Skip to content

CBG-5857: Log the document ID when a BLIP rev is rejected - #8819

Merged
bbrks merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
CBG-5857
Sep 21, 2026
Merged

bbrks merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
CBG-5857

Conversation

@RIT3shSapata

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

CBG-5857

Add the document ID to the rejection log line, so it does not need to be correlated with a separate Debug-level line.

  • Add the document ID to the Info-level SyncMsg rejection log line when the BLIP request carries one (covers rev rejections, including the reserved-internal-property case from the ticket)
  • Add a test that confirms a rejected rev logs the document ID

Pre-review checklist

  • Logging sensitive data? Make sure it's tagged (e.g. base.UD(docID), base.MD(dbName))
  • Updated relevant information in the API specifications (such as endpoint descriptions, schemas, ...) in docs/api — not applicable, no REST API change

Dependencies (if applicable)

  • Link upstream PRs — not applicable
  • Update Go module dependencies when merged — not applicable

Integration Tests

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

The SyncMsg rejection log line named the failing property but not the
document, so the document ID could only be found by correlating a
separate Debug-level line for the same message number. The Info-level
line now includes the ID when the request carries one.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@RIT3shSapata
RIT3shSapata requested review from a team and a lite review from Copilot September 21, 2026 08:49
@factory-droid

factory-droid Bot commented Sep 21, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Droid finished @RIT3shSapata's task —— View job


The production change is small and matches the intent to include doc IDs in BLIP rev rejection logs, with correct UD tagging. One test reliability issue remains, it uses require.* inside AssertLogContains and can leave the console logger redirected on failure.

Copilot AI left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copilot review overview

🟢 Approval recommended

No unresolved blocking issues were identified.

Review effort: Lite
Findings: None

What changed in this PR

Adds redacted document IDs to BLIP rejection logs and verifies the behavior with a regression test.

Changes:

  • Includes document IDs in applicable SyncMsg rejection logs.
  • Adds coverage for rejected revision logging.
File Summary
rest/​blip_api_crud_test.go Verifies rejected revisions log the document ID.
db/​blip_sync_context.go Adds redacted document IDs to rejection logs.

💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.

Comment thread rest/blip_api_crud_test.go
Comment thread db/blip_sync_context.go
require.* can call runtime.Goexit, which would skip the logger
restore that runs after the closure returns and could affect later
tests in the package.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@RIT3shSapata
RIT3shSapata requested review from bbrks and a lite review from Copilot September 21, 2026 11:14
@RIT3shSapata

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@droid review

@factory-droid

factory-droid Bot commented Sep 21, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Droid finished @RIT3shSapata's task —— View job


Change cleanly adds a UD-tagged doc ID to BLIP rev rejection INFO logs when the request carries one, and includes a focused regression test. No additional issues found in the diff.

Copilot AI left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copilot review overview

🟢 Approval recommended

The requested logging change and test coverage are complete with no unresolved issues.

Review effort: Lite
Findings: None

@bbrks
bbrks merged commit 8036ce6 into main Sep 21, 2026
47 checks passed
@bbrks
bbrks deleted the CBG-5857 branch September 21, 2026 11:34
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants