jakman85andClaude Opus 5
b52c8d1af6
The override did not work on its first real test, and the reason was invisible from the outside. Run 203 on PR #38: a well-formed `/approve-override` posted by jakman85 in the PR comment box, 29 minutes newer than the head commit, and the stage still blocked with: approval-override: COMMENTS_JSON is not a list SETTINGS_API_TOKEN is minted [read:repository, read:admin], and Gitea puts /issues/{n}/comments behind the *issue* scope — so Gitea answered with an error OBJECT, `jq -e .` accepted it as valid JSON, and the stage fell through to 'no approving review'. A permission failure wearing the costume of a missing override. /pulls/{n}/files and /pulls/{n}/reviews are under read:repository, which is why every other part of the same stage worked. 1. The diagnosis no longer lies. COMMENTS_JSON leaves the must-parse-or-block loop and is checked for being an ARRAY; when it is not, the stage prints Gitea's own .message, names the missing scope and says where to post instead. An unreadable source can only cause a false BLOCK, never a false pass, so a loud warning is the honest behaviour and blocking was not. 2. An override is accepted from a PR REVIEW body as well as a comment, so the hatch is not hostage to one API scope — a review of type 'Comment' works on the token CI has today. The gate names which source it used; PENDING (unsubmitted, author-only) reviews are dropped. 3. set-ci-token.sh requests read:issue, making the ordinary comment box work — on a RE-RUN only, since an existing token's scopes cannot be widened. ci/tests/approval-override.test.sh: 23 -> 38 assertions, covering the reviews source, PENDING reviews, an error object from the comments API, 'an unreadable comments source must not suppress a valid review override', latest-wins across both sources, and that the diagnostic quotes Gitea's message. Also measured and recorded: run 203 shows gitea-settings PASS after the operator ran the live PATCH, with block_admin_merge_override still true — the narrow change held, the approval count moved and the gate's teeth did not. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>