Filed unassigned by the dev seat working #11369. ⛔ Not touched there — #11369's population was defined by corepack enable, and this site does not contain that string.
The observation
#11369 adopted .github/actions/setup-pnpm at all 16 corepack enable sites, taking .github/workflows/ to 0 occurrences across 0 files. That count is true and still leaves one workflow downloading pnpm per job, because it acquires pnpm by a different mechanism:
# .github/workflows/showcase-smoke.yml
- uses: actions/checkout@v7
- uses: pnpm/action-setup@v6 # <- not Corepack, so invisible to the census
- uses: actions/setup-node@v7with:
node-version: '22'cache: pnpm
Measured on origin/main: pnpm/action-setup appears in exactly 1 workflow (showcase-smoke.yml), and it is the only workflow using it. Control, so the 1 is not an artefact: corepack enable across .github/workflows/ is 0 post-#11369, while uses: ./.github/actions/setup-pnpm is 23.
Why this is worth recording rather than just fixing
This is the same asymmetry the #11369 card itself named, one level up. That card observed that a signature keyed on the step name Verify pnpm version under-reported the sites, because the unpaired ones downloaded inside a differently-named step. The same thing is true of the census keyed on corepack enable: it is now a complete answer about Corepack and reads as a complete answer about pnpm acquisition, which it is not. Anyone who greps corepack enable in six months gets 0 and concludes the class is closed.
Stakes: low, and deliberately stated as such
showcase-smoke.yml is workflow_dispatch + nightly (0 7 * * *), explicitly NON-BLOCKING ("it never gates PRs" — its own header). So a flake here is a red nightly, not a queue ejection and not a failed release. This is an observation, not a defect worth pre-empting a queued card for.
Also note it is not a pure swap: this job relies on actions/setup-node's cache: pnpm, which requires pnpm to be on PATHbefore the setup-node step runs — the opposite of the ordering every setup-pnpm caller uses (setup-node first, then the composite). Whoever picks this up should treat it as an ordering question, not a find-and-replace.
Dedup
Searched open issues before filing (showcase-smoke, pnpm/action-setup, pnpm acquisition, corepack, composite action): nothing covers this. #11369 is scoped to the Corepack population by its own measurement and does not reach here.
Filed unassigned by the dev seat working #11369. ⛔ Not touched there — #11369's population was defined by
corepack enable, and this site does not contain that string.The observation
#11369 adopted
.github/actions/setup-pnpmat all 16corepack enablesites, taking.github/workflows/to 0 occurrences across 0 files. That count is true and still leaves one workflow downloading pnpm per job, because it acquires pnpm by a different mechanism:Measured on
origin/main:pnpm/action-setupappears in exactly 1 workflow (showcase-smoke.yml), and it is the only workflow using it. Control, so the 1 is not an artefact:corepack enableacross.github/workflows/is 0 post-#11369, whileuses: ./.github/actions/setup-pnpmis 23.Why this is worth recording rather than just fixing
This is the same asymmetry the #11369 card itself named, one level up. That card observed that a signature keyed on the step name
Verify pnpm versionunder-reported the sites, because the unpaired ones downloaded inside a differently-named step. The same thing is true of the census keyed oncorepack enable: it is now a complete answer about Corepack and reads as a complete answer about pnpm acquisition, which it is not. Anyone who grepscorepack enablein six months gets 0 and concludes the class is closed.Stakes: low, and deliberately stated as such
showcase-smoke.ymlisworkflow_dispatch+ nightly (0 7 * * *), explicitly NON-BLOCKING ("it never gates PRs" — its own header). So a flake here is a red nightly, not a queue ejection and not a failed release. This is an observation, not a defect worth pre-empting a queued card for.Also note it is not a pure swap: this job relies on
actions/setup-node'scache: pnpm, which requires pnpm to be onPATHbefore thesetup-nodestep runs — the opposite of the ordering everysetup-pnpmcaller uses (setup-nodefirst, then the composite). Whoever picks this up should treat it as an ordering question, not a find-and-replace.Dedup
Searched open issues before filing (
showcase-smoke,pnpm/action-setup, pnpm acquisition, corepack, composite action): nothing covers this. #11369 is scoped to the Corepack population by its own measurement and does not reach here.