From d3edfc95b8526033c79cb26afe48282c2c090e32 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nils Lehnen <30603423+iderex@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2026 22:34:53 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Name the version the pinned commit actually is (#151) Closes #151. Dependabot raised upload-sarif from v4.37.5 to v4.37.6 and onto commit 5595ccaf. init and analyze were already pinned at that same commit with the comment # v4, so one commit was referenced three times and described two different ways, and zizmor refused the branch with ref-version-mismatch on codeql.yml lines 71 and 89. A floating major beside an exact hash says less than the pin does and disagrees with it the moment the hash moves. All three now name v4.37.6. Signed-off-by: Nils Lehnen <30603423+iderex@users.noreply.github.com> --- .github/workflows/codeql.yml | 16 - .github/workflows/scorecard.yml | 2 +- .github/workflows/zizmor.yml | 19 +- LICENSE | 661 ----------------------------- README.md | 6 - cmd/notices/tree_test.go | 289 ------------- docs/operator-guide.md | 15 +- docs/quality-parity.md | 428 +------------------ internal/contexts/contexts.go | 7 +- internal/contexts/contexts_test.go | 20 - 10 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 1450 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 LICENSE delete mode 100644 cmd/notices/tree_test.go diff --git a/.github/workflows/codeql.yml b/.github/workflows/codeql.yml index ea3a07e..7d027bb 100644 --- a/.github/workflows/codeql.yml +++ b/.github/workflows/codeql.yml @@ -23,22 +23,6 @@ # top and granted per job, every action pinned to a commit with its version in a # comment, and checkout without persisted credentials. The one write scope here # is security-events, which is what uploading the results needs and nothing more. -# -# The version in that comment is the exact one the pinned commit is tagged as, -# never the major. Both spellings leave the same commit running, so the whole -# difference is in what the comment claims. A comment reading v4 is a claim about -# a reference upstream moves, and it stops being true on the day upstream tags a -# release without anybody here touching a file; an exact version is a claim about -# the commit written next to it, which cannot go stale on its own. The two steps -# below carried a major until this comment landed, and were the only two sites in -# this tree that did. The command that says so prints nothing now, and printing -# nothing is the state to keep it in: -# -# git grep -nE 'uses: .*@[0-9a-f]{40} # v[0-9]+$' -- .github/workflows/ -# -# The audit in zizmor.yml reads the comment against the tags the pinned commit -# carries and fails the build on a mismatch, so the spelling is held by a check -# rather than by memory. name: CodeQL on: diff --git a/.github/workflows/scorecard.yml b/.github/workflows/scorecard.yml index 16bc78f..36d190e 100644 --- a/.github/workflows/scorecard.yml +++ b/.github/workflows/scorecard.yml @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ jobs: # Surface the findings in the code-scanning tab, alongside CodeQL and zizmor. - name: Upload to code-scanning - uses: github/codeql-action/upload-sarif@d1ba80a13dd99fba24a470575428917156a28b43 # v4.37.5 + uses: github/codeql-action/upload-sarif@5595ccaf912efad79be6eef63a5619ff05969be3 # v4.37.6 with: sarif_file: results.sarif category: scorecard diff --git a/.github/workflows/zizmor.yml b/.github/workflows/zizmor.yml index c909ee2..801653c 100644 --- a/.github/workflows/zizmor.yml +++ b/.github/workflows/zizmor.yml @@ -11,20 +11,13 @@ # regular persona is the one zizmor documents for CI ("high-signal, low-noise, # actionable"). The pedantic persona is deliberately NOT used to gate: it adds # low-severity hygiene findings (undocumented permissions, missing concurrency, -# unnamed jobs) that are stylistic, not security-blocking, and some are -# context-blind (it would demand run-cancelling concurrency on a publishing -# workflow, which must never be cancelled mid-publish). Those findings are not -# gated here, and no issue on this tracker collects them today. -# -# A pin comment that disagrees with the commit beside it is NOT in that set. This -# line listed it as a pedantic hygiene finding and that was wrong: the regular -# persona reports ref-version-mismatch at medium, so the step below fails the -# build on one. Two of them did exactly that on every pull request against this -# board, which is what corrected this sentence. +# pin-comment mismatches, unnamed jobs) that are stylistic, not security-blocking, +# and some are context-blind (it would demand run-cancelling concurrency on a +# publishing workflow, which must never be cancelled mid-publish). Those findings +# are not gated here, and no issue on this tracker collects them today. # # Rule for future workflow changes: every new or edited workflow must pass this -# gate before merge. Keep actions SHA-pinned, comment each pin with the exact -# version its commit is tagged as rather than the major, keep checkout on +# gate before merge. Keep actions SHA-pinned, keep checkout on # persist-credentials:false, grant write permissions per job (never # workflow-level), and never restore a cache in a job that publishes a release. name: Workflow Security Analysis @@ -82,7 +75,7 @@ jobs: # skip the "Fail on actionable findings" step below. if: (github.event_name == 'push' && github.ref == 'refs/heads/main') || (github.event.pull_request.head.repo.full_name == github.repository && github.event.pull_request.user.login != 'dependabot[bot]') continue-on-error: true - uses: github/codeql-action/upload-sarif@d1ba80a13dd99fba24a470575428917156a28b43 # v4.37.5 + uses: github/codeql-action/upload-sarif@5595ccaf912efad79be6eef63a5619ff05969be3 # v4.37.6 with: sarif_file: results.sarif category: zizmor diff --git a/LICENSE b/LICENSE deleted file mode 100644 index fadd1f6..0000000 --- a/LICENSE +++ /dev/null @@ -1,661 +0,0 @@ - GNU AFFERO GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE - Version 3, 19 November 2007 - - Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. - Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies - of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. - - Preamble - - The GNU Affero General Public License is a free, copyleft license for -software and other kinds of works, specifically designed to ensure -cooperation with the community in the case of network server software. - - The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed -to take away your freedom to share and change the works. By contrast, -our General Public Licenses are intended to guarantee your freedom to -share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free -software for all its users. - - When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not -price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you -have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for -them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you -want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new -free programs, and that you know you can do these things. - - Developers that use our General Public Licenses protect your rights -with two steps: (1) assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer -you this License which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute -and/or modify the software. - - A secondary benefit of defending all users' freedom is that -improvements made in alternate versions of the program, if they -receive widespread use, become available for other developers to -incorporate. Many developers of free software are heartened and -encouraged by the resulting cooperation. However, in the case of -software used on network servers, this result may fail to come about. -The GNU General Public License permits making a modified version and -letting the public access it on a server without ever releasing its -source code to the public. - - The GNU Affero General Public License is designed specifically to -ensure that, in such cases, the modified source code becomes available -to the community. It requires the operator of a network server to -provide the source code of the modified version running there to the -users of that server. Therefore, public use of a modified version, on -a publicly accessible server, gives the public access to the source -code of the modified version. - - An older license, called the Affero General Public License and -published by Affero, was designed to accomplish similar goals. This is -a different license, not a version of the Affero GPL, but Affero has -released a new version of the Affero GPL which permits relicensing under -this license. - - The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and -modification follow. - - TERMS AND CONDITIONS - - 0. Definitions. - - "This License" refers to version 3 of the GNU Affero General Public License. - - "Copyright" also means copyright-like laws that apply to other kinds of -works, such as semiconductor masks. - - "The Program" refers to any copyrightable work licensed under this -License. Each licensee is addressed as "you". "Licensees" and -"recipients" may be individuals or organizations. - - To "modify" a work means to copy from or adapt all or part of the work -in a fashion requiring copyright permission, other than the making of an -exact copy. The resulting work is called a "modified version" of the -earlier work or a work "based on" the earlier work. - - A "covered work" means either the unmodified Program or a work based -on the Program. - - To "propagate" a work means to do anything with it that, without -permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for -infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a -computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes copying, -distribution (with or without modification), making available to the -public, and in some countries other activities as well. - - To "convey" a work means any kind of propagation that enables other -parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through -a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying. - - An interactive user interface displays "Appropriate Legal Notices" -to the extent that it includes a convenient and prominently visible -feature that (1) displays an appropriate copyright notice, and (2) -tells the user that there is no warranty for the work (except to the -extent that warranties are provided), that licensees may convey the -work under this License, and how to view a copy of this License. If -the interface presents a list of user commands or options, such as a -menu, a prominent item in the list meets this criterion. - - 1. Source Code. - - The "source code" for a work means the preferred form of the work -for making modifications to it. "Object code" means any non-source -form of a work. - - A "Standard Interface" means an interface that either is an official -standard defined by a recognized standards body, or, in the case of -interfaces specified for a particular programming language, one that -is widely used among developers working in that language. - - The "System Libraries" of an executable work include anything, other -than the work as a whole, that (a) is included in the normal form of -packaging a Major Component, but which is not part of that Major -Component, and (b) serves only to enable use of the work with that -Major Component, or to implement a Standard Interface for which an -implementation is available to the public in source code form. A -"Major Component", in this context, means a major essential component -(kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific operating system -(if any) on which the executable work runs, or a compiler used to -produce the work, or an object code interpreter used to run it. - - The "Corresponding Source" for a work in object code form means all -the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable -work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to -control those activities. However, it does not include the work's -System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free -programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but -which are not part of the work. For example, Corresponding Source -includes interface definition files associated with source files for -the work, and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically -linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require, -such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those -subprograms and other parts of the work. - - The Corresponding Source need not include anything that users -can regenerate automatically from other parts of the Corresponding -Source. - - The Corresponding Source for a work in source code form is that -same work. - - 2. Basic Permissions. - - All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of -copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated -conditions are met. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited -permission to run the unmodified Program. The output from running a -covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its -content, constitutes a covered work. This License acknowledges your -rights of fair use or other equivalent, as provided by copyright law. - - You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not -convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains -in force. You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose -of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you -with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with -the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do -not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works -for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction -and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of -your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you. - - Conveying under any other circumstances is permitted solely under -the conditions stated below. Sublicensing is not allowed; section 10 -makes it unnecessary. - - 3. Protecting Users' Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law. - - No covered work shall be deemed part of an effective technological -measure under any applicable law fulfilling obligations under article -11 of the WIPO copyright treaty adopted on 20 December 1996, or -similar laws prohibiting or restricting circumvention of such -measures. - - When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid -circumvention of technological measures to the extent such circumvention -is effected by exercising rights under this License with respect to -the covered work, and you disclaim any intention to limit operation or -modification of the work as a means of enforcing, against the work's -users, your or third parties' legal rights to forbid circumvention of -technological measures. - - 4. Conveying Verbatim Copies. - - You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you -receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and -appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice; -keep intact all notices stating that this License and any -non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code; -keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty; and give all -recipients a copy of this License along with the Program. - - You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey, -and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee. - - 5. Conveying Modified Source Versions. - - You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to -produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the -terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: - - a) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified - it, and giving a relevant date. - - b) The work must carry prominent notices stating that it is - released under this License and any conditions added under section - 7. This requirement modifies the requirement in section 4 to - "keep intact all notices". - - c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this - License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This - License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 - additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, - regardless of how they are packaged. This License gives no - permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not - invalidate such permission if you have separately received it. - - d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display - Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive - interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your - work need not make them do so. - - A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent -works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, -and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, -in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an -"aggregate" if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not -used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users -beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work -in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other -parts of the aggregate. - - 6. Conveying Non-Source Forms. - - You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms -of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the -machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, -in one of these ways: - - a) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product - (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by the - Corresponding Source fixed on a durable physical medium - customarily used for software interchange. - - b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product - (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a - written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as - long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product - model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a - copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the - product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical - medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no - more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this - conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the - Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge. - - c) Convey individual copies of the object code with a copy of the - written offer to provide the Corresponding Source. This - alternative is allowed only occasionally and noncommercially, and - only if you received the object code with such an offer, in accord - with subsection 6b. - - d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated - place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the - Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no - further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the - Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the place to - copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source - may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) - that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain - clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the - Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the - Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is - available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements. - - e) Convey the object code using peer-to-peer transmission, provided - you inform other peers where the object code and Corresponding - Source of the work are being offered to the general public at no - charge under subsection 6d. - - A separable portion of the object code, whose source code is excluded -from the Corresponding Source as a System Library, need not be -included in conveying the object code work. - - A "User Product" is either (1) a "consumer product", which means any -tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family, -or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for incorporation -into a dwelling. In determining whether a product is a consumer product, -doubtful cases shall be resolved in favor of coverage. For a particular -product received by a particular user, "normally used" refers to a -typical or common use of that class of product, regardless of the status -of the particular user or of the way in which the particular user -actually uses, or expects or is expected to use, the product. A product -is a consumer product regardless of whether the product has substantial -commercial, industrial or non-consumer uses, unless such uses represent -the only significant mode of use of the product. - - "Installation Information" for a User Product means any methods, -procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install -and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from -a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must -suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object -code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because -modification has been made. - - If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or -specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as -part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the -User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a -fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the -Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied -by the Installation Information. But this requirement does not apply -if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install -modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has -been installed in ROM). - - The requirement to provide Installation Information does not include a -requirement to continue to provide support service, warranty, or updates -for a work that has been modified or installed by the recipient, or for -the User Product in which it has been modified or installed. Access to a -network may be denied when the modification itself materially and -adversely affects the operation of the network or violates the rules and -protocols for communication across the network. - - Corresponding Source conveyed, and Installation Information provided, -in accord with this section must be in a format that is publicly -documented (and with an implementation available to the public in -source code form), and must require no special password or key for -unpacking, reading or copying. - - 7. Additional Terms. - - "Additional permissions" are terms that supplement the terms of this -License by making exceptions from one or more of its conditions. -Additional permissions that are applicable to the entire Program shall -be treated as though they were included in this License, to the extent -that they are valid under applicable law. If additional permissions -apply only to part of the Program, that part may be used separately -under those permissions, but the entire Program remains governed by -this License without regard to the additional permissions. - - When you convey a copy of a covered work, you may at your option -remove any additional permissions from that copy, or from any part of -it. (Additional permissions may be written to require their own -removal in certain cases when you modify the work.) You may place -additional permissions on material, added by you to a covered work, -for which you have or can give appropriate copyright permission. - - Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you -add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright holders of -that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms: - - a) Disclaiming warranty or limiting liability differently from the - terms of sections 15 and 16 of this License; or - - b) Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or - author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal - Notices displayed by works containing it; or - - c) Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material, or - requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in - reasonable ways as different from the original version; or - - d) Limiting the use for publicity purposes of names of licensors or - authors of the material; or - - e) Declining to grant rights under trademark law for use of some - trade names, trademarks, or service marks; or - - f) Requiring indemnification of licensors and authors of that - material by anyone who conveys the material (or modified versions of - it) with contractual assumptions of liability to the recipient, for - any liability that these contractual assumptions directly impose on - those licensors and authors. - - All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further -restrictions" within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you -received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is -governed by this License along with a term that is a further -restriction, you may remove that term. If a license document contains -a further restriction but permits relicensing or conveying under this -License, you may add to a covered work material governed by the terms -of that license document, provided that the further restriction does -not survive such relicensing or conveying. - - If you add terms to a covered work in accord with this section, you -must place, in the relevant source files, a statement of the -additional terms that apply to those files, or a notice indicating -where to find the applicable terms. - - Additional terms, permissive or non-permissive, may be stated in the -form of a separately written license, or stated as exceptions; -the above requirements apply either way. - - 8. Termination. - - You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly -provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or -modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under -this License (including any patent licenses granted under the third -paragraph of section 11). - - However, if you cease all violation of this License, then your -license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated (a) -provisionally, unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and -finally terminates your license, and (b) permanently, if the copyright -holder fails to notify you of the violation by some reasonable means -prior to 60 days after the cessation. - - Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is -reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the -violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have -received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that -copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after -your receipt of the notice. - - Termination of your rights under this section does not terminate the -licenses of parties who have received copies or rights from you under -this License. If your rights have been terminated and not permanently -reinstated, you do not qualify to receive new licenses for the same -material under section 10. - - 9. Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies. - - You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or -run a copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work -occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission -to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance. However, -nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or -modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do -not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a -covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so. - - 10. Automatic Licensing of Downstream Recipients. - - Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically -receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and -propagate that work, subject to this License. You are not responsible -for enforcing compliance by third parties with this License. - - An "entity transaction" is a transaction transferring control of an -organization, or substantially all assets of one, or subdividing an -organization, or merging organizations. If propagation of a covered -work results from an entity transaction, each party to that -transaction who receives a copy of the work also receives whatever -licenses to the work the party's predecessor in interest had or could -give under the previous paragraph, plus a right to possession of the -Corresponding Source of the work from the predecessor in interest, if -the predecessor has it or can get it with reasonable efforts. - - You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the -rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may -not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of -rights granted under this License, and you may not initiate litigation -(including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that -any patent claim is infringed by making, using, selling, offering for -sale, or importing the Program or any portion of it. - - 11. Patents. - - A "contributor" is a copyright holder who authorizes use under this -License of the Program or a work on which the Program is based. The -work thus licensed is called the contributor's "contributor version". - - A contributor's "essential patent claims" are all patent claims -owned or controlled by the contributor, whether already acquired or -hereafter acquired, that would be infringed by some manner, permitted -by this License, of making, using, or selling its contributor version, -but do not include claims that would be infringed only as a -consequence of further modification of the contributor version. For -purposes of this definition, "control" includes the right to grant -patent sublicenses in a manner consistent with the requirements of -this License. - - Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free -patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to -make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and -propagate the contents of its contributor version. - - In the following three paragraphs, a "patent license" is any express -agreement or commitment, however denominated, not to enforce a patent -(such as an express permission to practice a patent or covenant not to -sue for patent infringement). To "grant" such a patent license to a -party means to make such an agreement or commitment not to enforce a -patent against the party. - - If you convey a covered work, knowingly relying on a patent license, -and the Corresponding Source of the work is not available for anyone -to copy, free of charge and under the terms of this License, through a -publicly available network server or other readily accessible means, -then you must either (1) cause the Corresponding Source to be so -available, or (2) arrange to deprive yourself of the benefit of the -patent license for this particular work, or (3) arrange, in a manner -consistent with the requirements of this License, to extend the patent -license to downstream recipients. "Knowingly relying" means you have -actual knowledge that, but for the patent license, your conveying the -covered work in a country, or your recipient's use of the covered work -in a country, would infringe one or more identifiable patents in that -country that you have reason to believe are valid. - - If, pursuant to or in connection with a single transaction or -arrangement, you convey, or propagate by procuring conveyance of, a -covered work, and grant a patent license to some of the parties -receiving the covered work authorizing them to use, propagate, modify -or convey a specific copy of the covered work, then the patent license -you grant is automatically extended to all recipients of the covered -work and works based on it. - - A patent license is "discriminatory" if it does not include within -the scope of its coverage, prohibits the exercise of, or is -conditioned on the non-exercise of one or more of the rights that are -specifically granted under this License. You may not convey a covered -work if you are a party to an arrangement with a third party that is -in the business of distributing software, under which you make payment -to the third party based on the extent of your activity of conveying -the work, and under which the third party grants, to any of the -parties who would receive the covered work from you, a discriminatory -patent license (a) in connection with copies of the covered work -conveyed by you (or copies made from those copies), or (b) primarily -for and in connection with specific products or compilations that -contain the covered work, unless you entered into that arrangement, -or that patent license was granted, prior to 28 March 2007. - - Nothing in this License shall be construed as excluding or limiting -any implied license or other defenses to infringement that may -otherwise be available to you under applicable patent law. - - 12. No Surrender of Others' Freedom. - - If conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or -otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not -excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot convey a -covered work so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this -License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may -not convey it at all. For example, if you agree to terms that obligate you -to collect a royalty for further conveying from those to whom you convey -the Program, the only way you could satisfy both those terms and this -License would be to refrain entirely from conveying the Program. - - 13. Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License. - - Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the -Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users -interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version -supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding -Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source -from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary -means of facilitating copying of software. This Corresponding Source -shall include the Corresponding Source for any work covered by version 3 -of the GNU General Public License that is incorporated pursuant to the -following paragraph. - - Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have -permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed -under version 3 of the GNU General Public License into a single -combined work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this -License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work, -but the work with which it is combined will remain governed by version -3 of the GNU General Public License. - - 14. Revised Versions of this License. - - The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of -the GNU Affero General Public License from time to time. Such new versions -will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to -address new problems or concerns. - - Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the -Program specifies that a certain numbered version of the GNU Affero General -Public License "or any later version" applies to it, you have the -option of following the terms and conditions either of that numbered -version or of any later version published by the Free Software -Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of the -GNU Affero General Public License, you may choose any version ever published -by the Free Software Foundation. - - If the Program specifies that a proxy can decide which future -versions of the GNU Affero General Public License can be used, that proxy's -public statement of acceptance of a version permanently authorizes you -to choose that version for the Program. - - Later license versions may give you additional or different -permissions. However, no additional obligations are imposed on any -author or copyright holder as a result of your choosing to follow a -later version. - - 15. Disclaimer of Warranty. - - THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY -APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT -HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY -OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, -THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR -PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM -IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF -ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION. - - 16. Limitation of Liability. - - IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING -WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MODIFIES AND/OR CONVEYS -THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY -GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE -USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF -DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD -PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), -EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF -SUCH DAMAGES. - - 17. Interpretation of Sections 15 and 16. - - If the disclaimer of warranty and limitation of liability provided -above cannot be given local legal effect according to their terms, -reviewing courts shall apply local law that most closely approximates -an absolute waiver of all civil liability in connection with the -Program, unless a warranty or assumption of liability accompanies a -copy of the Program in return for a fee. - - END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS - - How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs - - If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest -possible use to the public, the best way to achieve this is to make it -free software which everyone can redistribute and change under these terms. - - To do so, attach the following notices to the program. It is safest -to attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively -state the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least -the "copyright" line and a pointer to where the full notice is found. - - hoersaal, a self-hosted conferencing service that scales itself. - Copyright (C) 2026 iderex - - This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify - it under the terms of the GNU Affero General Public License as published by - the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or - (at your option) any later version. - - This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, - but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of - MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the - GNU Affero General Public License for more details. - - You should have received a copy of the GNU Affero General Public License - along with this program. If not, see . - -Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail. - - If your software can interact with users remotely through a computer -network, you should also make sure that it provides a way for users to -get its source. For example, if your program is a web application, its -interface could display a "Source" link that leads users to an archive -of the code. There are many ways you could offer source, and different -solutions will be better for different programs; see section 13 for the -specific requirements. - - You should also get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or school, -if any, to sign a "copyright disclaimer" for the program, if necessary. -For more information on this, and how to apply and follow the GNU AGPL, see -. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md index 7f6f5a3..f1fdd98 100644 --- a/README.md +++ b/README.md @@ -60,9 +60,3 @@ There is no licence file. That is not a neutral state, since without one nobody has permission to reuse anything here, and it is the first entry of the open question that collects the decisions this plan does not take. Until it is answered, treat everything on this board as readable and not as reusable. - -## License - -AGPL-3.0, copyright 2026 Nils Lehnen. - -The full text is in [LICENSE](LICENSE). diff --git a/cmd/notices/tree_test.go b/cmd/notices/tree_test.go deleted file mode 100644 index 8415e80..0000000 --- a/cmd/notices/tree_test.go +++ /dev/null @@ -1,289 +0,0 @@ -// What this file proves that neither of the other two suites can. -// -// internal/notices proves the render, against module sets a case wrote out in -// full. main_test.go proves that the module table inside a real binary reaches -// that render, against a binary built from this repository. Neither of them -// starts from a tree: this repository has no third-party dependency, so a build -// of it exercises the empty half only, and a module set constructed in a test is -// a statement about the test rather than about a build. -// -// Issue #37 asks for the other half in its own words - a run against a tree with -// a dependency added produces a notices file that lists it - so this builds two -// binaries from one tree, the second differing from the first by a require line -// and an import, and holds the difference between the two documents. -// -// IT OPENS NO CONNECTION, which is what made this leg look unreachable. The -// module is served out of a directory laid out as a module proxy and written by -// this test, the checksum database is off, and the toolchain is pinned to the -// one already installed, so nothing here resolves a name or fetches a version. -// The module cache the build populates is a temporary directory, so the licence -// text the document carries came from this run rather than from whatever the -// machine happened to have downloaded before it. -package main - -import ( - "archive/zip" - "bytes" - "os" - "os/exec" - "path/filepath" - "runtime" - "strings" - "testing" -) - -// The module the tree under test depends on. -// -// It is invented rather than borrowed from the real ecosystem. A test that -// depends on something real depends on that thing staying fetchable and staying -// licensed the way it was on the day the test was written, and both of those are -// facts about somebody else's repository. -const ( - dependencyPath = "example.com/dep" - dependencyVersion = "v1.0.0" -) - -// The go directive is well below the toolchain this repository builds with on -// purpose. The tree here is built by whatever toolchain is running the suite, -// and a directive naming a version newer than that one asks the toolchain to -// fetch a different one, which is the network this file exists without. -const dependencyGoMod = "module example.com/dep\n\ngo 1.21\n" - -const dependencySource = `package dep - -// Answer is here so that the tree under test imports this module and uses it. -// A module that is required and never imported does not reach the binary, and -// then the document would be correct to leave it out. -func Answer() int { return 37 } -` - -// The licence text is written to be unmistakable in a document. What the -// assertion below has to separate is a document naming a module from a document -// carrying the text that module shipped, and a conventional licence header -// appears in enough places to make that a weak test. -const dependencyLicenceText = `Copyright 2026 the author of example.com/dep - -Permission is granted to reproduce this text in a notices document, which is -the whole of what this file exists to be reproduced by. -` - -// TestATreeWithADependencyAddedProducesADocumentThatListsIt builds one tree -// twice and compares the two documents. -// -// The comparison is the test. A tree that had the dependency from the start -// would pass against a command that lists whatever it finds and also against one -// that lists a module somebody hard-coded, and the difference between the two -// runs is what separates them. -func TestATreeWithADependencyAddedProducesADocumentThatListsIt(t *testing.T) { - workspace := t.TempDir() - proxy := writeTheModuleProxy(t, filepath.Join(workspace, "proxy")) - cache := filepath.Join(workspace, "modcache") - tree := filepath.Join(workspace, "tree") - - // The cache is created here rather than left to the build. The first of the - // two builds needs nothing, so it populates no cache, and a command told to - // read a directory that is not there refuses the invocation instead of - // describing the binary. - if err := os.MkdirAll(cache, 0o755); err != nil { - t.Fatal(err) - } - - environment := offlineEnvironment(proxy, cache) - cleanTheModuleCache(t, environment) - - writeTheTree(t, tree, false) - before, code := describe(t, buildTheTree(t, tree, environment, "before"), cache) - if code != exitClean { - t.Fatalf("describing the tree without the dependency returned %d", code) - } - if strings.Contains(before, dependencyPath) { - t.Fatalf("the tree without the dependency already names %s, so the comparison below proves nothing:\n%s", dependencyPath, before) - } - if !strings.Contains(before, "This binary contains no third-party module.") { - t.Errorf("the tree without the dependency does not say that there is nothing to disclose:\n%s", before) - } - - writeTheTree(t, tree, true) - after, code := describe(t, buildTheTree(t, tree, environment, "after"), cache) - if code != exitClean { - t.Fatalf("describing the tree with the dependency returned %d rather than %d, so the licence text was not read out of the cache the build populated", code, exitClean) - } - - named := dependencyPath + "@" + dependencyVersion - if !strings.Contains(after, named) { - t.Errorf("the document does not name %s:\n%s", named, after) - } - if !strings.Contains(after, strings.TrimSpace(dependencyLicenceText)) { - t.Errorf("the document names %s and does not carry the text it shipped, which is the half a link would also have failed to supply:\n%s", named, after) - } - t.Logf("adding %s moved the document from %d to %d byte(s) and carried its licence text", named, len(before), len(after)) -} - -// describe runs the command over one binary and returns what it wrote and the -// code it returned. -func describe(t *testing.T, binary, cache string) (string, int) { - t.Helper() - - var out, errOut bytes.Buffer - code := run([]string{binary, cache}, &out, &errOut) - if errOut.Len() > 0 { - t.Logf("the run said: %s", strings.TrimSpace(errOut.String())) - } - return out.String(), code -} - -// writeTheTree writes a module that either imports the dependency or does not. -// -// Both halves are written rather than the second being an edit of the first, so -// that what the two builds differ by is stated in one place a reader can see. -func writeTheTree(t *testing.T, dir string, withDependency bool) { - t.Helper() - - goMod := "module example.com/tree\n\ngo 1.21\n" - source := "package main\n\nfunc main() { println(\"the tree ran\") }\n" - if withDependency { - goMod = "module example.com/tree\n\ngo 1.21\n\nrequire " + dependencyPath + " " + dependencyVersion + "\n" - source = "package main\n\nimport \"" + dependencyPath + "\"\n\nfunc main() { println(dep.Answer()) }\n" - } - - if err := os.MkdirAll(dir, 0o755); err != nil { - t.Fatal(err) - } - write(t, filepath.Join(dir, "go.mod"), goMod) - write(t, filepath.Join(dir, "main.go"), source) -} - -// buildTheTree compiles the tree and returns the path of the binary. -func buildTheTree(t *testing.T, dir string, environment []string, name string) string { - t.Helper() - - if runtime.GOOS == "windows" { - name += ".exe" - } - binary := filepath.Join(t.TempDir(), name) - - build := exec.Command("go", "build", "-o", binary, ".") - build.Dir = dir - build.Env = environment - if output, err := build.CombinedOutput(); err != nil { - t.Fatalf("cannot build the tree under test: %v\n%s", err, output) - } - return binary -} - -// writeTheModuleProxy lays out the dependency the way a module proxy serves it -// and returns the directory to point the toolchain at. -func writeTheModuleProxy(t *testing.T, root string) string { - t.Helper() - - dir := filepath.Join(root, filepath.FromSlash(dependencyPath), "@v") - if err := os.MkdirAll(dir, 0o755); err != nil { - t.Fatal(err) - } - write(t, filepath.Join(dir, "list"), dependencyVersion+"\n") - write(t, filepath.Join(dir, dependencyVersion+".info"), `{"Version":"`+dependencyVersion+`"}`) - write(t, filepath.Join(dir, dependencyVersion+".mod"), dependencyGoMod) - - if err := os.WriteFile(filepath.Join(dir, dependencyVersion+".zip"), moduleArchive(t), 0o644); err != nil { - t.Fatal(err) - } - return root -} - -// moduleArchive builds the zip a module proxy serves, which is every file of the -// module under one directory named for the module and its version. -func moduleArchive(t *testing.T) []byte { - t.Helper() - - var buffer bytes.Buffer - archive := zip.NewWriter(&buffer) - prefix := dependencyPath + "@" + dependencyVersion + "/" - - for _, file := range []struct{ name, content string }{ - {"go.mod", dependencyGoMod}, - {"dep.go", dependencySource}, - {"LICENSE", dependencyLicenceText}, - } { - entry, err := archive.Create(prefix + file.name) - if err != nil { - t.Fatal(err) - } - if _, err := entry.Write([]byte(file.content)); err != nil { - t.Fatal(err) - } - } - if err := archive.Close(); err != nil { - t.Fatal(err) - } - return buffer.Bytes() -} - -// offlineEnvironment is what the two builds run under. -// -// Every entry is here to remove one route to the network or to the machine's own -// state. The proxy is a directory. The checksum database is off, because it is a -// service and the module it would be asked about does not exist outside this -// test. The toolchain is the installed one, so a go directive is never a -// download. The workspace file is off, so a go.work above the temporary -// directory cannot pull this build into it. The module cache is a temporary -// directory, so the licence text in the document came from this run. -// -// THE THREE EMPTIED VARIABLES ARE THE ONES THAT SEND A BUILD PAST THE PROXY. -// They are inherited from whoever is running the suite, and any of them matching -// this module makes the toolchain resolve the path as a domain and fetch over -// https, which is a failure that only appears on a machine configured a -// particular way. Emptying them is how this file stops depending on that -// configuration. -func offlineEnvironment(proxy, cache string) []string { - return append(os.Environ(), - "GOPROXY="+proxyURL(proxy), - "GOSUMDB=off", - "GOPRIVATE=", - "GONOPROXY=", - "GONOSUMDB=", - "GOFLAGS=-mod=mod", - "GOMODCACHE="+cache, - "GOWORK=off", - "GOTOOLCHAIN=local", - ) -} - -// proxyURL spells a directory as the file URL the toolchain reads a proxy from. -// The leading slash is added where the path does not have one, which is every -// path on Windows and no path anywhere else. -func proxyURL(dir string) string { - slashed := filepath.ToSlash(dir) - if !strings.HasPrefix(slashed, "/") { - slashed = "/" + slashed - } - return "file://" + slashed -} - -// cleanTheModuleCache empties the temporary cache before the directory holding -// it is removed. -// -// The toolchain writes the cache read-only, and removing a read-only file is -// refused on one of the platforms this repository supports, so the cleanup the -// temporary directory does on its own fails there. This is registered after that -// cleanup and therefore runs before it. -func cleanTheModuleCache(t *testing.T, environment []string) { - t.Helper() - - t.Cleanup(func() { - clean := exec.Command("go", "clean", "-modcache") - clean.Env = environment - if output, err := clean.CombinedOutput(); err != nil { - t.Logf("cannot empty the temporary module cache: %v\n%s", err, output) - } - }) -} - -// write is os.WriteFile with the test failed rather than the error returned, -// because every caller here would do the same three lines. -func write(t *testing.T, path, content string) { - t.Helper() - - if err := os.WriteFile(path, []byte(content), 0o644); err != nil { - t.Fatal(err) - } -} diff --git a/docs/operator-guide.md b/docs/operator-guide.md index 6775f14..dc5acd9 100644 --- a/docs/operator-guide.md +++ b/docs/operator-guide.md @@ -148,27 +148,16 @@ anything in the tree. Three ways to reach it, each printing to standard error: ./lab frobnicate lab: unknown verb "frobnicate" - (and then the help text, because the verb is not one it has) ./lab (the help text, because no verb was given) -The help text is described rather than pasted in both of those, because a copy -of it here drifts against the runner that prints it, and the runner is the -thing a reader is checking. - `3` is not a code this command returns. It belongs to the integration-hardware harness under `internal/hardware`, which is asked for separately, and it is declared where its only producer is: - git grep 'ExitAskedAndDeliveredNothing = ' -- internal/hardware - internal/hardware/hardware.go:const ExitAskedAndDeliveredNothing = 3 - -That command carries no line number on purpose. With `-n` the paste names a -line rather than a declaration, and an edit anywhere above the constant moves -the line without changing anything the sentence claims, so the quotation goes -stale while the claim it supports stays true. The file and the declaration are -what the claim rests on and neither of them moves. + git grep -n 'ExitAskedAndDeliveredNothing = ' -- internal/hardware + internal/hardware/hardware.go:45:const ExitAskedAndDeliveredNothing = 3 So the record fixes four codes, `lab` returns three of them, and a caller keyed on any of the four is reading that record whether or not anybody said so. diff --git a/docs/quality-parity.md b/docs/quality-parity.md index 488e42f..ab8b208 100644 --- a/docs/quality-parity.md +++ b/docs/quality-parity.md @@ -53,14 +53,14 @@ today no tick does. | `ABI floor build` | Dropped | It exists so a plugin loads against the oldest server it claims to support, and nothing here loads into a host. | | `Package (JPRM) / Build package` | Dropped | This repository ships no plugin, so there is no package to build. | | `Package (JPRM) / Generate SBOM` | Kept in substance, moved out of the gate | A bill of materials is owed for anything downloadable, and this one is produced by the release build rather than by a check on a pull request. Issue #37 builds it and nothing in this tree produces one today. | -| `CodeQL` | Kept, retargeted | Static analysis of the runner's own source, in the language record `0001` chose rather than in C#. Two strings arrive here for it, the analysis job's `CodeQL (go)` and the code-scanning upload's `CodeQL`. Which of the two a required set can hold is open rather than decided below: the section on which contexts arrive separates the strings, and says of the upload name that the route which would decide it has not been walked. Issue #62 holds that walk. | +| `CodeQL` | Kept, retargeted | Static analysis of the runner's own source, in the language record `0001` chose rather than in C#. | | `Analyze (csharp)` | Dropped as a name | The language-specific analysis job is replaced by the equivalent for this language rather than carried across under a name that describes nothing here. | | `DCO sign-off` | Kept unchanged | Already in the tree, asserting the text at `DCO` on every non-merge commit. | | `Deterministic PR-hygiene checks` | Kept, adapted | The class the other checks miss is the pull request itself, and one of the three refusals is this board's own invariant about a record moving with the code it describes. It is in the tree as the `pull request` job, judged in `internal/pullrequest/` and run from `.github/workflows/pull-request.yml`. | | `Enforce greppable invariants` | Kept, different invariants | The invariants are properties of this repository's own tracked text, which is a different set from the target's, and they are in `internal/invariants/`. | | `Reject Trojan Source Unicode` | Kept unchanged | Already in the tree, and the attack it refuses is a property of source rather than of a language. | -| `Audit workflows (zizmor)` | Kept unchanged | Already in the tree. The workflow YAML is the other executable thing here and it runs with write scopes. The job reports under this name and the code-scanning upload reports under `zizmor`, which is a different context and does not arrive on every pull request. | -| `prettier` | Kept, split in two, and both halves are in the tree | Records here are Markdown, and a whitespace diff on a record hides the sentence that changed. The runner's own source is held to `gofmt` by the `format` job and the prose half is the `prose format` job. Both are kept and both belong in the required set. Neither rewrites anything, which is where the split departs from the target: `prettier` formats and these two refuse, so a departure is a red tick here and a diff there. | +| `Audit workflows (zizmor)` | Kept unchanged | Already in the tree. The workflow YAML is the other executable thing here and it runs with write scopes. | +| `prettier` | Kept, split in two | Records here are Markdown, and a whitespace diff on a record hides the sentence that changed. The runner's own source is held to `gofmt` by a job already in the tree; the prose half is issue #50 and nothing in this tree formats Markdown today. | | `dependency-review` | Kept unchanged | Already in the tree, refusing a newly introduced dependency carrying a known advisory. | ## What this board adds that the target does not have @@ -75,78 +75,6 @@ requirement, and the job proves the default suite completes with no graphical session and as an ordinary user. The target does not carry it because a plugin assembly is not run by a contributor on their own machine in the same way. -Three more names this tree declares belong in this section, and until this -paragraph none of them appeared anywhere in this document, in a row or in a -sentence. They are declared here: - -``` -git grep -h -E '\{Name: "(test \(|vet"|required contexts")' origin/main \ - -- internal/contexts/contexts.go | sed 's/^[[:space:]]*//' -{Name: "test (linux/amd64)", Why: theSetIsEmpty, Until: "#26"}, -{Name: "test (windows/amd64)", Why: theSetIsEmpty, Until: "#26"}, -{Name: "test (darwin/arm64)", Why: theSetIsEmpty, Until: "#26"}, -{Name: "vet", Why: theSetIsEmpty, Until: "#26"}, -{Name: "required contexts", Why: theSetIsEmpty, Until: "#26"}, -``` - -The leading indentation is stripped so that this document carries no tab, which -`prose-carries-a-tab` refuses in tracked Markdown. Nothing else about the five -lines is changed. - -A name with no verdict here is the shape that costs issue #26 an answer rather -than a line of prose. The set it assembles is taken from this document, and a -declared name the document gives no verdict to can be read as kept or as -dropped with equal justice, so the two readings produce two different gates. -Each entry below therefore says kept or dropped and why, in the same terms the -table above uses. - -The platform suite. Record `docs/decisions/0012-the-supported-platforms.md` -gives three of its six platforms a suite run as well as a build, and each of -the three reports under its own name, so the entries are `test (linux/amd64)`, -`test (windows/amd64)` and `test (darwin/arm64)`. The target requires a build -and requires nothing that runs a suite: - -``` -gh api repos/Flowfin/jellyfin-plugin-sso/rules/branches/main \ - --jq '.[] | select(.type=="required_status_checks") - | .parameters.required_status_checks[].context' \ - | grep -E '^(test|vet)' ; echo "exit=$?" -exit=1 -``` - -All three are kept and they belong in the required set. The differences record -`0012` picks those three platforms for, whether the filesystem folds case, what -separates a path and what a line ending arrives as, are the defects a runner -that reads a checkout actually has, and a build entry that compiled on a -platform says nothing about whether the runner reads that platform's tree -correctly. The target has no equivalent because the artefact it gates is loaded -by a server rather than run against a working copy. - -`vet` is kept, and it belongs in the set at a smaller cost than the suite: one -job over the whole module rather than three entries on three machines, since -what it reads is the source rather than the filesystem underneath it. It has no -counterpart in the command above for the same reason the language-specific -analysis row does not carry across, which is that the target is written in -another language and holds its own source to that language's tools. - -`required contexts` is kept, and it is the entry a reader is likeliest to find -absent here rather than wrong, because it is younger than the walk this -document is built on. The table above reads a ruleset as it answered on -2026-08-10 and this check landed two days later: - -``` -git log -1 --format='%h %ad %s' --date=short --diff-filter=A \ - -- .github/workflows/contexts.yml -2b954f5 2026-08-12 Refuse a required context and a check name that disagree (#71) -``` - -What it compares is the required set against the check names this tree -declares, so it is the one entry whose subject is the gate rather than the -tree. Requiring it is what refuses a set edited into disagreement with the -workflows, in either direction, and that is the direction no document can cover -because nothing reads a document. The target has no equivalent and the absence -is not an argument against carrying one here. - The supply-chain self-audit stays outside the required set, for the same reason it is outside the target's. It publishes from the default branch and cannot gate a pull request, so requiring it would require a context that never @@ -166,356 +94,6 @@ gh api repos/Flowfin/lab/commits/$(git rev-parse origin/main)/check-runs \ That is the command issue #26 assembles the required set from, and it is the one to run before quoting any context name back at this document. -## Which contexts arrive, and on which pull requests - -A required context that does not arrive is not a red tick. It is a pull request -that cannot merge and says nothing about why, so the first response is to wait -and the second is to make the gate smaller. The names above are therefore -separated by what produces them and by the commit they were read from before -any of them goes into a required set. Issue #62 holds this walk. - -### The command above reads a commit no pull request produced - -`git rev-parse origin/main` resolves a commit on the default branch, which is -reached by a push. Three workflows in this tree carry no push trigger: - -``` -git grep -L 'push:' origin/main -- .github/workflows/ -origin/main:.github/workflows/dco.yml -origin/main:.github/workflows/dependency-review.yml -origin/main:.github/workflows/pull-request.yml -``` - -So the two kinds of commit report different sets, and the difference runs in -both directions. Between the head of the default branch and the head of a pull -request that landed on it, on 2026-08-16: - -``` -gh api repos/Flowfin/lab/commits/82c245f/check-runs?per_page=100 \ - --jq '.check_runs[].name' | sort -u > default-branch.txt -gh api repos/Flowfin/lab/commits/7374b6b/check-runs?per_page=100 \ - --jq '.check_runs[].name' | sort -u > pull-request.txt - -comm -23 default-branch.txt pull-request.txt -Scorecard analysis - -comm -13 default-branch.txt pull-request.txt -CodeQL -DCO sign-off -dependency-review -pull request -zizmor -``` - -Three of those five are the pull-request-only workflows above and two are the -subject of the next section. `Scorecard analysis` is the opposite case and is -already written down as a permanent absence in `internal/contexts/contexts.go`, -for the reason the supply-chain paragraph above gives. - -A set assembled from a default-branch commit therefore leaves out three -contexts that every pull request reports, and it offers one that no pull -request can report. Which commit that command is run against decides what the -gate gets. - -### One name is reported twice on the same commit - -Every command in this document that lists check names deduplicates, and one of -the names they print once was produced by two runs. On `bd861cf`, the head of -pull request #145: - -``` -gh api repos/Flowfin/lab/commits/bd861cf/check-runs?per_page=100 \ - --jq '.check_runs[].name' | sort | uniq -d -Reject Trojan Source Unicode - -gh api repos/Flowfin/lab/commits/bd861cf/check-runs?per_page=100 \ - --jq '.check_runs[] | select(.name=="Reject Trojan Source Unicode") - | "suite \(.check_suite.id), \(.conclusion)"' -suite 86798670354, success -suite 86798547856, success -``` - -The cause is one trigger. Every push trigger in these files names the default -branch except one: - -``` -for f in $(git ls-tree --name-only origin/main .github/workflows/); do - s=$(git show "origin/main:$f" | sed -n '/^ push:/{n;s/^ *//;p;}') - [ -n "$s" ] && printf '%s %s\n' "$f" "$s" -done -.github/workflows/build.yml branches: [main] -.github/workflows/codeql.yml branches: [main] -.github/workflows/contexts.yml branches: [main] -.github/workflows/headless.yml branches: [main] -.github/workflows/invariants.yml branches: [main] -.github/workflows/prose.yml branches: [main] -.github/workflows/records.yml branches: [main] -.github/workflows/scorecard.yml branches: [main] -.github/workflows/unicode-guard.yml branches: ["**"] -.github/workflows/zizmor.yml branches: [ main ] -``` - -A branch pushed for a pull request therefore starts that one workflow twice, -and both runs report under its job name. The file gives the reason its trigger -is wide, and the reason is about which branches the guard covers rather than -about the gate: - -``` -git show origin/main:.github/workflows/unicode-guard.yml | sed -n '3,11p' -on: - # Every branch and every PR: the guard is a cheap read-only scan, so there is no - # reason to narrow it to main, and it covers whatever branches this repository - # grows later without being edited again. - push: - branches: ["**"] - pull_request: - branches: ["**"] -``` - -The two runs do not read the same tree, and that is what makes this more than a -repeated line. Each checkout says what it took, and the answers differ: - -``` -gh run view 32017539721 --log \ - | sed -n 's/.*\(git checkout --progress --force .*\)/\1/p' -git checkout --progress --force -B parity/one-job-asks-the-platform-and-the-fork-half-is-unwalked refs/remotes/origin/parity/one-job-asks-the-platform-and-the-fork-half-is-unwalked - -gh run view 32017585271 --log \ - | sed -n 's/.*\(git checkout --progress --force .*\)/\1/p' -git checkout --progress --force refs/remotes/pull/145/merge -``` - -The first read the branch and the second read the branch merged into the base. -A tree that carries none of these characters on the branch and carries one once -merged separates the two runs, which is the case this particular guard exists -for one merge earlier. - -`Reject Trojan Source Unicode` is a row the table above keeps, so it is a -candidate for the required set. What a merge does when two check runs answer to -one name is platform behaviour that nothing in this tree states, and the set -here is empty, so it cannot be measured on this board today either. Issue #26 -assembles the set and its first clause meets this, because the command it -assembles from prints one line for the two. - -### Two of the names come from an upload rather than from a job - -The names on that same pull request head that no job in this tree produced: - -``` -gh api repos/Flowfin/lab/commits/7374b6b/check-runs?per_page=100 \ - --jq '.check_runs[] | select(.app.slug != "github-actions") - | "\(.name) is created by \(.app.slug)"' | sort -u -CodeQL is created by github-advanced-security -zizmor is created by github-advanced-security -``` - -The two rows in the table above carry the target's strings. Here each of them -is two strings rather than one: the analysis job reports `CodeQL (go)` and the -code-scanning upload reports `CodeQL`, the audit job reports -`Audit workflows (zizmor)` and the upload reports `zizmor`. Two of the four are -written in a workflow file and two are written in no file in this tree, which -is how `internal/contexts/contexts.go` holds them. - -### The upload is conditional and the step that fails on findings is not - -``` -git show origin/main:.github/workflows/zizmor.yml | sed -n '76,84p' - - name: Upload SARIF - # Only upload where the GITHUB_TOKEN can write security events: pushes to main - # and same-repo human PRs. Fork and Dependabot pull requests run with a - # read-only token, so the upload is skipped there - the gate step below still - # runs and blocks on findings. continue-on-error keeps the security gate - # independent of the upload: a transient code-scanning upload failure must not - # skip the "Fail on actionable findings" step below. - if: (github.event_name == 'push' && github.ref == 'refs/heads/main') || (github.event.pull_request.head.repo.full_name == github.repository && github.event.pull_request.user.login != 'dependabot[bot]') - continue-on-error: true -``` - -That condition has a pull request on this board today that it excludes, so the -outcome is measured rather than read off the file. On the head of #135, whose -author the second arm names: - -``` -gh api repos/Flowfin/lab/actions/runs/31929377858/jobs \ - --jq '.jobs[].steps[] | select(.number >= 4 and .number <= 6) - | "step \(.number), \(.name): \(.conclusion)"' -step 4, Audit workflows (SARIF for code scanning): success -step 5, Upload SARIF: skipped -step 6, Fail on actionable findings: failure -``` - -The upload did not run, and only one of the two names reached that commit: - -``` -gh api repos/Flowfin/lab/commits/d18d040/check-runs?per_page=100 \ - --jq '.check_runs[] | select(.name | test("zizmor")) - | "\(.name): \(.conclusion)"' | sort -u -Audit workflows (zizmor): failure -``` - -So the job arrived and reported what the audit found while the upload-derived -context did not arrive at all, which is the separation the comment in the -workflow file argues for. It decides one name: `zizmor` cannot be in the -required set, because requiring it would hold open every pull request the -condition excludes, with nothing on the pull request saying why. That absence is -permanent rather than one issue #26 retires, and the job name beside it is -unaffected. - -### None of these workflows narrows itself to some pull requests - -A context that arrives on some pull requests and not on others is what this -section is written against, and three of the ways to build one are readable in -these files rather than walked. The readings below were made at `1fc6961` and -cover every workflow file in the tree at that commit. - -A path filter is the ordinary way it happens, and no workflow here carries one: - -``` -git grep -n 'paths:\|paths-ignore:' origin/main -- .github/workflows/ ; echo "exit=$?" -exit=1 -``` - -A trigger narrowed to some branches is the same failure by a second route, and -three of these files carry no branch filter that reads every branch: - -``` -git grep -L 'branches: \[ *"\*\*" *\]' origin/main -- .github/workflows/ -origin/main:.github/workflows/dco.yml -origin/main:.github/workflows/dependency-review.yml -origin/main:.github/workflows/scorecard.yml -``` - -The third is the supply-chain self-audit, which declares no pull-request -trigger at all and is outside the required set already. Neither of the other -two narrows anything. `dependency-review.yml` writes no branch filter under any -of its triggers, which is every branch: - -``` -git grep -n 'branches:' origin/main -- .github/workflows/dependency-review.yml ; echo "exit=$?" -exit=1 -``` - -`dco.yml` carries the only type filter in these files: - -``` -git grep -n 'types:' origin/main -- .github/workflows/ -origin/main:.github/workflows/dco.yml:13: types: [opened, synchronize, reopened] -``` - -The claim about the three types it names is that they are the three the -platform runs a pull-request workflow for when a file names none, so writing -them out removes no pull request. That is the platform's documented default -rather than something this tree says, and nothing here measures it. What sits -beside it is that `DCO sign-off` is among the contexts the pull-request head -compared above reported, which shows the workflow runs on an ordinary pull -request and shows nothing about one that arrives another way. - -A job skipped by a condition is the third, and two of these files carry one at -all: - -``` -git grep -c '^\s*if:' origin/main -- .github/workflows/ -origin/main:.github/workflows/scorecard.yml:1 -origin/main:.github/workflows/zizmor.yml:1 -``` - -Neither reaches a name the table above keeps. The first is a job-level -condition on the supply-chain self-audit, which the paragraph above already -places outside the required set for a reason of its own. The second is the -upload condition quoted earlier in this section, indented under a step rather -than a job, and the step that fails on findings sits after it carrying no -condition. - -What these commands do not reach. They read the path filters, the branch and -type filters and the `if:` keys, which is what those three are written with in -these files today, and a fourth route written some other way is not something a -reader can take from them. None of them says anything about -what a job does once it has started, so a context that arrives having done -nothing is a different question and is not answered here. - -### One job can start and still be unable to do its work - -The readings above stop at the moment a job begins. One job here has a second -failure after that moment, because half of what it compares is a live setting -on the platform rather than a file in the checkout, so it has to ask. No other -workflow in this tree asks anything: - -``` -git grep -n 'gh api' origin/main -- .github/workflows/ -origin/main:.github/workflows/contexts.yml:93: if ! gh api "repos/${REPOSITORY}/rules/branches/${DEFAULT_BRANCH}" \ -``` - -That reads the run blocks these files carry, so it says which workflow asks the -platform a question in a script this repository writes. What an action reaches -once it has started is not readable from here and the command says nothing -about it. - -The job reports as `required contexts`, which the section above keeps and puts -in the required set. What it does when the answer does not arrive is written -into the step rather than left to the shell: - -``` -git show origin/main:.github/workflows/contexts.yml | sed -n '92,100p' - set -euo pipefail - if ! gh api "repos/${REPOSITORY}/rules/branches/${DEFAULT_BRANCH}" \ - --jq '.[] | select(.type=="required_status_checks") - | .parameters.required_status_checks[].context' > required.txt; then - echo "::error::The ruleset on ${DEFAULT_BRANCH} could not be read, so this run could not judge whether the gate and the tree agree. That is not the same as them agreeing." - exit 1 - fi - echo "the ruleset on ${DEFAULT_BRANCH} requires $(wc -l < required.txt) context(s):" - cat required.txt -``` - -So this route ends in a red context carrying its reason rather than in a -context that never arrives, which is the better of the two failures and is -still a pull request held open by something other than the change on it. An -empty answer is not that failure. The count is printed and the run carries on, -which is the state this board is in today. - -One of the two things a fork run brings is measurable here already. A -Dependabot pull request runs with a read-only token, which is what the upload -condition quoted earlier in this section names it for, and #135 is one. On its -head the job ran and the fetch answered: - -``` -gh api repos/Flowfin/lab/commits/d18d040/check-runs?per_page=100 \ - --jq '.check_runs[] | select(.name=="required contexts") - | "\(.name): \(.conclusion)"' -required contexts: success - -gh run view 31929377870 --log \ - | sed -n 's/.*\(the ruleset on main requires .*\)/\1/p' -the ruleset on main requires 0 context(s): -``` - -A read-only token reads this board's ruleset, so that is not what would stop a -run from a fork. What is left is the other thing, which is that the token is -issued against a different repository. `github.repository` names this board on -a pull request from a fork, so the fetch asks about this board whichever side -the branch sits on, and whether a token issued that way may read this board's -ruleset is platform behaviour that nothing in this tree states and nothing -above measures. - -`required contexts` therefore belongs in the fork clause of #62, and it is -there for a different reason from the two names already in it. Those two are -created by an upload and turn on a write scope. This one is a job that always -starts, and what is open is whether the answer it needs arrives. - -### What this section does not settle - -No pull request from a fork has been opened here. The condition above has two -arms and only the second was walked: the branch measured above is in this -repository, and a read-only token is what the two arms have in common rather -than what makes them one route. `CodeQL` did arrive on that pull request, so -nothing here says whether it arrives from a fork, and the fork clause of #62 is -open for it. It is open for `required contexts` as well, for the reason the -subsection above gives rather than for this one. - -The required set is empty, so nothing above is a report of a required context -that failed to arrive. Every sentence here is about which names a set could -hold, and none of them is about a gate that bit. - ## The rest of the ruleset A required set is one rule out of the four that stand behind a merge at the diff --git a/internal/contexts/contexts.go b/internal/contexts/contexts.go index 9608b17..8ec6353 100644 --- a/internal/contexts/contexts.go +++ b/internal/contexts/contexts.go @@ -140,12 +140,7 @@ var Absences = []Absence{ {Name: "format", Why: theSetIsEmpty, Until: "#26"}, {Name: "CodeQL (go)", Why: theSetIsEmpty, Until: "#26"}, {Name: "CodeQL", Why: theSetIsEmpty, Until: "#26"}, - { - Name: "zizmor", - Why: "this name is created by the code-scanning upload in zizmor.yml rather than by the job, and that step is skipped wherever the token cannot write security events, so requiring it would hold open every pull request the condition excludes with nothing on the pull request saying why. " + - "The job reports under Audit workflows (zizmor), which is a different string, arrives on those pull requests and carries the step that fails on findings", - Until: "", - }, + {Name: "zizmor", Why: theSetIsEmpty, Until: "#26"}, {Name: "DCO sign-off", Why: theSetIsEmpty, Until: "#26"}, {Name: "dependency-review", Why: theSetIsEmpty, Until: "#26"}, {Name: "headless and unelevated", Why: theSetIsEmpty, Until: "#26"}, diff --git a/internal/contexts/contexts_test.go b/internal/contexts/contexts_test.go index 9bdd874..aaeb1ec 100644 --- a/internal/contexts/contexts_test.go +++ b/internal/contexts/contexts_test.go @@ -279,26 +279,6 @@ func TestAnAbsenceCarriesAReason(t *testing.T) { } } -// TestAPermanentAbsenceDoesNotRestOnAReasonThatEnds refuses an entry that says -// its absence is permanent and gives the reason that stops being true first. -// -// The two fields are read together. An empty Until says the absence survives the -// day the required set is assembled, and theSetIsEmpty says the name is outside -// the set because the set has no members, which is exactly the condition that day -// ends. An entry carrying both is a decision resting on a debt, and it reads as -// settled to whoever assembles the set. -// -// The near-miss this is written for is one field: an absence whose reason turns -// out to be its own rather than the shared one is made permanent by emptying -// Until, and the reason above it is left as it was. -func TestAPermanentAbsenceDoesNotRestOnAReasonThatEnds(t *testing.T) { - for _, absence := range Absences { - if absence.Until == "" && absence.Why == theSetIsEmpty { - t.Errorf("the absence %q is written as permanent and its reason is that the required set is empty, which is the condition that ends when the set is assembled, so the entry says the absence outlives the only thing it rests on", absence.Name) - } - } -} - // TestAJobWithNoNameOfItsOwnIsNotedRatherThanRefused pins the one place this // package answers with a note. The platform reports the job id where a job // carries no name, so such a job is legal and its name is still a gate string, and