You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
A review-decision node failed its result contract with review result fingerprint 2d660335439ae628 does not match current implementation 2d660335439ae628 - both sides are the IDENTICAL 16-hex string, yet the comparison rejected it. This killed workflow dag_fe5fdfe0f346GIs9LrGhw6UQEP (issue #404 continuation) at the final review gate and forced a parent-side manual review instead.
Evidence
Wake message: Review result contract failed: review result fingerprint 2d660335439ae628 does not match current implementation 2d660335439ae628 (first 16 hex of sha256 of git diff HEAD~1; commit 40d510485 on fix/404-headless-init-does, 2 files, +198/-7)
The verify node had independently recomputed and confirmed the same fingerprint
String identity looks equal in the message; suspect a type mismatch (string vs wrapped object), whitespace/prefix normalization, or comparing against a stale snapshot field instead of the echoed one in the review-result contract check.
Acceptance
Reproduce with a review node echoing the exact fingerprint string
Fix the comparison to accept byte-identical fingerprints
Regression test pinning the equal-fingerprint accept path
Why
A review-decision node failed its result contract with
review result fingerprint 2d660335439ae628 does not match current implementation 2d660335439ae628- both sides are the IDENTICAL 16-hex string, yet the comparison rejected it. This killed workflow dag_fe5fdfe0f346GIs9LrGhw6UQEP (issue #404 continuation) at the final review gate and forced a parent-side manual review instead.Evidence
Review result contract failed: review result fingerprint 2d660335439ae628 does not match current implementation 2d660335439ae628 (first 16 hex of sha256 of git diff HEAD~1; commit 40d510485 on fix/404-headless-init-does, 2 files, +198/-7)Suspects
String identity looks equal in the message; suspect a type mismatch (string vs wrapped object), whitespace/prefix normalization, or comparing against a stale snapshot field instead of the echoed one in the review-result contract check.
Acceptance