Repository navigation
docs: reconcile project guides with current source and CI - #53
Conversation
Codex Review SummaryThis comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings. |
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: eb8ef55004
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: 0302ed65ee
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: 1819ad874a
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
Lines 167 to 168 in d974f74
Scope whitelist fail-fast behavior to the serializer
For an application cache read, a whitelist violation does not fail fast to the caller: SecureJacksonRedisSerializer throws, but ActualCacheHandler#handleGet catches that exception and CacheErrorHandler applies GRACEFUL_DEGRADATION for GET, so RedisProCacheWriter#get returns a miss. This wording contradicts the GET outcome documented above and can lead operators to expect an exception instead of a loader invocation; qualify the behavior as serializer/CLI-level rejection or document the runtime miss boundary.
AGENTS.md reference: AGENTS.md:L7-L10
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: 23f2320f2c
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: cd38eb7c38
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: 36c6e8ae3a
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".
1 participant
Summary
Project documentation still described independent Redis namespaces, JUnit 5, automatic allowlist inference, fixed handler gaps and benchmark SLOs. Reconcile every tracked Markdown guide and the affected source comments against the current main implementation, POMs, tests, CI and published Central POMs.
Evidence
Before: stale claims and broken multi-line dependency-table rows; published
0.0.2could be confused with the current source build.After: all 16 Markdown files reviewed; 135 local file links/heading anchors resolve. Public Central metadata and every published POM rechecked on 2026-10-07: historical Boot 3.2.4 / Java 17 / Redisson 3.17.6 only.
Passed
bash scripts/ci/check-docs-contracts.sh,bash scripts/ci/check-test-names.sh,bash scripts/ci/check-workflows.sh(14 Python regression tests, actionlint, ShellCheck and SHA-pin checks), andgit diff --check.Fresh
./mvnw -o javadoc:javadoc -Bpassed with JDK 21. Executable Java tokens match the base in all 10 changed Java files; only comments changed.Focused serializer tests passed locally on JDK 21: 19 tests, zero failures/errors. Full remote verification passed on current head
d4f5610, including unit tests, Redis/Javadoc/coverage build, packaged consumers, benchmark smoke, dependency checks andci-ok.Documentation follow-up: shadow reads/dry runs have no persisted progress; a null allowlist fails default serializer startup; ordering rules refer to HandlerOrder constants; Serializer conversion does not synthesize the runtime CachedValue wrapper. ResiCache migration is limited to already compatible wrappers with nested values/envelopes and metadata; regenerate bare DTO/String values through normal application writes. Strict allowlisting and actual cache-hit verification are required before cutover. Current docs-contract, local link/anchor and diff checks pass. Publication status has one canonical owner (COMPATIBILITY.md); publication procedures remain in OPERATIONS.md. Internal allowlist examples and companion guidance use the boundary-safe io.github.davidhlp.* prefix. Current docs-contract, link/anchor and diff checks pass; Migration max-keys is a selection limit, not a hard scan/attempt cap; early failures do not consume it. The operations guide now states this limit and the need for independent operational bounds, with companion documentation aligned. Migration guidance now requires fail-fast envelope validation and reserved collision-free sidecar namespaces; documents deletion resurrection/quiescence, rollback dry-run report limits, and scoped manual cleanup for persistent sidecars. Local docs-contract, links and diff checks pass; All 11 CI checks pass on
d4f5610.Checklist
Backward compatibility
Documentation and comments only. Clarifies existing failure, serializer, synchronization and migration semantics; preserves the future OWASP/SBOM graduation requirements as unimplemented proposals.
Merge Danger
Door: two-way
Blast Radius: documentation
Reversible documentation/comment changes; no runtime, dependency or wire-format changes.