Tirsvad
3b8681d023
Run against TirSystem-BashScript/RepoFoundry (39 shell files): shellcheck passes with the project's .shellcheckrc, shfmt fails on 10 files only because of the case indentation and passes after one .editorconfig line; the pull request itself passes. Record the findings for the guide, review the change (RC-039) and update TM-001. The adoption is complete when RepoFoundry PR 76 is merged. Task: MIL-003#4
124 lines
6.2 KiB
Markdown
124 lines
6.2 KiB
Markdown
# MIL-003: Shared quality checks
|
|
|
|
## Metadata
|
|
| Key | Value |
|
|
| --- | --- |
|
|
| ID | MIL-003 |
|
|
| CrossReference | [BC-001], [ADR-0002] |
|
|
|
|
## Version History
|
|
| Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
|
|
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|
|
| 2026-10-10 | Deprecated | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S01 | Task 1 verified: workflow_call and uses work from the same repository, the same organization and another organization (RC-033) | [b3f006f] |
|
|
| 2026-10-10 | Accepted | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S01 | Task 4 recorded: adoption in RepoFoundry, the shfmt .editorconfig gap and the other findings (RC-039) | pending |
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Purpose
|
|
|
|
Decide whether a software engineer can run the same quality checks on any
|
|
TirSystem project through a shared workflow.
|
|
|
|
## Deliverable
|
|
|
|
A reusable quality-check workflow for Python and shell, used by at least one
|
|
other repository, and a guide for reading its results.
|
|
|
|
## Go / No-Go Criteria
|
|
|
|
| # | Criterion (objectively checkable) | Go | No-Go |
|
|
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|
|
| 1 | The instance supports reusable workflows (`workflow_call`), verified and recorded | Verified | Unsupported (re-plan as a copied template) |
|
|
| 2 | One other repository runs the workflow and its status check appears on pull requests | Appears | Does not run |
|
|
| 3 | A failing check shows the tool, file and message in the log | Verified with a seeded failure | Cause not visible |
|
|
| 4 | Inputs and defaults are documented | Documented | Missing |
|
|
|
|
## Dependencies
|
|
|
|
| Depends on | Reason |
|
|
| --- | --- |
|
|
| MIL-002 | Uses the onboarding guide and runner list |
|
|
|
|
## Traceability
|
|
|
|
| Business Case objective / KPI / user story | Reference |
|
|
| --- | --- |
|
|
| O4 | [BC-001] |
|
|
|
|
## Ownership
|
|
|
|
| Role | Stakeholder ID (SA) |
|
|
| --- | --- |
|
|
| Owner | S05 |
|
|
| Approving reviewer | S01 |
|
|
|
|
## Target Date
|
|
|
|
2026-11-14 — confirmed on 2026-10-10 by S01, standing in for S05 (ADR-0002); the Business Case sets no deadline.
|
|
|
|
## Tasks
|
|
|
|
| # | Task | Summary | Needs its own Use Case/User Story? | Reference |
|
|
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|
|
| 1 | Verify reusable workflow support | Check whether this Gitea version supports `workflow_call` and cross-repository `uses`; if not, choose a copied template instead. Verified on 2026-10-10: supported, so no copied template is needed (see Verification results). | No | Verification results |
|
|
| 2 | Define the quality-check contract | Decide the inputs (language, tool versions, working directory) and what a pass and a fail mean. Start with Python and shell. This is something an engineer does, so it needs a use case first. | Yes | Use case candidate: run project quality checks |
|
|
| 3 | Implement the reusable quality workflow | Create the workflow in the canonical location with pinned tool versions and least-privilege permissions. | No | |
|
|
| 4 | Adopt it in one other repository | Onboard a real project and fix the gaps in the guide that appear. Adopted in `TirSystem-BashScript/RepoFoundry` (its PR 76, run passes); see Adoption in a real repository. | No | Adoption in a real repository |
|
|
| 5 | Write the guide for reading results | Explain status checks, logs and typical fixes so an engineer can make a failing check pass. | No | |
|
|
|
|
## Verification results
|
|
|
|
Task 1 was run on 2026-10-10 on the instance (Gitea 1.27.3) with a throwaway
|
|
branch, `verify-reusable-workflows`, in `TirSystem/github-action`. The called
|
|
workflow declared `on: workflow_call` with one input and printed it; the
|
|
callers used `jobs.<job_id>.uses`. All branches were deleted afterwards.
|
|
|
|
| Call | Caller | Result |
|
|
| --- | --- | --- |
|
|
| `uses: ./.gitea/workflows/reuse-callee.yml` | `TirSystem/github-action` (same repository) | Called job ran; input received |
|
|
| `uses: TirSystem/github-action/.gitea/workflows/reuse-callee.yml@<branch>` | `TirSystem/github-action` | Called job ran; input received |
|
|
| the same, from another repository of the organization | `TirSystem/sqa-qc-checklists` | Called job ran; `gitea.repository` was the caller |
|
|
| the same, from a repository of another organization | `TirSystem-BashScript/RepoFoundry` | Called job ran; `gitea.repository` was the caller |
|
|
|
|
What the test did not cover: a provider repository that is private (the
|
|
provider here is public), passing secrets to a called workflow
|
|
(`secrets:` or `secrets: inherit`), and a reference by tag instead of a
|
|
branch. The quality checks of this milestone need none of the secrets; a
|
|
private provider and tag references are for the release milestone (MIL-004).
|
|
|
|
## Adoption in a real repository (task 4)
|
|
|
|
On 2026-10-10 the workflow was run against `TirSystem-BashScript/RepoFoundry`
|
|
(another organization; 39 shell files, no Python), first on a throwaway
|
|
branch and then as a pull request, RepoFoundry PR 76.
|
|
|
|
| Run | `shellcheck` | `shfmt -d` | Python |
|
|
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|
|
| Unchanged repository | PASS on all 39 files | FAIL on 10 files | skipped with a notice (no files) |
|
|
| With `switch_case_indent = true` under `[*.sh]` in `.editorconfig` | PASS | PASS | skipped |
|
|
| The pull request itself (`languages: shell`) | PASS | PASS | not selected |
|
|
|
|
What the run showed:
|
|
|
|
- **`shellcheck` needs no help** when the project has a `.shellcheckrc`: the
|
|
workflow runs from the repository root, so the project's own settings
|
|
(`external-sources`, `source-path=SCRIPTDIR`) applied and files that share
|
|
variables across `src/lib/*.sh` produced no false positives.
|
|
- **`shfmt` follows the project's style only through `.editorconfig`.** All ten
|
|
differences were the indentation of `case` patterns: the workflow uses shfmt
|
|
defaults, the project's own check is `shfmt -i 2 -ci`. One `.editorconfig`
|
|
line fixed it without changing a script. A shell project with its own shfmt
|
|
flags should expect a first formatting failure and express the flags there.
|
|
- **Paths in the log are relative to `working-directory`**, and a caller must
|
|
reference the workflow at `main` or a tag, not at a branch that is deleted
|
|
when its pull request merges (the first trial lost its reference that way).
|
|
|
|
The task closes when RepoFoundry PR 76 is merged. The gaps above are for the
|
|
guide of task 5 (issue #19).
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
[BC-001]: ../business-case.md
|
|
[ADR-0002]: ../adr/adr-0002-s01-approves-as-stand-in.md
|
|
[b3f006f]: https://git.tirsystem.com/TirSystem/github-action/commit/b3f006f7a482392189a46c324ad4f28c4c3a2d2a
|