Read a Section Heading Through One Reduction in pr_review.py

[ptr727]

Summary

Resolves #3174 and #3173. Both decide what counts as a section heading in pr_review.py, so they land together.

• One reduction, one leading-count rule (Read a Section Heading Through One Reduction in pr_review.py #3174). normal, unwrap, and heading_count now share reduced, which turns a badge into its word and drops emphasis. normal and heading_count also share spaced and one LEADING_COUNT. As a result, the role a summary is vetted with and the count read from it cannot disagree. Before, <strong>2\fopen findings</strong> was vetted as the open-findings section while its count read as none.
• Which summaries, not how many (Read a Section Heading Through One Reduction in pr_review.py #3174). unrecognized_in now checks which vetted previously-missed summaries appear inside the blocks it read. A bare (N) line read in one region can no longer stand in for a summary that no reader found in another.
• One block per section. A section ends at the next counted heading of either kind, its own kind included. So two previously-missed sections in one wrapper are two blocks, each counted by its own heading. Past a region's first section, only the sibling heading that section ends at can open another one, so prose after a section boundary never opens a section.
• A finding entry is never a section (Read a Finding Entry Titled With the Suppressed Marker as No Section in pr_review.py #3173). An entry whose summary opens on a severity badge is never read as a section heading and never ends a section, whatever its title says.

Verification

• python3 -m unittest test_pr_review: 855 tests pass. All 850 existing tests pass unchanged.
• Each of the 5 new tests fails against the code it fixes. The four first-commit tests fail on develop, and test_prose_past_a_bound_opens_no_second_section fails on the previous branch head.
• ruff format --check, ruff check, mypy, spec/validate.py, and the commit hooks' prose and EOL gates are clean.
• One report string changes, on a shape that was already unrecognized: a count-first Markdown heading such as ### 2 foo now reports as ### (N) foo.

Local review findings still open

The edit budget for the local strict review was spent over three recorded passes. These remain for this PR's review loop:

• introduced: the sibling_heading docstring says "A second section of the same kind bounds too, so each is its own block with its own count". That holds only when the two sections are adjacent. With sections interleaved in one region (suppressed, then previously missed, then suppressed again), the third section is read by nobody. The gap itself is pre-existing, since develop read only the first section per region, and no observed body interleaves this way.
• style: the docstring of test_prose_past_a_bound_opens_no_second_section holds one 26-word sentence that only the opt-in --check sentence-length flags. The default prose gate passes.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[ptr727]

A recorded local strict-review pass covers head 04a1841bc68e107b1f2dbeda24110570a03a7009, the content this pull request carries at that commit against develop, and it recorded 2 findings.

[coderabbitai]

Important

• 🔍 Trigger review

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

⚙️ Run configuration

• Configuration used: Repository: ptr727/ProjectTemplate/.coderabbit.yaml
• Review profile: CHILL
• Plan: Advanced
• Run ID: 1377d4b8-c794-4d33-ae9f-56126fc74ead

• 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

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[Copilot]

🟡 Changes recommended

A critical issue remains in deriving read sections from each block’s own heading.

3 open issues

• Derive read markers from each block heading · New
• Clarify adjacent same-kind section behavior · New
• Split docstring sentence exceeding the 25-word limit · New

What changed in this PR

This PR centralizes heading normalization and section parsing in pr_review.py, with regression tests for section boundaries and finding entries.

Changes:

• Consolidates heading reduction and count parsing.
• Prevents finding entries from being treated as sections.
• Adds regression coverage for nested and count-first headings.

File	Description
scripts/​pr_review.py	Updates heading parsing, section detection, and unread-summary tracking.
tests/​test_pr_review.py	Adds regression tests for the new parsing behavior.

_{Review effort: Lite}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 64.14%. Comparing base (8198ee0) to head (aad5801).

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #3179      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    64.08%   64.14%   +0.05%     
===========================================
  Files           17       17              
  Lines         9183     9197      +14     
===========================================
+ Hits          5885     5899      +14     
  Misses        3298     3298              

Flag	Coverage Δ
python-3.13	64.14% <100.00%> (+0.05%)	⬆️

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]

A recorded local strict-review pass covers head aad58012c15499a5421c151224c13fa1395c8e81, the content this pull request carries at that commit against develop, and it recorded 0 findings.