You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
No Rust code changed. All Plumb Rust-specific blockers (determinism, layer discipline, unsafe, unwrap/expect, println!, todo!, HashMap in outputs) are not applicable.
1. Determinism — N/A
No plumb-core or library code touched.
2. Workspace layering — N/A
No crate boundaries crossed.
3. Error handling — N/A (shell scripts)
Scripts use set -euo pipefail. The || true guards on grep -c correctly suppress the grep exit-1-on-no-match. The fail() accumulator (failures=1, checked at EOF) is the right shape for a full-run validator.
4. Test coverage
All three new validators are wired in .github/workflows/ci.yml:38-42 — they run on every PR.
All checked strings verified present in the repo:
docs/src/ci/release-prep.md — Issue #51 is prep-only… ✓, Issue #52 is also prep-only… ✓, both Until those blockers… strings ✓
dist-workspace.toml — installers = ["shell", "powershell"] ✓, Issues #51 and #52 are intentionally prep-only ✓
.github/workflows/install-smoke.yml — cargo×3, curl×3, brew×2, npm×3, One or more non-gated install channels failed. ✓
.github/workflows/release.yml — all three grep targets ✓
5. Documentation — N/A (no docs/src/ prose change, no Rustdoc)
Punch list
tests/install-smoke-validate.sh:103-131 — undocumented magic numbers (warning) cargo_count=3, curl_count=3, brew_count=2, npm_count=3 have no inline explanation for why brew is 2 (mac + Linux; Windows runner not supported for Homebrew) and npm is 3 (all OSes but gated). When the OS matrix next changes these counts will produce cryptic failures. A one-line comment per assertion is all that's needed.
pass "npm channel stays limited to supported gated OS legs"
3 = all three OSes. "Stays limited" implies fewer than all. A message like "npm channel covers all 3 OSes as gated legs" matches the intent.
tests/release-security-validate.sh:197-203 and 222-227 — inconsistent absent-file behavior (warning)
The pre-existing check at ~line 193 passes when dist-workspace.toml is absent (treating absence as "Homebrew correctly absent"). The two new checks fail when the file is absent because [ -f "$DIST_CONFIG" ] && grep … short-circuits to the else branch. In practice harmless — the file must exist for cargo dist — but a future reader will be confused by the two opposite conventions in the same script.
No blockers. The contract being enforced is correct, the referenced strings are all present, and the CI wiring is complete.
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
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.
Spec
Related issues: #51, #52
Summary
Test plan
bash tests/install-smoke-validate.shbash tests/release-security-validate.shbash tests/release-readiness-matrix-validate.shgit diff --checkbash tests/release-readiness-local-kits-validate.shin this shell (cargois not installed in the current environment)Screenshots / terminal output
N/A
Breaking change?
Anything reviewers should double-check