Repository navigation
Cover reviewed MIP-3, MIP-4 and MIP-7 knowledge and Markdown responses - #59
Conversation
|
@natureloved is attempting to deploy a commit to the MF Experimental Team on Vercel. A member of the Team first needs to authorize it. |
portdeveloper
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Two things to fix before this lands:
-
content/mips/upstream-sources.jsonkeeps MIP-12 on the old Draft baseline solely to satisfyscripts/check-mip-upstream.test.ts. Its Final status and activation were already reviewed in #56. Please advance that entry to the reviewed source and give the Draft-to-Final test its own fixture manifest. Keeping production metadata stale for a test leaves the scheduled checker permanently reporting known drift. Also record the review disposition for each MIP in the PR, including any remaining UI mismatch and its follow-up, as #57 asks. -
_overview.mdcalls MIP-3 an "8 MB call-frame memory limit", and the detailed heading repeats that wording. The canonical rule is a shared 8 MB active-memory pool across nested frames. Please say that consistently: a parent holding 3 MB leaves at most 5 MB for its child, rather than each frame having an independent 8 MB allowance. The detailed pool-accounting paragraph already explains this correctly.
I also approved the waiting first-contributor CI run so the checks can execute.
|
Thanks for the review. Both items have been addressed in commit
Upstream Review Disposition & UI Status
|
portdeveloper
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The two points from my previous review are addressed. This now needs a rebase onto current master before it can land: the source documents and metadata changed while this PR was waiting.
Please preserve the newer reviewed content when resolving the conflicts. In particular, content/mips/mip-7.md and _overview.md still say Draft on this branch, and the new assertions in src/lib/ai/knowledge.test.ts and src/lib/mip-markdown.test.ts expect Draft. Current master records Review and includes the MIP-18 context. Update those assertions to the current facts.
Keep the current entries for MIP-11, MIP-15 and MIP-18 in content/mips/upstream-sources.json, along with the reviewed source revision already on master. The overlapping MIP-3 and MIP-4 documents have also been filled in there. Please narrow the remaining diff to useful additions and regression coverage, then run the knowledge-bundle, Markdown-route and upstream-checker tests on the rebased result.
Master already re-reviewed MIP-3, MIP-4 and MIP-7 at 282d1812 and added the MIP-10/11/15/16/18 explainers, so this rebase keeps only the additive coverage portdeveloper#57 asked for: - Knowledge-bundle tests for MIP-3, MIP-4 and MIP-7 facts, including placeholder absence. - Markdown-route coverage for MIP-4 and strengthened MIP-3 assertions. - Assertions match current facts (MIP-7 Review, pinned revision 282d1812). Source documents and upstream-sources.json are unchanged.
f4fcb6b to
dc29094
Compare
|
Rebased onto current master ( Kept master's newer content throughout: the source documents, The remaining diff is narrowed to the missing regression coverage:
Both points from the previous review remain addressed through master's newer content: the MIP-12 manifest entry is already advanced, and MIP-3 is consistently described as a shared 8 MB active-memory pool across nested frames. Verification on the rebased result:
|
portdeveloper
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
lgtm, thanks for rebasing and keeping the current source content intact
Closes #57.
Adds regression coverage for the reviewed MIP-3, MIP-4 and MIP-7 facts in the chat knowledge bundle. Strengthens the MIP-3 Markdown response checks and adds MIP-4 coverage in the route tests, including source links and absence of placeholders.
The source documents and reviewed-source metadata are already on master and remain unchanged. Assertions use the current MIP-7 Review status.