Files
Triple-C/app
shadow-testandClaude Sonnet 5 049232099b
Secret Scan / scan (push) Successful in 24s
Build App (Preview) / compute-version (pull_request) Successful in 6s
Secret Scan / scan (pull_request) Successful in 6s
Build App (Preview) / create-release (pull_request) Successful in 1s
Build App (Preview) / build-macos (pull_request) Successful in 2m39s
Build App (Preview) / build-windows (pull_request) Successful in 4m44s
Build App (Preview) / build-linux (pull_request) Successful in 6m17s
Build App (Preview) / prune-previews (pull_request) Successful in 1s
Dedupe the preview-build predicate, fix two comment inaccuracies
Final review pass gave this a clean bill of health overall but named
three small things:

- get_app_version() and check_for_updates() each read
  option_env!("TRIPLE_C_BUILD_SUFFIX") independently with slightly
  different idioms — if one were ever edited alone, the About panel and
  the update check could silently disagree about whether this is a
  preview build. Extracted preview_build_suffix() as the single place
  that reads and classifies it.
- pick_update's doc comment described the unparseable-tag case as a
  `-preview.<sha>` suffix; the actual tag build-app-preview.yml creates is
  `preview-<sha>` (no version, no dot) — already correct in the
  neighboring GitHubRelease::prerelease comment, just not here.
- That same prerelease comment claimed defence against a preview release
  leaking through backfill-releases.yml, but a preview's tag already fails
  semver parsing on its own — this field's actual job is the case parsing
  can't catch: a normally-tagged release someone flags prerelease on
  Gitea (a hotfix candidate, an RC) that a backfill would otherwise mirror
  as-is.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01FGjXq6fqtAFHdbhk4f3PfZ
2026-08-27 10:34:56 -07:00
..