[scp] Set logging type FILE for all agents; Fix duplicating result for agent actions

[NikitaZotov]

• Read PR documentation
• Update changelog
• Update documentation

---

Important

Set logging type to FILE for all agents and fix duplicate result for agent actions, updating constructors and logic in relevant files.

• Behavior:
  • Set logging type to FILE for all agents in scpAgentProcessor.cpp, scpHandlingEventThatInitiatesAgentSCPProgram.cpp, and scpFinishedInterpretationActionProcessor.cpp.
  • Fix duplicate result for agent actions in agent_program_search_all_outgoing_arcs_with_relations.scs by modifying the logic to handle action completion.
• Agents:
  • Add constructors to initialize logging for ASCPAgentActivator, ASCPAgentDeactivator, ASCPFinishedInterpretationActionProcessor, ASCPHandlingEventThatInitiatesAgentSCPProgram, and other agent classes.
• Misc:
  • Update project version to 0.1.2 in CMakeLists.txt.
  • Update changelog in changelog.md to reflect changes.

^{This description was created by for 50d56d5. You can customize this summary. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed everything up to 29f2032 in 42 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 622 lines of code in 39 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 6 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. scpAgentProcessor.cpp:15

• Draft comment:
  Repeated logger initialization in each agent constructor. Consider refactoring into a common base class or helper to adhere to DRY.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

2. SCPOperatorContAdd.cpp:36

• Draft comment:
  Avoid using std::cout for logging; use the agent's logger (m_logger) for consistent file logging.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

3. scpHandlingEventThatInitiatesAgentSCPProgram.cpp:80

• Draft comment:
  The fix for duplicating result for agent actions uses two connector generations. Verify that generating both 'action_finished' and 'action_finished_successfully' is intended to avoid duplication.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

4. scpProcessDestroyer.cpp:60

• Draft comment:
  Commented-out code (deleteSCPVarsSet) remains in the file. Clean up or document the rationale for keeping it.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

5. scpProcessDestroyer.cpp:76

• Draft comment:
  Avoid commented-out duplicate calls to deleteSCPVarsSet; remove them if they're not needed to keep code clean.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

6. scpMathOperatorInterpreter.cpp:47

• Draft comment:
  Lambda expressions for supported operators are clearly structured. No issues—but consider code comments if complex logic is added later.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 20% <= threshold 50% None

Workflow ID: wflow_JIhxBmpvyAXwHC2a

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed 0038869 in 2 minutes and 16 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 32 lines of code in 2 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 2 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. docs/changelog.md:11

• Draft comment:
  The changelog entry 'Don't finish agent actions by ASCPHandlingEventThatInitiatesAgentSCPProgram' is ambiguous. Consider clarifying that finishing is now delegated elsewhere and that this change prevents duplicate finishing connectors.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% This comment is asking the PR author to reword a changelog entry to be more clear. However, according to the rules, I should NOT comment unless there is clearly a code change required. Changelog entries are documentation, not code. The rule states "Do NOT ask the PR author to confirm their intention, to explain, to double-check things, to ensure the behavior is intended" - this comment is essentially asking for clarification/explanation in the changelog. Additionally, the comment is speculative about what the change actually does ("delegated elsewhere", "prevents duplicate finishing connectors") without strong evidence from the diff itself. The diff only shows the changelog entry being added, not the actual code changes that would confirm what the comment claims. The comment could be arguing that clear changelog entries are important for maintainability and user understanding. The additional rule about "consistent terminology across all documentation" might support making changelog entries clearer. However, this is still a documentation style suggestion rather than a code issue. While clear documentation is valuable, the rules explicitly state not to make comments that ask for clarification or explanation. This comment is essentially asking the author to explain more in the changelog, which falls under "informative" rather than "code change required". The comment also makes assumptions about what the change does without seeing the actual code changes. This comment should be deleted. It's asking for clarification in documentation (changelog) rather than pointing out a required code change. It's also speculative about what the change actually does without strong evidence from the diff.

2. scp/src/scpHandlingEventThatInitiatesAgentSCPProgram.cpp:79

• Draft comment:
  Removed duplicate connector generation for unfinished actions and now returning SC_RESULT_ERROR if the action is still pending. Ensure that this behavior is intentional and that action finishing is handled elsewhere. Adding an inline comment to explain this decision could improve maintainability.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% The comment has several issues: 1) It asks the author to "ensure that this behavior is intentional" which is explicitly against the rules ("Do NOT ask the PR author to confirm their intention"). 2) The suggestion to add an inline comment is not a clear code quality issue - the code is straightforward (if action is not finished, return error). 3) The comment says "ensure that action finishing is handled elsewhere" which is speculative and asks for verification. 4) The actual code change is clear and intentional - removing duplicate/confusing logic. The comment doesn't identify a concrete bug or issue, it just questions whether the change was intentional. Could there be a legitimate concern that treating unfinished actions as errors is incorrect behavior? Maybe the old code that marked actions as finished_successfully had a purpose, and removing it could be a bug? While there could theoretically be a concern about the behavior change, the comment doesn't make a definitive claim that this is wrong. Instead, it asks the author to "ensure" the behavior is intentional, which is explicitly prohibited. If the reviewer believed this was definitely a bug, they should have stated that clearly rather than asking for confirmation. This comment should be deleted because it primarily asks the author to confirm their intention and verify behavior, which violates the review rules. It doesn't identify a definite bug or provide actionable feedback beyond suggesting an optional inline comment.

Workflow ID: wflow_2nXhvmfSgWAVjULb

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed 50d56d5 in 1 minute and 59 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 134 lines of code in 2 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 6 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. kb/agent_test/search_all_outgoing_arcs_with_relations/agent_program_search_all_outgoing_arcs_with_relations.scs:23

• Draft comment:
  Removed duplicate _operator2 block to prevent duplicated results; now directly transitions to _operator3.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment looked like it was already resolved.

2. kb/agent_test/search_all_outgoing_arcs_with_relations/agent_program_search_all_outgoing_arcs_with_relations.scs:39

• Draft comment:
  Changed else branch from _operator_return to _operator_finish_action_unsuccessfully for more explicit error handling.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50% This comment is purely informative, describing a change that was made without suggesting any action or improvement. It doesn't ask for confirmation or suggest a better approach.

3. kb/agent_test/search_all_outgoing_arcs_with_relations/agent_program_search_all_outgoing_arcs_with_relations.scs:153

• Draft comment:
  Added explicit finish action operators (_operator_finish_action_successfully, _operator_finish_action, and _operator_finish_action_unsuccessfully) to clearly define action completion.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50% This comment is purely informative, describing what was added without providing any actionable feedback or suggestions. It doesn't align with the rules for useful comments.

4. scp/tests/test-structures/gen-operators/agent_gen_el.scs:63

• Draft comment:
  Updated the else branch to use _operator_finish_action_unsuccessfully instead of _operator_return for consistent error handling.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50% This comment is purely informative, explaining a change that was made without providing any actionable feedback or suggestions. It doesn't ask for confirmation or suggest improvements, which violates the rule against purely informative comments.

5. scp/tests/test-structures/gen-operators/agent_gen_el.scs:147

• Draft comment:
  Introduced finish action operator blocks (_operator_finish_action_successfully, _operator_finish_action, and _operator_finish_action_unsuccessfully) to streamline agent action result handling; consider refactoring common logic if similar patterns exist across agents.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment looked like it was already resolved.

6. kb/agent_test/search_all_outgoing_arcs_with_relations/agent_program_search_all_outgoing_arcs_with_relations.scs:186

• Draft comment:
  Remember to update the documentation to reflect the new finish action operator names and altered branching logic.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

Workflow ID: wflow_5WEVjHAJr7hi5Obe

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}