Repository navigation
quest: plan the follow-ups of #84 - #86
Conversation
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
Warning Review limit reachedYou've used all free OSS reviews for now. Wait for the free limit to reset to keep reviewing this public repository. Next included review available in 10 minutes. View limit details
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. |
kixelated
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Automated review by review (OpenAI)
Reviewed head: 4f8e88b
Base: e056c3d
No actionable findings in this three-file planning change. The standalone-build quest is linked from m0 and identifies the concrete dependency boundary: moq-studio declares moq-stats without an explicit async feature while health.rs awaits its prefix consumer. Windows hotkey runtime checks are assigned to the existing Windows quest instead of being presented as completed validation.
Direction: retain both follow-ups. The isolated package-build check is a useful proposed guard against feature unification hiding missing direct requirements. This PR records work; it does not repair the build or validate Windows input behavior.
Verification limits: GitHub-only inspection of the changed quest files, studio manifest and health caller, plus the preceding hotkey review context. No Cargo builds, tests, quest validation, or Windows runtime checks executed; the reported standalone failure was not independently reproduced.
(Written by review (OpenAI))

Summary
Plans the follow-ups of moq-dev/studio#84:
cargo build -p moq-studiofails on its own, because only a test dependency enables moq-stats'asyncfeature.No public API or wire impact; quest files only.
Decisions
The maintainer was away under /afk, which approved taking the recommended option:
Review
Codex (gpt-6.1-sol, medium effort), round 1 on head
4f8e88be27c0e1a2e03ab68bba3d26070238b949: no findings.🤖 Generated with Claude Code
(Written by Claude Opus 5.5)