chore(deps): bump mega-evm to v1.7.2 on release-v2.0.19

[mega-putin]

Summary

Cherry-pick of mega-evm v1.7.0 → v1.7.2 onto release-v2.0.19 (the 2.0.15 line).

Trunk: #227 (bcf6603).

Cargo.toml workspace pin and Cargo.lock (mega-evm / mega-system-contracts) now point at tag v1.7.2 (faf6f2d7). Workspace version is not changed here — that stays on the candidate PR.

Test plan

• Confirm Cargo.toml has tag = "v1.7.2"
• Confirm lock source is ?tag=v1.7.2#faf6f2d7…
• CI compile on this release line

[github-actions]

Claude review status

Living comment — rewritten in place. The review workflow keeps this single comment up to date instead of posting a new one each round, so it always describes the latest reviewed commit and the earlier text is intentionally gone. No reply is needed here; answer findings and questions in the review threads it links to.

🛠️ Review did not finish

Attempted head 9a2fbad5 · updated 2026-09-30T06:06:33+00:00

This round did not publish: MODEL_ACTION_FAILED in phase review_retry. Anything listed below is from the last round that did. Re-run the workflow or push a new commit to try again.

[mega-putin]

🔧 Pushed CI fixes.

Agent log

Fixed and committed locally.

Commit:
- `aeb5a67 fix CI: sync Claude workflow with default branch`

What changed:
- Synced `.github/workflows/claude.yml` with `origin/main`, fixing the Claude app-token validation failures caused by the workflow differing from the default branch.

Verified:
- `cargo build`
- `cargo test`
- `cargo check -p stateless-core --no-default-features`
- Confirmed workflow file exactly matches `origin/main`

Did not push, per instructions.

[mega-putin]

No additional actionable review feedback or questions were present.

The only comment says the Claude review did not finish on old head 9a2fbad5 and explicitly says no reply is needed.
That was already addressed by commit aeb5a67 syncing .github/workflows/claude.yml with the default branch.

No new commit was needed.

[mega-maxwell]

Claude review status

Living comment — rewritten in place. The review workflow keeps this single comment up to date instead of posting a new one each round, so it always describes the latest reviewed commit and the earlier text is intentionally gone. No reply is needed here; reply to a finding in its own review thread, and answer an open question in a reply on this PR. The next review round reconciles your answer.

✅ Review clean

Last reviewed: head aeb5a67c · updated 2026-09-30T06:18:09+00:00

New this round: 0 finding(s), 0 question(s) · Resolved this round: 0 · Open questions: 0

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: aeb5a67c24

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Configure the app-token action with app-id

actions/create-github-app-token@v3 requires its GitHub App identifier through the app-id input; client-id is not an action input and is ignored. Consequently every pr-review run reaches this step without the required app ID and fails before checkout or the reviewer action can run. Pass the existing client-ID variable as app-id (GitHub accepts a client ID for the JWT issuer) or provide the numeric app ID through that input.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Put the comment-review handler on the default branch

GitHub evaluates issue_comment workflows from the repository’s default branch, not from the PR’s head or its release target. This commit’s parent/default main still has the old pr-review condition that rejects issue_comment, so comments (including the edited mega-putin response this change is intended to process) on the release PR will not start this job until the same workflow change is first present on main. Land the handler on the default branch before relying on it for release-branch PR feedback.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Serialize all review triggers for each pull request

When a PR is synchronized while a qualifying issue comment is created or edited, these expressions place the two pr-review runs in different code and comment concurrency groups, so GitHub can execute them simultaneously. Both invoke the shared reviewer with the CI app identity intended to resolve stale threads, allowing overlapping runs to race on the same review state and defeating the per-PR serialization described immediately above. Use a single group keyed only by the PR number.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

[mega-putin]

@chatgpt-codex-connector[bot] ❓ Should I change this release PR’s .github/workflows/claude.yml away from the current default-branch version, or should these workflow fixes land on main first and then be synced here?

(I've paused on this task. Reply here with the answer and I'll continue where I left off.)