PR Custody

PRPR Custody

fix(ci): catch size-only pagination gaps (INT-2045)

@AgentWrapperchecks n/achecks…fix/INT-2045-generic-pagination-ci → master2 files · +561 −13updated 1mo ago

GitHub

▸Description· 1 comment · 1 noise

Summary

Adds a deterministic pre-check to lint_missing_pagination_params.py for a generic "size-only pagination" gap.
Flags collection actions that expose only a page-size/limit field while their response model exposes a next-page/cursor field, but the request model has no cursor/offset/page-token style traversal field.
Keeps the existing LLM-backed missing-pagination flow for other cases.

Why this would catch the OneNote issue

This is not Microsoft-specific: the invariant is that if an action response exposes continuation metadata (@odata.nextLink, next, cursor, has_more, etc.), the action should also expose some request field that lets the caller request the next window (cursor, page_token, offset, skip, page, etc.) unless it intentionally handles pagination internally.

For OneNote, this catches the actions that have $top/page_size and @odata.nextLink, but no $skip/$skiptoken/cursor-style request field.

Full-repo scan

I ran the deterministic portion across all non-generated apps/*/actions/*.py files:

Checked action classes: 36,367
Collection candidates: 14,110
Failures: 192
Verification condition for every failure: response exposes continuation metadata, request exposes only page-size (limit, top, page_size, etc.), and request exposes no traversal field.

Top apps by failure count:

constant_contact 20
zendesk 18
dropbox 16
mural 15
persona 13
confluence 12
onenote 11
paradym 9
one_drive 8
microsoft_teams 7
jira 6
notion 6

OneNote failures:

apps/onenote/actions/group_list_pages.py
apps/onenote/actions/group_list_section_groups_section_groups_2.py
apps/onenote/actions/group_list_sections_pages_2.py
apps/onenote/actions/group_list_sections_pages_4.py
apps/onenote/actions/list_group_section_groups_sections.py
apps/onenote/actions/list_notebooks_section_groups.py
apps/onenote/actions/list_site_notebook_section_groups.py
apps/onenote/actions/list_user_notebook_sections.py
apps/onenote/actions/me_list_sections_pages_4.py
apps/onenote/actions/site_list_sections.py
apps/onenote/actions/user_list_notebooks.py

I also ran the actual checker against those 192 files and it returned 192 violations. Full local lists were written to /tmp/pagination_all_failures.txt and /tmp/pagination_all_failures_verified.json during verification.

Verification

uv run pytest -q tests/test_lints/test_missing_pagination_params.py ✅
uv run python ci_checks/lint_missing_pagination_params.py apps/onenote/actions/*.py ✅ expected failure: 11 OneNote violations listed above
uv run python ci_checks/lint_missing_pagination_params.py $(cat /tmp/pagination_all_failures.txt) ✅ expected failure: 192/192 violations
make snt ✅
MYPY_DIFF_ONLY=true make chk ⚠️ unrelated existing formatting failure in tests/test_utils/test_http.py
npm run typecheck, npm run lint, npm test ⚠️ package.json has no such scripts

Linear: https://linear.app/composio/issue/INT-2045/improve-create-app-and-config-gen-for-onenote-gaps

@AgentWrapper1mo ago

Sanity check on the original lint (before this PR): I copied HEAD~1:ci_checks/lint_missing_pagination_params.py to a temp file and ran it against the 11 OneNote files that the new deterministic guard flags.

Result:

Checking 11 specified file(s)...
Checked 11 file(s), 0 violation(s) in 0 file(s)

In this local run the LLM calls returned auth errors and the original code failed open, but the underlying design gap is also clear: the old check considered any pagination-looking request field (for example page_size / top) as already paginated and did not distinguish page-size-only pagination from traversal-capable pagination.

I also checked history: lint_missing_pagination_params.py existed before OneNote was added (lint added Apr 9 / rewritten Apr 20; OneNote added May 8 in #22479), so this was not simply a case where the lint was introduced after OneNote merged. If OneNote's PR ran this lint, the original lint would not have flagged these size-only pagination cases.

▸ 1 bot/status comment hidden

@linear-code[bot]1mo ago

Address the OneNote QA findings so create app and config gen handle this toolkit correctly. The reported gaps include over-scoped read-only actions, pagination gaps, schema and validation issues, param passthrough drops, URL-pattern bugs, and missing core endpoints.

loading diff…