fix(github): retry label and assignee writes on stale installation tokens

[bohdansolovie]

Summary

• Wraps ensurePullRequestLabel, removePullRequestLabel, and ensurePullRequestAssignee in withInstallationTokenRetry, matching postPullRequestComment, closePullRequest, and the other GitHub-write helpers.
• Stale cached installation tokens that produce a 401 now get one eviction + remint retry instead of failing the label/assignee mutation permanently while leaving later write helpers to recover alone.
• Adds regression coverage for both label helpers and the assignee helper (#6191).

Closes #6191

Scope

• Code changes stay inside the declared surfaces (src/github/labels.ts, src/github/assignees.ts, matching unit tests)
• No public API / export surface change beyond fixing helper behavior
• Reuses the existing withInstallationTokenRetry helper — no new retry semantics invented here

Validation

• Matching unit tests updated (github-labels.test.ts, github-assignees.test.ts)
• Focused regression coverage for the exact failure mode called out in #6191
• CI on this PR (will mark ready after green)

Safety

• Diff is limited to GitHub label/assignee write retries
• No scheme / economics / protocol changes
• Existing non-401 failure paths (missing privileges, agents, rate limits) still return { applied: false } without inventing success

Made with Cursor

[loopover-orb]

Caution

🛑 LoopOver review result - fixes required

_{Review updated: 2026-07-15 23:54:34 UTC}

4 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · CI failing · blocked

🛑 Suggested Action - Fix Blockers

Review summary
This PR wraps the label and assignee write paths (ensurePullRequestLabel, removePullRequestLabel, ensurePullRequestAssignee) in the existing withInstallationTokenRetry helper, matching the retry pattern already used by comment/close-PR write helpers. The wrapping is correct: the GET dedup probes and mutating POST/DELETE calls are inside the retry closure, and existing 404/422/403 handling is preserved and re-executed safely on retry (label creation's already_exists 422 swallow makes a second attempt idempotent). Tests for all three helpers simulate a first-attempt 401 followed by success and assert exactly one token remint and one retry, which is a faithful exercise of the new code path.

Nits — 3 non-blocking

• src/github/labels.ts: the inline comment on removePullRequestLabel's catch block claiming '401 is NOT swallowed — withInstallationTokenRetry sees it and retries once' is asserting behavior of a helper not shown in this diff; worth a one-line pointer to app.ts's implementation for future readers.
• Consider a single shared test helper for the 'first request 401s, second succeeds' fetch-stub pattern since it's now duplicated near-identically across three test files.
• No functional changes needed; if withInstallationTokenRetry's retry count is ever made configurable, add a test asserting it still caps at exactly one retry for these three helpers to guard against future regressions.

CI checks failing

• validate
• codecov/patch — 60.00% of diff hit (target 99.00%)
• validate-tests (1)

Flagged checks (non-blocking)

• Contributor trust — Contributor flagged for review

Decision drivers

• ✅ Code review — No blockers (1 reviewer)
• ✅ Gate result — Passing (No configured blocker found.)

Context & advisory signals — never blocks the verdict

Signal	Result	Evidence
Linked issue	✅ Linked	#6191
Related work	⚠️ 2 scoped overlaps	Top overlaps are listed below; lower-confidence bulk is hidden.
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: 78 registered-repo PR(s), 27 merged, 6 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	bohdansolovie; Gittensor profile; 78 PR(s), 6 issue(s).
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: clean · value: minor · LLM: moderate

Review context

• Author: bohdansolovie
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: not available
• Official Gittensor activity: 78 PR(s), 6 issue(s).
• Related work: Items reference the same linked issue fix(github): label/assignee writes skip the installation-token retry every sibling GitHub-write helper uses #6191. (issue #6191)
• Related work: Open PR work references issue fix(github): label/assignee writes skip the installation-token retry every sibling GitHub-write helper uses #6191. (issue #6191)

Contributor next steps

• Start here: Review top overlaps.
• Then work through the remaining 2 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://gittensory.aethereal.dev/docs/loopover-commands

🧪 Experimental — new and may change.

_{🟩 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 60.00000% with 14 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 86.64%. Comparing base (53f3726) to head (195c79a).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/github/assignees.ts	0.00%	14 Missing ⚠️

❗ There is a different number of reports uploaded between BASE (53f3726) and HEAD (195c79a). Click for more details.

HEAD has 1 upload less than BASE

Flag	BASE (53f3726)	HEAD (195c79a)
shard-1	1	0

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #6229      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   95.35%   86.64%   -8.72%     
==========================================
  Files         598      598              
  Lines       47127    47127              
  Branches    14994    14994              
==========================================
- Hits        44940    40834    -4106     
- Misses       1463     4910    +3447     
- Partials      724     1383     +659     

Flag	Coverage Δ
shard-1	?
shard-2	36.78% <42.85%> (+0.19%)	⬆️
shard-3	32.36% <5.71%> (+0.02%)	⬆️
shard-4	33.76% <45.71%> (-0.61%)	⬇️
shard-5	31.61% <60.00%> (-0.19%)	⬇️
shard-6	45.21% <42.85%> (+0.30%)	⬆️

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/github/labels.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/github/assignees.ts	0.00% <0.00%> (-100.00%)	⬇️

... and 111 files with indirect coverage changes

[superagent-security]

🚨 Contributor flagged. Click here for more info: Superagent Dashboard

[superagent-security]

Superagent didn't find any vulnerabilities or security issues in this PR.

[superagent-security]

Superagent didn't find any vulnerabilities or security issues in this PR.

[loopover-orb]

LoopOver is closing this pull request on the maintainer's behalf (CI is failing (validate, codecov/patch, validate-tests (1))). 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.