docs(SUP-1648): add v0.1.0 release lane and readiness gate - #35
Closed
levineam wants to merge 2 commits into
Closed
Conversation
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThis PR establishes release management infrastructure for jarvOS v0.1.0 public preview. It adds release process documentation, a GitHub issue template for candidate intake, v0.1.0-specific release notes with readiness checklist, and a changelog entry documenting the new infrastructure. Changesv0.1.0 Public Preview Release
Estimated code review effort🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~20 minutes Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 4 | ❌ 1❌ Failed checks (1 warning)
✅ Passed checks (4 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ Finishing Touches📝 Generate docstrings
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Warning There were issues while running some tools. Please review the errors and either fix the tool's configuration or disable the tool if it's a critical failure. 🔧 ESLint
ESLint skipped: no ESLint configuration detected in root package.json. To enable, add 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. Comment |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In @.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/release-candidate.yml:
- Around line 4-7: The release-candidate issue template is missing the primary
release label; update the labels array in
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/release-candidate.yml (the labels block defined in that
file) to include "jarvos-release" alongside "jarvos",
"jarvos-release-candidate", and "release-v0.1.0" so release-candidate issues get
the base release label used by release-management flows.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: defaults
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: 16b6c385-d3e7-4f87-b522-5798a627ea2c
📒 Files selected for processing (5)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/config.yml.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/release-candidate.ymlCHANGELOG.mddocs/release-management.mddocs/releases/v0.1.0-public-preview.md
Comment on lines
+4
to
+7
| labels: | ||
| - jarvos | ||
| - jarvos-release-candidate | ||
| - release-v0.1.0 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add the primary release label for consistency with the documented lane.
At Line 4–7, the template applies jarvos, jarvos-release-candidate, and release-v0.1.0, but it does not apply jarvos-release (documented in docs/release-management.md Line 12). That can make release-candidate issues miss release dashboards/queries expecting the base release label.
Suggested fix
labels:
- jarvos
+ - jarvos-release
- jarvos-release-candidate
- release-v0.1.0📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
Suggested change
| labels: | |
| - jarvos | |
| - jarvos-release-candidate | |
| - release-v0.1.0 | |
| labels: | |
| - jarvos | |
| - jarvos-release | |
| - jarvos-release-candidate | |
| - release-v0.1.0 |
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
In @.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/release-candidate.yml around lines 4 - 7, The
release-candidate issue template is missing the primary release label; update
the labels array in .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/release-candidate.yml (the labels
block defined in that file) to include "jarvos-release" alongside "jarvos",
"jarvos-release-candidate", and "release-v0.1.0" so release-candidate issues get
the base release label used by release-management flows.
levineam
force-pushed
the
sup-1648-release-lane
branch
from
May 13, 2026 19:57
dbed505 to
3f53c49
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
docs/release-management.md (1)
59-63: ⚡ Quick winUnify the canonical release-notes source across docs and checks.
This flow uses
docs/releases/v0.1.0-public-preview.md, while the release process/check script expectdocs/releases/v0.1.0.md. Pick one canonical file (or document an explicit copy/sync step) to avoid release-time mismatch.Suggested doc alignment
-2. Confirm the release notes body from - `docs/releases/v0.1.0-public-preview.md`. +2. Confirm the release notes body from + `docs/releases/v0.1.0.md`.🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate. In `@docs/release-management.md` around lines 59 - 63, The release notes source is inconsistent: the docs/release-management.md references docs/releases/v0.1.0-public-preview.md while the release/check script expects docs/releases/v0.1.0.md; pick one canonical file name (either docs/releases/vX.Y.Z.md or docs/releases/vX.Y.Z-public-preview.md), update release-management.md step text (the line that currently mentions docs/releases/v0.1.0-public-preview.md) to reference the chosen canonical file, and update the release process/check script (the script that validates/releases tags) to read the same canonical path (or add a clear copy/sync step in the workflow that copies the chosen preview file to the canonical path) so both docs and automation use the same source.
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@scripts/release-readiness-check.js`:
- Around line 150-156: The current smoke-test step only runs npm test (via
run('npm', ['test'])) which doesn't execute the required scripts/smoke-test.sh;
update the smoke-test branch so when opts.skipSmoke is false it runs the actual
smoke script (e.g., run('bash', ['scripts/smoke-test.sh']) or
run('./scripts/smoke-test.sh')) and treat its exit/status like the existing
smoke variable (call pass('smoke test', ...) on success and fail('smoke test',
...) with the last 20 lines of stdout/stderr on failure); optionally keep the
existing npm test as a separate check by adding another run(...) call and
separate pass/fail handling.
- Around line 120-130: The release-notes check currently hard-fails when
docs/releases/${tag}.md is missing; update the block that uses releaseNotesPath
to also accept a preview draft when candidate mode/--allow-unreleased is
enabled: check for docs/releases/${tag}.md first, then if missing and an
allowUnreleased flag (e.g., allowUnreleased or similar CLI option used by the
script) is true, look for a preview path such as docs/releases/${tag}.preview.md
(or docs/releases/${tag}-preview.md if your project uses that convention) and
validate that file’s sections (using the same required array and placeholder
regex) and call pass/fail using the found path; otherwise keep the existing
failure behavior. Ensure you reference the same variables releaseNotesPath,
required, missing, and the fail/pass calls so the logic reuses the existing
checks.
---
Nitpick comments:
In `@docs/release-management.md`:
- Around line 59-63: The release notes source is inconsistent: the
docs/release-management.md references docs/releases/v0.1.0-public-preview.md
while the release/check script expects docs/releases/v0.1.0.md; pick one
canonical file name (either docs/releases/vX.Y.Z.md or
docs/releases/vX.Y.Z-public-preview.md), update release-management.md step text
(the line that currently mentions docs/releases/v0.1.0-public-preview.md) to
reference the chosen canonical file, and update the release process/check script
(the script that validates/releases tags) to read the same canonical path (or
add a clear copy/sync step in the workflow that copies the chosen preview file
to the canonical path) so both docs and automation use the same source.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: defaults
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: 7e189fb2-e9a9-458f-97e9-37174eea148e
📒 Files selected for processing (11)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/config.yml.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/release-candidate.yml.github/release-template.md.github/workflows/codex-review.ymlCHANGELOG.mddocs/release-management.mddocs/release-process.mddocs/releases/v0.1.0-public-preview.mddocs/releases/v0.1.0.mdpackage.jsonscripts/release-readiness-check.js
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (7)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/config.yml
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/release-candidate.yml
- .github/release-template.md
- package.json
- docs/releases/v0.1.0-public-preview.md
- docs/releases/v0.1.0.md
- .github/workflows/codex-review.yml
Comment on lines
+120
to
+130
| const releaseNotesPath = `docs/releases/${tag}.md`; | ||
| if (exists(releaseNotesPath)) { | ||
| const notes = readText(releaseNotesPath); | ||
| const required = ['## Summary', "## What's Included", '## Known Limitations', '## Install / Update', '## Verification']; | ||
| const missing = required.filter((section) => !notes.includes(section)); | ||
| if (missing.length) fail('release notes draft', `Missing sections in ${releaseNotesPath}: ${missing.join(', ')}`); | ||
| else if (/ISSUE\b|VERSION\b/.test(notes)) fail('release notes draft', `${releaseNotesPath} still contains placeholders`); | ||
| else pass('release notes draft', releaseNotesPath); | ||
| } else { | ||
| fail('release notes draft', `${releaseNotesPath} missing`); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Candidate mode still hard-requires final release-notes path.
--allow-unreleased permits in-progress release state, but this block still requires docs/releases/vX.Y.Z.md. During candidate prep, that can fail even when the preview draft is present.
Proposed fix (allow preview draft in candidate mode)
- const releaseNotesPath = `docs/releases/${tag}.md`;
- if (exists(releaseNotesPath)) {
- const notes = readText(releaseNotesPath);
+ const releaseNotesCandidates = opts.allowUnreleased
+ ? [`docs/releases/${tag}-public-preview.md`, `docs/releases/${tag}.md`]
+ : [`docs/releases/${tag}.md`];
+ const releaseNotesPath = releaseNotesCandidates.find((p) => exists(p));
+ if (releaseNotesPath) {
+ const notes = readText(releaseNotesPath);
@@
- } else {
- fail('release notes draft', `${releaseNotesPath} missing`);
+ } else {
+ fail('release notes draft', `Missing any of: ${releaseNotesCandidates.join(', ')}`);
}🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
In `@scripts/release-readiness-check.js` around lines 120 - 130, The release-notes
check currently hard-fails when docs/releases/${tag}.md is missing; update the
block that uses releaseNotesPath to also accept a preview draft when candidate
mode/--allow-unreleased is enabled: check for docs/releases/${tag}.md first,
then if missing and an allowUnreleased flag (e.g., allowUnreleased or similar
CLI option used by the script) is true, look for a preview path such as
docs/releases/${tag}.preview.md (or docs/releases/${tag}-preview.md if your
project uses that convention) and validate that file’s sections (using the same
required array and placeholder regex) and call pass/fail using the found path;
otherwise keep the existing failure behavior. Ensure you reference the same
variables releaseNotesPath, required, missing, and the fail/pass calls so the
logic reuses the existing checks.
Comment on lines
+150
to
+156
| if (opts.skipSmoke) { | ||
| pass('smoke test', 'skipped by --skip-smoke'); | ||
| } else { | ||
| const smoke = run('npm', ['test']); | ||
| if (smoke.status === 0) pass('smoke test', 'npm test passed'); | ||
| else fail('smoke test', String(smoke.stdout || smoke.stderr || '').split('\n').slice(-20).join('\n')); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Smoke-test gate is not actually executed.
This check reports smoke test but only runs npm test. That can mark readiness as green without running scripts/smoke-test.sh, which your release docs treat as required.
Proposed fix (run smoke-test script, keep npm test as separate check if desired)
- if (opts.skipSmoke) {
- pass('smoke test', 'skipped by --skip-smoke');
- } else {
- const smoke = run('npm', ['test']);
- if (smoke.status === 0) pass('smoke test', 'npm test passed');
- else fail('smoke test', String(smoke.stdout || smoke.stderr || '').split('\n').slice(-20).join('\n'));
- }
+ if (opts.skipSmoke) {
+ pass('smoke test', 'skipped by --skip-smoke');
+ } else {
+ const smoke = run('bash', ['scripts/smoke-test.sh']);
+ if (smoke.status === 0) pass('smoke test', 'scripts/smoke-test.sh passed');
+ else fail('smoke test', String(smoke.stdout || smoke.stderr || '').split('\n').slice(-20).join('\n'));
+ }📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
Suggested change
| if (opts.skipSmoke) { | |
| pass('smoke test', 'skipped by --skip-smoke'); | |
| } else { | |
| const smoke = run('npm', ['test']); | |
| if (smoke.status === 0) pass('smoke test', 'npm test passed'); | |
| else fail('smoke test', String(smoke.stdout || smoke.stderr || '').split('\n').slice(-20).join('\n')); | |
| } | |
| if (opts.skipSmoke) { | |
| pass('smoke test', 'skipped by --skip-smoke'); | |
| } else { | |
| const smoke = run('bash', ['scripts/smoke-test.sh']); | |
| if (smoke.status === 0) pass('smoke test', 'scripts/smoke-test.sh passed'); | |
| else fail('smoke test', String(smoke.stdout || smoke.stderr || '').split('\n').slice(-20).join('\n')); | |
| } |
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
In `@scripts/release-readiness-check.js` around lines 150 - 156, The current
smoke-test step only runs npm test (via run('npm', ['test'])) which doesn't
execute the required scripts/smoke-test.sh; update the smoke-test branch so when
opts.skipSmoke is false it runs the actual smoke script (e.g., run('bash',
['scripts/smoke-test.sh']) or run('./scripts/smoke-test.sh')) and treat its
exit/status like the existing smoke variable (call pass('smoke test', ...) on
success and fail('smoke test', ...) with the last 20 lines of stdout/stderr on
failure); optionally keep the existing npm test as a separate check by adding
another run(...) call and separate pass/fail handling.
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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.
Summary
Verification
Summary by CodeRabbit
Documentation
Chores