report_job_log.py only ever commented on an open PR, so a push to
development/main -- the shape of a publish pipeline, which has no
pull_request trigger -- had nowhere to post: the branch pushed to is the
merge's target, not the already-closed PR that produced it. Combined with
job logs 500ing on this Gitea, that made a push-triggered failure completely
invisible (weblib-viewer run 1769, diagnosed only by hardcoding --pr on a
throwaway commit).
A GitHub-style commit-comment endpoint, the first thing tried, does not
exist on this Gitea: 404, and absent from /swagger.v1.json entirely. What
does exist and was verified live: GET commits/{sha}/pull resolves the PR
that produced a given commit, open or closed, across both merge styles this
org uses -- so the closed PR the push actually came from can still be found
and commented on as before. When even that finds nothing (a commit that was
never part of any PR), fall back to a commit status, since that endpoint is
already proven to work here.
No CLI changes; existing callers are unaffected.
Closes#14
Co-authored-by: bit <bit@das-labor.org>
`status_phrase` renders a status it does not know verbatim, deliberately:
`argparse`'s `choices=` would exit 2 on an unexpected value and the log --
the entire reason this script exists -- would never be posted.
But the verbatim value lands in a code span inside a **bold** header, so a
backtick in it closes the span early and the rest renders as markdown:
--status 'x` **loud** `y'
-> **`tests` finished with status `x` **loud** `y`**
Nothing hostile is expected: the value comes from `${{ job.status }}` or a
hand-written flag, both written by whoever wrote the workflow. It is worth
closing anyway because this repo is public and four others consume the
script as a composite action, so a branch name or a matrix value could
reach this argument later without anyone revisiting this function.
Backticks are removed rather than escaped -- there is no escape for a
backtick inside a code span, only a wider fence, and the status is a short
word rather than something whose exact bytes matter.
Found in the cold re-read of #10, not by the suite, so the test that
covers it was proved to fail without the fix.
Co-authored-by: bit <bit@das-labor.org>
`report_job_log.py` hardcoded the word *failed* into the comment header. Every
caller guards the step with `if: failure()`, so it was true by construction --
until an unguarded probe in weblib-viewer#10 ran it on a job that passed, and
the successful run posted a comment reading as a failure report. Anyone
scrolling that PR would conclude the probe had failed.
The interesting uses of this script are exactly the ones that want
`if: always()`: a probe, or a job whose *output* is the point rather than its
exit code. Those all lied in the header.
`--status` now supplies the outcome. **The default is `failed`**, which is what
`if: failure()` means, so the four consuming repos are untouched -- a change in
required arguments would have broken all of them at once, since they take this
script from `@main`. `JOB_STATUS` in the environment does the same, matching how
every other argument here already reads its default from the Actions
environment.
`${{ job.status }}` yields `success`/`failure`/`cancelled`/`skipped` while a
human writing the flag reaches for `passed`/`failed`, so both spellings are
accepted and the expression can be passed straight through. An **unrecognised**
status goes into the header verbatim rather than being rejected: `argparse`'s
`choices=` would exit 2 on a value the table has not heard of, and the log --
the whole reason this script exists -- would never be posted. A reporter must
not become the thing that reports nothing.
The "no log file" note was status-dependent too; it claimed the step "failed
before the build started" regardless.
## Verified
`test_report_job_log.py`, new here: stdlib only and offline, posting to an
`http.server` on localhost that keeps what it is sent, so each test reads the
comment back. An exit status of 0 proves nothing -- the script deliberately
swallows HTTP errors so a failure to report cannot mask the failure being
reported. 21 tests, 0 skipped, 1.2s. Three of them drive the CLI as a
subprocess with only environment variables set, the way a workflow does.
Each check was shown to fire by injecting the fault and reverting it:
| injected fault | result |
|---|---|
| header hardcodes `failed` again (the original bug) | 10 failures |
| `DEFAULT_STATUS = "passed"` (would break the four callers) | 8 failures |
| unknown status raises, as `choices=` would | 2 errors |
| missing-log note keeps the failure wording | 1 failure |
| a stray `%` in the `--status` help text | 1 failure |
All five reverted; the file's checksum matches the pre-injection copy.
Also drops a tracked `__pycache__/report_job_log.cpython-313.pyc` and adds a
`.gitignore`. It was committed by accident in 061d8b2 and importing the module
from the tests rewrites it, so it would otherwise show up in every future diff
as stale bytecode of a file that had already changed.
Closes#8
Co-authored-by: bit <bit@das-labor.org>
The comment it posts said "posted by `tools/report_job_log.py`". Since
weblib-archive#44 there is no such file in any consuming repo -- the script
lives here. So it pointed a reader at a path they cannot find, on the one
occasion they are already looking for the cause of a failure.
Links here instead.
Found by deliberately breaking a build on weblib-fs#31 to prove the failure
path worked. A green run never renders this message, so nothing else would
have surfaced it.
Co-authored-by: bit <bit@das-labor.org>
Split out of the four repos per weblib-archive#44. All three files were
byte-identical across every repo at this moment, which will not stay true --
they converged only because four twin PRs landed within hours today, and
report_job_log.py had already drifted once before that.
Taken from weblib-archive, verified identical to every other copy first:
with-nixpkgs.sh ca43fa20 (cfbypass, archive, fs)
report_job_log.py aaef8f62 (cfbypass, archive)
sync_blocked_label.py e6ddb21d (all four)
action.yml is included so the `uses:` question can be re-measured now the repo
is public; it did not work while private.
Co-authored-by: bit <bit@das-labor.org>
claudeandbit