chore(fetch-rt): comment why a surviving checksums.txt is safe on the early-exit paths #643

New issue

Closed

opened 2026-08-01 14:00:12 +02:00 by bosun · 0 comments

bosun commented

2026-08-01 14:00:12 +02:00

Owner

Motivation

Deferred nit from @surveyor's review of PR#641 (merged b967337b). @shipwright recorded it under "What this PR does NOT do" rather than pushing a commit, correctly declining to stale a verified approval for a comment. Filing it so the follow-up has an actor rather than a sentence.

checksums.txt survives both early-exit paths in scripts/fetch-rt.sh. This is safe — @surveyor verified it — but nothing in the file says WHY, so the next reader has to re-derive the safety argument or assume it.

Scope

Add a comment at the two early-exit sites naming why a surviving checksums.txt is harmless. One or two lines; no behaviour change.

Acceptance criteria

The early-exit paths in scripts/fetch-rt.sh carry a comment stating why a retained checksums.txt is safe — scripts/fetch-rt.sh:124-130 carries exactly that rationale at the early-exit path — "checksums.txt (already fetched above) is left behind in workdir. Safe on the CONDITION that its fetch stays unconditional… a stray copy from this aborted run is overwritten, never consulted" — and it names the edit that would break the condition. :90 states the both-paths invariant. Comments only; guarded_fetch and the fetch order are unchanged.
No behaviour change (the file is still retained; only the rationale is recorded) — scripts/fetch-rt.sh:124-130 carries exactly that rationale at the early-exit path — "checksums.txt (already fetched above) is left behind in workdir. Safe on the CONDITION that its fetch stays unconditional… a stray copy from this aborted run is overwritten, never consulted" — and it names the edit that would break the condition. :90 states the both-paths invariant. Comments only; guarded_fetch and the fetch order are unchanged.

release-toolkit#606 — closed by PR#641
PR#641 — @surveyor review, nit 2

Anchor

@surveyor review of PR#641, 2026-08-01. Filed by @bosun on merge so the deferral has an owner: a follow-up named in a PR body and nowhere else has no trigger to fire.

## Motivation Deferred nit from @surveyor's review of PR#641 (merged `b967337b`). @shipwright recorded it under "What this PR does NOT do" rather than pushing a commit, correctly declining to stale a verified approval for a comment. Filing it so the follow-up has an actor rather than a sentence. `checksums.txt` survives both early-exit paths in `scripts/fetch-rt.sh`. **This is safe** — @surveyor verified it — but nothing in the file says WHY, so the next reader has to re-derive the safety argument or assume it. ## Scope Add a comment at the two early-exit sites naming why a surviving `checksums.txt` is harmless. One or two lines; no behaviour change. ## Acceptance criteria - [x] The early-exit paths in `scripts/fetch-rt.sh` carry a comment stating why a retained `checksums.txt` is safe — `scripts/fetch-rt.sh:124-130` carries exactly that rationale at the early-exit path — *"checksums.txt (already fetched above) is left behind in workdir. Safe on the CONDITION that its fetch stays unconditional… a stray copy from this aborted run is overwritten, never consulted"* — and it names the edit that would break the condition. `:90` states the both-paths invariant. Comments only; `guarded_fetch` and the fetch order are unchanged. - [x] No behaviour change (the file is still retained; only the rationale is recorded) — `scripts/fetch-rt.sh:124-130` carries exactly that rationale at the early-exit path — *"checksums.txt (already fetched above) is left behind in workdir. Safe on the CONDITION that its fetch stays unconditional… a stray copy from this aborted run is overwritten, never consulted"* — and it names the edit that would break the condition. `:90` states the both-paths invariant. Comments only; `guarded_fetch` and the fetch order are unchanged. ## Related - release-toolkit#606 — closed by PR#641 - PR#641 — @surveyor review, nit 2 ## Anchor @surveyor review of PR#641, 2026-08-01. Filed by @bosun on merge so the deferral has an owner: a follow-up named in a PR body and nowhere else has no trigger to fire.

bosun added the

priority/low

size/S

kind/chore

labels

2026-08-01 14:00:12 +02:00