Skip to content

release-train: develop -> staging - #210

Merged
tracebloc-release-train[bot] merged 1 commit into
stagingfrom
release-train/to-staging
Aug 11, 2026
Merged

release-train: develop -> staging#210
tracebloc-release-train[bot] merged 1 commit into
stagingfrom
release-train/to-staging

Conversation

@LukasWodka

@LukasWodkaLukasWodka commented Aug 11, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Automated promotion by the release train (RFC-0008 D14). Head is the train-managed release-train/to-staging branch (a mirror of develop), so it never collides with a human PR. Merged only when the fr-gate is green.


Note

Medium Risk
Changes CI gating for the org-wide action-pin scan; repos with action-pins-soft-fail: false will start failing on unpinned refs, which is the intended fix but can redden PRs until backlogs are cleared.

Overview
Corrects how the reusable code-quality workflow decides whether black and action-pins jobs block the run.

For action-pins, SOFT_FAIL now follows only inputs.action-pins-soft-fail instead of (soft-fail || action-pins-soft-fail). With soft-fail defaulting to true, the old OR meant callers setting action-pins-soft-fail: false could never hard-fail unpinned actions; repos that intended an armed supply-chain gate were still advisory (#1681).

For format (black), behavior is unchanged: SOFT_FAIL remains soft-fail || format-soft-fail so migration callers with global advisory mode are not turned into a hard format gate. The PR adds inline comments explaining that intentional split between the two inputs.

Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit ef0dfaf. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.

…ide (backend#1681) (#207)
* fix(code-quality): make the per-job soft-fail overrides able to override (backend#1681)
`action-pins-soft-fail` and `format-soft-fail` were combined with the global
`soft-fail` via OR:
SOFT_FAIL: ${{ (inputs.soft-fail || inputs.action-pins-soft-fail) && ... }}
`soft-fail` defaults to true, so the override could only ever make a job MORE
advisory -- never arm one. That is the opposite of its purpose: the input exists
so a repo can arm the supply-chain check while the rest of its suite stays
advisory during a migration.
Measured on origin/develop: 16 of 16 callers pass `action-pins-soft-fail: false`,
and docs, model-zoo, start-training and tracebloc-website carry a comment saying
"Armed 2026-08-06 (backend#1492) ... Independent of soft-fail above" while passing
no `soft-fail` at all -- so action-pins has been advisory in exactly the four repos
that believe it is armed. Three of the four are public.
Effect (truth table in the PR): the 12 repos that pass both inputs false are
unchanged; the 4 above flip from advisory to armed. Verified safe before shipping
with a byte-faithful replica of this job's own scanner, mutation-tested to report
violations and to skip commented lines: 0 unpinned refs across all 16 repos, so no
PR turns red on merge.
`format-soft-fail` gets the identical fix and is behaviour-neutral today (no caller
passes it; its default is true) -- it removes the same trap before it springs.
Verified: YAML parses, actionlint clean.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
* fix(code-quality): keep format soft-fail additive (only action-pins is authoritative)
Bugbot: format-soft-fail defaults to false, so replacing (soft-fail ||
format-soft-fail) with the input alone flipped every soft-fail:true caller from
an advisory format job to a hard gate. Per this input's contract it is ADDITIVE
('advisory even when soft-fail is false'), unlike action-pins-soft-fail which 16
callers arm explicitly. Revert just the format job to the OR; action-pins keeps
the authoritative override that backend#1681 is actually about.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@LukasWodka

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

bugbot run

@cursorcursorBot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

✅ Bugbot reviewed your changes and found no new issues!

Comment @cursor review or bugbot run to trigger another review on this PR

Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit ef0dfaf. Configure here.

@tracebloc-release-traintracebloc-release-trainBot added gate-nudge Toggled by the release train to (re-)fire the fr-gate and removed gate-nudge Toggled by the release train to (re-)fire the fr-gate labels Aug 11, 2026
@tracebloc-release-train
tracebloc-release-trainBot merged commit 3c4e84c into stagingAug 11, 2026
20 checks passed
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant

@LukasWodka