Skip to content

docs(ci): correct create-release's github job comment about the tag job (#2329) - #2379

Merged
JarryShaw merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
docs/2329-create-release-tag-comment
Oct 27, 2026
Merged

JarryShaw merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
docs/2329-create-release-tag-comment

Conversation

@JarryShaw

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

What is the purpose of your pull request?

  • docs — documentation

Description

Closes #2329.

  • Problem: the comment above the github job's "Check the release tags name this run's commit" step in .github/workflows/create-release.yml claimed tag makes the same check via that step. pypi and conda do run it (test_release_scripts_1967.py pins exactly those two plus github); tag has no such step.
  • Fix: reword the comment to name only pypi and conda as running the step, and describe what tag's "Create Tag" step actually does instead — an inline git rev-parse comparison on the tags its own checkout fetched, without release_tags.resolve's fetch of the tag.
  • Test: no existing test pins this comment's prose (the workflow-doc tests strip comments before parsing); verified the claim against test_release_scripts_1967.py's job/step pins and util/release_tags.py's own docstring, which already lists only github/pypi/conda for check.

@JarryShaw JarryShaw added docs Pull requests that change documentation only (docs: subject prefix) ci Pull requests that change CI or workflow configuration (ci: subject prefix) labels Oct 27, 2026
@github-actions github-actions Bot added this to the PyPCAPKit v1.5 milestone Oct 27, 2026
@JarryShaw JarryShaw moved this to In review in PyPCAPKit Oct 27, 2026
…ob (#2329)

Problem: the comment above the `github` job's "Check the release tags name
this run's commit" step claimed `tag` makes the same check via that step.
`pypi` and `conda` do; `tag` has no such step -- its "Create Tag" step makes
the equivalent comparison inline with `git rev-parse` on the tags its own
checkout fetched, without `release_tags.resolve`'s fetch of the tag.

Fix: reword the comment to name only `pypi` and `conda` as running the step,
and describe what `tag` actually does instead.
@JarryShaw
JarryShaw force-pushed the docs/2329-create-release-tag-comment branch from 09f3087 to 60cf783 Compare October 27, 2026 10:14
@JarryShaw

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner Author

Review: GOOD TO GO at 09f308766 (Sonnet). Every claim independently verified against the live workflow file (pypi/conda/github all run release_tags.py check, tag does not; its "Create Tag" step's inline git rev-parse comparison and lack of a tag-fetch confirmed), zero-behavior-change confirmed (AST/comment-stripped diff identical), 763 tests pass identically on both trees (comment is untestable by design, confirmed via the test harness's comment-stripping).

Amended 09f308766 → 60cf783f9: fixed the one nit (ambiguous "it" → "the check").

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Coverage: 91.58% (unit tier, Python 3.15, 60cf783f9, Unit Tests run success)

Package Statements Missed Branches Partial Cover
pcapkit (top level) 104 4 20 2 95.16%
pcapkit/const 19601 881 2620 867 92.12%
pcapkit/corekit 2596 74 818 37 96.51%
pcapkit/dumpkit 282 3 102 3 98.44%
pcapkit/foundation 3029 23 1050 25 98.82%
pcapkit/interface 138 4 52 3 96.32%
pcapkit/protocols 17455 218 4598 185 98.15%
pcapkit/toolkit 914 36 334 10 95.51%
pcapkit/utilities 502 7 144 5 98.14%
pcapkit/vendor 4432 1988 1018 167 51.87%

Per-file detail: the coverage-html artifact of this run.

@JarryShaw

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner Author

Ready to merge.

Review: GOOD TO GO (Sonnet) at 60cf783f9.
CI: Required checks passed, 0 failures (only the non-blocking experimental GraalPy leg still pending).
Mergeable, 0 unresolved threads.

@JarryShaw JarryShaw added the review: good-to-go Cross-review at the current head says ready; CI state is separate label Oct 27, 2026
@JarryShaw
JarryShaw merged commit bcb71bc into main Oct 27, 2026
62 checks passed
@JarryShaw
JarryShaw deleted the docs/2329-create-release-tag-comment branch October 27, 2026 15:10
@github-project-automation github-project-automation Bot moved this from In review to Done in PyPCAPKit Oct 27, 2026
@JarryShaw JarryShaw removed the review: good-to-go Cross-review at the current head says ready; CI state is separate label Oct 27, 2026
JarryShaw added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 28, 2026
Problem: of the 60 pull requests merged in the #2312-#2407 range, only
#2334, #2336, #2337, #2340 and #2348 wrote a 1.5.0 changelog entry, and
#2398 and #2403 only reworded lines that were already there. Every other
user-visible change in the range -- wire-semantics fixes, maker guards,
reassembly behaviour, public-API and error-message changes -- went
unrecorded, so the entry no longer describes the release.

Fix: one entry per user-visible pull request, in each module section's
existing style and ordered by the issue it closes. Two pairs share a
bullet, since each is the direct follow-up of the other: #2393 with
#2401, and #2405 with #2407. The diff on the entry file is purely
additive.

Internal-only work is left out deliberately: dependency and action bumps
(#2387 to #2391), test-only and docs-prose passes (#2333, #2376, #2379,
#2380, #2402), the unreachable-branch removal (#2378), and the #: comment
marker the HIP Group and Packet crawlers now write (#2381). That last one
renders nothing either way: the marker lands inside the generated
_missing_ body, conf.py's exclude-members drops _missing_ from autodoc,
and a comment in a method body is not an attribute comment to begin with.

#2392 and #2403 are recorded together, under Added rather than Fixed, for
the declarations they introduce: __proto_key__ on the seven classes owning
a __proto__ registry (#2392), __proto_dest__ on the four enum registries
and Vendor.PROTO_DEST to generate it (#2403). Both PRs added the autodoc
entries, so both are rendered public attributes. #2392's rejection-message
change is deliberately not recorded as a fix: the bare "code must be ..."
text it prefixed came from _check_code, which #2193 introduced and which
is in no release tag -- absent at v1.5.0b14 -- so no released version ever
emitted it. #2403 is no longer skipped as internal because it reworded an
existing bullet to name __proto_dest__ while nothing credited the
attribute's introduction.

Four claims are corrected against the source rather than carried over:
FTP_DATA shipped in pcapkit/protocols/application/ftp.py from 1.0.0, not
1.4.0 (class FTP_DATA(Raw) is there at v1.0.0); #2365's pre-fix fallback
read cmmd.value, so a .value-carrying object was accepted unchecked
rather than raising; #2399 left the dpkt adapter and the adapters'
ModuleNotFound raises alone, so it claims no universal prefix; and
#2397's old tail did name the version it got, so the entry quotes it and
gains the :issue:`2302` it was missing. #2370's "a Section Header Block
... still fails" sentence is dropped: #2369 settles the byte order first,
and an SHB built from raw octets with ctx=None now rebuilds byte-exact in
both byte orders.

CHANGELOG.md is regenerated with util/changelog_md.py.

Test: tests/project/ in full, 0 failures, including test_changelog_md.py's
in-step and supported-subset checks; util/changelog_md.py --check reports
the two files in step; the entry parses under docutils with no structural
warning.
JarryShaw added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 28, 2026
Problem: of the 60 pull requests merged in the #2312-#2407 range, only
#2334, #2336, #2337, #2340 and #2348 wrote a 1.5.0 changelog entry, and
#2398 and #2403 only reworded lines that were already there. Every other
user-visible change in the range -- wire-semantics fixes, maker guards,
reassembly behaviour, public-API and error-message changes -- went
unrecorded, so the entry no longer describes the release.

Fix: one entry per user-visible pull request, in each module section's
existing style and ordered by the issue it closes. Three pairs share a
bullet, since each is the direct follow-up or counterpart of the other:
#2393 with #2401, #2405 with #2407, and #2392 with #2403. The diff on the
entry file is purely additive.

Internal-only work is left out deliberately: dependency and action bumps
(#2387 to #2391), test-only and docs-prose passes (#2333, #2376, #2379,
#2380, #2402), the unreachable-branch removal (#2378), and the #: comment
marker the HIP Group and Packet crawlers now write (#2381). That last one
renders nothing either way: the marker lands inside the generated
_missing_ body, conf.py's exclude-members drops _missing_ from autodoc,
and a comment in a method body is not an attribute comment to begin with.

#2392 and #2403 are recorded together, under Added rather than Fixed, for
the declarations they introduce: __proto_key__ on each class owning a
__proto__ registry (#2392), __proto_dest__ on the enum registries and
Vendor.PROTO_DEST to generate it (#2403). The bullet names those classes
and registries rather than counting them, per the no-counted-numbers rule
for the unreleased entry. Both PRs added the autodoc entries, so both are
rendered public attributes. #2392's rejection-message
change is deliberately not recorded as a fix: the bare "code must be ..."
text it prefixed came from _check_code, which #2193 introduced and which
is in no release tag -- absent at v1.5.0b14 -- so no released version ever
emitted it. #2403 is no longer skipped as internal because it reworded an
existing bullet to name __proto_dest__ while nothing credited the
attribute's introduction.

Four claims are corrected against the source rather than carried over:
FTP_DATA shipped in pcapkit/protocols/application/ftp.py from 1.0.0, not
1.4.0 (class FTP_DATA(Raw) is there at v1.0.0); #2365's pre-fix fallback
read cmmd.value, so a .value-carrying object was accepted unchecked
rather than raising; #2399 left the dpkt adapter and the adapters'
ModuleNotFound raises alone, so it claims no universal prefix; and
#2397's old tail did name the version it got, so the entry quotes it and
gains the :issue:`2302` it was missing. #2370's "a Section Header Block
... still fails" sentence is dropped: #2369 settles the byte order first,
and an SHB built from raw octets with ctx=None now rebuilds byte-exact in
both byte orders.

CHANGELOG.md is regenerated with util/changelog_md.py.

Test: tests/project/ in full, 0 failures, including test_changelog_md.py's
in-step and supported-subset checks; util/changelog_md.py --check reports
the two files in step; the entry parses under docutils with no structural
warning.
JarryShaw added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 28, 2026
Problem: of the 60 pull requests merged in the #2312-#2407 range, only
#2334, #2336, #2337, #2340 and #2348 wrote a 1.5.0 changelog entry, and
#2398 and #2403 only reworded lines that were already there. Every other
user-visible change in the range -- wire-semantics fixes, maker guards,
reassembly behaviour, public-API and error-message changes -- went
unrecorded, so the entry no longer describes the release.

Fix: one entry per user-visible pull request, in each module section's
existing style and ordered by the issue it closes. Three pairs share a
bullet, since each is the direct follow-up or counterpart of the other:
#2393 with #2401, #2405 with #2407, and #2392 with #2403. The diff on the
entry file is purely additive.

Internal-only work is left out deliberately: dependency and action bumps
(#2387 to #2391), test-only and docs-prose passes (#2333, #2376, #2379,
#2380, #2402), the unreachable-branch removal (#2378), and the #: comment
marker the HIP Group and Packet crawlers now write (#2381). That last one
renders nothing either way: the marker lands inside the generated
_missing_ body, conf.py's exclude-members drops _missing_ from autodoc,
and a comment in a method body is not an attribute comment to begin with.

#2392 and #2403 are recorded together, under Added rather than Fixed, for
the declarations they introduce: __proto_key__ on each class owning a
__proto__ registry (#2392), __proto_dest__ on the enum registries and
Vendor.PROTO_DEST to generate it (#2403). The bullet names those classes
and registries rather than counting them, per the no-counted-numbers rule
for the unreleased entry. Both PRs added the autodoc entries, so both are
rendered public attributes. #2392's rejection-message
change is deliberately not recorded as a fix: the bare "code must be ..."
text it prefixed came from _check_code, which #2193 introduced and which
is in no release tag -- absent at v1.5.0b14 -- so no released version ever
emitted it. #2403 is no longer skipped as internal because it reworded an
existing bullet to name __proto_dest__ while nothing credited the
attribute's introduction.

Four claims are corrected against the source rather than carried over:
FTP_DATA shipped in pcapkit/protocols/application/ftp.py from 1.0.0, not
1.4.0 (class FTP_DATA(Raw) is there at v1.0.0); #2365's pre-fix fallback
read cmmd.value, so a .value-carrying object was accepted unchecked
rather than raising; #2399 left the dpkt adapter and the adapters'
ModuleNotFound raises alone, so it claims no universal prefix; and
#2397's old tail did name the version it got, so the entry quotes it and
gains the :issue:`2302` it was missing. #2370's "a Section Header Block
... still fails" sentence is dropped: #2369 settles the byte order first,
and an SHB built from raw octets with ctx=None now rebuilds byte-exact in
both byte orders.

CHANGELOG.md is regenerated with util/changelog_md.py.

Test: tests/project/ in full, 0 failures, including test_changelog_md.py's
in-step and supported-subset checks; util/changelog_md.py --check reports
the two files in step; the entry parses under docutils with no structural
warning.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

ci Pull requests that change CI or workflow configuration (ci: subject prefix) docs Pull requests that change documentation only (docs: subject prefix)

Projects

Status: Done

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

docs(ci): create-release's github job says tag runs release_tags check; tag checks inline

1 participant