Skip to content

ci: declare the gkp-8cpu-16gb-arm64 runner label for actionlint - #638

Merged
luisleo526 merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
ci/actionlint-gkp-arm64-label
Oct 29, 2026
Merged

luisleo526 merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
ci/actionlint-gkp-arm64-label

Conversation

@luisleo526

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Declares the gkp-8cpu-16gb-arm64 runner label in .github/actionlint.yaml. No workflow uses it yet; a follow-up moves the release ARM tarball build onto that runner. The label must be on main first, because admission checks a pull request's workflows against main's label table.

Verification: the full lab gate passed on this exact commit (preflight, release, debug, sanitizers, kernel, docs, parity, subset).

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

luisleo526 and others added 2 commits October 30, 2026 00:51
The release workflow will run its prebuilt linux-aarch64 tarball on the protected GKE
runner gkp-8cpu-16gb-arm64. The label is valid in the org canon (runner group
gke-protected), but this repository's actionlint table does not list it yet, so
actionlint would refuse any workflow that names it.

Admission judges a pull request's workflow files with the base branch's rule table, so a
change cannot add a label and use it in the same pull request. Land the label first, on its
own; the workflow change follows.

No workflow uses the label yet.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5.5 <[email protected]>
The engine ruleset requires the branch to be up to date with main. A merge commit keeps
the pushed head 86ca980 in the history; no rebase and no force push.

The branch's own change is unchanged: .github/actionlint.yaml gains the
gkp-8cpu-16gb-arm64 runner label and nothing else.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5.5 <[email protected]>

@graphify-labs graphify-labs Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Graphify reviewed this change.

No issues found by static checks — no coupling regressions or blocking issues in the code graph. That is not the same as safe to merge: see what was not checked.

Not checked: tests were not run; no formal proof of the changed code.


No blocking issues. I didn't find anything I'd hold the merge for.

Analysis details — impact, health, verification

Impact & health

Graphify review

Impact — 0 functions depend on the 0 functions this change touches.

Health — grade A; no new coupling hotspots.

Verification — 0 functions in the blast radius were not formally verified this run (proofs are advisory here).

Gate & verification

graphify gate

PASS — objectively clean (no health regressions, tests not run — proofs not run this pass (advisory)). Grounded, not self-assessed.

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.

1 participant