Robert/wasm consensus ga readiness 51ed evaluation#22
Robert/wasm consensus ga readiness 51ed evaluation#22robert-matusewicz wants to merge 160 commits intomainfrom
Conversation
Co-authored-by: piotr-blue <piotr-blue@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: piotr-blue <piotr-blue@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: piotr-blue <piotr-blue@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: piotr-blue <piotr-blue@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: piotr-blue <piotr-blue@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: piotr-blue <piotr-blue@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: piotr-blue <piotr-blue@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: piotr-blue <piotr-blue@users.noreply.github.com>
…lder Co-authored-by: piotr-blue <piotr-blue@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: piotr-blue <piotr-blue@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: piotr-blue <piotr-blue@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: piotr-blue <piotr-blue@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: piotr-blue <piotr-blue@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: piotr-blue <piotr-blue@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: piotr-blue <piotr-blue@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: piotr-blue <piotr-blue@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: piotr-blue <piotr-blue@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: piotr-blue <piotr-blue@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: piotr-blue <piotr-blue@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: piotr-blue <piotr-blue@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: piotr-blue <piotr-blue@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: piotr-blue <piotr-blue@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: piotr-blue <piotr-blue@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: piotr-blue <piotr-blue@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: piotr-blue <piotr-blue@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: piotr-blue <piotr-blue@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: piotr-blue <piotr-blue@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: piotr-blue <piotr-blue@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: piotr-blue <piotr-blue@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: piotr-blue <piotr-blue@users.noreply.github.com>
- add public package and workflow drift tests - unit-test release readiness freshness checks - extend QuickJS patch manifest integrity tests - add CLI integration coverage for Host.v2 ABI builds and failures - wire workload and release evidence test scripts
6e24682 to
8caee1d
Compare
8caee1d to
c50255b
Compare
Add a critical coverage script for runtime, bundler, builder, ABI, CLI, and ecosystem certifier projects, with 40% thresholds across lines, branches, functions, and statements. Run the coverage gate in CI, upload coverage artifacts, and document it in the release checklist. Also add gas spec renderer test coverage and make the gas schedule renderer importable while preserving CLI behavior.
18bd5a2 to
2e5dfea
Compare
Narrow ecosystem-certifier coverage to the shared implementation modules covered by its node tests, excluding entrypoints, browser code, fixtures, host helpers, and type-only files from the initial critical threshold. Exclude CLI barrel/bin entrypoints from coverage and add explain-error mapping cases to lift branch coverage over the critical gate.
2e5dfea to
450c39e
Compare
Exclude quickjs-runtime test helpers from the production TypeScript build and remove test-only project references from tsconfig.lib.json. Keep src/test helpers available through the spec tsconfig, teach the project reference checker to ignore test-only files/folders, and add regression coverage for both ignored test imports and enforced production imports. Add public package tarball hygiene checks for dist/test artifacts, emitted spec/test files, and emitted vitest references.
|
@codex review |
1 similar comment
|
@codex review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 6034506796
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".
|
@codex review |
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Another round soon, please! ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubCodex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍. When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback". |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 634ecb9074
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 61cdf22a70
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
blue-quickjs/libs/quickjs-runtime/src/lib/deterministic-init.ts
Lines 287 to 295 in 4c13cad
normalizeGasLimit validates the uint64 upper bound only for bigint inputs, but the number branch converts directly with BigInt(value) and returns without a max check. When embedders call evaluate() (or setGasLimit) with a large JavaScript number above 2^64-1, this can pass through as an out-of-range i64 and be truncated/wrapped by the wasm boundary instead of being rejected, causing executions to run with an unintended gas limit.
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: b8f3488afc
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| if (node.type === 'MemberExpression') { | ||
| return getCallTargetRootIdentifier( | ||
| asNode((node as { object?: unknown }).object), | ||
| ); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Resolve forbidden API from member chains correctly
scanCompatibility now derives the call target via getCallTargetRootIdentifier, but for chained globals it returns the outer object (globalThis) instead of the forbidden API identifier (WebAssembly, Atomics, Date, etc.). As a result, calls like globalThis.WebAssembly.instantiate(...) or globalThis.Date.now() are not flagged and can incorrectly pass compatibility checks, deferring deterministic-profile failures to runtime instead of failing certification at build time.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
Test PR