Skip to content

OLS-3558 Decouple execution success from symptom checks - #374

Draft
onmete wants to merge 1 commit into
openshift:mainfrom
onmete:OLS-3558-execution-success-semantics
Draft

OLS-3558 Decouple execution success from symptom checks#374
onmete wants to merge 1 commit into
openshift:mainfrom
onmete:OLS-3558-execution-success-semantics

Conversation

@onmete

@onmete onmete commented Jul 24, 2026 •
edited by openshift-ci Bot
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Summary

  • Draft prompt change for OLS-3558 (execution agent false failure from inline/symptom checks).
  • Clarifies that top-level success means required apply work completed, not that the symptom has cleared.
  • Treats verification.conditionOutcome as observational only; Unchanged/Degraded must not force success: false.
  • Keeps authoritative symptom assessment for the dedicated Verification step when configured.

Context

Refinement of OLS-3558: an execution run correctly patched a NetworkPolicy, then set success: false because frontend logs still showed timeouts (~3s later / stale log lines). The operator hard-fails on success: false, so formal Verification never ran.

This PR is prompt-only and intended for design review during refinement. Spec updates (success vs inline verification contract) and any analysis-prompt changes (symptom post-checks in the execution script) are follow-ups.

Test plan

  • Review prompt wording for trust mode (no spec.verification step)
  • Confirm team agrees success must not be driven by symptom lag
  • Follow-up: encode the same rules in .ai/spec (sandbox-execution.md / crd-api.md)
  • Follow-up: eval or e2e covering apply-success + conditionOutcome: Unchanged → execution advances to Verification

Made with Cursor

@onmete @cursoragent
OLS-3558 Decouple execution success from symptom checks
ce6705d 
Clarify that success means apply completed, inline verification is
observational only, and delayed symptom clearance must not fail the
execution step when a dedicated Verification phase owns outcome assessment.

Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
@openshift-ci openshift-ci Bot added the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Jul 24, 2026
@openshift-ci

openshift-ci Bot commented Jul 24, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request.
If you want CI signal for your change, please convert it to an actual PR.
You can still manually trigger a test run with /test all

@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Jul 24, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Important

Review skipped

Draft detected.

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Enterprise

Run ID: 171086f0-09a1-45ce-a422-3d2f9f2e1524

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

Use the checkbox below for a quick retry:

  • 🔍 Trigger review

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.

@openshift-ci

openshift-ci Bot commented Jul 24, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign onmete for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Details Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

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

Reviewers

No reviews

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress.

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant

@onmete