fcc66c78583c4652c8c95a6ccf0ee0403fe166d5
5
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
  jakman85andClaude Opus 5
|
fcc66c7858 |
fix(gitea): admins could override the gate -- the enforcement was not enforcing
enable_status_check and required_approvals were set earlier today and recorded as done. They did not bite. block_admin_merge_override was false, and Gitea lets repo admins override merge requirements without it. jakman85 holds owner, so both requirements were bypassable by exactly the account that performs every merge. The evidence was already on the record: PRs #5-#9 all merged while required_approvals: 1 was in force, with ZERO approvals recorded on any of them. Two process failures, both the same shape as the defect this whole session started with: 1. Verified with the wrong view. /branches/main reports protected, enable_status_check and required_approvals but NOT block_admin_merge_override -- it showed everything green while the rule was overridable. /branch_protections/main is authoritative. 2. Probed for a field name assumed to exist. This Gitea (1.24.3) has no `apply_to_admins`; asking jq for it returns null, which reads like "set to false" but means "key absent", so a PATCH that silently did nothing produced a convincing before/after. jq returning null is not a value -- it may be an absence. Enumerate with to_entries. require-gate.sh now sets block_admin_merge_override: true; block-admin-override.sh fixes it in isolation. Both carry the field-name warning. This PR is the test. If it merges WITHOUT an approval, the fix did not work. Also records the governance question: with only jakman85 (human) and gitea-admin (agent), a human-authored PR now needs the automation account to approve it. That is ceremony, not review, and the choice between keeping it, dropping approvals in favour of the status check, or adding a second human is the operator's to make. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]> |
||
|
jakman85andClaude Opus 5
|
b2d9883958 |
docs(ci): close out the hardening -- land the scripts, correct a claim that shipped wrong
The branch-protection + PR-gate + sidecar sequence is complete and verified. This records the finished state and fixes what the sequence itself proved wrong. CORRECTS A FALSE CLAIM I SHIPPED. PR #7 said the sidecar conversion would remove the one-per-start dockerd line "http: TLS handshake error from 127.0.0.1: EOF". It does NOT. Exactly one still appears, immediately after "API listen on [::]:2376" -- it is now the startupProbe's FIRST attempt, landing microseconds after dockerd begins listening and cut off by timeoutSeconds: 1; the next poll succeeds. Cosmetic, and deliberately not chased: raising the timeout to hide one benign startup line would slow every subsequent poll. The manifest comment now states this instead of the wrong prediction. Lands infra/gitea/require-gate.sh and verify-then-enforce.sh, which drove the rollout from a session temp dir. verify-then-enforce.sh merges nothing -- merging is a human's reviewed act -- but forces the reconcile and ABORTS unless the pod is healthy, a runner is online, and a real workflow goes green on it, before enabling enforcement and probing the push. Re-run it after any future act-runner change. Trims the now-obsolete feat/ rationale from claim-ship.sh: per-branch push triggers were deleted, so no prefix produces a duplicate run any more. CLAUDE.md's enforcement table flips from "weaker than this rule" to machine-enforced, with all four rows marked verified and the push rejection noted as PROVOKED rather than assumed. It also now states what a green PR does NOT prove: CLUSTER_AVAILABLE is unset, so L2/L3 never runs in CI and only the L0/L1 offline subset is covered. infra/gitea/README.md marks the sequence done and names the root cause that remains unfixed: Gitea repo settings live in its own database, invisible to Flux and unreadable by the conformance gate, so NOTHING detects drift from what this directory declares. These scripts assert desired state; they are not a detector. The check that reads the live API and fails on divergence is the highest-value work left, and it is the difference between this being fixed and this being unable to recur. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]> |
||
|
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]> |
||
|
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]> |
||
|
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]> |