The publishability gate caught internal tooling names and developer paths but
nothing site-specific, so roughly sixty leaks reached the wiki: the site name in
ten documents, real fleet hostnames in the collector and GE-Enforce examples, an
internal database name through the whole import guide, imaging-share paths, and
a maintainer's username as the Deciders line of every ADR and inside a generated
curl example.
None of it is a security matter on an air-gapped fleet. It matters because these
pages are read by engineers at other plants, and a document that names one site
throughout reads as that site's notes rather than a product's documentation -
which is exactly what it then gets treated as.
Examples now use neutral hostnames, the site is "the reference site" where the
distinction carries meaning, and ADRs are decided by "ShopDB maintainers". The
gate carries all of these patterns, so the next one fails a build.
Two documents leave docs/ because they were never written for an outside reader.
PROJECT-REVIEW.md is an internal health memo pinned to a commit from July, whose
headline finding (an untracked playbook) has since been fixed - it is history,
and git holds it. PILOT-DEPLOY.md is one site's own cutover runbook, complete
with a "re-measure before publishing" placeholder; it moves next to the loader
it belongs to, in scripts/site_imports/wjf/.
ADR-015 is AMENDED rather than rewritten. Its enforcement section still said
report-only and its backlog still listed hardcodes that are now cleared, which
left the record contradicting itself. The amendment says what changed and why
the report-only period ended; the original text stays, because what the decision
looked like when it was taken is the part worth keeping.
Also corrects llms.txt's response envelope, which had errors at the top level
and pagination at meta.total. Both are nested one deeper, so anything written
against that description read undefined on every error it tried to handle.
An ACCEPTED ADR ended with a stray tool-call fragment - it said nothing to a
reader and everything about how the document was produced, which is not what a
decision record is for. And the cutover playbook carried a real internal IP in a
file otherwise correctly scrubbed to documentation ranges. Both were published.
The publishability gate now catches all three shapes, so the next one fails a
build instead of reaching the wiki.
The adoption guide also told a site to copy two files that ship from nowhere:
the asset reporter and EventSaver are both on the reference site's imaging
share, not in this repository, and the guide never said so - it could not be
followed as written. It now states, per artifact, where each comes from, which
of them are pending a move into this repository, and that EventSaver can be
rebuilt from its one source file rather than taken on trust as a binary.
The scanner has been reporting the same count for weeks, which is what a rule
that only prints becomes. It now FAILS the build, and it looks where the leaks
actually were: PowerShell, the installer, the seeds, generated JSON, the
frontend - case-insensitively, across plugins, shopdb, scripts, deploy, tools.
A line that is deliberate declares itself with an ADR-015-OK marker and a
reason, so the claim is visible in review instead of tolerated in silence.
What it found, fixed here:
- The shadow client wrote one site's ShopDB URL into HKLM whenever the registry
disagreed. At the site it was written for that reads as healing drift;
anywhere else it overwrites the site's own address on every enforce cycle,
and the site cannot win because the cycle repeats. The bay's value now wins,
an explicit -BaseUrl seeds it, and with neither there is nothing honest to
write, so it says so and skips.
- The kiosk dispatcher fell back to one plant's host when HKLM was unset, so a
kiosk elsewhere quietly opened a server it has no business reaching. The
fallback is now this site's site_base_url, baked in at seed time, and the
dispatcher refuses rather than guessing when neither is set. Its legacy
shortcut matcher derives the host from that URL instead of naming one.
- The OpenAPI generator hardcoded a production hostname into every spec it
generated, which then published to a public wiki. The relative mount is the
only server it can honestly name; a site passes its own by environment.
- Placeholders and examples in the UI and the client help offered real internal
subnets and a real production URL. They now use documentation ranges.
Both publication gates - the export scrub and the docs publishability test -
carry the site patterns, which neither did. One plant's hostname, FQDN and
internal networks are out of the documentation and the generated specs.
Comments naming the reference site are reworded rather than deleted: the
reasoning is worth keeping, the plant name is not what makes it true.
The GitHub backend job failed on test_there_are_docs_to_check, correctly. docs/
is stripped from the published repository - it lives in the wiki on that side -
so on the mirror the glob matched nothing and the guard fired exactly as
designed.
An absent docs/ and a glob that silently matches nothing in a tree that HAS docs
are different conditions, and the test conflated them. The module now skips when
the directory is not there at all, and the guard still fails when it is there and
empty. Verified all three ways: 7 pass here, 7 skip in a docs-less checkout, and
the guard still fails against a docs/ containing no markdown.
The gate has to ship rather than be excluded from publication, because the
published tree is where the GitHub CI that would catch a regression runs.
rsync --exclude also PROTECTS a path from --delete, so anything that reached the
publication tree before its exclude existed stayed there permanently - invisible
to the sync and surfacing only as a scrub-gate failure. That cost two rounds of
'add the exclude, still fails' on the installer bundle and again on
.pytest_cache. The generated paths are now purged before the sync, so adding an
exclude is sufficient on its own.
tests/test_docs_publishable.py assembles its search terms from fragments: a file
containing the literal strings the scrub greps for tripped that scrub on itself.
Excluding the file from publication would have removed the check from the
repository it protects.
docs/ is excluded from the code bundle and its scrub gate, because it goes to
the GitHub wiki instead - via a generator that has no gate at all. So the one
part of the repository written in prose, by people, about internal
infrastructure, was the one part nothing checked.
What was reaching a public wiki: the internal git server's URL and hostname,
.gitea workflow paths, developer home directories in the GE-Enforce cutover
reference, and a dev database root password inside a copy-pasteable command in
the import guide.
All replaced with neutral equivalents. tests/test_docs_publishable.py is now the
gate, at the source, in CI - a wiki page cannot be un-published, so catching this
after the fact is not good enough.
PROJECT-REVIEW.md also referred to internal tooling by name throughout; those
references are generalised. It remains an internal candid assessment of this
project that is nonetheless published, which is worth a separate decision.
