[JarryShaw]

Please follow the guide below

• You will be asked some questions, please read them carefully and answer honestly

• Put an x into all the boxes [ ] relevant to your pull request (like that [x])

• Use Preview tab to see how your pull request will actually look like

• Searched for similar pull requests

• Followed the coding style (make pylint, make mypy, make isort)

• make test passes, and a test case covers the change

• Added a changelog entry under docs/source/changelog/ and regenerated CHANGELOG.md, if the change is user-visible — N/A — centralised in docs(changelog): shared 1.5.0 changelog — long-lived, merges last (#610, #616, #617, #618, #620) #657

What is the purpose of your pull request?

Tick the commit type your subject line carries.

• fix — corrects a defect
• feat — adds a feature
• perf — changes performance, not behaviour
• refactor — changes neither behaviour nor performance
• test — tests only
• docs — documentation only
• ci — workflows or build tooling
• release — bumps the version or rolls up a distribution
• chore — anything else

---

Description of your pull request and other information

Documents the ruling on #1507 item 1: a fragment that arrives after its datagram completed opens a new buffer, which surfaces as a separate incomplete datagram (RFC 791 §3.2, RFC 8200 §4.5, Linux, Zeek, Wireshark).

• IP.reassembly docstring gains a Note:; docs/source/pcapkit/foundation/reassembly/ip/index.rst gains one matching sentence. No code change.
• Checked: fragment 0 (8 octets, MF), last fragment, last fragment again gives [('PARTIAL', (3,), (b'BBBB',)), ('COMPLETE', (1, 2), b'AAAAAAAABBBB')].
• Ran instead of make test: tests/test_docstring_contract.py 7 passed; tests/foundation/reassembly 101 passed; tests/project 419 passed, 1 skipped.

Refs #1507

[JarryShaw]

Verdict: GOOD TO GO at 6cf554766. Cross-reviewed on Sonnet at 1878504cb; the author ran Opus.

• The reviewer re-ran the late-fragment example from the worktree and got PARTIAL (3,) then COMPLETE (1, 2). Feeding an unrelated packet 98 s later turned the stray buffer into TIMEOUT (3,), through ip.py:300-313.
• It flagged two verbs as too strong. RFC 791 §3.2 gives example procedures, not requirements, and RFC 8200 §4.5 permits this behaviour without requiring it.
• I applied both suggestions in 6cf554766, and that is the only change from 1878504cb. The docstring now reads "as in the RFC 791 §3.2 reassembly procedure" and "is permitted by RFC 8200 §4.5". tests/test_docstring_contract.py passes: 7 passed, 12 subtests.
• The .rst sentence did not need changing.

[JarryShaw]

Verdict carried to 3d2b0603f: GOOD TO GO. This is a pure rebase onto main 6af87f608, after #1509 merged. The range-diff is =, and the patch-id is unchanged at c37aa3bd10f0. tests/test_docstring_contract.py and tests/foundation/reassembly gave 107 passed. The one failure, test_tcp_runtime, comes from a missing generated fixture (test.pcap), and main fails it the same way.

[github-actions]

Coverage: 89.65% (unit tier, Python 3.14, 3d2b0603f, Unit Tests run success)

Package	Statements	Missed	Branches	Partial	Cover
pcapkit (top level)	104	4	20	4	93.55%
pcapkit/const	18795	958	2356	871	90.99%
pcapkit/corekit	2125	66	686	33	96.19%
pcapkit/dumpkit	242	2	88	2	98.79%
pcapkit/foundation	2665	99	934	49	94.78%
pcapkit/interface	112	7	40	5	92.11%
pcapkit/protocols	17086	238	4628	190	97.98%
pcapkit/toolkit	539	74	168	3	84.58%
pcapkit/utilities	431	4	124	4	98.56%
pcapkit/vendor	4409	2342	1006	157	43.25%

Per-file detail: the coverage-html artifact of this run.