R29 found the discriminator claimed "exact across all seven" while r07 is recorded lower
down as "inconclusive rather than ruled out, because no evidence came back from it". A row
this page calls inconclusive cannot also be counted as evidence for the conclusion.
Checking it turned up a second instance of the same over-count, which R29 did not name. The
abort-cadence section said "Measured across the seven runs above" -- but the table records
r07's aborts as **not readable**, because adb wedged before a crash buffer could be taken.
Six runs contributed gaps, not seven.
Both now say six, and both say why. The discriminator paragraph also says what excluding r07
costs, which is nothing: it is a `host` row, so the discriminator predicts it would not boot,
and confirming a prediction with the one run whose evidence did not come back adds no
information in either direction. That is the point R29 made -- claiming six does not weaken
the conclusion -- and it is worth stating in the document rather than only in the ticket,
because the next reader will otherwise wonder whether a run was quietly dropped.
Deliberately left: "four of the seven runs show the directory creation itself is broken
during the loop". That is a count of how many runs showed something, not a claim that all
seven were readable for it, so it survives. Checked rather than assumed, and named here so
the next pass does not re-audit it.
R29's other half -- "state how r07's boot outcome was read" -- is not taken, because I do
not know and inventing a source would be worse than narrowing the claim. Narrowing is the
option R29 offered and the one that can be honest.
Closes#38.
build.yml's `release` job declares `contents: write`, and nothing checked it. Deleting those
lines leaves actionlint clean and CodeQL silent -- a narrower permission is not an alert --
and the job is `if: startsWith(github.ref, 'refs/tags/v')`, so no pull request and no merge
can exercise it. Measured with the declaration removed: every gating check still passed. The
first thing that would notice is a release failing to publish, at the moment someone is
trying to cut one.
The deletion also looks like tidying. #106 has just put a top-level `permissions: contents:
read` directly above it, so a reader could reasonably take the job-level block for a
duplicate. It is an override, and a comment saying so is not a check.
BackupExclusionsTest is the precedent: configuration rather than code, load bearing, and
unguarded because nothing compiles it.
The part worth reading twice is the second commit-worth of work in here. The test passed,
and then the mutation that is supposed to redden it did not:
BUILD SUCCESSFUL in 614ms
Gradle cannot infer that a test depends on a file outside the source set, so the task stayed
UP-TO-DATE and the test never ran. Under --rerun-tasks the same mutation failed it properly,
which is the tell: the assertion was right and the wiring was not. A guard that does not
re-run when its subject changes is not a guard -- it is a test that will be green on the day
it matters, which is worse than no test because it reads as cover.
Fixed by declaring the workflow as a task input. Verified the whole way round afterwards,
without --rerun-tasks: mutate the file and the task re-runs and fails; restore it and the
task re-runs and passes.
What this pins and what it does not: it asserts the declaration exists in the release job's
block. It cannot assert a release actually publishes -- that needs a tag push, which is the
thing no PR can do. A tripwire against silent removal, not proof the path works, and the
KDoc says so.
Closes#107.
CodeQL alert #1, the only open one on this repository:
actions/missing-workflow-permissions, warning / medium, build.yml:23
Actions job or workflow does not limit the permissions of the GITHUB_TOKEN.
Alerts 2, 3 and 4 were the same rule against status_check.yml and are fixed -- that file
has a top-level block. build.yml declares permissions in exactly one place, the release
job's `contents: write`, and has no top-level default, so the `test` job inherits the
repository setting.
**Nothing is over-privileged today.** The repository default is already `read`
(default_workflow_permissions: read, can_approve_pull_request_reviews: false, read from the
API rather than assumed), so the test job holds a read token now. Saying so matters: this
is hygiene, and a commit that implied it was closing a live hole would be overstating it.
What it buys is that the default CANNOT widen these jobs later without someone editing this
file. That is not invented for the occasion -- it is the argument status_check.yml already
makes, which even names this file:
the token's reach should be readable here, and a default that widens later should not
silently widen these jobs with it. build.yml's release job makes the opposite
declaration for the same reason.
So the principle was decided, applied in two workflows and in one job of this one, and the
top level of build.yml was the gap.
Verified the thing that would actually break: the release job's `contents: write` still
wins. Top level is a default, not a ceiling -- parsed and printed both, test inherits
`contents: read`, release keeps `contents: write`.
Also ran the ticket's mutation, and it found something. Deleting the release job's
`contents: write` leaves actionlint green and CodeQL quiet -- a narrower permission is not
an alert -- so nothing would catch it until a tagged release failed to publish. That is a
separate gap and is filed rather than fixed here.
actionlint clean at the pinned digest. Comment and permissions only; no step, job or
trigger changes.
Closes#100.
R19 raised two things about this comment. One resolved itself: it used to explain why the
matrix had no API 37 row at all, and #56 added the gating row, so that half is gone.
The other survived, and this is it. The comment read
api-level must be "37.0". A bare 37 is not an SDK package and fails during setup
The second sentence is true and was measured -- it cost a run to find. The first overstates
it. What must be true is that the api-level is a POINT release; 37.0 is one of several.
api37-debug.yml's own input descriptions already say so:
API level, as the SDK spells it. 37.0, 37.1, 37.2-beta3, 36 ...
System image target. android-37.1 and 37.2-beta* ship ONLY as google_apis_ps16k
and docs/api-37-emulator-crash.md measures android-37.0 rev 6 and android-37.1 rev 8 side
by side, both aborting. So the repo already knows 37.1 exists and behaves the same; only
this comment implied otherwise.
That matters for the reader it is written for. Someone debugging this row and wondering
whether a newer image helps reads "must be 37.0" as a constraint and stops. The measured
answer is that it does not help, which is a better thing to learn than a rule that is not
one -- and the ps16k-only wrinkle above 37.0 is the detail that would actually bite them.
Comment only. No job, matrix, filter or gating behaviour changes. actionlint clean at the
pinned digest.
Closes#28.
RealMediaBenchmark's class KDoc said:
Populate with:
adb push <file>.mp4 /sdcard/Android/data/org.libremediaconverter/files/
Twelve lines below, the `samples` property KDoc -- on `get() = context.filesDir` -- says:
Internal storage, not the external files dir. Files placed in the external dir by
`adb push` or `adb shell cp` stay owned by the shell user, and the app then gets
EACCES trying to read them -- which presents as an unparseable input rather than a
permission problem.
Different directories, and the second exists specifically to explain why the first fails.
Anyone following the class KDoc stages files the benchmark cannot read, gets a skip, and
reads the skip as "not staged yet" -- the failure mode the property KDoc warns about, walked
into by the instruction in the same file.
The fix is not a corrected command. Restating the mechanism in a second place is what let
these drift, and a replacement command I have not executed would be the same defect with a
fresher date. The class KDoc now names [samples] as the single place that answers it.
Two things added that are checkable rather than remembered: the exact filenames the tests
look for, via [H264_SAMPLE] and [AV1_SAMPLE] -- the old text said `<file>.mp4`, so even the
right directory left you guessing -- and a note that the two skips every green E2E leg
reports are these.
Not claimed: that the benchmark misbehaves on CI. An earlier version of the ticket said so;
it was wrong, and measuring settled it -- both tests report SKIPPED on the gating legs, the
guards work, and "harmless in CI" is accurate. The failure that prompted the look is
Media3EngineTest, tracked as #102.
Closes#101.
2026-08-25 09:45:00 -05:00
6 changed files with 119 additions and 8 deletions
| r07 | `android-37.0` rev 6 | `host` + `-feature -HostComposition` | host | **no**, wedged adb at 208 s | not readable |
The discriminator is exact across all seven: **a run boots if and only if the emulator log says
something other than `gles_mode_selected:host`.**
The discriminator is exact across the **six runs that reported**: a run boots if and only if the
emulator log says something other than `gles_mode_selected:host`. r07 is excluded on purpose — it
wedged adb at 208 s and is recorded below as inconclusive rather than ruled out, and a row this
page calls inconclusive cannot also be counted as evidence. Excluding it costs nothing: r07 is a
`host` row, so the discriminator predicts it would not boot, and confirming a prediction with the
one run whose evidence did not come back would add no information either way.
One caveat about how independent those rows are, because the table flatters itself. `-gpu
angle_indirect` (r05) and `-gpu swangle_indirect` (r03) both logged `gles_mode_selected:swangle`
@@ -509,8 +513,9 @@ API 37", not "is that codec broken".
`.github/workflows/api37-debug.yml` carried "roughly every 20 s" for the kill cycle in its own
comments. That number was the watchdog's **sampling** interval, not the cadence, and the two got
conflated. Measured across the seven runs above, gaps between successive `hasReadColorBufferDma`
aborts run **20 s to 90 s, median 60–70 s — three to five aborts in a four-minute window**.
conflated. Measured across the **six runs whose crash buffer could be read** — r07 wedged adb
before one could be taken, so it contributes no gaps — successive `hasReadColorBufferDma` aborts
run **20 s to 90 s, median 60–70 s — three to five aborts in a four-minute window**.
Slower than assumed, and still not slow enough: install, data-directory creation and
instrumentation start-up do not fit inside one gap.
Reference in New Issue
Block a user
Blocking a user prevents them from interacting with repositories, such as opening or commenting on pull requests or issues. Learn more about blocking a user.