Development record
The FindingGuardFailed doc comment in internal/core/changelog/findings.go says the guard fails when 'a consequential finding this cycle produced is still open and unwaived', but GuardFindings also fails on an open issue record that differs from HEAD (at any severity) and on deleted records, so the comment states one case of three. A sibling of iss-2610101803326081, whose lane fixed the launch brief's table row and RefusalUnfixedFinding's comment in release/emit.go and left this second package for capture.
issueresolvednitpickiss-2610112036089151
The FindingGuardFailed doc comment in internal/core/changelog/findings.go says the guard fails when 'a consequential finding this cycle produced is still open and unwaived', but GuardFindings also fails on an open issue record that differs from HEAD (at any severity) and on deleted records, so the comment states one case of three. A sibling of iss-2610101803326081, whose lane fixed the launch brief's table row and RefusalUnfixedFinding's comment in release/emit.go and left this second package for capture.
Grounds
- pursued: the doc entry names Unfixed, Deleted and Uncommitted, each described as GuardFindings sets it; TestFindingGuardFailedDocNamesEveryFailingList failed on all three before the edit and passes after. Shown wrong if GuardFindings sets FindingGuardFailed on a condition the entry does not name, or if a description misstates its list's condition.
Frontmatter
| id | iss-2610112036089151 |
|---|---|
| type | issue |
| lifecycle | resolved |
| severity | nitpick |
.abcd/work/issues/resolved/iss-2610112036089151-the-findingguardfailed-doc-comment-in.md
open on GitHub ↗ · commit history ↗
mentions1
- iss-2610101803326081The brief's launch chapter's refusal-kinds table describes unfixed-finding as the consequential (major/critical) finding case only, while the guardrail list forty lines below now says it also fires for an open issue record that differs from HEAD (added by the drain lane for iss-2610072347238476, which left the table row alone because a peer's verb split edits nearby). The table and the list now disagree within one chapter.