fix(engine): detect maxIterations/percentComplete changes in progressChanged (#9323)

[Yurii214]

Summary

progressChanged (packages/loopover-engine/src/loop-progress.ts) decides when a new ProgressSnapshot differs from the previous one enough to push to the customer's streaming surface — the on-change-not-polling design from #4800. Its doc comment says it compares the displayed axes, but it only checked phase, status, iteration, and the activity tail; it never compared maxIterations or the derived percentComplete.

So when an operator raises the iteration budget mid-run (maxIterations changes) while iteration / phase / status / recentActivity all stay the same, percentComplete (= iteration / maxIterations, #6773) silently changes value but progressChanged returned false — the surface never pushed the update, and the customer's progress bar went stale on a real, displayed number.

This adds both maxIterations and percentComplete to the existing OR-chain, so any change to a shown number streams on change. It is a pure diff function: buildProgressSnapshot is unchanged and no other behavior is touched. progressChanged's only real consumer is the streaming surface, which benefits directly.

Closes #9323

Scope

• The PR title follows type(scope): short summary Conventional Commit format.
• This PR is focused and does not mix unrelated backend, UI, MCP, docs, dependency, and deploy changes.
• This follows CONTRIBUTING.md and does not reintroduce GitHub Pages, VitePress, site/, or CNAME.
• I linked a currently open issue this PR resolves (Closes #9323).

Validation

• git diff --check — clean
• npm run actionlint — pass
• npm run typecheck — pass (whole repo)
• npm run test:coverage — measured on the changed file: 100% of changed lines AND branches (23/23 branches), no uncovered lines. Also ran npm run test:changed (every test whose import graph the diff touches): 237 files / 3427 tests pass.
• npm run test:workers — not run; the diff touches no worker-runtime code.
• npm run build:mcp — pass (also built @loopover/engine, @loopover/miner)
• npm run test:mcp-pack — not run; no MCP packaging surface change.
• npm run ui:openapi:check — n/a; no API / OpenAPI schema change.
• npm run ui:lint / ui:typecheck / ui:build — n/a; no UI (apps/loopover-ui) change.
• npm audit --audit-level=moderate — see note below.
• New behavior has tests for new branches: three cases added — budget-only change pushes, percentComplete-only change pushes, and all-six-axes-identical does not push (over-trigger guard).

If any required check was skipped, explain why:

• The change is confined to one pure function in packages/loopover-engine/src/loop-progress.ts, with no API/OpenAPI, UI (apps/loopover-ui), Cloudflare-worker, wrangler binding, migration, or MCP-surface change — so test:workers, test:mcp-pack, ui:*, and ui:openapi:check cover subsystems this diff does not touch. Verified locally: git diff --check, actionlint, whole-repo typecheck, patch coverage 100% on the changed file (23/23 branches), test:changed (237 files / 3427 tests green), @loopover/engine build + engine-parity (drift-check and contract test, both pass).
• npm audit flags only pre-existing advisories already present in the dependency tree; this PR changes no dependency (no package.json / package-lock.json diff), so it introduces none.

Safety

• No secrets, wallet details, hotkeys, coldkeys, PATs, private keys, raw trust scores, private rankings, or private maintainer evidence — pure logic + unit tests, none present.
• Public GitHub text stays sanitized and low-noise — no public-surface text change.
• Auth / cookie / CORS / GitHub App / Cloudflare / session negative-path tests — n/a; no such change.
• API / OpenAPI / MCP behavior — n/a; no contract change.
• UI live-data / empty-error-loading states — n/a; no UI change.
• UI Evidence — n/a; no visible UI, frontend, or docs change (pure @loopover/engine logic).
• Public docs / changelog — n/a; no changelog edit.

UI Evidence

Not applicable — this is a pure @loopover/engine diff-logic change with no visible UI, frontend, or docs surface.

Notes

• percentComplete is derived from iteration / maxIterations, so in normal data it moves only when one of those does. It is compared as its own displayed axis defensively (and per the issue's requirement); the third regression test isolates that axis by constructing the ProgressSnapshot directly, since buildProgressSnapshot cannot produce a percentComplete change with iteration and maxIterations held equal.

[superagent-security]

Superagent did not find any vulnerabilities or security issues in this PR.

[loopover-orb]

Caution

🛑 LoopOver review result - reject/close recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-27 16:51:00 UTC}

2 files · 1 AI reviewer · 1 blocker · CI failing · dirty

🛑 Suggested Action - Reject/Close

Review summary
This is a straightforward, correctly-scoped fix: `progressChanged` now also compares `maxIterations` and `percentComplete`, closing the gap where a mid-run budget change silently failed to push an update to the streaming surface. `buildProgressSnapshot` is untouched, the fix lives at the right layer (the diff comparator itself, not a symptom), and the new tests exercise the real path — including isolating `percentComplete` alone by constructing a `ProgressSnapshot` directly rather than fabricating an impossible state. The PR is tightly scoped to the linked issue (#9323) with no scope creep.

Nits — 3 non-blocking

• The codecov/patch check failed at 77.77% vs a 99% target, but every changed line in the diff is exercised by the new tests shown (both new comparator fields covered by dedicated pushes-and-holds tests); the gap is likely attributable to the 3-commit base-branch drift changing the denominator rather than an actual uncovered branch in this diff.
• The external brief's 'magic number' flag on `engine: progressChanged ignores maxIterations/percentComplete changes in the loop-progress snapshot diff #9323`/`loop-progress.ts's percentComplete can go negative, contradicting its documented 0-100 range #6773` in the doc comment is a false positive — those are GitHub issue references in prose, not numeric literals in logic.
• If the codecov/patch shortfall persists after rebasing onto the current default branch, confirm which specific line/branch is flagged uncovered rather than assuming it's stale-base noise.

Why this is blocked

• No linked issue detected: The PR cites an issue number, but it could not be verified as a currently open issue. — If this PR is intended to solve an issue, link it explicitly in the PR body.

📋 Copy for AI agents — paste into your coding agent

Fix the following blocker(s) from this PR review:

1. No linked issue detected: The PR cites an issue number, but it could not be verified as a currently open issue. — If this PR is intended to solve an issue, link it explicitly in the PR body.

CI checks failing

• codecov/patch — 77.77% of diff hit (target 99.00%)

Decision drivers

• ❌ Code review — 1 blocker (1 reviewer)
• ❌ Gate result — Blocking (Repo-configured hard blocker found.)

Context & advisory signals — never blocks the verdict

Signal	Result	Evidence
Linked issue	✅ Linked	#9323
Related work	⚠️ Same linked issue: #9400	Another open PR references the same linked issue.
Change scope	❌ 8/20	High review scope from cached public metadata (1 linked issue).
Validation posture	✅ 25/25	PR body includes validation/test evidence.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 16 registered-repo PR(s), 10 merged, 1 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	Yurii214; Gittensor profile; 16 PR(s), 1 issue(s).
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: clean · value: minor

Linked issue satisfaction

Addressed
The diff adds prev.maxIterations !== next.maxIterations and prev.percentComplete !== next.percentComplete to progressChanged's OR-chain exactly as required, without touching activityChanged or buildProgressSnapshot's computation. It also adds a true-path test (maxIterations-only change causing progressChanged to return true) and a false-path regression test (all six axes identical returning false)

Review context

• Author: Yurii214
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: Python
• Official Gittensor activity: 16 PR(s), 1 issue(s).
• Related work: Items reference the same linked issue engine: progressChanged ignores maxIterations/percentComplete changes in the loop-progress snapshot diff #9323. (PR #9400)

Contributor next steps

• Start here: Compare fix(engine): push progress on maxIterations and percentComplete changes #9400.
• Then work through the remaining 3 steps in the Signals table above.

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.

🧪 Chat with LoopOver

Ask LoopOver a question about this PR directly in a comment — grounded only in the same cached, public-safe facts shown above, never a new claim.

• @loopover ask <question> answers contribution-quality Q&A with source citations and freshness.
• @loopover chat <question> answers in natural prose from cached decision-pack facts via local inference (maintainer/collaborator; read-only).
• A plain-language @loopover mention with a real question is routed to the closest matching read-only command automatically — no exact syntax required.

Full command reference: https://loopover.ai/docs/loopover-commands

🧪 Experimental — new and may change.

Decision record

• action: close · clause: policy_close:heuristic
• config: 6d557b1ba940cbbecc95c39f530ca31941582cb91c69ea37724ba303cd651cc8 · pack: oss-anti-slop · ci: failed
• record: 642fffb388fd647600e3dba23cba5293500a4f84140c6ccb6c6d2376fe53a21f (schema v5, head 0248e37)

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

• Re-run LoopOver review

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 77.77778% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 89.48%. Comparing base (7e98041) to head (0248e37).
⚠️ Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
packages/loopover-engine/src/loop-progress.ts	77.77%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #9408      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   89.49%   89.48%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         838      838              
  Lines      109676   109684       +8     
  Branches    26116    26116              
==========================================
+ Hits        98154    98156       +2     
- Misses      10259    10261       +2     
- Partials     1263     1267       +4     

Flag	Coverage Δ
backend	95.22% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️
engine	65.72% <77.77%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
packages/loopover-engine/src/loop-progress.ts	76.53% <77.77%> (-0.14%)	⬇️

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

[loopover-orb]

LoopOver is closing this pull request on the maintainer's behalf (CI is failing (codecov/patch); conflicts with the base branch — resolve and open a fresh PR; No linked issue detected). This is an automated maintenance action — to pursue this change, please open a new pull request with the issues resolved. Closed PRs may be analyzed later to improve review accuracy, but they are not automatically reopened or re-reviewed.