update task_v2 block workflow run id missing log to warning

[wintonzheng]

Important

Change log level from error to warning for missing block_workflow_run_id in task_v2 blocks in agent_protocol.py.

• Logging:
  • Change log level from error to warning for missing block_workflow_run_id in task_v2 blocks in _flatten_workflow_run_timeline() in agent_protocol.py.

^{This description was created by for 0d6a46b. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Reviewed everything up to 0d6a46b in 1 minute and 5 seconds

More details

• Looked at 13 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 2 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. skyvern/forge/sdk/routes/agent_protocol.py:1396

• Draft comment:
  Changing the log level from error to warning is acceptable if a missing block_workflow_run_id is not critical. Ensure that this behavior aligns with the overall error handling strategy.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the PR author to ensure that the behavior aligns with the overall error handling strategy, which is against the rules. It does not provide a specific suggestion or ask for a specific test to be written.

2. skyvern/forge/sdk/routes/agent_protocol.py:1395

• Draft comment:
  Downgrading the log level from error to warning here seems appropriate if a missing task_v2 block workflow run id is expected. Consider adding a brief comment explaining this choice for future maintainers.
• 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%
  While documenting log level changes can be helpful, in this case:

1. The comment is asking for explanation of something that should be self-evident from the code
2. The log level change from error to warning is a minor change that doesn't warrant special documentation
3. The comment is not pointing out a clear issue that needs fixing
4. The comment is asking for documentation without strong evidence that it's actually needed
   I could be wrong about whether this log level change is significant enough to warrant documentation. Perhaps there's important context about why this state occurs that would be valuable to document.
   While documentation can be valuable, in this case the log level change appears to be a straightforward adjustment to match the severity level with the actual impact. The code and message are clear enough without additional comments.
   This comment should be deleted as it requests documentation for a minor log level change without clear evidence that such documentation would be valuable.

Workflow ID: wflow_jjZRhhkuokYmOI3X

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.