[ptr727]

Summary

Fixes the three follow-ups #3690 records against scripts/carry.py's section modes.

1. plan_unit now renders the insertion and the splice in memory, so check-sections meets every refusal apply-sections raises. SectionPlan carries the rendered inserted and rewritten lines, and apply_plans only writes and asserts them. The scripts/README.md sentence on refusals now says so.
2. An inserted section whose heading lands inside a code fence the target leaves open is refused naming that fence and its line, rather than as an absent section. Any other block that swallows the heading gets a refusal naming the insertion line. Tests assert both messages.
3. RESYNC.md step 1 and scripts/README.md now say the rename check covers text in the same file, since the scan is per file.

Verification

• python -m unittest test_carry from tests/, with tests/requirements.txt: 78 tests pass.
• Each new test fails against the code before its fix.
• ruff check, ruff format --check, and prose_lint.py --diff origin/develop over the changed files: clean. The pre-commit hooks passed.

Local strict review

Two rounds. Round 1 raised two findings, and round 2 raised none.

• Fixed in 62e5d18: when the inserted hub region held a fence of its own, that fence closed the target's open one in the spliced text. So the refusal fell back to the generic message. unparsed_insertion now reads the open fence from the text ahead of the insertion, and a test covers it.
• Declined: consolidate the open-fence filter with scripts/build_dist.py:364. Both sites already call the shared primitive, spec/fidelity_text.py's code_blocks and its closed field. What is left at each site is a one-line filter with a different range meaning. There it keeps blocks that start strictly inside a heading's body, and here it keeps a block reaching the end of a prefix.

Closes on promotion: #3690

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[ptr727]

A recorded local strict-review pass covers head 62e5d182e30652163785179d8bd7d07be41ccc95, the content this pull request carries at that commit against develop, and it recorded 0 findings.

[coderabbitai]

Important

• Trigger review

This repository does not receive automatic reviews because it has fewer than 10 stars.

Run configuration

• Source mode: Auto
• Repository: ptr727/ProjectTemplate
• Branch: burndown/3690-check-sections
• File: .coderabbit.yaml
• Commit: 62e5d18
• Layers: Repository YAML
• Review profile: CHILL
• Plan: Advanced
• Run ID: d09d21c9-0cae-44de-b84c-a027b2fe425d

• Autofix · Keep fixing CodeRabbit findings and required CI, and resolving merge conflicts

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.

Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

[Copilot]

🟡 Changes recommended

The only remaining active finding is a nit at tests/test_carry.py line 664, where the test name runs several clauses together and does not directly state that the open fence is named even though the inserted hub region's own fence closes it, so the item is unresolved.

1 open issue

• Clarify test name for open fence closed by inserted hub region · New

What changed in this PR

This PR makes scripts/carry.py's check-sections mode refuse everything that apply-sections would refuse. Before this change, check-sections could report a file as ready while apply-sections later rejected it. The PR also gives a clearer error when an inserted section lands inside a code fence the target leaves open. It closes the three follow-ups in issue #3690.

Changes:

• Planning now renders each insertion and replacement in memory, so every refusal is raised before any file is written. apply_plans only writes and checks the rendered text.
• An inserted section that would land inside an open code fence now fails with a message naming that fence and its line. Other blocks that swallow the heading get a message naming the insertion line.
• The docs in RESYNC.md and scripts/README.md now say the rename check covers only the same file, since the scan is per file.

File	Description
tests/​test_carry.py	Adds tests for the planning-time refusal, the open-fence message, and the generic insertion message.
scripts/​README.md	Updates the refusal sentence to say planning renders insertions and that the rename check is per file.
scripts/​carry.py	Renders insertions and splices during planning, and adds the open-fence refusal helper.
RESYNC.md	Says the rename refusal covers text in the same file only.

_{Review effort: Lite}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 82.97%. Comparing base (b38e084) to head (62e5d18).
⚠️ Report is 81 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #3835      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    81.60%   82.97%   +1.36%     
===========================================
  Files           26       29       +3     
  Lines         9070     9747     +677     
===========================================
+ Hits          7402     8088     +686     
+ Misses        1668     1659       -9     

Flag	Coverage Δ
python-3.13	82.97% <100.00%> (+1.36%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[ptr727]

Backlog burndown orchestrator, for the record. The worker reported that round 2 of local-strict-review on this PR was run by a read-only reviewer that could not write its own report file. The worker then wrote that report itself, containing the digest line and no findings, before recording. The reviewer did return no findings, so the count is right. But develop's local-strict-review rule since #3807 is that the reviewer writes the report and the driver never writes it for the reviewer. This pass therefore lacks the binding that rule exists for. Later workers in this run are now briefed to dispatch a reviewer that can write.