docs(fakebus): clarify single-connection model for intent-topic bridge - #419
Conversation
…wire Clarify that FakeBus's intent-pair dedup guard mirrors a single real MessageBusClient connection, not multiple bus connections; test observers sharing a skill's FakeBus should subscribe to the canonical intent topic.
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 79 minutes You've used all free OSS reviews for now. Wait for the free limit to reset to keep reviewing this public repository. How can I continue?After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews. How do review limits work?CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability. For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window. Please refer docs for additional details. Review details⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: defaults Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
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 |
I've processed your PR. Here's what the automation found! ⚙️I've aggregated the results of the automated checks for this PR below. 🔍 LintEnsuring we're following our development process. 📏 ❌ ruff: issues found — see job log 📊 CoverageIs the code wearing its test-suit? Let's see. 👔 ✅ 85.2% total coverage Files below 80% coverage (5 files)
Full report: download the 🔒 Security (pip-audit)Scanning for any signs of suspicious activity. 🕵️♂️ ✅ No known vulnerabilities found (47 packages scanned). 🏷️ Release PreviewPolishing the release notes for the big debut! 🎀 Current:
🚀 Release Channel Compatibility Predicted next version:
⚖️ License CheckA detailed legal audit of your PR. 📖 ✅ No license violations found. Policy: Apache 2.0 (universal donor). StrongCopyleft / NetworkCopyleft / WeakCopyleft / Other / Error categories fail. MPL allowed. 📋 Repo HealthHow's the repo's pulse? Let's take a look. 💓 ✅ All required files present. Latest Version: ✅ 🔨 Build TestsRunning the final assembly check. 🔧 ✅ All versions pass
Closing the loop on this automated check ♻️ |
A downstream team recently re-derived FakeBus's intent-pair dedup guard as a bug: they attached a second listener to the same FakeBus instance to observe both the legacy and canonical spellings of an intent topic, and only ever saw one delivery. That is correct behavior — a FakeBus models one bus connection, and one real MessageBusClient connection only delivers one spelling too. But nothing in the docstring said so, and the guard-scope explanation right next to it is dense enough that the single-connection assumption is easy to miss.
This PR only adds a short plain-English paragraph to the
_bridge_intent_topicdocstring inovos_utils/fakebus.py, explaining what FakeBus can and cannot represent (one connection, not multiple), and pointing test observers at the canonical topic. No behavior changes;test/unittests/test_fakebus_intent_topic_bridge.py(12 tests) still passes.