fix(queue): retry policy closes on PR lock contention

[JSONbored]

Motivation

• Close a security/regression gap where routing normal maintenance through the shared per-PR actuation lock could cause converted_to_draft and reopened enforcement to be silently skipped when maintenance held the lock.
• Ensure policy-specific one-shot closes are retried by the queue instead of being acknowledged as processed when the lock is contended by an unrelated maintenance pass.

Description

• Add a new retryable error PrActuationLockContendedError and propagate it when claimPrActuationLock fails for policy enforcement paths so the queue will retry rather than record the webhook as processed. (src/queue/processors.ts)
• Change maybeCloseDraftDodgeAttempt and maybeRecloseDisallowedReopen to throw the new error on lock contention instead of silently returning, and update comments to document the retryable behavior. (src/queue/processors.ts)
• Remove the lock_contended enum path from ReopenRecloseOutcome, and make only an actual "reclosed" outcome short-circuit the normal webhook flow to avoid falling through to normal re-review when contention occurs. (src/queue/processors.ts)
• Update unit tests to assert the new retryable behavior: contended converted_to_draft and reopened deliveries now reject with the lock-contended error and do not mutate GitHub or record a false audit; concurrent race tests assert exactly one success and one retryable failure. (test/unit/queue.test.ts)

Testing

• Ran targeted unit tests: npx vitest run test/unit/queue.test.ts -t "draft-dodge|reopen-reclose" and broader unit suite affected by the changes; the modified tests passed (reopened/draft-dodge regression tests updated and green). ✅
• Ran type checking: npm run typecheck succeeded with no errors. ✅
• Attempted npm audit --audit-level=moderate but the registry audit endpoint returned 403 Forbidden in this environment, so audit could not complete here (environment issue, not code failure). ⚠️

---

Codex Task

[loopover-orb]

Warning

🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨

⏸️ Gittensory review result - manual review recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-02 05:45:32 UTC}

2 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · readiness 75/100 · CI green · clean

⏸️ Suggested Action - Manual Review

• Touches a guarded path — held for manual review

Review summary
The change correctly moves the draft-dodge and reopen-reclose lock-contended paths from silent skip/processed semantics to thrown retry semantics, so the queue can re-drive policy-specific one-shot enforcement instead of losing it behind unrelated maintenance. The visible call-site update also avoids treating contention as a completed reopen decision, and the tests cover the two direct contention cases plus the same-PR race shape. The main remaining issues are test precision and a stale comment, not a visible correctness break.

Nits — 5 non-blocking

• nit: test/unit/queue.test.ts:12293 only asserts that one concurrent draft-dodge job rejects, but not that it rejects with the new lock-contended error, so an unrelated failure in the loser would still satisfy the regression test.
• nit: src/queue/processors.ts:3761 still says every step inside maybeRecloseDisallowedReopen fails safe and is deliberately uncaught, but lock contention is now an intentional thrown retry signal rather than a fail-open/no-op path.
• test/unit/queue.test.ts:12293 should assert the rejected result's reason matches `pr actuation lock contended` so the race test proves the intended retryable failure, not just any rejection.
• src/queue/processors.ts:3761 should update the call-site comment to distinguish unexpected errors from the intentional `PrActuationLockContendedError` retry path.
• Touches a guarded path — held for manual review — A maintainer must review and merge this change.

Signal	Result	Evidence
Code review	✅ No blockers	1 reviewer
Linked issue	✅ No-issue rationale	PR body explains why no issue is linked.
Related work	⚠️ 3 scoped overlaps	Top overlaps are listed below; lower-confidence bulk is hidden.
Change scope	❌ 8/20	High review scope from cached public metadata (size label size:M; no linked issue context).
Validation posture	✅ 25/25	PR body includes validation/test evidence.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 65 registered-repo PR(s), 55 merged, 554 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	JSONbored; Gittensor profile; 65 PR(s), 554 issue(s).
Gate result	⚠️ Not blocking	Advisory; not blocking this PR.

Review context

• Author: JSONbored
• Role context: owner (maintainer lane)
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository registration is not available in the local Gittensory cache.
• Public profile languages: not available
• Official Gittensor activity: 65 PR(s), 554 issue(s).
• Related work: Titles/paths share 6 meaningful terms. (PR #2470)
• Related work: Titles/paths share 7 meaningful terms. (PR #2473)
• Related work: Titles/paths share 6 meaningful terms. (PR #2470, PR #2476)
• Additional title-only matches omitted; title-only overlap does not block.

Contributor next steps

• Treat this as maintainer-lane context rather than normal contributor-lane activity.
• Review top overlaps.
• Add a concise scope and risk note.
• Triage stale or unlinked PRs.
• No action.
• Link the issue being solved, or explicitly explain why this is a no-issue PR.
• Check active issues and PRs before submitting.

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.

_{🟩 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 Gittensory, a quiet PR intelligence layer for OSS maintainers.

• Re-run Gittensory review

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 95.93%. Comparing base (f9662a7) to head (2ae0c14).
⚠️ Report is 31 commits behind head on main.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #2471   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   95.93%   95.93%           
=======================================
  Files         225      225           
  Lines       25332    25336    +4     
  Branches     9217     9217           
=======================================
+ Hits        24302    24306    +4     
  Misses        417      417           
  Partials      613      613           

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/queue/processors.ts	91.75% <100.00%> (+0.01%)	⬆️

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.