Setting the release number was a platform change. FORGEFIRM_RELEASE sat
in forgefirm-image.bb, the recipe hashes as content of meta-forgefirm,
and a change to the content of a layer invalidates every acceptance
result. So a version bump threw away the campaign that was meant to
authorize that very release, and the number therefore had to be decided
before the image the campaign ran on. Nothing said so: the release-flow
page went straight from the kas configuration to the artifact and the
pipeline, while the gate quietly required the recipe value, the rootfs
stamp, the archive's meta-version and the tag to agree. v0.0.1 was cut
on a tree whose number happened to be right; the next one would have
cost a second campaign to discover the rule.
The number moves to forgefirm-release.inc, which carries it and nothing
else, and the manifest leaves that file out of the layer content hash
exactly as it leaves out the component pin files
(FORGEFIRM_MANIFEST_VERSION_SUFFIX, and the same list in
scripts/manifest-from-tree.py, which computes the identity on a
workstation and must agree byte for byte). release.sh reads the number
from the new file.
The version is metadata, not platform content, and this only makes the
manifest say what it already meant: the version string was already
outside the identity hash, and it was the file carrying it that defeated
that. Nothing is weakened. release.sh still requires the number to equal
the rootfs stamp, the .fw meta-version and the release tag, and
image.health still compares the stamp on the running machine with the
manifest's.
Proven: the tree manifest is byte-identical across a bump from 0.0.1 to
0.0.2 (identity a64e51b8e5ecca0af683d4f0 either way, the meta-forgefirm
layer hash unchanged), where before the two differed. bitbake resolves
FORGEFIRM_RELEASE=0.0.1 and FORGEFIRM_VERSION_STRING=v0.0.1 for the
release image through the new require, and the dev image still overrides
the string with its build timestamp.
The inheritance walk skipped every record that was not a PASS on the
current fingerprint, so a FAIL or ERROR recorded after a PASS on the
same image was stepped over and the older PASS inherited into the next
campaign. The newest record on the fingerprint now decides: a PASS is
inherited, a FAIL or ERROR blocks it (reason failed-since), an ABORTED
run says nothing. Unit tests for all three orders.
ffboot, the tool that rewrites the boot environment on every install and
slot switch, was packaged from scripts/ outside every fingerprint. It
now lives in the recipe's files and the recipe inherits the manifest
class; the tree manifest tool fingerprints file components the same
way, and the update tests cover the component.
forgectrl.settings-bounds fell back to ui_units=mm, which the whitelist
refuses, so the always-required test failed on a fresh machine; the
fallback is metric.
A component pin bump counted as a platform change: the layer content hash
in the platform identity covered the recipe carrying the SRCREV, the
platform is folded into every acceptance fingerprint, so every image
that carried any component update invalidated the whole catalog (dev
image 20260816191951: every test domain-changed after a one-line
forgectrl bump; the two manifests differ only in
platform.layers.meta-forgefirm). The component entry already identifies
the pinned source file by file; the pin double-counted it.
Component pins now live in <recipe>-pin.inc (SRCREV and the PV that
moves with it, nothing else) - forgectrl, grblhal-glowforge and
forgefirm-app here, the BSP components in meta-openglow - and
forgefirm-image-manifest.bbclass leaves *-pin.inc out of the layer
content (FORGEFIRM_MANIFEST_PIN_SUFFIX). Recipe bodies, patches, config
fragments, init scripts and third-party pins with no manifest entry stay
layer content; a pin written into a recipe body still hashes (the safe
direction). manifest-from-tree.py mirrors the rule and reads pins
through the recipe's requires; test_tree_manifest.py proves both
(pin bump: hash unchanged; recipe body or inline pin: changed).
Bitbake resolves the same SRCREV/PV for every pinned recipe.
Docs: ACCEPTANCE.md (what layer content is), kas/README.md (the pin
files in the push order), BRINGUP.md (the finding and the bench
consequence: the first image built with the pin files is itself a
platform change, so its campaign is a full one; pin bumps inherit
after it).
No catalog consequence: nothing in the image's behavior changes; the
change is to the acceptance identity computation, proven by the unit
tests and the CI lint on the tree manifest.
scripts/acceptance-gate.py recomputes every catalog test's domain fingerprint
from /etc/forgefirm-manifest.json inside the release rootfs and requires the
committed releases/v<version>/acceptance.json to carry a matching PASS
(inherited results not core and newer than the invalidate epoch; the artifact
self-hashed; the catalog identical to the tree). release.sh runs it after the
build and stages the artifact as a release asset; FORGEFIRM_ACCEPTANCE_SKIP=1
bypasses loudly. scripts/manifest-from-tree.py builds the same manifest from
the recipe pins with git for CI and the workstation; forgetest-ci.yml runs the
unit tests and enforces the coverage lint (every manifest path covered by some
test). docs/ACCEPTANCE.md is the contract; the coverage currency rule and the
status live in BRINGUP.
ScottW514