You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
Repository navigation
Say a pull request owns Sourcery's findings in every file it touches (closes #476) - #485
Sourcery reads each Python file a pull request touches whole, so a pull request can fail its sourcery check on a line already on main, as PR #474 did on ecc/ellswift.py; no local gate runs Sourcery, so that shows only in CI. This adds a paragraph to CONTRIBUTING.md, next to its note on sourcery.yml, as the maintainer chose on the issue: touching a Python file makes the pull request responsible for Sourcery's findings anywhere in it, each fixed or skipped, and a writer who cannot run Sourcery reads each file the check reads whole.
Which files the check reads, the whole tree included where .sourcery.yaml or the version changes, and the form and place of a skip, stay in the standard's The set, and its cadence, which the paragraph points to.
dedicated reviewer: CHANGES REQUESTED on f8c8b60 (two facts of the standard stated again; the whole-tree case left out), then CLEARED f1bcd15
Fresh review in the other client
missing: codex exec refused at 2026-11-07 18:24 UTC with ERROR: Your workspace is out of credits. Add credits to continue. The dedicated reviewer's CLEARED ends the rounds.
The pointer's target, read at btclib-org/.github 42b087a3: README.md lines 2196-2210 state that the check "reads the Python files the pull request changes, whole, and the whole tree where it changes .sourcery.yaml or the version", and give the skip's form.
…loses#476)
In PR #474 the sourcery check failed on a line of
ellswift.py already on main: the check reads each file it covers whole,
and none of the local gates runs it. CONTRIBUTING.md says, beside its
sourcery.yml paragraph, that touching a Python file makes the pull
request responsible for Sourcery's findings anywhere in it, each fixed
or skipped, and that a writer who cannot run Sourcery locally reads
whole each file the check reads. Which files those are, and the form
and place of a skip, stay the standard's *The set, and its cadence*,
which the paragraph points to.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Signed-off-by: Ferdinando Ametrano <ferdinando@ametrano.net>
No actionable comments were generated in the recent review.
Summary
Summary by CodeRabbit
Documentation
Clarified contributor guidance for addressing Sourcery findings in Python files, including when Sourcery cannot be run locally.
CONTRIBUTING.md now explains how contributors must handle Sourcery findings across touched Python files, including when they cannot run Sourcery locally.
Changes: Sourcery contribution guidance
Layer / File(s)
Summary
Sourcery review instructions CONTRIBUTING.md
The guide says to address or skip Sourcery findings throughout each touched Python file. Contributors who cannot run Sourcery locally should review each checked file in full against .sourcery.yaml.
btclib-org/ecc#455: Adds the Sourcery pull-request check, configuration, and scoped-skip enforcement.
Merge Risk: Minimal · up to f1bcd
The contributor guidance is ready to merge with normal checks.
Architecture risk: Low · up to f1bcd
The change affects 1 system.
Changed systems:CONTRIBUTING.md
Architecture concerns
No architecture-level concerns identified.
Review details
Systems and components
observed — CONTRIBUTING.md (service) was modified; 1 changed file maps to changed impact.
Before / after behavior
observed — Modified behavior in CONTRIBUTING.md: Adds Sourcery guidance: Python-file changes cover findings throughout each affected file; findings are fixed or skipped under the referenced rules, and contributors who cannot run Sourcery locally read checked files in full against .sourcery.yaml.
Pre-merge checks: 4
Check name
Status
Explanation
Title check
The title describes the Sourcery guidance and names the issue in the required format. (raw.githubusercontent.com)
Description check
The description accurately describes the CONTRIBUTING.md change.
Linked Issues check
[#476] CONTRIBUTING.md makes the pull request responsible for Sourcery findings throughout touched Python files and tells writers without Sourcery to read each checked file in full. It directs contrib…
Out of Scope Changes check
[#476] The reported change adds Sourcery guidance to CONTRIBUTING.md. This documentation supports the issue.
Full details: Linked Issues check
Explanation
[#476] CONTRIBUTING.md makes the pull request responsible for Sourcery findings throughout touched Python files and tells writers without Sourcery to read each checked file in full. It directs contributors to the standard for the skip form and placement.
Finishing Touches
Generate unit tests (beta)
Commit to this branch
Create a new PR
Autofix · Keep fixing CodeRabbit findings and required CI, and resolving merge conflicts
This review exceeded your plan’s limits and used usage-based reviews—free during trial, billed after paid activation unless disabled. Manage usage-based reviews.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Sourcery reads each Python file a pull request touches whole, so a pull request can fail its
sourcerycheck on a line already onmain, as PR #474 did onecc/ellswift.py; no local gate runs Sourcery, so that shows only in CI. This adds a paragraph toCONTRIBUTING.md, next to its note onsourcery.yml, as the maintainer chose on the issue: touching a Python file makes the pull request responsible for Sourcery's findings anywhere in it, each fixed or skipped, and a writer who cannot run Sourcery reads each file the check reads whole.Which files the check reads, the whole tree included where
.sourcery.yamlor the version changes, and the form and place of a skip, stay in the standard's The set, and its cadence, which the paragraph points to.Evidence
uv sync --lockedon f1bcd15uv run pytest -n 3on f1bcd15uv run pre-commit run --all-fileson f1bcd15sphinx-build -n -W, thehrefgrep andcheck_included_links.pyon f1bcd15origin/main1a81844CHANGES REQUESTEDon f8c8b60 (two facts of the standard stated again; the whole-tree case left out), thenCLEARED f1bcd15codex execrefused at 2026-11-07 18:24 UTC withERROR: Your workspace is out of credits. Add credits to continue.The dedicated reviewer'sCLEAREDends the rounds.The pointer's target, read at btclib-org/.github 42b087a3:
README.mdlines 2196-2210 state that the check "reads the Python files the pull request changes, whole, and the whole tree where it changes.sourcery.yamlor the version", and give the skip's form.🤖 Generated with Claude Code
Closes #476