fix(docx-core): preserve merge-source commentsIds durable-ID rows

[stevenobiajulu]

Summary

The comment ancillary post-pass (mergeCommentAncillaryParts in packages/docx-core/src/baselines/atomizer/pipeline.ts) merged the merge-source side's comments.xml, commentsExtended.xml, and people.xml, but never merged commentsIds.xml. Merged-in comments therefore lost their Word durable-ID metadata ([MS-DOCX] w16cid:commentId rows) until Word regenerated them — cosmetic, but it drops existing durable-ID metadata from the source document.

This adds mergeCommentsIds, mirroring the existing mergeCommentsExtended shape:

• Carries forward source rows keyed by w16cid:paraId (the same paraIds threaded through commentsExtended.xml) for the expanded comment set.
• Appends into an existing result commentsIds.xml, or bootstraps the part (cloning the source root for namespaces, dropping non-matching rows) plus OPC metadata via ensureOpcMetadata / a new COMMENTS_IDS_DESCRIPTOR.
• Wired into mergeCommentAncillaryParts so it runs for both reconstruction modes (the post-pass picks mergeSourceArchive by mode).

Tests

Added a focused regression describe block in rebuild-auxiliary-merge.test.ts (issue #471), covering both paths:

• rebuild bootstraps commentsIds.xml with the merge-source durable ID + content-type override + relationship.
• rebuild appends a reply's durable-ID row into an existing commentsIds.xml (both root and reply IDs survive).

A addCommentsIdsPart helper splices the part in, since the synthetic fixture does not emit commentsIds.xml.

Gates run

• npm run build — pass
• npm run lint:workspaces — pass (0 errors; only pre-existing warnings)
• docx-core full vitest suite — pass (1580 passed, 2 expected-fail, 11 skipped)
• npm run check:conformance-citations — pass (JSDoc cites [MS-DOCX], not ECMA-376)

Reviewer notes

• No OpenSpec proposal: this is a bug fix following the existing auxiliary-merge pattern, not a new capability. No .openspec() tags added, so no TEST_FEATURE const required.
• The fix runs in both inplace and rebuild modes; the regression test exercises rebuild (bootstrap + append). Inplace shares the same code path.

Ref: #471

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
site	Ready	Preview, Comment	Jun 26, 2026 5:40am

[stevenobiajulu]

Verdict: Approve (with nits)

Traced the implementation and tests end-to-end against issue #471. This is a clean, correctly-scoped bug fix that mirrors the established mergeCommentsExtended shape. No blocking findings.

Why it's sound

• Correct keying. includedParaIds is built from each comment's first <w:p> w14:paraId (pipeline.ts:1176-1180), and w15:paraId / w16cid:paraId share that same value space, so matching merged comments against w16cid:paraId (pipeline.ts:1396-1401) is right.
• Runs in both modes. mergeCommentsIds is wired into mergeCommentAncillaryParts (pipeline.ts:1240), which is invoked unconditionally for both reconstruction modes at pipeline.ts:908. The "inplace shares the code path" claim is accurate.
• OPC metadata. Content-type ...wordprocessingml.commentsIds+xml and relationship type .../2016/09/relationships/commentsIds are the correct MS-DOCX values; ensureOpcMetadata ignores the empty referenceTag/idBearingTags, so the descriptor is fine.
• Tests genuinely exercise both branches and would fail pre-fix. Bootstrap test: original has no comments → result is a clone of original with no commentsIds.xml → bootstrap branch; expect(commentsIdsXml).not.toBeNull() would fail without the fix. Append test: rebuild clones originalArchive (pipeline.ts:880,887), and the original side carries paraId 00000001, so the result already has commentsIds.xml and the revised reply (00000002) takes the append branch (pipeline.ts:1411-1427). Confirmed the synthetic fixture emits w14:paraId="00000001"/"00000002" (synthetic-docx-fixture.ts:293,301), so the paraIds actually line up rather than passing vacuously. Hardcoded durableIds are first-principles expected values, not re-derived from the SUT.

Conventions

• No OpenSpec proposal needed: bug fix following an existing pattern, no new public API (Check 17 clean). No .openspec() tags → no TEST_FEATURE const required. Correct call.
• Commit footer uses Ref: #471 (no Fixes #), avoiding the auto-close trap.

Nits (non-blocking)

1. The append test asserts both durable IDs survive but doesn't guard against duplicate rows for a paraId. Adding a count assertion (exactly one w16cid:commentId per paraId) would pin the dedup logic in rebuild-auxiliary-merge.test.ts.
2. Inplace mode is only covered transitively (shared code path) — no direct inplace regression test.
3. Since Ref: #471 won't auto-close, remember to close fix(docx-core): preserve merge-source commentsIds entries #471 manually on merge.

[github-actions]

LLM-Based Quality Gate

Overall: ✅ PASS (8 pass · 0 warn · 9 skipped · 17 total)

	Check	Verdict
⏭️ SKIPPED	read_file response metadata parity	paths not touched by this PR
⏭️ SKIPPED	Live DOM namespace-safe OOXML writes	paths not touched by this PR
✅	Deleted field markup keeps w:fldChar outside w:del	The PR only modifies comment durable-ID merging in packages/docx-core/src/baselines/atomizer/pipeline.ts:1238 and does not touch field atomization, validateFieldStructure, hasFldCharInsideDel, or collapsed field comparison logic.
✅	Field validation per story, not global	Field validation is run independently per ECMA story via splitStories in packages/docx-core/src/baselines/atomizer/pipeline.ts:391 (called at pipeline.ts:469-478), which consumes sidecars from both the original and revised archives (pipeline.ts:630-633), ensuring that global counter balance is not treated as sufficient.
⏭️ SKIPPED	Revision IDs seeded from all revision-bearing side parts	paths not touched by this PR
✅	Accept/reject sweep side parts and caches	The PR does not touch DocxDocument.acceptChanges, DocxDocument.rejectChanges, REVISION_STORY_PART_PATHS, accept_changes, reject_changes, or side-part revision markup, instead modifying comment durable ID merging in the comparison pipeline.
⏭️ SKIPPED	DocumentViewNode.heading stays canonical	paths not touched by this PR
⏭️ SKIPPED	AI-author parity across entry points	paths not touched by this PR
⏭️ SKIPPED	Property-change wrapper discipline	paths not touched by this PR
⏭️ SKIPPED	SUPPORT.md Table A drift vs. implementation	paths not touched by this PR
⏭️ SKIPPED	Table A / Table B boundary on side-part revisions	paths not touched by this PR
⏭️ SKIPPED	Canonical-emission surface completeness	paths not touched by this PR
✅	Lean predicate drift against engine semantics (asymmetric)	The PR only modifies the comment ancillary parts merging logic in packages/docx-core/src/baselines/atomizer/pipeline.ts to preserve durable comment IDs and does not touch field-wrapper semantics, the proof boundary, or atomizer behavior.
✅	Unit-test quality (avoid tautological / change-detector tests)	The added integration tests for issue #471 use independent expected values constructed from first principles (specific XML strings and IDs) rather than re-deriving them from the SUT. No mocks are utilized, assertions make concrete semantic claims about the merged OPC commentsIds.xml structure, and the tests directly exercise the bug of dropped durable IDs.
✅	Re-derived facts vs canonical sources	The PR does not re-compute any facts derived elsewhere; it canonically consumes the pre-computed includedParaIds Set in packages/docx-core/src/baselines/atomizer/pipeline.ts:1240 to determine which rows to merge in mergeCommentsIds at line 1381, cleanly leveraging the existing comment ancillary structures.
✅	.openspec tag ↔ test-assertion drift	The PR does not add, move, or change any .openspec tags on any tests in packages/docx-core/src/integration/rebuild-auxiliary-merge.test.ts, so the precondition is not met.
✅	Library stays general (no downstream-domain leakage)	The PR only introduces identifiers and XML tags related to standard Word/OOXML comment durable IDs (commentsIds.xml) in packages/docx-core/src/baselines/atomizer/pipeline.ts:1362, avoiding any downstream-domain concepts.

Full checklist questions

1. read_file response metadata parity: If this PR touches packages/docx-mcp/src/tools/read_file.ts, budgeted pagination returns, or additive response metadata like warnings / comment_load_error, do every successful return path (default budgeted early return, non-budget fallthrough, explicit limit/node_ids) preserve the same additive diagnostic fields? read_file has multiple success exits; diagnostics have already disappeared on one path before. Reference: fix(docx-core): declare xmlns:w14/w15 on comments root before writing prefixed attributes (#154) #180 surfaced comment_load_error, fix(docx-mcp): warn when read_file budget is exceeded by a single node (closes #184) #186 added an early budget return + warnings, fix(docx-mcp): surface comment_load_error on the default budgeted read path (closes #189) #191 fixed the missing comment_load_error on the default budgeted path.

2. Live DOM namespace-safe OOXML writes: If this PR touches packages/docx-core/src/primitives/comments.ts or writes prefixed OOXML attributes/elements (w14:*, w15:*, xmlns:*, comments.xml, commentsExtended.xml, people.xml), are prefixed OOXML names written with namespace-aware APIs — root aliases bound with setAttributeNS(XMLNS_NS, ...), prefixed attributes with setAttributeNS(W14_NS/W15_NS, ...), and is there a test that proves the live DOM works before serialization/reparse? String-prefixed attributes can serialize plausibly while the live DOM still throws namespace errors. Reference: fix(docx-core): declare xmlns:w14/w15 on comments root before writing prefixed attributes (#154) #180 (xmlns:w14/w15 declared on comments root before writing prefixed attrs).

3. Deleted field markup keeps w:fldChar outside w:del: If this PR touches field atomization, validateFieldStructure, hasFldCharInsideDel, w:fldChar, w:instrText, w:delInstrText, or collapsed field comparison logic, does deleted field output stay ECMA-376-conformant — w:fldChar sibling-level (never inside w:del), deleted instructions use w:delInstrText only inside valid delete wrappers, accept/reject safety checks still reject malformed combined output? Word treats deleted field-state markup in the wrong container as document-corrupting. References: fix(docx-core): validate w:delInstrText placement and reject w:fldChar inside <w:del> #211, fix(docx-core): partition field-closure validation by ECMA-376 story (#212) #225, fix(docx-core): fragment w:fldChar outside w:del per ECMA-376 Part 4 #228.

4. Field validation per story, not global: If this PR touches packages/docx-core/src/baselines/atomizer/pipeline.ts, splitStories, validateFieldStructure, side-part merge logic, or footnote/endnote field handling, is field validation run independently per ECMA story (document.xml, each footnote, each endnote), with sidecars from both original and revised archives considered, and global counter balance not treated as sufficient? A document can be globally balanced but have an invalid field sequence inside one story. References: fix(docx-core): partition field-closure validation by ECMA-376 story (#212) #225, fix(docx-core): fragment w:fldChar outside w:del per ECMA-376 Part 4 #228, feat(docx-core): sweep side-part revisions on accept/reject #218.

5. Revision IDs seeded from all revision-bearing side parts: If this PR touches packages/docx-mcp/src/session/manager.ts (especially getRevisionContextForSession or FIXED_REVISION_ID_SEED_PARTS), createRevisionContext, revision-ID allocation, or MCP tools that create tracked changes/comments/footnotes, does revision-ID allocation scan all relevant package parts before issuing new IDs — comments, footnotes, endnotes, glossary, headers, footers — ignore non-revision w:id values (comment IDs, bookmarks), and handle malformed optional parts gracefully? Revision IDs are package-wide; document-only seeding collides with existing side-part revisions. Reference: fix(docx-mcp): seed revision ids from side parts #216 (seed revision ids from side parts).

6. Accept/reject sweep side parts and caches: If this PR touches DocxDocument.acceptChanges, DocxDocument.rejectChanges, REVISION_STORY_PART_PATHS, accept_changes, reject_changes, or side-part revision markup, does accept/reject process every revision-bearing story — updating document.xml + footnotes.xml + endnotes.xml + comments.xml, writing back only changed side parts while refreshing cached XML, and pruning orphan footnotes without deleting reserved separator entries? Accepting only in the main document leaves stale revisions and dangling references in the package. References: feat(docx-core): sweep side-part revisions on accept/reject #218, fix(docx-mcp): seed revision ids from side parts #216, fix(docx-core): partition field-closure validation by ECMA-376 story (#212) #225.

7. DocumentViewNode.heading stays canonical: If this PR touches packages/docx-core/src/primitives/document_view.ts, HeadingValue, heading heuristics, ListMetadata.header_style, or Google Docs document-view heading normalization, does node.heading remain a structural heading signal — exact Word styles Heading1–Heading6 win, heuristic sources suppressed inside table cells while real Word heading styles still pass, ordinary body paragraphs omit the heading key? Consumers use node.heading != null as a structural test; heuristic false positives break downstream navigation. References: fix(docx-core): harden heading detection (#157 Phase 1) #178, fix(docx-core): suppress non-sectional false-positive headings (closes #187) #188, feat(docx-core): add derived heading object to DocumentViewNode (closes #179) #190.

8. AI-author parity across entry points: If this PR touches packages/docx-mcp/src/server.ts, packages/docx-mcp/src/cli/tool_runner.ts, packages/docx-mcp/src/cli/commands/**, or adds any new new SessionManager(...) call site in docx-mcp, does every entry point that constructs a SessionManager resolve SAFE_DOCX_AI_AUTHOR with the same three-way semantics (set → use it; empty string → opt out to untracked; unset → defaultAiAuthor), or has a new entry path silently bypassed tracked emission? Each entry path looks locally correct while diverging from another; tracked emission has gone dark in one path before anyone noticed. References: feat(docx-mcp): wire configurable AI author through MCP layer (#142) #172 (production MCP wiring would have kept tracked emission dark), fix(docx-mcp): honor SAFE_DOCX_AI_AUTHOR in CLI entry points (#181) #182 (CLI runners constructing bare SessionManager() silently produced untracked edits).

9. Property-change wrapper discipline: If this PR touches packages/docx-core/src/primitives/layout.ts, packages/docx-core/src/primitives/text.ts, packages/docx-mcp/src/tools/clear_formatting.ts, or packages/docx-core/src/primitives/track-changes-emitter.ts, do tracked formatting/property edits emit exactly one correct *PrChange wrapper (pPrChange / rPrChange / trPrChange / tcPrChange) carrying a snapshot of the prior live properties — not stacking stale wrappers, not stripping valid historical children (cellIns/cellDel/cellMerge), and not omitting the snapshot when the operation is formatting-aware? Emitted OOXML is visually plausible but subtle snapshot mistakes only surface during later accept/reject or in Word's tracked-changes UI. References: feat(docx-core): emit pPrChange/trPrChange/tcPrChange from layout setters (#140) #167 (duplicate pPrChange/trPrChange/tcPrChange stacking + over-broad tcPr exclusion), feat(docx-mcp): emit rPrChange from clear_formatting MCP tool (#141) #170 (clear_formatting failing to strip stale rPrChange), feat(docx-core): emit rPrChange for formatted paragraph replacements #215 (rPrChange for formatted paragraph replacements + filtering nested stale records).

10. SUPPORT.md Table A drift vs. implementation: If this PR modifies OOXML revision emission behavior (w:ins, w:del, w:rPrChange, etc.) in packages/docx-core/src/primitives/**, or touches packages/docx-core/SUPPORT.md, does the PR symmetrically update Table A in SUPPORT.md when the supported revision-emission surface in primitives changed — added, removed, or weakened — or is the documented contract now lying about what's supported? Reviewers focus on TS AST correctness and golden tests; Markdown contract tables get treated as an afterthought, so the documented surface drifts from the actual surface. Reference: [120.8] Regression suite for canonical revision emission across the surface #143 review caught replaceParagraphTextRange should emit w:rPrChange when run formatting changes #173 (formatting mismatch in Table A) and addCommentReply should emit body revision markup OR SUPPORT.md should be softened #174 (comment body revision omission forcing a Table A softening) late in peer review.

11. Table A / Table B boundary on side-part revisions: If this PR touches packages/docx-core/src/primitives/comments.ts, packages/docx-core/src/primitives/footnotes.ts, or other side-part primitives, and adds/changes revision markup (w:ins, w:del), does tracked-change revision logic stay scoped to Table A (document-body content inside the side part) without leaking revision markup into Table B (the side-part package bootstrap — comments.xml/footnotes.xml element registration itself)? Body runs and side-part package elements share nearly identical XML namespace schemas; revisions emitted in the wrong table corrupt the package contract while looking plausible. References: [120.3] Emit w:ins/w:del for comment body anchors #138 (comment-body straddle constraints), [120.4] Emit w:ins/w:del for footnote reference and text #139 (footnote-reference straddle constraints).

12. Canonical-emission surface completeness: If this PR adds or changes a tracked-edit surface in packages/docx-core/src/primitives/** or packages/docx-mcp/src/tools/**, are the paired artifacts updated together — packages/docx-core/src/integration/canonical-emission-regression.test.ts, packages/docx-mcp/src/integration/canonical-emission-mcp.test.ts, and the documented emitter surface (Table A) — or is the rollout only partially wired? The primitive change looks done before the MCP path, regression matrix, and documented contract are wired through; partial rollouts ship undocumented surface that drifts. References: feat(docx-mcp): wire configurable AI author through MCP layer (#142) #172 (RevisionContext threaded through every Table A MCP tool), test(docx-core,docx-mcp): final regression suite for canonical emission (#143) #175 (24-test regression suite + verified write-time emitter rows), feat(docx-core): emit rPrChange for formatted paragraph replacements #215 (re-enabled rPrChange regression + updated support surface for replaceParagraphTextRange).

13. Lean predicate drift against engine semantics (asymmetric): If this PR changes field-wrapper semantics, the proof boundary, or atomizer behavior — packages/docx-core/src/baselines/atomizer/**, verification/lean/LeanSpike/Spec.lean, verification/lean/Tier2/**, or packages/docx-core/src/integration/lean-spec-bridge.test.ts — and if the TS engine semantics shifted, did the PR also update the Lean residual predicate and bridge tests, or is the proof now pinned to a stale stronger/weaker assumption? Asymmetric: a TS change without a corresponding Lean update is WARN; a Lean-only change without a TS update should not fire. The Lean side can still compile while the abstraction boundary is subtly wrong for the next engine refactor. References: feat(verification): close inv_field_001 with Tier 2 OoxmlDoc subset #208 (closed inv_field_001 using stronger recursivelyWellformed), refactor(verification): weaken inv_field_001 axiom to document-level preservationFriendly (rebased follow-up to #208) #220 (weakened the axiom to document-level preservationFriendly to avoid breakage when field fragmentation lands).

14. Unit-test quality (avoid tautological / change-detector tests): If this PR adds or modifies any **/*.test.ts (or other test files), are the test assertions independent of the system under test — expected values constructed from first principles rather than re-derived from the function under test, mocks limited to external boundaries (filesystem, network, clocks) rather than mocking the SUT itself, assertions making concrete semantic claims rather than just snapshotting current behavior or asserting non-null, and any test added alongside a bug fix actually exercising the bug? Tests that re-implement the production code as the "expected" value, or mock out the system under test, pass green while providing no regression protection.

15. Re-derived facts vs canonical sources: If this PR adds logic that re-computes a fact the codebase already derives elsewhere — another fldChar begin/separate/end visible-content walk (canonical: getParagraphRuns in packages/docx-core/src/primitives/text.ts), a second footnote display-number map (buildFootnoteDisplayMap vs getFootnotes().displayNumber), or any sibling re-implementation of an existing helper instead of importing or exporting it — does the PR consume the canonical source, or explicitly justify the new derivation and add a test pinning the copies in agreement? Independent derivations of the same fact drift apart; read_file renders every footnote marker twice in text/tagged_text ([^N][^N]) #382's doubled footnote markers were two passes disagreeing about one fact, and the fix initially added a fifth copy of the field-state walk. References: read_file renders every footnote marker twice in text/tagged_text ([^N][^N]) #382, fix(docx-mcp): render each footnote marker exactly once in read_file output #386, refactor: expose footnote references as document-view node metadata — one derivation of "visible footnote refs", not five fldChar walks #393.

16. .openspec tag ↔ test-assertion drift: If this PR adds, moves, or changes any .openspec('[ID] …') tag on a test(...)/it(...), does the tagged test body actually exercise that scenario's GIVEN/WHEN/THEN — establishing the scenario's precondition and asserting its THEN observable — or is the tag attached without a covering assertion (tag-stuffing)? Judge each added/changed [ID] independently against the body of the test it sits on. Pay special attention to (a) tags moved onto generic clean/round-trip/property tests that never set up the scenario's specific precondition, (b) a single test absorbing several distinct scenario IDs it does not separately assert, and (c) "empirical proxy" / repo-convention justifications standing in for a real covering assertion. Deterministic coverage checks confirm the tag exists and (with the THEN-keyword guard) that a scenario token is mentioned; they cannot judge whether the assertion actually covers the scenario — this asymmetric, oversells-coverage drift is exactly what the gate is for. References: test(docx-core): raise docx-comparison spec coverage to 68/69 and split coverage scripts #513 (first pass tag-stuffed multiple docx-comparison scenarios onto tests that didn't assert them; only peer review caught it), check:spec-coverage never passes --strict to validate_openspec_coverage.mjs, so the docx-core matrix gate is WARN-only in CI #469.

17. Library stays general (no downstream-domain leakage): If this PR adds or renames public API, types, recipes, functions, or identifiers in packages/*/src/**, does it avoid baking in names or concepts specific to a single downstream consumer's domain — agreements especially (signature, signatory, party, coverTerms, print-name/title/date signing semantics, or other agreement field names)? safe-docx is a general OOXML library: its surface should be Word/OOXML vocabulary (table, row, cell, border, run) plus a small allowlist of genuinely LLM-driven affordances that are not in Word but exist because LLMs are the primary consumers (e.g. an outline/TOC view sized for a context window). Domain-shaped composition (a "signature block" is just a w:tbl built from TableSpec/BorderSpec/RunProps) belongs in the consumer, not here. WARN if a new symbol is named for, or shaped around, one product rather than the general OOXML/LLM surface. See CONTRIBUTING "Library scope & domain boundaries". Reference: remove-agreement-domain-recipes removed coverTermsTable/signatureBlock for this reason.

Estimated cost (this run): $0.0121 — 35,745 input + 521 output tokens (≈4 chars/token) on gemini-3.5-flash. Char-count estimate, not provider telemetry.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 87.50000% with 5 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...kages/docx-core/src/baselines/atomizer/pipeline.ts	87.50%	0 Missing and 5 partials ⚠️

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!