Three review nits, all verified against the tree, plus a tighter scope than the
first attempt at them.
The behaviour suite asserted "promote-rc does not trim the rc tag" against the
whole file. promote-rc.yaml has no .trim() today, so it passed, but any unrelated
.trim() added anywhere in the workflow would have failed a test about tag policy.
Scoping it to the parse JOB was not enough either: that job is ~180 lines, most
of them the e2e gate's github-script, whose string handling has nothing to do
with tag policy. Both greps are now scoped to the parse STEP, and run through a
code_lines filter copied from the contract suite so a YAML comment mentioning
.trim() cannot fail them.
Mutation-checked in both directions: a .trim() injected into the parse step fails
the test, one injected into the e2e-gate step of the same job does not.
- The Step 2 checklist entry still said "must be main" while Step 2 itself now
lists three valid starting points (main, detached at the release tag, detached
at the rc tag being promoted). The checklist is what an agent ticks off, so it
was the half that mattered; it now points at Step 2 rather than re-encoding the
count, so a fourth configuration cannot desync it. The heading said "Checking
current branch", which two of the three states do not have.
- hack/testdata/needs-semantics.yaml named release-changelog-contract.bats as its
consumer; the only consumer is release-changelog-behaviour.bats.
50/50 tests green across the three suites (11 + 24 + 15).
Assisted-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
Signed-off-by: Myasnikov Daniil <myasnikovdaniil2001@gmail.com>
The existing suite asserts on workflow YAML. That catches a rename or a
deleted `if:` and nothing else: it cannot tell whether the shell inside a
`run:` block does what the step name claims, and it stayed green while the
logic underneath was wrong — twice, in the two preceding rounds.
Add hack/release-changelog-behaviour.bats, which runs things for real.
The GitHub Actions semantics the whole non-blocking design rests on are
now verified by executing them. hack/testdata/needs-semantics.yaml mirrors
the promote / changelog / open-pr shapes with a fatal (non-AI) step in the
changelog job, and `act` runs it. Result: open-pr DOES run when a job it
needs has failed, `needs.changelog.result` is `failure`, and — the part
that could not be read off the YAML — a failed job's outputs come back
EMPTY, while a successful job's propagate. That empty-output behaviour is
precisely why open-pr re-establishes changelog presence from disk instead
of trusting needs.changelog.outputs. Deleting the `if:` from the fixture
makes open-pr get skipped, so the gate is demonstrably load-bearing.
The git logic moves into hack/changelog-preserve.sh and is exercised
against real bare remotes: a branch that exists, one that does not, one
with no changelog, one with an empty changelog, and the full
preserve/checkout -B/restore/force-push cycle promote actually performs.
The last of these directly reproduces the regression the preserve step
exists to prevent. An empty changelog is deliberately NOT preserved — it
would suppress generation and then publish as blank notes.
finalize's release-body selection runs under node across all three inputs
(good, whitespace-only, absent) and the resulting decision table is
compared as a whole.
Replace the shell overlay with a sparse second actions/checkout of the
dispatch ref at .release-tooling. The overlay had a bootstrap problem I
introduced: the script that fetches missing tooling was itself missing
from the rc tree, so it could never have worked for exactly the trees that
need it. actions/checkout comes from the runner, not the repo, so it has
no such circularity. .release-tooling is gitignored because promote runs
`git add -A`, and the contract suite pins that.
All 21 tests mutation-checked. Breaking changelog-preserve.sh, making it
return an empty file, removing the fixture's `if:`, dropping the tooling
checkout, and renaming its path each fail the suite and pass on restore.
Not covered, and stated in the suite header rather than implied: the AI
generation step, the real GitHub API calls, and whether the sparse
checkout resolves on GitHub's runners.
Signed-off-by: Myasnikov Daniil <myasnikovdaniil2001@gmail.com>
Myasnikov Daniil