feat(runway): git merger PROMOTE - #462
Merged
Merged
Conversation
This was referenced Jul 29, 2026
behinddwalls
force-pushed
the
preetam/runway-git-merger-promote
branch
from
July 30, 2026 16:12
5514286 to
7c2728f
Compare
behinddwalls
force-pushed
the
preetam/runway-git-merger-squash-merge
branch
2 times, most recently
from
July 30, 2026 16:16
4402c53 to
9f7c9c0
Compare
behinddwalls
force-pushed
the
preetam/runway-git-merger-promote
branch
from
July 30, 2026 16:16
7c2728f to
ddfaebd
Compare
behinddwalls
force-pushed
the
preetam/runway-git-merger-squash-merge
branch
from
July 30, 2026 16:51
9f7c9c0 to
7a32efb
Compare
behinddwalls
force-pushed
the
preetam/runway-git-merger-promote
branch
from
July 30, 2026 16:51
ddfaebd to
d305166
Compare
behinddwalls
marked this pull request as ready for review
July 30, 2026 17:06
behinddwalls
force-pushed
the
preetam/runway-git-merger-squash-merge
branch
from
July 30, 2026 17:13
7a32efb to
324ed18
Compare
behinddwalls
force-pushed
the
preetam/runway-git-merger-promote
branch
from
July 30, 2026 17:13
d305166 to
9d0e8b7
Compare
behinddwalls
force-pushed
the
preetam/runway-git-merger-squash-merge
branch
from
July 30, 2026 17:55
324ed18 to
7e8e1e6
Compare
behinddwalls
force-pushed
the
preetam/runway-git-merger-promote
branch
from
July 30, 2026 17:55
9d0e8b7 to
ba92c9c
Compare
behinddwalls
force-pushed
the
preetam/runway-git-merger-squash-merge
branch
from
July 30, 2026 18:05
7e8e1e6 to
e85c9ca
Compare
behinddwalls
force-pushed
the
preetam/runway-git-merger-promote
branch
from
July 30, 2026 18:05
ba92c9c to
dcecbbe
Compare
behinddwalls
force-pushed
the
preetam/runway-git-merger-promote
branch
from
July 30, 2026 18:07
dcecbbe to
e3972ff
Compare
behinddwalls
force-pushed
the
preetam/runway-git-merger-squash-merge
branch
from
July 30, 2026 19:25
e85c9ca to
f5df112
Compare
behinddwalls
force-pushed
the
preetam/runway-git-merger-promote
branch
from
July 30, 2026 19:25
e3972ff to
d060c76
Compare
behinddwalls
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 30, 2026
## Summary ### Why? SubmitQueue records in-flight merge work before publishing and then waits for exactly one `MergeResult` echoing its correlation id. Runway is stateless and the sole responder on that id, so every request must resolve to a result — or the client waits forever. The primary controllers resolve what they can name: conflicts and invalid requests become a `FAILED` result, infrastructure faults are nacked for retry. But a fault that never recovers exhausts the retry budget and dead-letters. Nothing consumed those dead-letter topics, so the request produced no signal at all and the client's correlation id hung indefinitely. ### What? Adds `runway/controller/dlq`, a reconciler that subscribes to an inbound topic's `_dlq` queue and, for each dead-lettered `MergeRequest`, republishes a `FAILED` `MergeResult` echoing the correlation id to the corresponding signal topic. `dlq.TopicKey` derives the DLQ topic key from the primary one so the two stay in lockstep. Unlike the SubmitQueue and Stovepipe DLQ reconcilers this one writes no entity state — Runway has none, and the signal *is* the resolution. A payload that cannot be decoded carries no correlation id and is dropped rather than retried forever. Wires two instances in the server (one per inbound topic) on a dedicated consumer running under `errs.AlwaysRetryableProcessor`, so a transient publish failure retries indefinitely rather than dead-lettering the dead-letter. The DLQ consumer is started alongside the primary one and stopped with the same 30s drain on shutdown; both stop errors are joined into the exit status. ## Test Plan ✅ `bazel test //runway/...` — 5/5 pass, including new `//runway/controller/dlq` coverage for republish-on-dead-letter, the drop-undecodable-payload path, and publish-failure propagation ✅ `bazel build //service/runway/...` — wiring compiles ✅ `make gazelle`, `make fmt` ## Stack 1. @ #459 1. #460 1. #461 1. #462 1. #463 1. #476 1. #477
behinddwalls
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 30, 2026
## Summary ### Why? PR #443 disabled this workflow outright (`if: false`) when the repo moved to GitHub's native stacked PRs. That was too blunt: native stacks and hand-rolled `arh` chains coexist here today. Stacks #470, #472 and #474 are native, while #460 → #461 → #462 → #463 → #476 is a plain chain whose every member reports `stack: null`. With the workflow off, merging any PR in a hand-rolled chain leaves the children still carrying their parent's commits — precisely the broken-diff problem this workflow was written to fix. GitHub owns the lifecycle of its own stacks: on a partial merge it rebases and retargets the surviving members itself, so the workflow must not touch those. It only needs to tell the two apart rather than give up on both. ### What? Re-enables the job and skips only the PRs GitHub actually owns, instead of switching the whole workflow off. A `detect_stack` helper resolves native-stack membership from `GET /repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{n}`. It queries the REST API at run time rather than reading `github.event.pull_request.stack` off the webhook payload, so a PR added to a stack after the merge event was queued is still recognised. Membership survives merge — a merged member still reports its stack — which is what makes the lookup meaningful at this point in the lifecycle. The check is applied **per child PR**, not to the merged PR. GitHub only ever rebases a stack's own members; a PR that targets a member's head branch without joining the stack is invisible to that machinery. Skipping the whole chain whenever the merged PR happened to be a stack member would therefore strand such a PR with exactly the broken diff this workflow exists to prevent. `rebase_chain` always runs; each child that is a stack member is skipped and not recursed into, while its siblings rebase normally. Membership of the merged PR is logged for context and gates nothing. Presence is tested on the `stack` object itself rather than on `stack.number`. Probing a sub-field means a stack object arriving without that field reads as "standalone" and gets force-pushed — the unsafe direction to fail in. The number is used only for logging. An unreadable response still falls back to standalone, since the Stacks API 404s when the feature is not enabled for a repo, which is exactly when the rebase is wanted. `cleanup_orphaned_merged_branches` still runs on every merge, including those where every child turned out to be GitHub's to rebase. This workflow therefore remains the sole owner of head-branch deletion, and native-stack head branches are reaped here too, each on the first merge after GitHub has retargeted its successors off it. This depends on "Automatically delete head branches" being OFF, as the header has always documented — otherwise GitHub retargets children to `main` before the job runs and the non-native path silently no-ops on a green job. The setting has been turned off on the repo. ## Test Plan ✅ YAML parses; job `if` and step `env` verified after the edit. ✅ `bash -n` clean on the extracted `run:` block under bash 5.2, the version Actions runners use. Note for future edits: macOS `/bin/bash` 3.2 reports a spurious `syntax error near ';;'` on this script — it cannot parse the heredoc nested in `$( )`, so it blames a line far from the real construct. ✅ `actionlint` v1.7.7 — clean. ✅ `zizmor` v1.25.2 (`--no-online-audits`, the version CI pins) — no findings, 2 ignored and 5 suppressed, confirming the existing `.github/zizmor.yml` exceptions still cover the file. ✅ `yamlfmt` v0.16.0 `-lint` — clean. ✅ `detect_stack` exercised against live PRs in this repo: | PR | `.stack` | Result | | --- | --- | --- | | #467 | stack #470, position 4/6, merged | native → skipped | | #468 | stack #470, position 5/6, open | native → skipped | | #404 | stack #472 | native → skipped | | #457 | stack #475, size 1 | native → skipped | | #443 | `null` | standalone → rebased | | #460 | `null` | standalone → rebased | | #999999 | HTTP 404 | warns, treated as standalone, no `set -euo pipefail` abort | ✅ The sub-field trap verified directly: a synthetic `{"stack":{"id":51488,"position":4,"size":6}}` with no `number` reads as standalone under `.stack.number // empty`, and as in-a-stack under the expression shipped here. ✅ Observed reference case — the merge of #467 (position 4 of stack #470). GitHub retargeted #468 from `preetam/stovepipe-buildsignal-outcome` to `main` and left #469 on #468's branch, confirming both that GitHub handles its own members and that a merged member retains its `stack` object. The rebase itself can only be exercised post-merge. On the next merge of a hand-rolled chain (the runway series is the live case) watch for `=== Stack rebase complete ===` and a child retargeted with only its own commits; on a native-stack merge watch for each member child logging `skipped: belongs to native stack #N`, followed by the branch sweep. The first sweep will also reap `preetam/stovepipe-buildsignal-outcome`, which is currently orphaned — it merged after auto-delete was turned off and has no open dependents.
behinddwalls
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 30, 2026
## Summary ### Why? PR #443 disabled this workflow outright (`if: false`) when the repo moved to GitHub's native stacked PRs. That was too blunt: native stacks and hand-rolled `arh` chains coexist here today. Stacks #470, #472 and #474 are native, while #460 → #461 → #462 → #463 → #476 is a plain chain whose every member reports `stack: null`. With the workflow off, merging any PR in a hand-rolled chain leaves the children still carrying their parent's commits — precisely the broken-diff problem this workflow was written to fix. GitHub owns the lifecycle of its own stacks: on a partial merge it rebases and retargets the surviving members itself, so the workflow must not touch those. It only needs to tell the two apart rather than give up on both. ### What? Re-enables the job and skips only the PRs GitHub actually owns, instead of switching the whole workflow off. A `detect_stack` helper resolves native-stack membership from `GET /repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{n}`. It queries the REST API at run time rather than reading `github.event.pull_request.stack` off the webhook payload, so a PR added to a stack after the merge event was queued is still recognised. Membership survives merge — a merged member still reports its stack — which is what makes the lookup meaningful at this point in the lifecycle. The check is applied **per child PR**, not to the merged PR. GitHub only ever rebases a stack's own members; a PR that targets a member's head branch without joining the stack is invisible to that machinery. Skipping the whole chain whenever the merged PR happened to be a stack member would therefore strand such a PR with exactly the broken diff this workflow exists to prevent. `rebase_chain` always runs; each child that is a stack member is skipped and not recursed into, while its siblings rebase normally. Membership of the merged PR is logged for context and gates nothing. Presence is tested on the `stack` object itself rather than on `stack.number`. Probing a sub-field means a stack object arriving without that field reads as "standalone" and gets force-pushed — the unsafe direction to fail in. The number is used only for logging. An unreadable response still falls back to standalone, since the Stacks API 404s when the feature is not enabled for a repo, which is exactly when the rebase is wanted. `cleanup_orphaned_merged_branches` still runs on every merge, including those where every child turned out to be GitHub's to rebase. This workflow therefore remains the sole owner of head-branch deletion, and native-stack head branches are reaped here too, each on the first merge after GitHub has retargeted its successors off it. This depends on "Automatically delete head branches" being OFF, as the header has always documented — otherwise GitHub retargets children to `main` before the job runs and the non-native path silently no-ops on a green job. The setting has been turned off on the repo. ## Test Plan ✅ YAML parses; job `if` and step `env` verified after the edit. ✅ `bash -n` clean on the extracted `run:` block under bash 5.2, the version Actions runners use. Note for future edits: macOS `/bin/bash` 3.2 reports a spurious `syntax error near ';;'` on this script — it cannot parse the heredoc nested in `$( )`, so it blames a line far from the real construct. ✅ `actionlint` v1.7.7 — clean. ✅ `zizmor` v1.25.2 (`--no-online-audits`, the version CI pins) — no findings, 2 ignored and 5 suppressed, confirming the existing `.github/zizmor.yml` exceptions still cover the file. ✅ `yamlfmt` v0.16.0 `-lint` — clean. ✅ `detect_stack` exercised against live PRs in this repo: | PR | `.stack` | Result | | --- | --- | --- | | #467 | stack #470, position 4/6, merged | native → skipped | | #468 | stack #470, position 5/6, open | native → skipped | | #404 | stack #472 | native → skipped | | #457 | stack #475, size 1 | native → skipped | | #443 | `null` | standalone → rebased | | #460 | `null` | standalone → rebased | | #999999 | HTTP 404 | warns, treated as standalone, no `set -euo pipefail` abort | ✅ The sub-field trap verified directly: a synthetic `{"stack":{"id":51488,"position":4,"size":6}}` with no `number` reads as standalone under `.stack.number // empty`, and as in-a-stack under the expression shipped here. ✅ Observed reference case — the merge of #467 (position 4 of stack #470). GitHub retargeted #468 from `preetam/stovepipe-buildsignal-outcome` to `main` and left #469 on #468's branch, confirming both that GitHub handles its own members and that a merged member retains its `stack` object. The rebase itself can only be exercised post-merge. On the next merge of a hand-rolled chain (the runway series is the live case) watch for `=== Stack rebase complete ===` and a child retargeted with only its own commits; on a native-stack merge watch for each member child logging `skipped: belongs to native stack #N`, followed by the branch sweep. The first sweep will also reap `preetam/stovepipe-buildsignal-outcome`, which is currently orphaned — it merged after auto-delete was turned off and has no open dependents.
kevinlnew
reviewed
Jul 30, 2026
kevinlnew
approved these changes
Jul 30, 2026
behinddwalls
force-pushed
the
preetam/runway-git-merger-squash-merge
branch
from
July 30, 2026 23:38
f5df112 to
5646e4c
Compare
behinddwalls
force-pushed
the
preetam/runway-git-merger-promote
branch
from
July 30, 2026 23:38
d060c76 to
86b485c
Compare
behinddwalls
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 31, 2026
## Summary ### Why? Runway's `merger` extension has had exactly one implementation — `noop`, which always succeeds. Nothing actually merges anything. This lands the first real backend: a `Merger` driven by the `git` CLI against a local checkout. It ships REBASE only. The strategy-specific apply paths are small and independent, but the machinery underneath them — the pinned git runtime, object resolution, the reset/apply/push cycle, contention retry, dry-run discard, conflict classification — is shared and is the bulk of what needs review. Landing it with one strategy keeps that review separable from the per-strategy mechanics that follow in this stack. ### What? Adds `runway/extension/merger/git`. **A change is a range of commits, not a commit.** A change URI pins a pull request to a single head SHA, but a pull request is routinely several commits. Applying the head alone applies only that commit's diff against its own parent: it conflicts against context its predecessors would have established, or — when the commits touch different files — succeeds while silently dropping everything before the head. So the unit replayed is the range from the change's merge base with the target up to its head. A change already contained in the target has an empty range and is a no-op, which is what keeps redelivery idempotent. A range runs through git's sequencer, which changes the control flow versus a single pick: the operation stops on a commit it declines and `--skip` advances to the next rather than ending. Two kinds of commit stop it harmlessly — one already present on the target, and one that was empty to begin with — and both are skipped. Anything else is a real conflict, and the in-progress pick is aborted so the checkout stays usable. The commits an apply produced are read back off the checkout rather than tracked per-invocation, which stays correct when the sequencer drops some. **Referenced commits are guaranteed present before anything is applied.** The default fetch refspec is `+refs/heads/*`, which does not cover a provider's change refs: a pull request head never also pushed as a branch — the normal case for a fork — is simply absent, and the apply then fails with git's "bad object", indistinguishable from a conflict. Every commit the request names is now fetched and verified up front, for all steps, so an unusable request fails without having mutated the checkout. Commits are requested by SHA (relying on the server serving a want for a reachable-but-unadvertised object, which github.com allows), falling back to the provider's canonical ref, with deployment-supplied refspecs as a last resort. Neither fetch is shallow — the range needs ancestry. A commit a *reachable* remote cannot supply is terminal; a remote that will not answer stays retryable. The first is a property of the request, the second a property of the moment. **One seam for change providers.** Every URI is reduced to the only three things the merger needs — the commit to apply, the ref the provider publishes it under, and a label for synthesized messages. `github://` and `git://` are supported; an unrecognized scheme is terminal. Adding a provider is one case in that mapping rather than a change to any apply path. **Optional staleness check.** Fetching by SHA guarantees the merger applies exactly the commit the URI names, not that it is still the change's head — a force-push leaves the superseded commit fetchable on most hosts. When enabled, each change's canonical ref is read (one ref advertisement, no object transfer) and a mismatch is terminal. **Atomicity, contention, dry run.** Nothing reaches the remote until the final push. If the push is rejected because the remote tip moved, the whole reset/apply/push cycle retries up to a bounded number of attempts. `CheckMergeability` runs the identical apply path but never pushes, then resets and reports empty outputs, committing intermediate steps locally so a multi-step check sees the same conflict surface a real merge would. **Runtime hygiene.** Every invocation uses an explicitly pinned git runtime and a scrubbed environment — no system or global config, no interactive prompts. That leaves no ambient identity, so the committer is injected per-invocation. `isConcreteStrategy` currently admits only REBASE; SQUASH_REBASE, MERGE and PROMOTE are rejected as invalid requests until their apply paths land later in this stack. The merger is not wired into the server yet, so this adds no production behavior. ## Test Plan ✅ `bazel test //runway/...` — 6/6 targets pass, including the new `//runway/extension/merger/git` suite (40s) The suite drives a real git binary against throwaway repositories. Beyond the single-commit cases (stacked URIs, already-landed changes, multi-step requests, conflicts, checkout recovery, contention retry, give-up after max attempts, DEFAULT resolution, dry runs), it covers what this change is actually about: a multi-commit change expressed as **one** URI for both disjoint and overlapping edits, a partially-landed change, an empty commit inside a range, a conflict inside a range leaving no sequencer state behind, stacked multi-commit changes not duplicating each other's commits, a head reachable only via its pull-request ref, an unavailable commit classified as invalid rather than conflicting, the staleness check on and off, and provider resolution across schemes. The regression tests were verified to fail against head-only picking: reverting just that line fails 5 of them, and they pass with the range applied. ## Stack 1. #459 1. @ #460 1. #461 1. #462 1. #463 1. #476 1. #477
behinddwalls
force-pushed
the
preetam/runway-git-merger-squash-merge
branch
from
July 31, 2026 14:32
5646e4c to
5ae36dd
Compare
behinddwalls
force-pushed
the
preetam/runway-git-merger-promote
branch
from
July 31, 2026 14:32
86b485c to
6f00849
Compare
behinddwalls
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 31, 2026
## Summary ### Why? The git merger landed with REBASE only. `SQUASH_REBASE` and `MERGE` are part of the wire contract SubmitQueue already publishes against, and until they apply here a request naming either is rejected as an invalid request. This adds the two remaining transforming strategies on top of the shared apply machinery. ### What? **SQUASH_REBASE** applies each change exactly like REBASE — replaying every commit it introduces — then collapses what that change produced into a single commit. The squash unit is the change: a change of ten commits becomes one, and a step whose change carries several URIs yields one commit per URI. Those URIs are a stack of pull requests, and squashing them together would erase the per-PR boundary the stack exists to express. Two degenerate cases produce no output rather than an empty commit. A change already present on the target creates no commits, so there is nothing to squash. A change that does create commits whose net tree matches the base would squash to an empty commit, so the intermediates are dropped. Both keep redelivery idempotent. **MERGE** creates a `--no-ff` merge commit per change, which keeps the change's original commits reachable through second-parent history — the property that separates it from the picking strategies, which rewrite those hashes. A change already contained in HEAD is skipped rather than merged again. **Not every failed merge is a conflict.** `applyMerge` previously reported any `git merge` failure as `ErrConflict`, which tells the client its change collides with the target even when nothing collided. Failures are now classified, and the case that matters in practice is an unrelated history. **Importing an unrelated history.** A repository migration arrives as an ordinary change in the target repo whose branch carries the source repo's whole history. Being in the target repo is what makes the commits fetchable; it says nothing about ancestry, and git refuses to merge two graphs with no common ancestor. `AllowUnrelatedHistories` lifts that refusal for a queue that exists to perform such imports. It is off by default because the refusal is a genuine safeguard — with it always on, merging the wrong object silently produces a nonsense result instead of failing. Without the option, the refusal is now reported as an invalid request rather than a conflict. MERGE is the only strategy that can serve a migration: it is the only one that preserves the imported commits' original hashes, and the picking strategies have no range to compute across disjoint graphs, so they reject such a change explicitly and say so. ## Test Plan ✅ `bazel test //runway/extension/merger/git:go_default_test` — passes (58s) New coverage: SQUASH_REBASE collapsing a multi-commit change into one commit while landing all of its content, a two-URI change yielding one squashed commit per URI in application order, SQUASH_REBASE over an already-landed change producing none, MERGE creating one merge commit for a multi-commit change, MERGE skipping a change already an ancestor of the tip, and the MERGE dry-run path. For migration specifically: importing a three-commit unrelated history and asserting every imported commit is reachable **under its original hash**, the merge commit has two parents, and the target keeps its own files; redelivery of the same request being a no-op; the import rejected as an invalid request (explicitly not a conflict) when the option is off, leaving the remote and checkout untouched; and both picking strategies rejecting an unrelated history rather than rewriting it. ## Stack 1. #459 1. #460 1. @ #461 1. #462 1. #463 1. #476 1. #477
## Summary ### Why? `PROMOTE` is the last strategy in the wire contract without an apply path. It is also the one that does not fit the shared machinery: the transforming strategies build new commits locally and push `HEAD:target`, while PROMOTE advances the target to a commit that already exists, unchanged. ### What? Adds the `promote` path, dispatched directly from `process` rather than through `applyTransforming`. **Fast-forward only.** After resetting to the remote tip, promote classifies the named commit three ways. Already the tip, or contained in it — idempotent success, no push. A strict descendant of the tip — a genuine fast-forward, pushed as `<sha>:refs/heads/<target>`. Anything else has diverged and is a terminal `ErrConflict`; PROMOTE never creates a commit to reconcile the two. Because it moves the ref to an existing commit, a change of any size arrives whole by construction — its ancestry comes with it, so PROMOTE needs none of the range machinery the picking strategies do. **Exclusivity.** `resolveAndValidate` rejects a PROMOTE that is not the entire request — one step, one change, one URI — as `ErrInvalidRequest`. Two reasons, both structural: a pre-existing commit cannot descend from commits an earlier transforming step just produced, and the push targets an exact SHA rather than the locally-built HEAD, so there is nothing for a preceding step to contribute. **Its own availability checks.** promote bypasses `tryApply`, so it performs the object-availability and staleness checks itself. Without them a commit the remote cannot supply makes every containment query fail with a plain error, which the consumer retries forever rather than reporting a request that can never succeed. **Contention.** The same bounded retry as the transforming path, but the loop re-runs the classification rather than the apply: if the push is rejected the tip may have moved, and the commit that was a fast-forward a moment ago may now be contained (success) or divergent (conflict). The push is a single atomic ref update, so PROMOTE needs no separate atomicity argument. A dry-run check performs the identical classification and returns without pushing, reporting no output. With this the merger implements every strategy in the contract; `isConcreteStrategy` now admits all four. ## Test Plan ✅ `bazel test //runway/extension/merger/git:go_default_test` — passes (61s) New cases: fast-forward promote, promote of a commit already contained in the tip, divergent promote rejected as a conflict, a multi-commit change promoted whole to the exact named commit, an unavailable commit reported as an invalid request rather than retried, both dry-run classifications, and the two composition rules (PROMOTE with a second step, PROMOTE with a second URI) rejected as invalid requests.
behinddwalls
force-pushed
the
preetam/runway-git-merger-promote
branch
from
July 31, 2026 14:34
6f00849 to
d89025b
Compare
behinddwalls
changed the base branch from
preetam/runway-git-merger-squash-merge
to
main
July 31, 2026 14:34
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Why?
PROMOTEis the last strategy in the wire contract without an apply path. It is also the one that does not fit the shared machinery: the transforming strategies build new commits locally and pushHEAD:target, while PROMOTE advances the target to a commit that already exists, unchanged.What?
Adds the
promotepath, dispatched directly fromprocessrather than throughapplyTransforming.Fast-forward only. After resetting to the remote tip, promote classifies the named commit three ways. Already the tip, or contained in it — idempotent success, no push. A strict descendant of the tip — a genuine fast-forward, pushed as
<sha>:refs/heads/<target>. Anything else has diverged and is a terminalErrConflict; PROMOTE never creates a commit to reconcile the two.Because it moves the ref to an existing commit, a change of any size arrives whole by construction — its ancestry comes with it, so PROMOTE needs none of the range machinery the picking strategies do.
Exclusivity.
resolveAndValidaterejects a PROMOTE that is not the entire request — one step, one change, one URI — asErrInvalidRequest. Two reasons, both structural: a pre-existing commit cannot descend from commits an earlier transforming step just produced, and the push targets an exact SHA rather than the locally-built HEAD, so there is nothing for a preceding step to contribute.Its own availability checks. promote bypasses
tryApply, so it performs the object-availability and staleness checks itself. Without them a commit the remote cannot supply makes every containment query fail with a plain error, which the consumer retries forever rather than reporting a request that can never succeed.Contention. The same bounded retry as the transforming path, but the loop re-runs the classification rather than the apply: if the push is rejected the tip may have moved, and the commit that was a fast-forward a moment ago may now be contained (success) or divergent (conflict).
The push is a single atomic ref update, so PROMOTE needs no separate atomicity argument. A dry-run check performs the identical classification and returns without pushing, reporting no output.
With this the merger implements every strategy in the contract;
isConcreteStrategynow admits all four.Test Plan
✅
bazel test //runway/extension/merger/git:go_default_test— passes (61s)New cases: fast-forward promote, promote of a commit already contained in the tip, divergent promote rejected as a conflict, a multi-commit change promoted whole to the exact named commit, an unavailable commit reported as an invalid request rather than retried, both dry-run classifications, and the two composition rules (PROMOTE with a second step, PROMOTE with a second URI) rejected as invalid requests.
Stack