Skip to content

Repair conflict markers merged into rpk-overrides.json - #1874

Closed
JakeSCahill wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
hotfix/repair-overrides-conflict-markers
Closed

Repair conflict markers merged into rpk-overrides.json#1874
JakeSCahill wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
hotfix/repair-overrides-conflict-markers

Conversation

@JakeSCahill

@JakeSCahill JakeSCahill commented Aug 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Hotfix — main's docs-data/rpk-overrides.json is currently invalid JSON. The #1838 squash-merge landed with three unresolved conflict hunks: my rebase-resolution script failed its own assertion partway through, but the follow-on git commands were not chained to it and staged the conflicted file anyway. Full accounting below; fix first.

Fix approach — semantic rebuild, not marker surgery (text surgery is what broke it): took the last valid state (post-#1865, main~1) and applied #1838's exact intent programmatically — selfHostedOnly: true on the 22 cloud-unavailable commands, verified against the DOC-2407 target list. Every line of the diff against the pre-merge state is either a selfHostedOnly addition, the trailing comma it forces on the preceding key, or a new object key for a command that had no entry. Nothing else changes; the file parses and carries exactly 22 selfHostedOnly entries and all of main's introducedInVersion stamps.

Blast radius while broken: any doc-tools run against main fails at overrides load. #1863 (auto-rerender) is not merged yet, so no automation consumed the broken file. validate-docs-data CI on main should be red for the merge commit.

Process fix on my side: resolution scripts and the git commands that depend on them must be one chained command, and I now read back the merged file after any merge I drive — the same read-back-your-writes rule from TESTING_AUTOMATIONS.adoc that I wrote and then violated.

Jira

Part of the DOC-2407 fix chain (this delivers #1838's data correctly).

The #1838 squash-merge landed with three unresolved conflict hunks,
leaving the overrides file invalid JSON on main (my rebase resolution
script failed partway and the follow-on commands ran anyway). Rebuilt
semantically: the last valid state (post-#1865) plus selfHostedOnly on
exactly the 22 cloud-unavailable commands #1838 intended, verified
against the DOC-2407 target list. Every diff line against the pre-merge
state is a selfHostedOnly addition, nothing else.
@JakeSCahill
JakeSCahill requested a review from a team as a code owner August 3, 2026 06:50
@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Aug 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Review Change Stack

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info
⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 5923b07f-f670-4a40-acf3-66ad79826134

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between c4d84b3 and df9970b.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • docs-data/rpk-overrides.json

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The rpk-overrides.json metadata is normalized. The LLM provider check uses an introducedInVersion override, and duplicate version metadata is removed. The cluster brokers, loggers, upgrades, configuration, licensing, profiles, shadows, and transforms overrides include selfHostedOnly: true. The trailing command overrides are consolidated, and the JSON structure is restored.

Estimated code review effort: 2 (Simple) | ~10 minutes

Possibly related PRs

Suggested reviewers: michelerp

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5
✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
Check name Status Explanation
Title check ✅ Passed The title clearly identifies the repair of unresolved conflict markers in rpk-overrides.json.
Description check ✅ Passed The description clearly explains the fix, impact, validation, and Jira context, but omits the review deadline, page previews, and checks sections.
Docstring Coverage ✅ Passed No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.
Linked Issues check ✅ Passed Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check ✅ Passed Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests
  • Commit unit tests in branch hotfix/repair-overrides-conflict-markers

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

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.

@netlify

netlify Bot commented Aug 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Deploy Preview for redpanda-docs-preview ready!

Name Link
🔨 Latest commit df9970b
🔍 Latest deploy log https://app.netlify.com/projects/redpanda-docs-preview/deploys/6a703a454064760008fba628
😎 Deploy Preview https://deploy-preview-1874--redpanda-docs-preview.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile
Toggle QR Code...

QR Code

Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration.

JakeSCahill added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 3, 2026
…aves

Resolves the rpk-overrides.json conflict by semantic reconstruction:
main's last valid state plus the #1838 selfHostedOnly gating (22
commands, re-asserted for the two whose entries this PR empties) plus
this PR's 55 content deltas, each set verified programmatically. This
also repairs the invalid JSON that the #1838 squash-merge left on main
(three unresolved conflict hunks), superseding the standalone hotfix
in #1874.
@JakeSCahill

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Superseded: the same repaired overrides data landed on main via #1862 (approved branch, merge commit + escape restore). Verified post-merge: main's rpk-overrides.json is valid JSON, 22 selfHostedOnly entries, no markers.

@JakeSCahill JakeSCahill closed this Aug 3, 2026
Sign up for free to 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