Repository navigation
Conversation
Collaborator
Author
|
|
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Closes #2581
What this changes
emrg/server/promote_prompt.md, two places, one rule:blockedfield (§4.1) now states one availability rule. It kept the per-channel requirement it was given and lost the clauseempty = no blocker, which that requirement makes unreachable: an account holding one channel owes that channel a line in every round, so the field is empty only when there is no channel at all. What replaces it says the same thing the retired clause was trying to say — no blocker is stated per line, never by leaving the field empty.blockedas the single field that owns channel availability — and points at the form §4.1 gives it. The template's §4.2 states why: a fact written twice will eventually disagree with itself.The per-channel sentence itself is untouched, deliberately:
tests/test_prompt_templates.py::PROMOTE_METHOD_RULESpins that phrase's position and its single occurrence, and a rewrite that reworded it would have moved a guard nobody asked to move.The guard
Four new tests in
tests/test_prompt_templates.py, in the section shape that file already uses:Verification, on the tree this PR lands
Measured 2026-10-26 on base
ad8f44c(master) with this branch merged in — the head is4ecaf86locally,89f58d7don the remote, content identical.tests/test_prompt_templates.py: 54 passed (50 before this change + 4 new).scripts/check-doc-count.py: exit 0 — no tracked file states the Python test count;--measurereads 5893 collected tests at ad8f44c.python -m emrg --help: exit 0.from emrg.client.app import run_client: imports.git hash-objectmatched the pre-mutation blob every time):empty = no blockerback into the fieldtest_the_blocked_field_states_no_clause_it_cannot_satisfyevery channel→each channeltest_the_blocked_field_carries_the_per_channel_ruletest_the_per_channel_blocked_rule_has_one_hometest_the_blocked_field_states_no_clause_it_cannot_satisfy(second assertion)"not run"from the fieldCI on this head: pending as this PR is opened; it is not reported as green.