6edd506cc7
* fix(#4558): report a byte-identical restore destination as already_present restore-custom-files treated a destination that is byte-identical to its backup exactly like a missing one: plan reported it as `eligible`, --apply re-copied the same bytes and reported `restored`, and both counters included it. Because update.md drives its restore question off eligible_count, the workflow re-offered the same no-op restore on every update and accepting it never settled anything. Emit a distinct `already_present` outcome for that case. It is excluded from eligible_count and restored_count, --apply writes nothing for it, and the backup is left intact. A differing destination is still skipped_destination_exists and a missing one still restores normally. Regression tests cover the identical-destination plan/apply paths, the idempotence-after-success cycle (missing -> restored -> silent plan), and a mixed backup. Docs for the outcome enum are updated to match. * fix(#4558): tighten already_present wording after review update.md's RESTORE_ELIGIBLE == 0 branch now also names the already-present case, CLI-TOOLS.md no longer calls the follow-up plan run "silent" (the entry is still reported, just never offered), and a test message reads correctly. * chore(#4558): add changeset fragment for #4599 * chore(#4558): acknowledge update.md growth from the restore-outcome guidance Emitted-Drift-Ack-Growth: update.md — added already_present restore-outcome guidance for #4558 --------- Co-authored-by: TwistedRiCen <16397953+TwistedRiCen@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Tom Boucher <trekkie@nomorestars.com>
396 B
396 B
type, pr
| type | pr |
|---|---|
| Fixed | 4599 |
restore-custom-files no longer re-offers a file that is already byte-identical to its backup — such an entry is reported as already_present, excluded from eligible_count and restored_count, and never rewritten under --apply, so the update workflow's restore prompt settles after one successful restore instead of asking again on every update. (#4558)