bug(adopter-preflight): the path-α push grade does not read protected_file_patterns, so its pass line may not hold #1570
Labels
No labels
bump
major
bump
minor
bump
patch
kind
bug
kind
chore
kind
docs
kind
epic
kind
feature
loop/paused
mirror-drift
priority
critical
priority
high
priority
low
priority
medium
size
L
size
M
size
S
size
XL
status
blocked
No milestone
No project
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set
Reference
frankenbit/release-toolkit#1570
Loading…
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Since #1482,
rt adopter-preflightgrades the path-α manifest push from four fields of the default branch's protection:enable_push,enable_push_whitelist,push_whitelist_usernamesandpush_whitelist_teams. Branch protection has another field that can refuse a push,protected_file_patterns. Neitherrt adopter-preflightnorforgejo.BranchProtectionreads it. A grep ofinternal/andcmd/forprotected_filefinds nothing (9048da0).Why it matters
If an adopter's patterns match a file the cut commits, such as
.release-toolkit-manifest.jsonorCHANGELOG.md, the manifest push may be refused. Meanwhile the preflight printspush: pass — token present AND "<bot>" may push to "main". That would be #1482's shape again: a pass line naming a capability the branch does not grant.Not measured: a hypothesis (AGENTS.md §9)
Whether Forgejo applies
protected_file_patternsto a whitelisted pusher has not been measured. Nobody has checked whether it refuses a whitelisted bot's push that touches a matching file. Nor whetherunprotected_file_patternschanges the answer. Measure on a throwaway repo before choosing a fix, and read back the protection after writing it (AGENTS.md §8, Axis A).Decision tree
Acceptance criteria
protected_file_patternsentry refuse a whitelisted user's direct push? Record the forge version and the read-back.Refs #1482 (follow-up from review 7284 on #1568)