follow-ups than leave them pinned to an abandoned path. Happy to open both, or leave them to whoever owns those repos, whichever the team prefers.Supersedes
#52 (
fix/xreview-setup-python) is an in-flight xreview fix and becomes moot. It should be closed rather than merged.What I would want the discussion to cover
Recording these so the next attempt starts from the questions rather than rediscovering them:
.github/is awkward: it needs its ownpyproject.toml, it is invisible to the repo's normal test and lint gates, and its interpreter has to be supplied rather than assumed. fix(xreview): bring the driver's tooling instead of reading it off the runner image #52 exists because of that last point specifically.seidroid xreviewcomment is discoverable but unbounded. Any PR can start a credentialed sandbox session, and nothing sizes the cost against the change.uses:anduci-refto the same commit by hand. That is the thing which keeps this PR from breaking anyone, and it is also a step that is easy to get wrong in a way nothing catches.Type of change
Not marked breaking: both callers pin by SHA and are unaffected on merge.
Test Plan
No behaviour to test; this is a deletion. What I verified instead:
xreviewis gone: the 14-filexreview/tree plus.github/workflows/seidroid-xreview.yml.git grep -i xreviewreturns one hit, the deliberate note in.github/seidroid/README.mdexplaining where the feature went.git grep seidroid-xreviewreturns nothing..github/seidroid/retainsai-review/andREADME.md;.github/workflows/retains its other nine workflows.