ci(release): drop 32-bit dashmate pack targets unsupported by Node 24

[shumkov]

Summary

• Restrict oclif pack targets in scripts/pack_dashmate.sh to architectures Node 24 still publishes binaries for.
• Drops 32-bit Linux ARM (linux-armv7l) and 32-bit Windows (win-x86) from the dashmate release matrix.

Background

The Release Dashmate packages matrix (deb, tarballs, win) has been failing on every release run since v3.1.0-dev.1 (2026-02-18). Logs from today's v3.1.0-dev.3 run (26180129457):

oclif: building target dashmate-v3.1.0-dev.3-39f2e29c9-linux-arm.tar.gz
oclif: downloading node-v24.14.1-linux-armv7l
oclif: retrying node download (attempt 1)
oclif: retrying node download (attempt 2)
oclif: retrying node download (attempt 3)
HTTPError: Response code 404 (Not Found)

Node 24 dropped 32-bit binaries. SHASUMS256.txt for v24.14.1 publishes only:

• linux: x64, arm64, ppc64le, s390x
• win: x64, arm64
• darwin: x64, arm64

When oclif pack bundles a Node runtime for an embedded target, it downloads the matching nodejs.org tarball. linux-armv7l and win-x86 404 → all three jobs die at "Create package".

Why it surfaced now

• Composite Setup Node.JS default bumped 20 → 24 in commit ec4665bb2a on 2026-01-27, before v3.1.0-dev.1.
• Same failure on v3.1.0-dev.1 (22144450177) — same three jobs ✗, macos ✓.
• Masked on v3.1.0-dev.2 because release-npm itself failed and needs: release-npm blocked the matrix from running.
• With release-npm fixed in ci(release): drop redundant second Setup Node.JS in release-npm #3702, the latent dashmate-pack failure is now visible.

Trade-off

v3.0.1 (last successful Node-20-era release) shipped three artifacts this PR removes:

• dashmate-...-linux-arm.tar.gz (32-bit ARM)
• dashmate_..._armel.deb
• dashmate-...-x86.exe

Modern hardware on those platforms is essentially extinct (Raspberry Pi 4+ is 64-bit, current Windows is x64/arm64), and Node 24+ cannot package against them anyway. The alternative — embedding a separate older Node for the pack step — splits Node versions across release stages and conflicts with the trusted-publishers Node 24+ requirement at the publish step. Dropping the dead platforms is simpler.

Test plan

• CI green on this PR
• After merge, the next release run (v3.1.0-dev.4 or whatever follows) shows Release Dashmate packages (deb|tarballs|win|macos) all ✓.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Chores
  • Updated build infrastructure to support 64-bit platforms exclusively. 32-bit build variants for ARM and Windows are no longer produced.

[coderabbitai]

Caution

Review failed

The pull request is closed.

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 2986bdda-bf9e-4699-897a-f892e53242cf

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 63b2108 and f1cdaa3.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• scripts/pack_dashmate.sh

---

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

pack_dashmate.sh refactors platform target selection from a tarballs-only if conditional into a case "$COMMAND" statement. The script now explicitly sets distinct oclif pack flags for tarballs, deb, and win targets, dropping unsupported 32-bit architectures (linux-armv7l, win32-x86) and consolidating to 64-bit platforms.

Changes

Platform Target Selection

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Platform target selection via case statement scripts/pack_dashmate.sh	FLAGS is initialized and then assigned per-command in a case statement, with tarballs and deb targeting linux-arm64,linux-x64 and win targeting win32-x64, removing 32-bit targets.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes

Suggested reviewers

• QuantumExplorer

Poem

A rabbit hops through build flags bright,
Case statements now organize the night,
32-bit targets take their bow,
64-bit futures show us how! 🐰✨

✨ Finishing Touches

📝 Generate docstrings

• Create stacked PR
• Commit on current branch

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch ci/fix-dashmate-pack-node24-targets

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[thepastaclaw]

Code Review

Tightly scoped CI fix that aligns the explicit oclif pack target lists with Node 24's available runtime binaries. No blocking issues. One minor doc-consistency nitpick worth surfacing; the broader release-matrix coverage suggestion is acknowledged as out of scope by the original agent and dropped.

Note: Inline posting failed (command failed (1): gh api /repos/dashpay/platform/pulls/3709/reviews --method POST --input -
STDOUT:
{"message":"Unprocessable Entity","errors":["Variable $threads of type [DraftPullRequestReviewThread] was provided invalid value for 0.commitId (Field is not defined on DraftPullRequestReviewThread)), so I posted the same verified findings as a top-level review body.

Reviewed commit: f1cdaa3

💬 1 nitpick(s)

1 additional finding(s)

nitpick: Tarballs comment is inconsistent with the deb/win comments

scripts/pack_dashmate.sh (line 26)

The deb and win bullets describe oclif's upstream default target list, then state what is being dropped. The tarballs bullet instead describes what we pass. For consistency and to make the rationale obvious to future readers, document oclif's default tarball targets (which include linux-arm / armv7l) and note that the explicit --targets=linux-arm64,linux-x64 excludes that 32-bit target.

# Node 24+ does not publish 32-bit binaries (linux-armv7l, win-x86), so we
# must explicitly drop those targets from oclif's default lists; otherwise
# `oclif pack` 404s while downloading the embedded Node runtime.
#   - tarballs default targets: linux-x64, linux-arm (armv7l), linux-arm64 — drop arm.
#   - deb default targets: linux-x64, linux-arm (armv7l), linux-arm64 — drop arm.
#   - win default targets: win32-x64, win32-x86 — drop x86.

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

These findings are from an automated code review. Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

- [NITPICK] In `scripts/pack_dashmate.sh`:26-29: Tarballs comment is inconsistent with the deb/win comments
  The `deb` and `win` bullets describe oclif's upstream default target list, then state what is being dropped. The `tarballs` bullet instead describes what we pass. For consistency and to make the rationale obvious to future readers, document oclif's default tarball targets (which include `linux-arm` / armv7l) and note that the explicit `--targets=linux-arm64,linux-x64` excludes that 32-bit target.