Compare commits

...
Author SHA1 Message Date
yonlu 087c69ac8d fix(scripts): let issue.sh claim work on a write:issue-only token
CI / e2e (push) Skipped
CI / check (push) Skipped
`claim` is the one step the workflow requires before the first edit, and
it failed outright on a token scoped to the work it does: `me()` calls
`GET /user` purely to name the assignee, and that endpoint needs
read:user. So the documented process was blocked by its own tooling, and
the fallback was to do the assignment, the label and the comment by hand
— which is the half-made claim `claim` exists to prevent.

GITEA_USER short-circuits the lookup, so least privilege is enough. The
lookup stays as the fallback because it is right when the scope is there
and needs no setup. Failure is now actionable and says both remedies,
and it still happens before any of the three halves are mutated.

Closes #130
2026-08-19 14:08:05 -04:00
logan bb7dde1963 Merge pull request 'A CI-only change is ci:, not fix(ci):' (#112) from docs/ci-commit-type into main
CI / check (push) Successful in 2m26s
CI / e2e (push) Successful in 6m31s
2026-08-19 16:23:20 +00:00
yonlu 446380e3a9 docs: a CI-only change is ci:, not fix(ci):
CI / check (push) Skipped
CI / e2e (push) Skipped
CI / e2e (pull_request) Successful in 6m41s
CI / check (pull_request) Successful in 2m28s
The commit-analyzer reads the type and ignores the scope, so `fix` is a
patch whatever sits in the brackets. Two commits touching nothing but
.gitea/workflows/unclaim.yml were written `fix(ci):` and cut v0.2.1 and
v0.2.2 -- real releases, published to Arch, Homebrew and the APK
registry, containing no user-facing change.

CLAUDE.md already warned that a mistyped feat ships a minor version.
That was not enough, because this was not a mistyped type: `fix` was
chosen deliberately, in the belief that the (ci) scope qualified it.

The version bump is the small half, which is why this gets a paragraph
rather than a clause. A merge to main starts two workflows; if
release.yml then pushes a tag, that tag push starts four more --
arch-package, homebrew-formula, android-apk and desktop-assets -- on a
runner with capacity 1, where the APK build alone is tens of minutes
and publishes a signed artifact to a public registry. So a mistyped
type is six workflow runs, not an odd-looking changelog.

`make release-dry` answers this before the merge instead of after, and
is cheaper than any one of those runs.

The two releases are staying: they are already published, and a version
that vanishes is worse for whoever pulled it than one that turns out to
be empty.

Closes #111
2026-08-19 16:03:38 +00:00
2 changed files with 44 additions and 3 deletions
+17
View File
@@ -2369,6 +2369,23 @@ Pre-commit hooks verify generated code is fresh — always run `make generate` a
mistyped `feat` ships a minor version. `make release-dry` answers "what
would this merge release" without pushing.
**The analyzer reads the type and ignores the scope, so a CI-only change
is `ci:` and never `fix(ci):`.** The scope is decoration; `fix` is a
patch whatever is in the brackets. Two commits touching nothing but
`.gitea/workflows/unclaim.yml` were written `fix(ci):` and cut `v0.2.1`
and `v0.2.2` — real releases, published to Arch, Homebrew and the APK
registry, containing no user-facing change. They were left in place
rather than deleted, because a version that vanishes is worse for
whoever pulled it than one that turns out to be empty.
**The blast radius is bigger than the version number**, which is what
makes this worth a paragraph. A merge to `main` starts two workflows;
if `release.yml` then pushes a tag, that tag push starts **four more**
(`arch-package`, `homebrew-formula`, `android-apk`, `desktop-assets`) —
on a runner with capacity 1, where the APK build alone is tens of
minutes. `make release-dry` before merging is how you find out, and it
is cheaper than every one of those.
**`@semantic-release/github` is not in that config and must not be.**
Gitea's API is `/api/v1` and is not GitHub's surface, so
`@semantic-release/exec` calls `scripts/gitea-release.sh` instead — one
+27 -3
View File
@@ -38,8 +38,10 @@
# Where a body is taken and no --body-file is given, it is read from stdin.
#
# Environment:
# GITEA_TOKEN a PAT with write:issue (plus write:repository and read:user,
# which the rest of this repo's tooling reaches for)
# GITEA_TOKEN a PAT with write:issue. `claim` and `mine` additionally
# need to know your username: set GITEA_USER, or give the
# token read:user and it is looked up.
# GITEA_USER your Gitea login. Optional; see above.
# GITEA_URL defaults to https://git.ljones.me
# GITEA_REPO defaults to yonlu/yellowjacket
set -euo pipefail
@@ -81,7 +83,29 @@ read_body() {
if [ "$file" = "-" ]; then cat; else cat "$file"; fi
}
me() { curl -sS -H "Authorization: token $GITEA_TOKEN" "$server/api/v1/user" | python3 "$py" login; }
# The one lookup in this script that needs a scope beyond write:issue.
# `GET /user` requires read:user, and it is reached for exactly two reasons:
# to name the assignee in `claim`, and to filter in `mine`. A token scoped to
# the work this script does — write:issue — therefore failed at `claim`, which
# is the one step the workflow requires before the first edit, so the whole
# documented process was blocked by its own tooling.
#
# GITEA_USER short-circuits it, which is what lets a least-privilege token do
# the job. The lookup stays as the fallback because it is right when the
# scope is there and needs no setup at all.
me() {
if [ -n "${GITEA_USER:-}" ]; then
printf '%s' "$GITEA_USER"
return
fi
curl -sS -H "Authorization: token $GITEA_TOKEN" "$server/api/v1/user" |
python3 "$py" login ||
{
echo "issue.sh: could not resolve your username. Set GITEA_USER, or" >&2
echo "issue.sh: re-issue GITEA_TOKEN with read:user." >&2
exit 1
}
}
label_id() { call GET "/labels?limit=100" | python3 "$py" label-id "$1"; }