timothy
628ae46f7f
review-verdict/h10 Awaiting review verdict for 628ae46
Review verdict / Set review-verdict status (pull_request) Successful in 9s
PR Gates / CI image pin matches docker/ci (pull_request) Successful in 11s
PR Gates / Docs update reminder (pull_request) Successful in 15s
PR Gates / decisions lifecycle (pull_request) Successful in 26s
Build ErsatzTV Image / Build & test (.NET) (pull_request) Failing after 1m28s
Build ErsatzTV Image / API docs in sync (OpenAPI + endpoint index) (pull_request) Successful in 9s
Build ErsatzTV Image / Formatting (changed .cs conform to .editorconfig) (pull_request) Successful in 7s
Build ErsatzTV Image / EF migration integrity (SQLite + MySql) (pull_request) Successful in 16m59s
Build ErsatzTV Image / Functional E2E (curl + UI contracts) (pull_request) Successful in 19m5s
Build ErsatzTV Image / Build & push image (amd64) (pull_request) Has been skipped
`pretooluse-merge-consent.sh` proves all three consent conditions at the moment the merge tool is called. With `merge_when_checks_succeed=true`, condition (a) is delegated to Gitea, which then merges whatever head is green at ITS merge time — while (b) Done-when and (c) the head-referencing verdict were proven against the head at SCHEDULING time. Every commit pushed in between merges unreviewed. The gate is not bypassed; it is satisfied against a snapshot that stops being true. Demonstrated as a controlled A/B rather than inferred, with a CI check left pending so Gitea waits as it really does: without a required verdict context: unreviewed commit B MERGED with it: same sequence REFUSED after reviewing B and posting it: merges — blocked, not deadlocked NOTE the anecdote in #622 is wrong and is corrected in the docs rather than repeated: PR #619 does carry `Review-verdict: MERGEABLE @ 02c82b35`, posted six seconds before the merge, explicitly re-reviewing the follow-up commits. #622 was filed off a lagging API read. The hole is real regardless, and structural — nothing FORCED that re-review inside the window Gitea would have merged in. This turns a property that held by diligence into one that holds by construction. The fix is the sha, not a smarter check. A Gitea commit status belongs to exactly one commit, so a status written for a parent cannot be inherited by a child that did not exist yet. `review-verdict/h10` becomes a REQUIRED status check on main: push a new head and the context is simply absent, which Gitea reads as not-passing (verified against 1.25.4: missing AND pending both block, and auto-merge re-checks the current head). It also covers merge paths the hook never sees — Gitea UI, raw API, another agent's session. - scripts/post-review-verdict.sh writes the comment and the status together so they cannot drift, and re-reads head after commenting: if a commit landed mid-flight it writes NO status and exits non-zero rather than retargeting the verdict at a commit nobody read. - .gitea/workflows/review-verdict.yml auto-passes the two exempt classes that would otherwise deadlock — Renovate-authored (platformAutomerge) and docs-only — and marks everything else pending. Exemptions are void when the PR touches .claude/, .gitea/, .husky/, scripts/ or docker/ci/. - The hook refuses to SCHEDULE an auto-merge unless that status is green on head, and no longer claims "CI green" on the mwcs path, where it never read CI. Two silent false negatives in the exemption path, both found by verifying rather than reasoning, both fixed at BOTH call sites (workflow and the hook's pre-existing docs-only carve-out): - The files endpoint caps at 50 rows and IGNORES a larger `limit` — PR #619 has 194 changed files and `?limit=100` returns 50. A single page saw ZERO protected paths there where the full enumeration finds ten. Both now page to exhaustion and withhold the exemption if they cannot complete. - A rename is ONE row whose `filename` is the destination, the source only in `previous_filename`. Verified live: `.gitea/workflows/renovate.yml` -> `docs/innocuous-note.md` presented as docs-only with no protected path visible. Both now read BOTH sides. Limits are documented, not papered over: base changes leave the head sha (and so the verdict) unchanged, and a PR editing the workflow is judged by its own edited copy — so PROTECTED is a guardrail against accident, not a tamper-proof control. fixes #622