docs(policy): cross-reference the six booked KYAML adoption issues - #1026
Merged
Merged
Conversation
§5 fixed a six-step dependency order and said each step is a separate issue, but carried no issue numbers, so a reader of the policy could not find them. Step 1 is discharged: a two-arm same-commit probe on pons-asinorum proved GitHub Actions parses a KYAML workflow — jobs=1 and an executed-step marker on BOTH the KYAML arm and its plain-YAML control, with the absent-from-lock confound excluded by construction (no actions.lock, no uses:). Closed as standards#1020. Steps 2-6 are booked as #1021-#1025 in dependency order. The added text states explicitly that closing step 1 does NOT advance the scope question: §5 step 4 remains an owner ruling and forbids inferring scope from the probe. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01WRvDivYwLSeVCJUrfjic3f
Contributor
|
Warning Review limit reachedNext included review available in 11 minutes. View limit detailsLimit details: You’ve used the included review currently available. You've used all free OSS reviews for now. Wait for the free limit to reset to keep reviewing this public repository. Review configuration: ⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: ASSERTIVE Plan: Advanced Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
|
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Follow-up to #1009, which landed
3-practice/YAML-POLICY.adoc.§5 fixed a six-step dependency order and stated "Each step is a separate issue" — but carried no issue numbers, so a reader of the policy had no way to find them. This adds the mapping and records step 1's result.
What changed
Two additions, both inside
3-practice/YAML-POLICY.adoc:No rule text is altered. Nothing is mandated that was not mandated before.
Step 1 is discharged — measured, not assumed
§3.3 precondition 1 warned this must be probed because "the parser will surely accept it" is exactly how workflows in this estate die at startup with
jobs=0. It was probed, onhyperpolymath/pons-asinorumbranchprobe/kyaml-parse(ac2c614).The specific failure mode tested:
kubectl -o kyamlemits"on": "push"— it quotes the trigger key, because YAML 1.1 reads bareonas booleantrue. Had GitHub looked up the normalised keytrue, a quoted"on"would be a different key ⇒ no trigger ⇒jobs=0.PROBE_YAML_ARM_EXECUTEDfoundkubectldialectPROBE_KYAML_ARM_EXECUTEDfoundBoth arms were in one commit and are semantically identical (verified by diffing both through
yq -o=json -P 'sort_keys(..)', equal after normalising only the arm labels), so any difference would be attributable to syntax alone.Confounds excluded by construction: pons has no
actions.lockand neither arm carries auses:, so the absent-from-lock startup death could not have produced the result. The plain-YAML control is what makes a non-zero meaningful — a barejobs=0would have been unattributable.Why the log marker rather than the green square:
conclusion=successalone proves nothing, since a green run can execute nothing at all. Each arm echoes a unique string, and both were grepped out of the run logs.What this deliberately does not do
It does not advance the scope question, and the added text says so. §5 step 4 (#1023) requires an owner ruling and explicitly forbids inferring scope from the probe. The probe settles the parser dimension only —
actionlint,gh actions-lock's extractor against flow-style mappings, the estate's yq-based gates and reviewability all remain open, and are booked in #1022 and #1025.Note on how this was edited
The shared
standardscheckout is currently mid-flight on another actor's branch (secqual/resync-actions-lock-after-dependabot-bump, with staged changes), so this was written through the contents API rather than that worktree — no concurrent actor's work was touched or overridden.🤖 Generated with Claude Code
https://claude.ai/code/session_01WRvDivYwLSeVCJUrfjic3f