US-26.4.6: story verification judges CI with the merge gate's evidence rules - #916
Merged
Merged
Conversation
…e rules Specs the rewrite #915 was held for after its third review round. Story verification has never produced a CI verdict in production, and its rules (which runs count, which repository and credential, when to wait) were being designed one review finding at a time. This story settles them by reuse: the repository from the intake source only, the verdict from CiEvidence over the source's required_checks, transient failures waited out as the merge gate does, and one credential seam so the open per-tenant credential decision changes nothing else.
…ent whole The first draft fed CiEvidence.judge/2 a branch-free read, which drops the premise judge/2 is sound under (push runs of one branch at one SHA) and skipped the ci_definition_changed refusal it depends on. The story now names the story's own branch and check_evidence/3, the refusal, the :missing and jobless-run outcomes, required_checks as a pr-mode opt-in, the merge gate's transient/permanent split and consecutive-fault bound, when the local fallback may run and how it clones, one-read SHA resolution through /commits/:ref, an operator-token allowlist until the per-tenant credential decision, ambiguous_intake_source as its own code, separate runs per test outcome, and the #915 edge list as an acceptance criterion rather than a note.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Adds US-26.4.6, which specifies the rewrite that #915 was held for after its third review round.
Story verification has never produced a CI verdict in production. Its rules were never designed, and #914/#915 ended up designing them one review finding at a time. This story settles them by reusing what already exists:
CiEvidence.judge/2over the intake source'srequired_checks.Needs Mark
The credential model, as described in #915's body under "Needs Mark". I'm asking for one fact: is a second tenant planned before verification has to work? If not, the story is implemented against the operator token behind the seam. If so, per-tenant GitHub App credentials come first.
This is a docs-only change: the schema test passes and the commit gate is green. The review gate is running (one prose round).