Repository navigation
Conversation
|
Important Draft PR not reviewedDraft PRs are not automatically reviewed by default.
To automatically review draft PRs, update your CodeRabbit configuration: reviews:
auto_review:
drafts: true
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. |
Changelog✅ Contribution check passed. Head: Base: Contribution: 1 new valid fragment(s). Policy: ordinary.
|
fbb7df5 to
7fdb1c0
Compare
Codex Review Summary: ✅ CompletedThis comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings. |
🛡️ Codex Security Review · Automatically triggeredSecurity review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request. Reviewed commit: Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex. ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHubThis is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:
Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found. |
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 7fdb1c0514
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".
Signed-off-by: Felipe Sayão Lobato Abreu <github@mentordosnerds.com>
|
@codex review Please review current HEAD cd66ebc. Both provider-composition findings were reproduced and fixed with regression tests. DevTools ran 292 tests/1,006 assertions, code style and PHPDoc checks passed, and the previous precedence and exception tests still pass. The draft continues to track composition review. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: cd66ebc610
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".
🛡️ Codex Security Review · Automatically triggeredSecurity review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request. Reviewed commit: Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex. ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHubThis is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:
Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found. |
|
@codex review Please review HEAD |
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Keep it up! Reviewed commit: ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
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". |
🛡️ Codex Security Review · Automatically triggeredSecurity review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request. Reviewed commit: Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex. ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHubThis is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:
Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found. |
Providers registered separately could return before later extensions ran, or let an earlier extension-only provider shadow a later factory. The helper, factory and builder now select the first callable factory and apply all provider extensions in registration order by default, with no activation API.
Composition state stays in existing classes.
AggregateContainerstores source order, required-entry policy and inferred-alias origins internally;ServiceProviderContainerowns provider definitions, extension composition and shared caches. The builder assembles those objects. There are no additional runtime classes or per-provider wrapper objects.The aggregate can directly compose PSR-11 sources and providers, and the provider adapter accepts an ordered provider list. Selected factories retain their original positions against interleaved external sources. Explicit
AggregateServiceProviderkeeps its existing last-factory precedence. Selected provider failures propagate instead of becoming successful fallback values; failed chains remain retryable.Updates regression coverage, the isolated production-consumer CI job, RST/PHPDoc, runnable examples, the bundled consumer skill and a fixed/patch changelog fragment.
The latest local validation ran the configured GrumPHP tasks sequentially, without a hook bypass. The overall gate failed and the PR remains draft.
The complete DevTools composite failed in Code Style: its dependency lock refresh triggers plugin synchronization that mishandles Git worktrees. Skill synchronization also encountered a filesystem denial. Report generation additionally produced malformed JUnit output and a notification-subscriber warning. These failures remain visible; no checks, permissions, hooks or vendor code were changed to turn them into a pass.
Dependencies were installed only in the authorized worktree. No new runtime or extension was installed. Generated scaffolding changes were restored, and no implementation changes, commit, push, merge or release followed this validation. Full logs remain local.
The two original published commits used
--no-verify, as previously disclosed. That historical bypass was not repeated. The published PR head is unchanged. A clean gate is still required.Additional diagnostic review:
Dependency handoff follow-up:
Fixes #48.