fix(lifecycle): bind RFC bumps to sealed amendments#37
Merged
Merged
Conversation
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe change defines sealed RFC version boundaries, restricts version-changing bumps to sealed phases, adds migration-safe handling for missing or legacy signatures, permits narrowly scoped current-candidate clause deletion, expands referrer detection, and updates related governance documentation and tests. ChangesRFC lifecycle governance
Estimated code review effort: 4 (Complex) | ~60 minutes Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant Author
participant RFCCommand
participant SignatureValidation
participant Repository
Author->>RFCCommand: edit RFC or request bump/advance
RFCCommand->>SignatureValidation: validate phase, amendment, and sealed signature
SignatureValidation->>RFCCommand: approve transition or return migration error
RFCCommand->>Repository: write RFC and clause state transactionally
Repository->>Author: return lifecycle result
Possibly related PRs
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches📝 Generate docstrings
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
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 |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick comments (4)
tests/test_rfc_lifecycle.rs (1)
36-43: 📐 Maintainability & Code Quality | 🔵 Trivial | ⚡ Quick winCorrect update to the new seal-on-impl-transition baseline. Same repeated
advance impl/test/stableboilerplate as flagged in bump.rs — see consolidated comment.🤖 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 `@tests/test_rfc_lifecycle.rs` around lines 36 - 43, Update the RFC lifecycle setup around the baseline commands to use the new seal-on-impl-transition behavior, removing the redundant repeated advance impl/test/stable boilerplate while preserving the intended RFC-0001 progression and baseline result.tests/lifecycle_tests/rfc_cases/bump.rs (1)
16-26: 📐 Maintainability & Code Quality | 🔵 Trivial | ⚡ Quick winRepeated
advance impl/test/stableboilerplate across ~9 tests.The tests themselves are logically sound and correctly exercise the sealed-signature contract (signature preserved across content bumps until re-sealed, phase resets to spec, no mutation on rejected bumps, etc.). However, the 3-command "advance to stable" sequence used to establish the sealed baseline is now duplicated verbatim across all these tests. Extracting a small shared helper (e.g. returning the 3 command arrays, or a macro) in
tests/commonwould reduce the maintenance surface if a lifecycle phase is ever renamed/reordered. See consolidated comment for cross-file scope.Also applies to: 51-61, 86-96, 322-325, 353-413, 415-426, 704-706, 731-733, 782-784, 829-831
🤖 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 `@tests/lifecycle_tests/rfc_cases/bump.rs` around lines 16 - 26, Extract the repeated RFC lifecycle setup commands used by the tests in bump.rs into a shared helper or macro under tests/common, returning or expanding the impl, test, and stable advance commands in order. Replace each duplicated three-command sequence across the referenced tests with the shared helper while preserving the existing command arguments and test behavior.src/cmd/lifecycle/rfc.rs (2)
45-61: 📐 Maintainability & Code Quality | 🔵 Trivial | ⚡ Quick winNew lifecycle checks lack RFC clause citations.
The phase=spec rejection and sealed-signature requirement (Lines 45-61), and the mirrored check in
advance()(Lines 261-264), don't cite a specific RFC clause the way nearby pre-existing checks do (e.g. Line 32-33 cites[[RFC-0002:C-LIFECYCLE-VERBS]], Line 219 cites[[RFC-0000:C-PHASE-LIFECYCLE]]). As per coding guidelines, "implementation constraints should cite RFC clauses" and code should "optimize for RFC compliance, phase discipline, auditability, and traceability." Consider adding an inline citation to whichever RFC-0000/ADR-0054 clause defines the sealed-signature bump/advance boundary.🤖 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 `@src/cmd/lifecycle/rfc.rs` around lines 45 - 61, Update the new lifecycle validation errors in the RFC version bump flow and the mirrored advance() check to include an inline citation to the RFC-0000 or ADR-0054 clause defining the sealed-signature and phase boundary. Preserve the existing validation behavior and cite the same authoritative clause consistently for the phase=spec rejection and missing sealed-signature requirement.Source: Coding guidelines
261-289: 📐 Maintainability & Code Quality | 🔵 Trivial | ⚡ Quick winSimplify the sealed-signature branch The trailing
else { None }arm is unreachable here: the guard above already rejects!seals_current_version && rfc.signature.is_none(), andload_rfcrereads the same file before this branch. Replacing it with an explicitexpectormatchwould make the invariant obvious.🤖 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 `@src/cmd/lifecycle/rfc.rs` around lines 261 - 289, Update the next_signature selection in the RFC phase advancement flow to remove the unreachable trailing else branch. Since the earlier guard and load_rfc guarantee rfc_index.rfc.signature is present when seals_current_version is false, explicitly unwrap or match that signature and preserve the existing stored-signature validation and error paths.
🤖 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.
Nitpick comments:
In `@src/cmd/lifecycle/rfc.rs`:
- Around line 45-61: Update the new lifecycle validation errors in the RFC
version bump flow and the mirrored advance() check to include an inline citation
to the RFC-0000 or ADR-0054 clause defining the sealed-signature and phase
boundary. Preserve the existing validation behavior and cite the same
authoritative clause consistently for the phase=spec rejection and missing
sealed-signature requirement.
- Around line 261-289: Update the next_signature selection in the RFC phase
advancement flow to remove the unreachable trailing else branch. Since the
earlier guard and load_rfc guarantee rfc_index.rfc.signature is present when
seals_current_version is false, explicitly unwrap or match that signature and
preserve the existing stored-signature validation and error paths.
In `@tests/lifecycle_tests/rfc_cases/bump.rs`:
- Around line 16-26: Extract the repeated RFC lifecycle setup commands used by
the tests in bump.rs into a shared helper or macro under tests/common, returning
or expanding the impl, test, and stable advance commands in order. Replace each
duplicated three-command sequence across the referenced tests with the shared
helper while preserving the existing command arguments and test behavior.
In `@tests/test_rfc_lifecycle.rs`:
- Around line 36-43: Update the RFC lifecycle setup around the baseline commands
to use the new seal-on-impl-transition behavior, removing the redundant repeated
advance impl/test/stable boilerplate while preserving the intended RFC-0001
progression and baseline result.
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: defaults
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: 46e5b438-4cdf-474c-9038-298e225fb667
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (10)
tests/snapshots/test_delete__delete_clause_safeguard_normative.snapis excluded by!**/*.snaptests/snapshots/test_delete__delete_clause_success_current_normative_spec_candidate.snapis excluded by!**/*.snaptests/snapshots/test_help__rfc_bump_help.snapis excluded by!**/*.snaptests/snapshots/test_lifecycle__bump_change_does_not_clear_pending_amendment.snapis excluded by!**/*.snaptests/snapshots/test_lifecycle__bump_major_version.snapis excluded by!**/*.snaptests/snapshots/test_lifecycle__bump_minor_version.snapis excluded by!**/*.snaptests/snapshots/test_lifecycle__bump_patch_version.snapis excluded by!**/*.snaptests/snapshots/test_lifecycle__bump_rejects_changelog_only_after_signature_baseline.snapis excluded by!**/*.snaptests/snapshots/test_lifecycle__bump_rejects_empty_bump_after_signature_baseline.snapis excluded by!**/*.snaptests/snapshots/test_rfc_lifecycle__rfc_amendment_tracking.snapis excluded by!**/*.snap
📒 Files selected for processing (32)
.claude/skills/gov/SKILL.md.claude/skills/rfc-writer/SKILL.md.claude/skills/spec/SKILL.mdAGENTS.mddocs/guide/rfcs.mddocs/rfc/RFC-0000.mddocs/rfc/RFC-0001.mddocs/rfc/RFC-0002.mdgov/adr/ADR-0054-bind-rfc-version-bumps-to-sealed-version-amendments.tomlgov/rfc/RFC-0000/clauses/C-CLAUSE-DEF.tomlgov/rfc/RFC-0000/clauses/C-PHASE-LIFECYCLE.tomlgov/rfc/RFC-0000/rfc.tomlgov/rfc/RFC-0001/clauses/C-RFC-PHASE.tomlgov/rfc/RFC-0001/rfc.tomlgov/rfc/RFC-0002/clauses/C-CRUD-VERBS.tomlgov/rfc/RFC-0002/clauses/C-LIFECYCLE-VERBS.tomlgov/rfc/RFC-0002/rfc.tomlgov/work/2026-07-20-close-rfc-candidate-version-lifecycle-gaps.tomlsrc/cli/resources/clause.rssrc/cli/resources/rfc.rssrc/cmd/edit/delete.rssrc/cmd/edit/delete_referrers.rssrc/cmd/lifecycle/rfc.rssrc/cmd/new/artifacts/rfc.rssrc/model/rfc.rssrc/signature/mod.rssrc/signature/tests.rstests/delete_tests/clause.rstests/edit_tests/rfc.rstests/lifecycle_tests/rfc_cases/advance.rstests/lifecycle_tests/rfc_cases/bump.rstests/test_rfc_lifecycle.rs
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe RFC lifecycle treats ChangesRFC lifecycle governance
Estimated code review effort: 4 (Complex) | ~60 minutes Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant RFCCommand
participant SignatureValidation
participant RFCStorage
RFCCommand->>SignatureValidation: validate phase, signature, and amendment state
SignatureValidation->>RFCCommand: accept or return migration diagnostic
RFCCommand->>RFCStorage: persist lifecycle transition
sequenceDiagram
participant ClauseDeleteCommand
participant ReferrerScanner
participant RFCStorage
ClauseDeleteCommand->>ReferrerScanner: collect structural, supersession, and inline referrers
ReferrerScanner->>ClauseDeleteCommand: return sorted referrer IDs
ClauseDeleteCommand->>RFCStorage: transactionally update RFC and delete clause
Possibly related PRs
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches📝 Generate docstrings
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
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 `@gov/rfc/RFC-0001/rfc.toml`:
- Around line 33-34: Remove the duplicated [[changelog]] header before the 0.7.0
entry in gov/rfc/RFC-0001/rfc.toml and before the 0.14.0 entry in
gov/rfc/RFC-0002/rfc.toml, leaving exactly one header per populated release
entry.
🪄 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: 46e5b438-4cdf-474c-9038-298e225fb667
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (10)
tests/snapshots/test_delete__delete_clause_safeguard_normative.snapis excluded by!**/*.snaptests/snapshots/test_delete__delete_clause_success_current_normative_spec_candidate.snapis excluded by!**/*.snaptests/snapshots/test_help__rfc_bump_help.snapis excluded by!**/*.snaptests/snapshots/test_lifecycle__bump_change_does_not_clear_pending_amendment.snapis excluded by!**/*.snaptests/snapshots/test_lifecycle__bump_major_version.snapis excluded by!**/*.snaptests/snapshots/test_lifecycle__bump_minor_version.snapis excluded by!**/*.snaptests/snapshots/test_lifecycle__bump_patch_version.snapis excluded by!**/*.snaptests/snapshots/test_lifecycle__bump_rejects_changelog_only_after_signature_baseline.snapis excluded by!**/*.snaptests/snapshots/test_lifecycle__bump_rejects_empty_bump_after_signature_baseline.snapis excluded by!**/*.snaptests/snapshots/test_rfc_lifecycle__rfc_amendment_tracking.snapis excluded by!**/*.snap
📒 Files selected for processing (32)
.claude/skills/gov/SKILL.md.claude/skills/rfc-writer/SKILL.md.claude/skills/spec/SKILL.mdAGENTS.mddocs/guide/rfcs.mddocs/rfc/RFC-0000.mddocs/rfc/RFC-0001.mddocs/rfc/RFC-0002.mdgov/adr/ADR-0054-bind-rfc-version-bumps-to-sealed-version-amendments.tomlgov/rfc/RFC-0000/clauses/C-CLAUSE-DEF.tomlgov/rfc/RFC-0000/clauses/C-PHASE-LIFECYCLE.tomlgov/rfc/RFC-0000/rfc.tomlgov/rfc/RFC-0001/clauses/C-RFC-PHASE.tomlgov/rfc/RFC-0001/rfc.tomlgov/rfc/RFC-0002/clauses/C-CRUD-VERBS.tomlgov/rfc/RFC-0002/clauses/C-LIFECYCLE-VERBS.tomlgov/rfc/RFC-0002/rfc.tomlgov/work/2026-07-20-close-rfc-candidate-version-lifecycle-gaps.tomlsrc/cli/resources/clause.rssrc/cli/resources/rfc.rssrc/cmd/edit/delete.rssrc/cmd/edit/delete_referrers.rssrc/cmd/lifecycle/rfc.rssrc/cmd/new/artifacts/rfc.rssrc/model/rfc.rssrc/signature/mod.rssrc/signature/tests.rstests/delete_tests/clause.rstests/edit_tests/rfc.rstests/lifecycle_tests/rfc_cases/advance.rstests/lifecycle_tests/rfc_cases/bump.rstests/test_rfc_lifecycle.rs
Comment on lines
+33
to
+34
| [[changelog]] | ||
| version = "0.7.0" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🗄️ Data Integrity & Integration | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick win
Duplicate [[changelog]] table headers.
Both RFC files contain a duplicated [[changelog]] array table header for the new release entry. In TOML, consecutive [[changelog]] headers create an empty object in the array before starting the populated entry, which will cause schema validation to fail because required fields (like version and date) will be missing on the empty object.
gov/rfc/RFC-0001/rfc.toml#L33-L34: Remove the extra[[changelog]]header so there is only one for the0.7.0entry.gov/rfc/RFC-0002/rfc.toml#L39-L40: Remove the extra[[changelog]]header so there is only one for the0.14.0entry.
📍 Affects 2 files
gov/rfc/RFC-0001/rfc.toml#L33-L34(this comment)gov/rfc/RFC-0002/rfc.toml#L39-L40
🤖 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 `@gov/rfc/RFC-0001/rfc.toml` around lines 33 - 34, Remove the duplicated
[[changelog]] header before the 0.7.0 entry in gov/rfc/RFC-0001/rfc.toml and
before the 0.14.0 entry in gov/rfc/RFC-0002/rfc.toml, leaving exactly one header
per populated release entry.
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 @.claude/skills/gov/SKILL.md:
- Around line 214-215: Clarify the lifecycle guidance in the
RFC-without-sealed-signature rule to restore the complete sealed baseline,
including both RFC and clause TOML artifacts, from a single VCS revision.
Clarify the current normative spec deletion rule to require an all-artifact
reference scan and diagnostics for every referencing artifact before deleting an
unreferenced Clause, while preserving deprecate or supersede handling for
inherited Clauses.
🪄 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: d53e3529-8f19-4efe-9e85-2ca34be7a73e
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (10)
tests/snapshots/test_delete__delete_clause_safeguard_normative.snapis excluded by!**/*.snaptests/snapshots/test_delete__delete_clause_success_current_normative_spec_candidate.snapis excluded by!**/*.snaptests/snapshots/test_help__rfc_bump_help.snapis excluded by!**/*.snaptests/snapshots/test_lifecycle__bump_change_does_not_clear_pending_amendment.snapis excluded by!**/*.snaptests/snapshots/test_lifecycle__bump_major_version.snapis excluded by!**/*.snaptests/snapshots/test_lifecycle__bump_minor_version.snapis excluded by!**/*.snaptests/snapshots/test_lifecycle__bump_patch_version.snapis excluded by!**/*.snaptests/snapshots/test_lifecycle__bump_rejects_changelog_only_after_signature_baseline.snapis excluded by!**/*.snaptests/snapshots/test_lifecycle__bump_rejects_empty_bump_after_signature_baseline.snapis excluded by!**/*.snaptests/snapshots/test_rfc_lifecycle__rfc_amendment_tracking.snapis excluded by!**/*.snap
📒 Files selected for processing (32)
.claude/skills/gov/SKILL.md.claude/skills/rfc-writer/SKILL.md.claude/skills/spec/SKILL.mdAGENTS.mddocs/guide/rfcs.mddocs/rfc/RFC-0000.mddocs/rfc/RFC-0001.mddocs/rfc/RFC-0002.mdgov/adr/ADR-0054-bind-rfc-version-bumps-to-sealed-version-amendments.tomlgov/rfc/RFC-0000/clauses/C-CLAUSE-DEF.tomlgov/rfc/RFC-0000/clauses/C-PHASE-LIFECYCLE.tomlgov/rfc/RFC-0000/rfc.tomlgov/rfc/RFC-0001/clauses/C-RFC-PHASE.tomlgov/rfc/RFC-0001/rfc.tomlgov/rfc/RFC-0002/clauses/C-CRUD-VERBS.tomlgov/rfc/RFC-0002/clauses/C-LIFECYCLE-VERBS.tomlgov/rfc/RFC-0002/rfc.tomlgov/work/2026-07-20-close-rfc-candidate-version-lifecycle-gaps.tomlsrc/cli/resources/clause.rssrc/cli/resources/rfc.rssrc/cmd/edit/delete.rssrc/cmd/edit/delete_referrers.rssrc/cmd/lifecycle/rfc.rssrc/cmd/new/artifacts/rfc.rssrc/model/rfc.rssrc/signature/mod.rssrc/signature/tests.rstests/delete_tests/clause.rstests/edit_tests/rfc.rstests/lifecycle_tests/rfc_cases/advance.rstests/lifecycle_tests/rfc_cases/bump.rstests/test_rfc_lifecycle.rs
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (23)
- src/cmd/new/artifacts/rfc.rs
- src/model/rfc.rs
- src/cli/resources/clause.rs
- gov/adr/ADR-0054-bind-rfc-version-bumps-to-sealed-version-amendments.toml
- gov/rfc/RFC-0001/rfc.toml
- gov/rfc/RFC-0001/clauses/C-RFC-PHASE.toml
- gov/work/2026-07-20-close-rfc-candidate-version-lifecycle-gaps.toml
- tests/test_rfc_lifecycle.rs
- gov/rfc/RFC-0002/clauses/C-CRUD-VERBS.toml
- AGENTS.md
- tests/delete_tests/clause.rs
- src/cmd/edit/delete.rs
- gov/rfc/RFC-0002/clauses/C-LIFECYCLE-VERBS.toml
- gov/rfc/RFC-0000/rfc.toml
- docs/rfc/RFC-0001.md
- src/signature/mod.rs
- gov/rfc/RFC-0000/clauses/C-PHASE-LIFECYCLE.toml
- docs/guide/rfcs.md
- docs/rfc/RFC-0002.md
- src/cmd/edit/delete_referrers.rs
- tests/lifecycle_tests/rfc_cases/advance.rs
- src/cmd/lifecycle/rfc.rs
- tests/lifecycle_tests/rfc_cases/bump.rs
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
.claude/skills/rfc-writer/SKILL.md (1)
168-168: 🗄️ Data Integrity & Integration | 🔵 Trivial | ⚡ Quick winMake the clause-deletion safety gate explicit.
Require
govctl clause deleteto scan all governed artifacts and report every referrer before deletion; “unreferenced” alone is too easy to interpret as a local check and could permit dangling references.As per coding guidelines, governance artifacts must preserve lifecycle and reference guarantees.
🤖 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 @.claude/skills/rfc-writer/SKILL.md at line 168, Clarify the clause-deletion rule near the current normative spec guidance: require govctl clause delete to scan all governed artifacts and report every referrer before allowing deletion. Keep the existing lifecycle distinction for current-candidate clauses versus inherited clauses, but make clear that deletion is permitted only after the complete governed-artifact reference check confirms no references.Sources: Coding guidelines, Learnings
🤖 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.
Nitpick comments:
In @.claude/skills/rfc-writer/SKILL.md:
- Line 168: Clarify the clause-deletion rule near the current normative spec
guidance: require govctl clause delete to scan all governed artifacts and report
every referrer before allowing deletion. Keep the existing lifecycle distinction
for current-candidate clauses versus inherited clauses, but make clear that
deletion is permitted only after the complete governed-artifact reference check
confirms no references.
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: defaults
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: fd87c9e3-b184-4217-81c5-f40cf4acaa54
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (10)
tests/snapshots/test_delete__delete_clause_safeguard_normative.snapis excluded by!**/*.snaptests/snapshots/test_delete__delete_clause_success_current_normative_spec_candidate.snapis excluded by!**/*.snaptests/snapshots/test_help__rfc_bump_help.snapis excluded by!**/*.snaptests/snapshots/test_lifecycle__bump_change_does_not_clear_pending_amendment.snapis excluded by!**/*.snaptests/snapshots/test_lifecycle__bump_major_version.snapis excluded by!**/*.snaptests/snapshots/test_lifecycle__bump_minor_version.snapis excluded by!**/*.snaptests/snapshots/test_lifecycle__bump_patch_version.snapis excluded by!**/*.snaptests/snapshots/test_lifecycle__bump_rejects_changelog_only_after_signature_baseline.snapis excluded by!**/*.snaptests/snapshots/test_lifecycle__bump_rejects_empty_bump_after_signature_baseline.snapis excluded by!**/*.snaptests/snapshots/test_rfc_lifecycle__rfc_amendment_tracking.snapis excluded by!**/*.snap
📒 Files selected for processing (32)
.claude/skills/gov/SKILL.md.claude/skills/rfc-writer/SKILL.md.claude/skills/spec/SKILL.mdAGENTS.mddocs/guide/rfcs.mddocs/rfc/RFC-0000.mddocs/rfc/RFC-0001.mddocs/rfc/RFC-0002.mdgov/adr/ADR-0054-bind-rfc-version-bumps-to-sealed-version-amendments.tomlgov/rfc/RFC-0000/clauses/C-CLAUSE-DEF.tomlgov/rfc/RFC-0000/clauses/C-PHASE-LIFECYCLE.tomlgov/rfc/RFC-0000/rfc.tomlgov/rfc/RFC-0001/clauses/C-RFC-PHASE.tomlgov/rfc/RFC-0001/rfc.tomlgov/rfc/RFC-0002/clauses/C-CRUD-VERBS.tomlgov/rfc/RFC-0002/clauses/C-LIFECYCLE-VERBS.tomlgov/rfc/RFC-0002/rfc.tomlgov/work/2026-07-20-close-rfc-candidate-version-lifecycle-gaps.tomlsrc/cli/resources/clause.rssrc/cli/resources/rfc.rssrc/cmd/edit/delete.rssrc/cmd/edit/delete_referrers.rssrc/cmd/lifecycle/rfc.rssrc/cmd/new/artifacts/rfc.rssrc/model/rfc.rssrc/signature/mod.rssrc/signature/tests.rstests/delete_tests/clause.rstests/edit_tests/rfc.rstests/lifecycle_tests/rfc_cases/advance.rstests/lifecycle_tests/rfc_cases/bump.rstests/test_rfc_lifecycle.rs
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (25)
- src/cmd/new/artifacts/rfc.rs
- src/signature/tests.rs
- src/cli/resources/rfc.rs
- gov/rfc/RFC-0002/clauses/C-CRUD-VERBS.toml
- gov/rfc/RFC-0001/rfc.toml
- tests/edit_tests/rfc.rs
- tests/test_rfc_lifecycle.rs
- gov/rfc/RFC-0002/rfc.toml
- gov/rfc/RFC-0000/clauses/C-PHASE-LIFECYCLE.toml
- docs/guide/rfcs.md
- src/cmd/edit/delete_referrers.rs
- src/cmd/edit/delete.rs
- src/cli/resources/clause.rs
- gov/rfc/RFC-0001/clauses/C-RFC-PHASE.toml
- docs/rfc/RFC-0001.md
- gov/rfc/RFC-0000/rfc.toml
- AGENTS.md
- src/signature/mod.rs
- docs/rfc/RFC-0002.md
- tests/delete_tests/clause.rs
- gov/work/2026-07-20-close-rfc-candidate-version-lifecycle-gaps.toml
- gov/rfc/RFC-0002/clauses/C-LIFECYCLE-VERBS.toml
- src/cmd/lifecycle/rfc.rs
- gov/adr/ADR-0054-bind-rfc-version-bumps-to-sealed-version-amendments.toml
- tests/lifecycle_tests/rfc_cases/bump.rs
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is
📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know! |
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 by CodeRabbit
impl/test/stable, and are blocked whilespecremains the open candidate.speccandidate whensincematches the RFC version; inherited clauses must be deprecated/superseded.