chore(deps): align QPK pin to b371322b948e - #145
Conversation
Automated downstream QPK pin update after QPK_PIN landed on main. Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-Authored-By: Codex <noreply@openai.com>
![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: 8702bdc223
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".
Co-Authored-By: Codex <noreply@openai.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 0ae2ec9b06
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".
Co-Authored-By: Codex <noreply@openai.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: b97cf2b870
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".
| authorization = validate_current_order_authorization(runtime, report) | ||
| if not authorization["ok"]: | ||
| record_gating_event( | ||
| report, | ||
| gate="account_order_authorization", | ||
| category="execution", | ||
| detail={"outcome": "REJECT", "reason": authorization["reason"]}, | ||
| ) | ||
| raise RuntimeError("client mutation blocked by account order authorization") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When an account still holds assets from before this research-only rollout, the hard-coded zero-cap mandate always produces a REJECT authorization, and this unconditional mutation gate consequently blocks order_market_sell as well as exposure-increasing calls. In particular, a loss-triggered circuit breaker catches this exception and latches is_circuit_broken, so the position is neither liquidated nor retried on later cycles; strategy stop and risk-off sell paths are blocked similarly. The authorization scheme needs to distinguish risk-reducing exits from new capital use.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| u_total, | ||
| prices, | ||
| trend_daily_pnl, | ||
| account_daily_pnl, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When a loss in the BTC/DCA sleeve drives account_daily_pnl below the new zero threshold, the breaker is now classified and evaluated at account scope, but its protective loop still visits only runtime_trend_universe. It can therefore report the account breaker as TRIGGERED and COMPLETED, latch the breaker for the day, and return while leaving the BTC position that caused the loss untouched; this also occurs when the account holds only BTC. The account-level action must include the BTC sleeve or explicitly use a narrower metric and policy scope.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
Co-Authored-By: Codex <noreply@openai.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: a6b180a802
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".
Co-Authored-By: Codex <noreply@openai.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 06d48b1a00
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".
| authorization = report.get("order_authorization", {}) | ||
| if ( | ||
| bnb_total * bnb_price < min_bnb_value | ||
| and u_total >= buy_bnb_amount | ||
| and authorization.get("outcome") == "APPROVE" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When the account's BNB fuel is below the minimum under a future PAPER/LIVE mandate, this branch is still unreachable: execute_strategy_cycle creates the report with an empty order_authorization, calls capture_market_snapshot, and only computes and copies the preliminary authorization afterward. Consequently the automatic BNB top-up is permanently skipped even when the gate would approve it. Move this operation after the initial risk evaluation and obtain an action-bound authorization before calling the client.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| exact_payload, exact_payload_errors = _validate_exact_legacy_artifact( | ||
| payload or {}, | ||
| runtime_evidence_identity, | ||
| ) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When Firestore and last-known-good resolution fail, the configured candidates point directly to data/output/live_pool_legacy.json, and load_trend_pool_from_file passes that raw JSON into this validator. Requiring the raw artifact to contain a live_pool_legacy_exact_bytes envelope means the local fallback rejects the very legacy file it is intended to load—the legacy body cannot embed an exact-byte copy of itself—and resolution unnecessarily drops to the static pool. The file loader needs to hash the bytes it read and obtain the release identity from a companion envelope or manifest instead of requiring an embedded handoff.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
1 participant
Summary
b371322b948euv.lock，同步刷新 lockfileTest plan
🤖 Generated with Claude Code