docs(pr-workflow): signature source-of-truth is the API; systemic failures get central fixes - #137
Merged
Merged
Conversation
…lures get central fixes %G?=E means key-not-imported, not unsigned — a false finding built on it had to be retracted. And a fix for one path of a systemic failure mode gets reworked at the central layer during review, not merged narrow with a follow-up issue. Signed-off-by: Sebastian Mendel <info@sebastianmendel.de>
github-actions
Bot
added
documentation
Contributor
Dependency Review✅ No vulnerabilities or license issues or OpenSSF Scorecard issues found.Scanned FilesNone |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
This PR updates the Git workflow PR review reference documentation with two additional review principles aimed at reducing false findings and encouraging structurally correct fixes during review.
Changes:
- Document that commit signature truth should be determined via the GitHub API (
.commit.verification), not the reviewer’s local keyring status. - Add guidance that systemic failure modes should be addressed with a central fix (middleware/base hook), rather than a narrow symptom fix plus a follow-up issue.
💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Mendel <info@sebastianmendel.de>
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
Copilot reviewed 1 out of 1 changed files in this pull request and generated no new comments.
Suppressed comments (1)
skills/git-workflow/references/pull-request-workflow.md:296
%G?statusEis broader than “key not imported”; Git documents it as “cannot check signature” (which can happen for multiple reasons, including missing public key). Wording it as “cannot check” avoids an overly specific claim while still supporting the point thatE≠ “unsigned”.
Local `git log --show-signature` / `--format='%G?'` only consults the reviewer's local keyring — a status of `E` means "key not imported here", NOT "unsigned". Flagging `%G? = E` as a missing signature produces a false finding the contributor cannot fix (one such finding had to be publicly retracted; GitHub showed "verified" all along).
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
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.
What
Two promoted review principles (
/retro promote, batch 6):gh api …/commits/SHA --jq .commit.verificationis the source of truth; local%G? = Eonly means the reviewer's keyring lacks the key — flagging it as "unsigned" produced a finding that had to be publicly retracted (jira-skill#98).Came from /retro: yes