3 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
jakman85andClaude Opus 5	234cc6a71a	docs(gitea): a skipped job reports SUCCESS, not pending -- correct the deadlock claim ... The runner came up on 2026-09-29 and the first CI jobs this repo has ever run went green, which falsified a claim merged in #2. MEASURED: gate / gate (pull_request) success 1m58s (PR 1), 1m34s (PR 2) gate / gate (push) success 1m32s (PR 2 only) gate / conformance (pull_request) success "Has been skipped" #2 said listing the conformance context as a required check would deadlock every PR, because the job is `if: false` and never runs. That is wrong. Gitea reports a skipped job as SUCCESS. Requiring it would not deadlock anything -- it would pass VACUOUSLY, forever, while nothing ran. The conclusion is unchanged (never require it) but the reason inverts, and the corrected reason matters more: under HARD RULE 4 a permanently-green check that verifies nothing is worse than a deadlock. A deadlock is loud. This is the exact fail-open shape the 2026-09-18 audit and this one both keep finding. Also records that the (push) contexts only appear for branches matching gate.yml's push trigger -- feature/**, fix/**, docs/**, chore/** -- and NOT feat/**, which is why PR 1's feat/ branch produced only pull_request contexts. Require the pull_request context alone, or PRs from non-matching prefixes never satisfy the rule. CLAUDE.md's enforcement table is updated: the runner half is genuinely fixed and observed green, the branch-protection half is not. Adds the warning that a green tick is not by itself evidence that anything ran. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>	2026-09-29 01:07:13 -05:00
jakman85andClaude Opus 5	fe862ab527	infra(gitea): recover the Actions runner before anything requires the gate ... No runner is registered at repo, org or site level, so gate.yml has never executed. PR #1 sat pending for 30.6 minutes across 122 polls and never reported. Requiring the gate as a status check in that state would lock the repo permanently. Adds runner-token-rotate.sh: mints a fresh instance-level registration token from the Gitea API and writes it into the SOPS secret via sops set, without ever printing the value. Records the likely root cause, which a new token alone does NOT fix. act_runner registers once and persists its identity in /data/.runner on the act-runner-data PVC. If Gitea no longer holds a matching runner row, the pod starts, sees .runner, SKIPS registration entirely, and polls with an identity Gitea does not recognise. Symptom: zero runners, pod running, nothing obviously broken. Clearing the PVC is what forces a genuine re-registration. The README now sequences runner-first, enforcement-second, and requires CONFIRMING the runner reports online rather than assuming it. That assumption is the whole defect: DECISIONS-LOG recorded the runner as online on 2026-08-31 and nobody checked since. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>	2026-09-29 00:43:47 -05:00
jakman85andClaude Opus 5	a2665c0511	infra(gitea): script the branch protection that was never applied ... Gitea repo settings live in its own database, not in a manifest Flux reconciles, so they are drift-prone and invisible to the conformance gate -- which is how main came to accept direct pushes while the log recorded it as protected. Adds infra/gitea/branch-protection.sh (blocks direct pushes to main) and a README carrying the measured before-state and the ORDER the remaining steps must happen in. The script deliberately leaves enable_status_check:false and required_approvals:0. Both would deadlock today: there is no runner to satisfy a required context, and the only human account is not yet a repo collaborator, so no one could supply an approval. The README sequences both. It prints a push probe to run afterwards. The API response is not proof -- Gitea may let site admins bypass protection, and that has to be observed, not assumed. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>	2026-09-29 00:20:12 -05:00