kevinveenbirkenbachandClaude Opus 4.8
0bcd63b658
The merged subset feature failed test-lint: a .py under scripts/, a local parents[N] PROJECT_ROOT, a direct yaml.safe_load, an uncached read, and narration comments. - move scripts/meta/resolve/pr/subset_roles.py -> cli.meta.ci.subset_roles (scripts/ is .sh-only); dispatcher invokes it via python -m - parse via utils.cache.yaml.load_yaml_str; import utils.PROJECT_ROOT - test invokes the module via -m against real roles; nocheck the tempfile read - strip narration comments; docs document HOW not WHY Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
2.8 KiB
Summary
Briefly describe the desk-* change and the user workflow it affects.
Examples:
- Add a new desktop application role
- Fix broken workstation setup, launch, or package behavior
- Improve package setup for an existing workstation role
- Extend desktop integration, shell tooling, or user defaults
Template Type
Select the primary intent of this PR:
- Feature - Adds or extends workstation functionality
- Fix - Repairs broken or incorrect workstation behavior
Affected Roles and Platforms
List the impacted roles and workstation context.
- Primary
desk-*role(s): - Related
dev-*,drv-*,user-*, orsys-*role(s): - Distro(s) and desktop environment(s) tested:
Roles (optional 🧩 Subset CI scope)
Optional. Ignored unless a maintainer applies the 🧩 Subset label; without the label CI uses the diff-derived role set as usual. When the label is set, CI deploys only the roles listed here — each must be an existing roles/<id> directory, or the run fails. See pipeline.md.
roles:
# - desk-firefox
# - sys-version
Change Type
Select the semantic version impact of this change:
- Major - Breaking change
- Minor - New backwards-compatible feature
- Patch - Small improvement or compatible adjustment
Change Details
Explain what changed and why.
Key points:
- What user problem does this solve?
- Which package, package source, or integration was added or changed?
- How does this behave on the tested distro(s)?
- Which alternatives were considered?
Local Validation
Describe how the change was validated locally.
- Installation tested
- Application startup tested
- Basic workflow tested
- Screenshot attached for user-visible changes
Security Impact
Indicate whether this change has security implications.
- No relevant security impact
- Security impact present
If security impact is present, explain:
- Affected permissions, package trust, secrets, or exposed surfaces:
- Risk reduction, new exposure, or compatibility considerations:
- Security-specific validation performed:
Review Focus
Help reviewers focus on the riskiest parts of this PR. For repository-wide contribution and review expectations, see CONTRIBUTING.md.
- Highest-risk files, roles, or flows:
- Distro-specific or packaging concerns:
- Specific feedback requested from reviewers:
Definition of Done (DoD)
- The implementation follows the Definition of Done, and the contribution guidelines in CONTRIBUTING.md were considered and applied during implementation.
Additional Notes
Add any reviewer context for packages, distro-specific behavior, or follow-up work.