Skip to content

Docs: replace obsolete Workbench M2K/M2L handoff with live M2M/native port gates - #181

Merged
masarray merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
docs/workbench-strategy-live-gates-20261015
Oct 15, 2026
Merged

masarray merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
docs/workbench-strategy-live-gates-20261015

Conversation

@masarray

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Documentation-only integration hygiene: PRs #176, #178, #179 are already merged, but the bottom of the strategy still instructs another AI thread to integrate #176 and start M2L from scratch. Replace the stale handoff with the current PR #180 M2M gate, owned C++ ARIEC capability-port policy, ARSAS-inspired native QML UX and rendered/physical acceptance boundaries. Also repair grammar from previous generic reference scrub. No source/protocol/firmware/GUI runtime changes. Product Naming Guard must pass.

@chatgpt-codex-connector

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Oct 15, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review Status Commit Review trigger
📝 Code Review ✅ Completed 2026-10-15T09:47:54.672108Z 7e8c1a0 PR opened
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" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

@masarray
masarray merged commit 0118809 into main Oct 15, 2026
1 check passed

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 7e8c1a0464

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".

Comment on lines +177 to +179
- Native DataSets → Data Model / Global Data actions and source-generation selection reset [PR #180](https://github.com/masarray/arstack61850/pull/180) is the **active M2M candidate**, head `cb7b7fb92447f6365c3c751abd3d0d7db922ffdc` as of this snapshot. It is NOT merged at document writing; verify actual CI/reviews live before merge.

**Track A (after M2K merged):** start M2L by tracing actual Measurement DO/DA typed metadata and quality/time provenance, with baseline screenshots/fixtures including **Hz/TotW must not have phasor angle**. Produce a signed-off data-contract test **before** changing presentation.
**Current Integrator:** complete and review #180's native Qt/Browser/large-model gate, then merge only with exact SHA and all required checks green. Keep [current handoff](WORKBENCH_CURRENT_HANDOFF.md) synchronized after integration. Do not resume obsolete directions that ask to integrate #176 or implement M2L again.

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

P2 Badge Synchronize the companion handoff with the active PR

This redirects integration to PR #180 while the required docs/WORKBENCH_CURRENT_HANDOFF.md still identifies the #179 branch as IN PROGRESS (line 9), lists its exact-head review as the remaining gate (line 15), and describes M2M as future work (lines 35–40). Because the read order explicitly presents that file as the live checkpoint, a thread following both documents receives conflicting baselines and ownership instructions and can duplicate or overlap already-merged #179 work; update the companion handoff in the same documentation change.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant