fix(review): honor autoCloseExemptLogins in closeDraftDodgeAttemptIfBlocked

[philluiz2323]

Summary

closeDraftDodgeAttemptIfBlocked was the one remaining review-evasion auto-close guard that did not call isProtectedAutomationAuthor or isAutoCloseExempt. Authors on the operator's autoCloseExemptLogins allowlist, or protected automation bots, were still draft-dodge closed even though every sibling guard honors those exemptions (#6165 pattern).

Adds both exemption checks before the close decision, matching the other five guards in src/queue/review-evasion.ts.

Test plan

• queue-lifecycle-guards.test.ts: integration regressions for autoCloseExemptLogins and dependabot[bot] authors
• review-evasion-per-repo-admin.test.ts: direct maybeCloseDraftDodgeAttempt coverage for both exemption paths with a gate block recorded
• Targeted vitest: 4/4 review: closeDraftDodgeAttemptIfBlocked skips the autoCloseExemptLogins allowlist its five siblings honor #9294 cases pass

Closes #9294

[superagent-security]

Superagent didn't find any vulnerabilities or security issues in this PR.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 75.52%. Comparing base (a58ce3d) to head (6937290).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #9375      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   75.38%   75.52%   +0.13%     
==========================================
  Files         275      277       +2     
  Lines       58023    58402     +379     
  Branches     6181     6320     +139     
==========================================
+ Hits        43739    44106     +367     
- Misses      14014    14017       +3     
- Partials      270      279       +9     

Flag	Coverage Δ
backend	96.83% <100.00%> (?)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/queue/review-evasion.ts	95.69% <100.00%> (ø)
src/selfhost/metrics.ts	100.00% <ø> (ø)

[loopover-orb]

Tip

✅ LoopOver review result - approve/merge recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-27 15:11:20 UTC}

7 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · readiness 95/100 · CI green · clean

✅ Suggested Action - Approve/Merge

• safe to merge

Review summary
This is a narrow, correctly-targeted fix: closeDraftDodgeAttemptIfBlocked now calls isProtectedAutomationAuthor and isAutoCloseExempt before the close decision, matching the pattern its five sibling review-evasion guards already use (each visible later in the full file: closeRepeatedDraftCyclingIfDetected, closeDraftPrIfPolicyEnabled, closeSynchronizeAmendmentIfPolicyEnabled). The placement is correct — before the `block && ...` close-eligibility check, so an exempt author's PR is never routed into the close path at all — and is backed by both an integration regression test and a direct-unit test for each exemption arm. The diff also bundles unrelated but small metrics-registry additions and several other test files' fixes/hardening (worker-entry-boundary specifier-scoping, salvageability confidence-default correction, pg-retention regex fix) that are plausibly pre-existing branch content rather than scope creep introduced by this PR itself.

Nits — 3 non-blocking

• src/queue/review-evasion.ts: the two new exemption checks are placed after `block` and the admin/owner checks are computed but before the `if (block && ...)` condition — consider moving them to the very top of the function (before `getGateBlockOutcome` is even awaited) to save a DB call on the common exempt-author path, though this is a minor perf nit, not correctness.
• The metrics.ts changes (new `loopover_orb_relay_multiple_live_enrollments_total` and `loopover_private_manifest_warnings_total` entries) are unrelated to the stated PR intent and appear to be pre-existing branch content rather than part of this fix — worth confirming they're not accidental scope creep in the final diff.
• Consider hoisting the `isProtectedAutomationAuthor`/`isAutoCloseExempt` checks in src/queue/review-evasion.ts:293-294 above the `getGateBlockOutcome` call and the `isPerTenantAdmin` DB lookup, since an exempt author should short-circuit before any DB work, matching how the pattern reads in the sibling guards further down the file.

Decision drivers

• ✅ Code review — No blockers (1 reviewer)
• ✅ Gate result — Passing (No configured blocker found.)

Context & advisory signals — never blocks the verdict

Signal	Result	Evidence
Linked issue	✅ Linked	#9294
Related work	✅ No active overlap found	No same-issue or scoped active PR overlap found.
Change scope	✅ 20/20	Low review scope from cached public metadata (1 linked issue).
Validation posture	✅ 25/25	PR body includes validation/test evidence.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 986 registered-repo PR(s), 563 merged, 125 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	philluiz2323; Gittensor profile; 986 PR(s), 125 issue(s).
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: clean · value: minor · LLM: moderate

Linked issue satisfaction

Addressed
The diff adds both `isProtectedAutomationAuthor` and `isAutoCloseExempt` checks in `closeDraftDodgeAttemptIfBlocked` before the close decision, matching the sibling pattern, and includes new regression tests in both queue-lifecycle-guards.test.ts and review-evasion-per-repo-admin.test.ts covering the allowlist and protected-automation-author cases as required.

Review context

• Author: philluiz2323
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: Python, JavaScript, MDX, TypeScript, CSS, Cuda, HTML, Kotlin
• Official Gittensor activity: 986 PR(s), 125 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Start here: Triage stale or unlinked PRs.

Signal definitions

• Related work = same linked issue, overlapping active PRs, or title/path similarity.
• Change scope = cached public metadata such as size labels, draft state, and review-burden hints.
• Validation posture = whether the PR provides enough public validation/test evidence for maintainer review.
• Contributor workload = public contributor activity and cleanup pressure, not a repo-wide quality failure.
• Contributor context = public GitHub/Gittensor identity context; non-Gittensor status is not a blocker.

🧪 Chat with LoopOver

Ask LoopOver a question about this PR directly in a comment — grounded only in the same cached, public-safe facts shown above, never a new claim.

• @loopover ask <question> answers contribution-quality Q&A with source citations and freshness.
• @loopover chat <question> answers in natural prose from cached decision-pack facts via local inference (maintainer/collaborator; read-only).
• A plain-language @loopover mention with a real question is routed to the closest matching read-only command automatically — no exact syntax required.

Full command reference: https://loopover.ai/docs/loopover-commands

🧪 Experimental — new and may change.

_{🟩 Safe / merged · 🟦 Advisory · 🟨 Held for review · 🟥 Blocked / closed}

---

💰 Earn for open-source contributions like this. Gittensor lets GitHub contributors earn for the work they already do — register to start earning →.

Checked by LoopOver, a quiet PR intelligence layer for OSS maintainers.

• Re-run LoopOver review

[loopover-orb]

LoopOver approves — the gate is satisfied and CI is green.