forked from heavy-duty/ceremony
cluade-reviewer-andresmgsl
e27acd8ab9
@codex-reviewer-andresmgsl found that the procedure was not executable as
written, and the reason is structural rather than a wording slip.
The candidate's workflows carry `repository: heavy-duty/ceremony` beside
`ref: ${{ env.CEREMONY_SELF_REF }}`, so arming must rewrite them. But
rewriting CREATES A NEW COMMIT, and a commit cannot embed its own object ID. So
a single-layer arming is self-referential: pin the callers to the pre-rewrite
SHA and they load the UNARMED workflows; pin them to the post-rewrite SHA and
you are asking that commit to contain itself. My step 3 asked for exactly that.
Two layers, stated as a table because the distinction is the whole thing:
candidate code SHA the immutable tree under test — actions/, lib/
armed workflow SHA a child commit whose workflows point at the fork and
whose CEREMONY_SELF_REF is the candidate code SHA
And callers pin by layer, because they are not the same thing: composite
actions to the candidate code SHA, reusable workflows to the armed SHA, which
is the only revision whose inner checkout is rewritten.
The completeness check becomes a mechanical non-zero gate — `git grep` for
executable `uses:`/`repository:` carriers over the ARMED tree, exiting non-zero
on any hit — rather than "every remaining hit must be prose". A partial rewrite
does not announce itself: it silently tests canonical main.
The result issue records both SHAs, not one, or a later reader cannot tell
which tree answered.
test/run.sh 28/28; shellcheck 0.10.0 and changelog-armed clean.
Refs #202
|
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| .gitkeep | ||
| CONSUMERS.md | ||
| RUNNER-PROBES.md | ||
| VENDORED.txt | ||