timothy
bd152bc46f
PR Gates / CI image pin matches docker/ci (pull_request) Successful in 18s
PR Gates / Docs update reminder (pull_request) Successful in 17s
PR Gates / decisions lifecycle (pull_request) Successful in 26s
review-verdict/h10 Awaiting review verdict for bd152bc
Review verdict / Set review-verdict status (pull_request_target) Successful in 9s
PR Gates / Script tests (pytest) (pull_request) Successful in 1m57s
Build ErsatzTV Image / Build & test (.NET) (pull_request) Successful in 9m13s
Build ErsatzTV Image / EF migration integrity (SQLite + MySql) (pull_request) Successful in 6m40s
Build ErsatzTV Image / Build & push image (amd64) (pull_request) Skipped
Build ErsatzTV Image / Functional E2E (curl + UI contracts) (pull_request) Successful in 6m23s
Build ErsatzTV Image / API docs in sync (OpenAPI + endpoint index) (pull_request) Successful in 10s
Build ErsatzTV Image / Formatting (changed .cs conform to .editorconfig) (pull_request) Successful in 8s
The final review verdict was MERGEABLE, but demonstrated three mutations of
round 4's reporting line surviving a 50-green suite: deleting the echo,
mis-deriving the attempt (`${marker#*-}` for `##`), and inverting the
provenance test. That line is a documented contract — the record's mechanics:
asserts it — and the decision to promote GITHUB_RUN_ATTEMPT to the refuse
bucket is meant to be made by READING it off a run log. An unasserted
reporting line that the operator is told to trust is the same shape as the
rest of this issue. Two assertions; all three mutations now die.
Also: ETV_ATTEMPT_DEFAULTED was a non-local global with no else branch, so the
same name inherited from the environment made the line self-contradictory
(`attempt=5 (DEFAULTED — GITHUB_RUN_ATTEMPT unset)`). Reachable, since ETV_* is
a namespace the guard's own env: writes into. Computed inline now.
And the workflow comment claimed ci.required-job-step-execution-markers
"explicitly names" a dismissal it does not name — the record's do-not-repeat
sentence is about a different clause. A wrong cross-reference in a commit whose
subject is wrong claims about other files.
Refs: #756