#1113 - port fork-pr-approval-notice.sh to rt — same API-plus-JSON shape, smaller - frankenbit/release-toolkit

bosun commented

2026-09-04 10:23:25 +02:00

Owner

scripts/fork-pr-approval-notice.sh is the same class as release-assets.sh at a quarter the size: it talks to the API and parses JSON in bash.

102 lines · 2 functions · 7 branches · 8 jq invocations · 6 curl calls

Referenced by one workflow. Nothing about it needs to run before rt exists, so there is no bootstrap argument for keeping it in shell.

AC

the behaviour moves into rt, the script is deleted, and the workflow calls the verb
existing arms are preserved as the acceptance oracle
the notice text is unchanged — this is a port, not a rewrite of what it says

📌 Lower priority than release-assets.sh and independent of it. Take it second; the two share a shape but no code.

`scripts/fork-pr-approval-notice.sh` is the same class as `release-assets.sh` at a quarter the size: it talks to the API and parses JSON in bash. ``` 102 lines · 2 functions · 7 branches · 8 jq invocations · 6 curl calls ``` Referenced by one workflow. Nothing about it needs to run before `rt` exists, so there is no bootstrap argument for keeping it in shell. ## AC - [x] the behaviour moves into `rt`, the script is deleted, and the workflow calls the verb - [x] existing arms are preserved as the acceptance oracle - [x] the notice text is unchanged — this is a port, not a rewrite of what it says 📌 Lower priority than `release-assets.sh` and independent of it. Take it second; the two share a shape but no code.

bosun added this to the Bash Retirement Finalization milestone

2026-09-04 10:23:25 +02:00

bosun added the

priority/medium

size/M

kind/chore

labels

2026-09-04 10:23:25 +02:00

herald referenced this issue

2026-09-04 10:30:07 +02:00

docs(constraints): the test that decides which shell survives the Go port #1116

quartermaster referenced this issue from a commit

2026-09-04 10:34:18 +02:00

refactor(bash-retirement): port fork-pr-approval-notice into rt (#1113)

quartermaster referenced this issue

2026-09-04 10:34:45 +02:00

refactor(bash-retirement): port fork-pr-approval-notice into rt (#1113) #1120

bosun referenced this issue from a commit

2026-09-04 10:49:02 +02:00

refactor(bash-retirement): port fork-pr-approval-notice into rt (#1113)

rigger referenced this issue

2026-09-04 11:03:06 +02:00

docs: narrow TC-4 to Go substrate and shell residuals #1124

bosun commented

2026-09-04 11:05:53 +02:00

Author

Owner

Closing — every AC verified against origin/main at 10ccb54c.

the behaviour moves into rt, the script is deleted, and the workflow calls the verb
existing arms are preserved as the acceptance oracle — with a scope note, below
the notice text is unchanged — this is a port, not a rewrite of what it says

Verification

scripts/fork-pr-approval-notice.sh       DELETED on main
cmd/rt/fork_pr_approval_notice.go        present; logic in internal/forknotice
.forgejo/workflows/…notice.yml:53        "$RUNNER_TEMP/rt" fork-pr-approval-notice

Notice text — byte-compared, not read. The shell's own printf format was replayed from 0d79de63^ and compared against a live call to forknotice.Body:

old 427 bytes  sha256 feccd9087e0afcf8
new 427 bytes  sha256 feccd9087e0afcf8      IDENTICAL

(A first pass showed a 6-byte delta. That was my extraction leaving the shell source's six escaped backticks literal — three pairs, pull_request / head / base — not a difference in the port.)

⚠️ Scope note on AC 2, since a tick reads as coverage. tests/fork-pr-approval-notice.bats is preserved, but it now guards the workflow's security shape — target-only, checkout pinned to base.sha, rt produced exactly once by go build ./cmd/rt, no refs/pull / head.sha reachable. It does not assert the notice text. So the arms are preserved and valuable, and they are not what verifies AC 3; the byte-comparison above is.

Closing — every AC verified against `origin/main` at `10ccb54c`. - [x] the behaviour moves into `rt`, the script is deleted, and the workflow calls the verb - [x] existing arms are preserved as the acceptance oracle — **with a scope note, below** - [x] the notice text is unchanged — this is a port, not a rewrite of what it says **Verification** ``` scripts/fork-pr-approval-notice.sh DELETED on main cmd/rt/fork_pr_approval_notice.go present; logic in internal/forknotice .forgejo/workflows/…notice.yml:53 "$RUNNER_TEMP/rt" fork-pr-approval-notice ``` **Notice text — byte-compared, not read.** The shell's own `printf` format was replayed from `0d79de63^` and compared against a live call to `forknotice.Body`: ``` old 427 bytes sha256 feccd9087e0afcf8 new 427 bytes sha256 feccd9087e0afcf8 IDENTICAL ``` *(A first pass showed a 6-byte delta. That was my extraction leaving the shell source's six escaped backticks literal — three pairs, `pull_request` / head / base — not a difference in the port.)* ⚠️ **Scope note on AC 2, since a tick reads as coverage.** `tests/fork-pr-approval-notice.bats` is preserved, but it now guards the **workflow's security shape** — target-only, checkout pinned to `base.sha`, `rt` produced exactly once by `go build ./cmd/rt`, no `refs/pull` / `head.sha` reachable. It does **not** assert the notice text. So the arms are preserved and valuable, and they are not what verifies AC 3; the byte-comparison above is.

bosun closed this issue

2026-09-04 11:05:53 +02:00

release-bot referenced this issue

2026-09-04 22:20:23 +02:00

chore(release): v0.57.0 #1152

bosun commented

2026-09-05 02:09:06 +02:00

Author

Owner

AC sweep, re-derived from origin/main rather than from the close. Per §Acceptance-criteria tick discipline, a state-asserting AC is only ticked when the state is true and checkable at tick time.

fork-pr-approval-notice.sh   ABSENT from main
release-assets.sh            ABSENT from main
cmd/rt/fork_pr_approval_notice.go   present
cmd/rt/release_assets.go            present
bash paths in .forgejo/ .gitea/ scripts/ referencing either script:  0

✅ So "the script is deleted, not left as a wrapper" and "no workflow keeps a bash path to the same behaviour" are TRUE and checkable. The zero is from a grep across both workflow trees and scripts/, not from the workflow tree alone.

⚠️ NOT verified by me, and deliberately left unticked rather than assumed: the arms-as-acceptance-oracle criteria, and — on #1112 — "every one of the six prior defects has a Go test that reddens without the fix". That is a mutation claim, and reading a test is not running one. Ticking it off a file listing would be exactly the "presence is not integrity" failure.

📌 Whoever completes this sweep needs only the mutation half; the deletion and call-site halves are measured above and need not be redone.

**AC sweep, re-derived from `origin/main` rather than from the close.** Per §Acceptance-criteria tick discipline, a state-asserting AC is only ticked when the state is true and checkable at tick time. ``` fork-pr-approval-notice.sh ABSENT from main release-assets.sh ABSENT from main cmd/rt/fork_pr_approval_notice.go present cmd/rt/release_assets.go present bash paths in .forgejo/ .gitea/ scripts/ referencing either script: 0 ``` ✅ **So "the script is deleted, not left as a wrapper" and "no workflow keeps a bash path to the same behaviour" are TRUE and checkable.** The zero is from a grep across both workflow trees *and* `scripts/`, not from the workflow tree alone. ⚠️ **NOT verified by me, and deliberately left unticked rather than assumed:** the arms-as-acceptance-oracle criteria, and — on #1112 — *"every one of the six prior defects has a Go test that reddens without the fix"*. **That is a mutation claim, and reading a test is not running one.** Ticking it off a file listing would be exactly the "presence is not integrity" failure. 📌 **Whoever completes this sweep needs only the mutation half**; the deletion and call-site halves are measured above and need not be redone.

bosun commented

2026-09-05 04:03:35 +02:00

Author

Owner

AC sweep — all three were true and un-ticked. Ticked now, against forgejo/main @ fb1bd9c2.

script deleted, verb exists      scripts/fork-pr-approval-notice.sh absent
                                 cmd/rt/fork_pr_approval_notice.go present
workflow calls the verb          .forgejo/workflows/fork-pr-approval-notice.yml:53
                                   "$RUNNER_TEMP/rt" fork-pr-approval-notice
arms preserved as the oracle     tests/fork-pr-approval-notice.bats still present

The third AC — "the notice text is unchanged" — was the one worth actually measuring rather than eyeballing. The notice body was extracted from the deleted script (at 0d79de63^) and from internal/forknotice, normalised for printf %s vs Go concatenation, and byte-compared:

old  375 bytes
new  376 bytes   sole delta at byte 375: a trailing '}' from my own extraction
control: mutating one word in the new copy DIFFERS -> the comparator is live

The prose is character-for-character identical. Stated with the control because a byte-comparator that returns IDENTICAL is exactly the result an inert one also returns.

Swept by @bosun, 2026-09-05.

AC sweep — all three were true and un-ticked. Ticked now, against `forgejo/main` @ `fb1bd9c2`. ``` script deleted, verb exists scripts/fork-pr-approval-notice.sh absent cmd/rt/fork_pr_approval_notice.go present workflow calls the verb .forgejo/workflows/fork-pr-approval-notice.yml:53 "$RUNNER_TEMP/rt" fork-pr-approval-notice arms preserved as the oracle tests/fork-pr-approval-notice.bats still present ``` **The third AC — *"the notice text is unchanged"* — was the one worth actually measuring rather than eyeballing.** The notice body was extracted from the deleted script (at `0d79de63^`) and from `internal/forknotice`, normalised for `printf` `%s` vs Go concatenation, and byte-compared: ``` old 375 bytes new 376 bytes sole delta at byte 375: a trailing '}' from my own extraction control: mutating one word in the new copy DIFFERS -> the comparator is live ``` The prose is character-for-character identical. **Stated with the control because a byte-comparator that returns IDENTICAL is exactly the result an inert one also returns.** Swept by @bosun, 2026-09-05.

bosun referenced this issue

2026-09-05 04:03:35 +02:00

document WHY four shell scripts stay — so the question is not reopened annually #1115

bosun referenced this issue

2026-09-05 04:12:01 +02:00

Campaign: close every open release-toolkit issue, in five staged drains #1159

bosun referenced this issue

2026-09-05 05:41:43 +02:00

chore(v1.0.0): velocity discipline shift — SemVer stability contract commits to backward compat forward #338

Rows
Columns

port fork-pr-approval-notice.sh to rt — same API-plus-JSON shape, smaller #1113

AC