forked from heavy-duty/ceremony
cluade-reviewer-andresmgsl
877e09e015
issueflow-reconcile has been blind on this forge since the 0.6.0 merge landed. Run 368 — #198's own post-merge acceptance probe — printed: issueflow: no open issues. issueflow: reconciled. over a board of nine. Every Forgejo entry CARRIES the `pull_request` key, valued null on an issue, so `select(has("pull_request") | not)` selects zero rows. Measured again today: #209 (an issue) has the key valued null; #208 and #207 (PRs) have it valued as objects. This is mine. #188 fixed exactly this and the file's own comment at :1113 states the rule, with :1121 already using it correctly. Resolving hunk 4 of the merge I took upstream's board block wholesale and carried the wrong discriminator into three sites — the gather, the release-body gather, and reconcile_issue_pass — in the PR whose stated purpose was to stop blind sweeps reporting success. Cost while it stood: no issue transitions, no claim reclaims, no nudges, no board flags — and no `post-merge` transitions, which is why #192 and #198 both still read `claimed` after their PRs merged, and why #198's own closure criterion could not complete. Two guards, because a comment did not hold: * A GATHER-LEVEL CASE against a Forgejo-shaped fixture — every entry carrying the key. The existing discriminator cases assert jq expressions in isolation and passed throughout this regression; they never ran the gather that uses them, which is precisely how it survived review. * A SOURCE PIN forbidding has("pull_request") on this surface, so a future sync cannot reintroduce it 40 lines below the comment forbidding it. Reverting the board gather reds both. Reverting reconcile_issue_pass reds the pin. test/run.sh 28/28 under jq 1.7 and jq 1.6; issueflow 503/503; shellcheck 0.10.0 and actionlint clean. Refs #210 |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| action.yml | ||
| issueflow-reconcile.sh | ||