Repository navigation
docs(accounts): propose group and context continuation policy - #476
Conversation
Codex Review SummaryThis 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. |
|
You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard. |
|
品質・リリース担当へ、Accounts/Core の group/context continuation を扱う docs-only 設計提案の 新しい exact-head QA を依頼します。 対象 full head: exact command: main 6367 pass / 0 fail / 既存5 skip / 126661 assertions / 598 files、isolated workerd 52 pass / 458 assertions、harness 6 pass / 42 assertions、dashboard browser 42 pass / 既存2 skip、docs browser 3 pass、dashboard/app-docs/platform/auth-staging/bootstrap builds PASS。開始・終了 HEAD / 全5文書 blob 一致、worktree clean。full log SHA256 変更は5文書のみ。v2 は 未採用・未実装の owner decision request です。actual main focused docs build / JA+EN preview / internal 非公開確認と、独立 read-only Core・規範レビューは PASS。既存 native fixture の全体 CI と提案 v2 の runtime proof は別です。実 issuer/approval/Financial/Hosted-intent/RP/Principal coverage、migration rehearsal、stage 資格は未構成・未確認で、この PR はそれらを qualified にしません。runtime/schema/config/key/client registration/deploy の変更・実行はありません。 他 PR の Approve を流用しません。正式判断はこの完全一致 SHA でお願いします。merge / rollout は依頼していません。 |
品質・リリース判定: ✅ Approve(head b2d2ba9)品質・リリース担当による exact-head レビュー結果です(docs-only)。 確認事項
内容レビュー
Secret チェックdiff の credential 形状スキャンで該当なし。 マージ順・フォローアップ
|
Existing shared-account merge contracts leave multi-context accounts, later canonical-group merges, and a distinct operation after applied recovery without an adopted continuation policy. This docs-only follow-up proposes a versioned Accounts/Core group and context protocol for owner review, retaining original account IDs, Workspace/member custody, separate Organizations/wallets, historical references, and pending operation keys.
The proposal is unadopted and unimplemented. It distinguishes actual main
dac30855915e49e5a4fb9782c489a023e7ed1f5afrom the unmerged v1 candidate PR475 at11d8acf5cae3d624dda6656d84bdcdccdc0585b6, using immutable source links. It preserves current safe refusals and same-operation retry/recovery obligations, requests explicit owner decisions on group-controller representation and Workspace continuity, and does not establish a final launch exclusion. The Japanese/English shared-account reference explains the current eligibility boundary and labels candidate context acceptance as pending.Exactly five documentation files change. Runtime, schema, configuration and production defaults do not change. The earlier issuer/claims/client/session design remains the baseline. Actual review issuer, Financial/Hosted-intent/RP/Principal participant coverage, migration qualification, and staging/production activation remain separate requirements; no actual owner capability is qualified by this design.
Validation on exact head
b2d2ba934158b851acb184f792dd445a228e9ef1:bun run check, exit 0 / all 20 phases PASS / 463.686s, Bun1.4.0+34cbb9a40and Nodev22.23.3on a pinned nested PATH. Runner usedumask 022and a fresh environment allowlist (HOME,USER,SHELL,LANG,LC_ALL,LC_CTYPE,TERM,NO_COLOR,PATH, plus the two port variables).NODE_ENV/TAKOSUMI_ENVIRONMENTand credentials were absent; no dotenv files in execution roots. Browser ports wereTAKOSUMI_E2E_PORT=43880andTAKOSUMI_DOCS_BROWSER_PORT=43881.b9be3cfcd20248a955f4ffb97d317028ff69acfa8d97fb9bbdc02ac5c966221d. Begin/end HEAD and all five frozen blobs matched; worktree clean. Native workerd/D1 and local OpenTofu checks exercise existing source, not the proposed v2 protocol. No provider operation, schema apply, credential/client registration, or stage/production publication occurred.Focused documentation build and both JA/EN preview pages passed; relative links resolve and the internal proposal remains excluded from the public build. Independent read-only Core/normative review found no issues. These checks do not demonstrate proposed v2 runtime behavior.