c66b010052
Phase 4 of #3464, following #3465, #3466 and #3502. Those cut the ceiling 305 -> 278 and made the rule accurate. This closes the remaining structural weakness: suppression was FILE-WIDE, so a single justified exemption silently absolved every other source-grep in that file, forever, including ones added later by someone else. hasAllowAnnotation did comments.some(...) over the whole file and returned {} early. A marker is now checked per report: a violation is suppressed only by a marker on its own line, or on a line above it with nothing but blank lines and other comments in between, bounded by MAX_MARKER_LOOKAHEAD_LINES = 8. The bound is comment-purity rather than raw distance, and that distinction is load-bearing: an intervening line of real code (a `test(...)` opener, say) ends the window even when the marker is physically close. Chosen from the actual placements in the affected files rather than picked a priori -- the repo's convention puts several lines of prose rationale between the marker and the code, so a tighter rule would have invalidated legitimate existing markers and forced churn for no correctness gain. Measured before writing any code, by running the real rule with the suppression check neutralized across all 1194 files its globs match: 14 violation sites in 8 files, and ZERO in files carrying no marker -- so the green build was legitimate, and the entire migration surface was those 14. 11 sites were mechanical: an existing marker already stated the right reason, it just sat too far away. Those were relocated to their call sites with the original #NNN citations preserved. Three were orphans -- the file's markers were about an entirely different concern and nobody had ever justified these reads. All three are fixed BEHAVIORALLY, with no new markers: install-minimal-hooks.test.cjs:975 asserted src.includes('gsd-update-check') && src.includes('replace(') against bin/install.js. It now calls the exported stripStaleGsdHookBlocks() on a legacy TOML fixture and asserts the actual stripped output. This is the case this phase was opened around: it could be added with no review friction and stay invisible indefinitely under file-wide amnesty. config.test.cjs:1917 regex-tested src/init.cts for detectGitCreateTag. It now drives `init complete-milestone` and asserts the git_create_tag field. config-schema.property.test.cjs:1107 did the same for detectFallowConfig; it now drives `init code-review` and asserts fallow_enabled. Each was proven RED against a broken production file and GREEN against the real one, with src/init.cts and bin/install.js confirmed byte-identical afterwards. Marker lines in the 8 files went 20 -> 24, against a filed expectation of "must not increase" (projected 14). That projection was wrong and is corrected on #3508 rather than met by deletion. It assumed every existing marker was a distant blanket that site-scoping would consolidate. Some are already site-adjacent and guard real source-greps the rule CANNOT detect -- verified in install-minimal-hooks.test.cjs:2686-2757, where seven markers each sit directly above a readFileSync(reloadScript) + .includes() pair reading hooks/gsd-config-reload.js. Removing them to hit a number would have repeated the Phase 1 mistake: deleting markers on "the rule doesn't fire" evidence when the rule provably cannot see the violation. An earlier revision of this commit message attributed that invisibility to the #3502 dynamic-path blind spot, on the grounds that reloadScript is a variable. Adversarial review caught that as a false causal claim and it is corrected here. looksLikeSourcePath's hasSourceDir regex is /['"](?:bin|lib|gsd-core|src)['"]/i, and those reads target hooks/ -- so a fully literal path.join(ROOT,'hooks','gsd-config-reload.js') is equally invisible. The variable indirection is irrelevant. This is a FIFTH, distinct blind spot: the source-dir allowlist omits hooks/, which is a real shipped production directory (eslint.config.mjs registers its own rule block for hooks/**/*.js). Recorded in 40-design.md Known limits and left for a follow-on phase -- widening the allowlist is unmeasured, and measuring before widening is the discipline #3502 established. The conclusion was right; the stated mechanism was not, and asserting an unverified cause is the error being corrected. The honest metric is not fewer markers. It is that every marker now sits adjacent to the specific read it justifies instead of absolving a whole file. Site-scoping turns one blanket marker covering N sites into N site markers by design; the count rising is the mechanism working. A second review finding is fixed here too. Suppression originally keyed only off the text-search line, so a marker placed directly above the readFileSync() call -- the intuitive place to annotate "this read is fine" -- did NOT suppress when the search sat on the following line, because the read's own assignment line breaks comment-purity. It failed safe (a loud error, never silent suppression), but it was a trap contributors would hit, and it contradicted this change's own claim that the placement rule would not force churn. A violation is now suppressed by a marker adjacent to EITHER the search site or the originating read. The violation is fundamentally the read+search pair, so annotating either half is legitimate, and it stays strictly site-scoped -- the decisive isolation row still holds. 17 RuleTester rows cover the new semantics. The decisive one asserts that a marker adjacent to one violation does NOT suppress an unrelated violation elsewhere in the same file -- exactly 1 error, reported at the second site. Teeth-checked by reverting the predicate to file-wide, confirming that row and two others flip pass->fail, then restoring. Two pre-existing RuleTester cases that asserted the old file-wide semantics were corrected. Compatibility held where it matters: 277 marker-bearing files have no detectable violation at all, and site-scoping makes their markers no-ops rather than errors. All stay green, untouched. Ceiling unchanged at 278; lint-allow-test-rule-refs reports 278/278. Deliberately not done here, and recorded for the follow-on phase: the same measurement found only 8 of 285 marker-bearing files contain a detectable violation. That suggests a large honest ceiling drop, but "the rule doesn't fire" is the unsound oracle that forced the Phase 1 revert of 295 files, and the rule still has documented blind spots -- as install-minimal-hooks itself demonstrates above. It needs two independent signals agreeing, which is only credible now that the rule is accurate. With suppression site-scoped, "an effective exemption" is finally well-defined, which is what makes re-pointing the ratchet at effective exemptions -- rather than at marker-text presence -- the natural next step. Closes #3508 Co-authored-by: sim <sim@local> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
122 KiB
122 KiB