Term 4. GitHub clears requested_reviewers when a verdict lands, so the field
answers "who still owes a verdict" by itself. Forgejo never clears it —
measured: rig!140 listed all three panelists with all three verdicts in, and
rig!146 still lists three while MERGED, so the field is stale even on a
closed PR.
Read raw on Forgejo that is not a cosmetic over-count. `requested` drives
three decisions, and a permanently-true field pins a PR at
state:bots-reviewing for life and stops blocker:unrequested from ever being
true: the sweep believes a round is live forever and no staleness can
correct it.
So the requested set is intersected with who has NOT submitted a verdict for
the current head, derived from /pulls/{n}/reviews — the read that is true on
both forges. On GitHub the filter removes nothing, because the field is
already accurate; term 5 holds by construction rather than by care.
A STALE approval — an approval of an older head — still owes a verdict. That
is the case that matters: treating it as answered would let a stale round
read as complete, which is the shape #136 exists to prevent.
Mutation-verified both ways: reading the field raw again reds three cases,
and treating STALE as answered reds two.
Also documents @grok-reviewer-andresmgsl's ask (#4763): every panel= account
must be able to read the repo, or the forge refuses the review request —
422 naming the account on Forgejo. A real failure mode for private
consumers, and it fails loudly rather than sweeping blind.
Refs #188
Term 1 completed. All 52 runtime gh call sites in the three reconcilers and
lib/ruling.sh now go through forge_* verbs; the three remaining matches in
labels-reconcile are prose in comments. lib/facts.sh is deliberately
untouched — it is the release door, and the ruling keeps release.yml out of
this issue.
The CEREMONY_FORGE_CLIENT:-gh wrappers die here, in the same commit as the
sites they described, so the tree is never in a state where the declaration
lies. main() now runs forge_preflight then forge_select "".
Two sites needed judgment rather than substitution:
- labels-scope's write is forge_labels_add, a genuine additive POST on
both backends, NOT forge_issue_edit --add-label. ceremony#128 turns on
that write not being a read-modify-PUT: the labeler action computed
(labels-at-job-start union derived) and PUT the whole set, silently
dropping a label applied while the job ran. Routing it through a generic
edit verb would have quietly reopened that.
- the human-review request is forge_request_reviewer. Contrary to my
earlier reading, POST /pulls/{n}/requested_reviewers DOES exist on
Forgejo — 422 naming the reviewer's access without it, 201 with it. The
earlier 404 was a GET, which the endpoint does not serve, plus a
username that did not exist.
Test churn, all of it the term-5 boundary move:
- the suites select the github backend, so their existing gh() stubs stay
the boundary and keep intercepting;
- stubs strip the paging the shim injects, so fixtures stay keyed on the
logical endpoint (inlined in the PATH stub, which is a standalone
executable and cannot see a shell function);
- fixtures renamed off the per_page suffix for the same reason;
- recorded-mutation assertions now match the verb, not the raw gh line;
- gh() stubs carry SC2317: they are reached through the backend now, so
shellcheck can no longer see the call path.
Refs #188
The preflight half of #188, landed first so it stands alone: the forge is
decided once, before any sweep, and a client that cannot speak it exits
non-zero with a named reason.
Measured against forgejo.heavyduty.builders at 84bb1a4 — two of the three
actions reported SUCCESS having read nothing:
labels-scope exit 0 "no .github/labeler.yml" (the file is HTTP 200)
labels-reconcile exit 0 "reconciled." (zero PRs enumerated)
issueflow-reconcile exit 1 "unexpected end of JSON input"
labels-reconcile's blind-sweep warning (#96) could not fire: it counts
unreadable PRs against a list `gh pr list` never produced, and a process
substitution's failure does not trip set -e, so total stayed 0. Installing
gh makes it worse, silencing the one loud failure.
Detection is measured, not inferred from docs: a real forgejo-runner v6.3.1
job (probe task 278) shows Forgejo populating the whole GITHUB_* namespace,
so GITHUB_ACTIONS proves nothing. GITHUB_API_URL's shape, GITEA_ACTIONS and
GITHUB_SERVER_URL do. The same probe shows the runner image carries neither
gh nor stoke, which is what makes the forgejo backend REST.
Tests declare CEREMONY_FORGE at the forge boundary rather than stubbing gh
and staying silent about the forge — the boundary move term 5 asks for.
Refs #188
During the ceremony#111 freeze, rig#126/#128 carried blocked beside
state:needs-human — the round had finished, but the hold said the merge
must not happen, and rig#126 was merged seven minutes after the
reconciler wrote the green label. decide_state() only joined the two
axes through blockers(), which emits branch facts; the hand-set blocked
label was never consulted.
blocked becomes the second exclusion on state:needs-human, exactly
parallel to needs-ruling: round says needs-human + has_label blocked ->
state:addressing. Deliberately not a blockers() emission — BLOCKERS is
machine-owned and the converge loop would strip the live hold on the
next tick, the same trap #51 names for needs-ruling.
Ruling record: discussion 122, armed default A fired 2026-07-25T09:00Z.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
checks_state discards a CANCELLED entry only when its context group holds
at least one non-cancelled sibling — before the sort, so the duplicate the
repo-global reconcile queue evicted (after it had already attached a check
to the head) cannot outvote the success that did its work (#136a17e497,
#1334002924). An all-cancelled context never reported at all and still
classifies FAILURE; {FAILURE older, CANCELLED newest} keeps its red.
The fixture that pinned the opposite rule imagined a cancelled run
replacing a success; it never saw one that replaced nothing. Rewritten
with its reason, plus the recorded a17e497 shape, the all-cancelled
groups, and the cancelled-over-FAILURE case.
Closes#139
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Bare X.Y.Z at the head where the base says otherwise, no release label,
not a draft: the sweep emits one :⚠️: per pass naming both
versions. A warning only — release is declared intent and the reconciler
never guesses intent (LABELS.md). Version read via the API, both
backends, jq not node; unreadable reads nag nobody. Plus the yq test
contract in CI and fixture tests for the guard matrix.
Part of #130.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The reconciler's mergeability/checks read kept its correct degrade but
threw the reason away: 2>/dev/null dropped gh's stderr, leaving a
permanent denial and a network hiccup byte-identical in the log (#95 had
to infer a cause from a control case, and the inference did not survive
incubator#48/#49). Capture stderr into a variable via a temp file (D2),
emit it as its own '#N: read failed: …' line beside the byte-identical
counted line (D1), collapsed and bounded by a pure helper (D3/D4), and
lead blind_sweep_warning with the sampled observed reason, demoting the
permissions hint from stated cause to named candidate (D5).
Part of #101 groundwork; tests and changelog follow.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
LABELS.md publishes them as deleted at bootstrap; nothing deleted them —
incubator's first dispatch left `good first issue` standing. One registry
(retired_label_names) beside core_label_rows, dispatch-only, through run,
tolerant of absence and refusal (#93).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Issue side: the claim-reclaim clock stops under a pending ruling (the
decision still sees an unassigned claim), an already-applied stale heals
off, and reconcile_ruling runs for any flagged issue on any queue state.
PR side: reconcile_ruling rides the (#51) stale section's real-activity
computation. test/ruling.test.sh pins the window boundaries, newest-event
anchoring, per-event marker scoping, the markerless nudge reset, the
unreadable-timeline rule, and that no scenario writes a label.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
