docs(runbook): the two views-models blockers are cleared - #141
Open
Polichinel wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Conversation
…s verified
views-models#399 merged and #403 closed overnight. MONTHLY_REFRESH.md listed both
as blocking a delivery; it no longer should. Checked from this side rather than
taken on trust, because a merged PR is not the same as a correct declaration:
#399 deliveries/un_crafd.py now declares intent = live(since=date(2026, 8, 14)) —
backdated to when the first delivery actually ran, not to the merge. The
interlock chain was traced end to end: live -> status.upload_armed() ->
config_meta.py's "wire_upload_enabled" -> the manager's upload gate. All
three hops present, so a run now delivers rather than staging locally.
#403 both launchers pin views-postprocessing 1.1.1. BOTH is the load-bearing
part — they share one conda prefix, so moving only un_crafd would have left
the armed FAO leg on the defect. views-models verified the sequencing before
merging #399: with both armed on 1.1.1 the pin-safety guards pass 6/6, on
1.1.0 they fail 4/6.
Also recorded: the launcher verifies what pip actually installed by reading
direct_url.json and comparing it to the pin (views-models#385, after a
version-string pin silently no-opped a reinstall). With the caveat that if that
file cannot be read it warns and CONTINUES rather than stopping — so a silent
no-op reinstall remains possible in that narrow case. Their trade-off, stated here
so a reader of this runbook knows the guard is not absolute.
Nothing else changed. The refresh is still manual, and data-freshness.yml still
alarms if a month is missed.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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.
Docs only.
MONTHLY_REFRESH.mdlisted views-models#399 and #403 as blocking a delivery; both resolved overnight.Verified from this side rather than taken on trust — a merged PR is not the same as a correct declaration:
#399 —
deliveries/un_crafd.pynow declaresintent = live(since=date(2026, 8, 14)), backdated to when the first delivery actually ran rather than to the merge. Interlock chain traced end to end:live→status.upload_armed()→config_meta.py'swire_upload_enabled→ the manager's upload gate. A run now delivers.#403 — both launchers pin
views-postprocessing 1.1.1. Both is load-bearing: they share one conda prefix, so moving onlyun_crafdwould have left the armed FAO leg on the defect. views-models verified the sequencing before merging #399 — armed on1.1.1the pin-safety guards pass 6/6; on1.1.0they fail 4/6.Also recorded, with its caveat: the launcher compares
direct_url.jsonagainst the pin to confirm what pip actually installed (views-models#385) — but warns and continues if that file can't be read, so a silent no-op reinstall stays possible in that narrow case.uv run pytest -q -m "not integration"→ 1096 passed.