Skip to content

fix(ci): call the secret scanner from proven-cicd-and-workflows - #500

Merged
hyperpolymath merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
marina/optimistic-cray-js64k7
Nov 10, 2026
Merged

hyperpolymath merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
marina/optimistic-cray-js64k7

Conversation

@hyperpolymath

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Summary

hyperpolymath/proven-cicd is being retired. Its commits were merged into hyperpolymath/proven-cicd-and-workflows (proven-cicd-and-workflows#95). This PR moves the Secret Scanner call to the new repository before the owner deletes the old one.

  • Before: hyperpolymath/proven-cicd/.github/workflows/secret-scanner-reusable.yml@a12b2b4
  • After: hyperpolymath/proven-cicd-and-workflows/.github/workflows/secret-scanner-reusable.yml@1fd5e63 (the merge of proven-cicd-and-workflows#94)

a12b2b4 is an ancestor of 1fd5e63. The reusable workflow differs in 1 line: the caller check also admits proven-cicd-and-workflows. This call needs that line.

actions.lock is not changed

Since #495, the lock does not record job-level reusable-workflow calls: governance installs gh-actions-lock v0.2.0, which rejects those records as stale. The entry for secret-scanner.yml stays [].

The Workflow Security Linter refresh candidate (run 42889686324) still adds those records back: 149 lines, for this call and 7 other reusable calls. Applying it would undo #495 and turn governance red again, so this PR does not apply it. That refresh step and the governance gate now disagree; this is a separate defect for the owner.

Test plan

  • Secret Scanner runs at the new pin and its caller check passes.
  • governance / Actions lockfile verify stays green.

Generated by Claude Code

hyperpolymath/proven-cicd is being retired; its commits were merged into
hyperpolymath/proven-cicd-and-workflows (proven-cicd-and-workflows#95).
The pin moves from proven-cicd@a12b2b4 to proven-cicd-and-workflows@
1fd5e63 (the #94 merge). a12b2b4 is an ancestor of 1fd5e63, and the
reusable workflow differs in one line only: its caller check also
admits the new repository name, which this call needs.

Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_0136P7ZmAsYpFA9gxfQLF3F6
Signed-off-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Nov 10, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Warning

Review limit reached

You've used all free OSS reviews for now. Wait for the free limit to reset to keep reviewing this public repository.

Next included review available in 50 minutes.

Check out review usage here.

View limit details

Limit details: You’ve used the included review currently available.

Learn how review limits work.

Review configuration:

Run configuration

  • Source mode: Auto
  • Repository: Unavailable
  • Branch: Unavailable
  • File: No configuration file from this repository applied
  • Commit: Unavailable
  • Layers: Organization UI
  • Review profile: ASSERTIVE
  • Plan: Advanced
  • Run ID: a71da3a6-6d3e-4c34-87be-0203de9c1685
Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 2acbf31 and 1229f09.

Files selected for processing: 1

  • .github/workflows/secret-scanner.yml
  • Autofix · Keep fixing CodeRabbit findings and required CI, and resolving merge conflicts

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

Share

@hyperpolymath
hyperpolymath marked this pull request as ready for review November 10, 2026 20:01
@chatgpt-codex-connector

Copy link
Copy Markdown

This security review couldn’t start because the paying account has exhausted its Codex allowance and has insufficient available credits. The payer can check their balance and add credits in the Codex usage dashboard, then try again. If you do not manage the paying account, contact this repository's admins.

@chatgpt-codex-connector

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Nov 10, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Codex Review Summary: ✅ Completed

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review Status Commit Review trigger
📝 Code Review ✅ Completed 2026-11-10T20:03:28.905755Z 1229f09 Draft marked ready
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

@sonarqubecloud

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@hyperpolymath
hyperpolymath merged commit 18828c3 into main Nov 10, 2026
62 of 63 checks passed
@hyperpolymath
hyperpolymath deleted the marina/optimistic-cray-js64k7 branch November 10, 2026 20:03
hyperpolymath added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 10, 2026
## Summary

The Workflow Security Linter refresh and the committed `actions.lock`
produced different locks. This PR makes them agree, using the form the
owner chose: the form that the standards refresh tool writes.

The candidate is applied without edits, from the "Prepare official
actions.lock refresh candidate" step of run 42897428598 on `18828c3`.
That run reports `close-lock: 0 dangling refs`, `prune-stale: oracle
vetoes 0` and `actions.lock is in sync`. It restores the
reusable-workflow records that #495 removed: 8 job-level reusable calls,
with their transitive actions.

## Why this is safe for governance

#495 removed these records as stale. The governance gate accepts them,
however. Its verifier (standards `a797d30`,
`scripts/update-actions-lock.sh`, `verify_lock_coverage`) accepts a
`stale` finding when the workflow calls that exact
`owner/repo/.github/workflows/…@ref`. The governance log on `d98b0e2`
shows that 7 of the 8 records were accepted. It rejected only 1:
`security-scan.yml → panic-attack@be6ac46`, which was stale because #491
had moved the call to `55ffcc9`. This form passed governance on
`453fe3b` (#496).

The refresh run above printed the same "Accepted reusable-workflow lock
coverage" line for each of the 8 current calls.

## Correction

#500 said that applying this candidate would turn governance red. That
was wrong, for the reason above.

## Test plan

- [ ] governance / Actions lockfile verify passes on this head.

---
_Generated by [Claude
Code](https://claude.ai/code/session_0136P7ZmAsYpFA9gxfQLF3F6)_

Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants