fix(ci): make the JSON gate strict, and make the one file it refuses legal - #3395
Open
gHashTag wants to merge 2 commits into
Open
fix(ci): make the JSON gate strict, and make the one file it refuses legal#3395gHashTag wants to merge 2 commits into
gHashTag wants to merge 2 commits into
Conversation
Contributor
|
📓 NotebookLM Notebook linked to this PR
This notebook contains session context, decisions, and artifacts for this work. |
Contributor
Contributor
PR DashboardGenerated at: 2026-09-07 14:05:59 UTC
Summary
Seal Status
|
Contributor
|
📓 NotebookLM Notebook linked to this PR
This notebook contains session context, decisions, and artifacts for this work. |
This was referenced Sep 7, 2026
This was referenced Sep 7, 2026
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
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Refs #3337 — the fifth finding, left open by #3389.
(The first version of this body said "Closes the fifth finding of #3337", which the tightened
check-linked-issuerefused on its first live use: the pattern wants the keyword immediately before the number. The gate was right, and it caught its author.)validateaccepted bareInfinity. CPython documents it as "an extension to the JSON specification"; RFC 8259 has no such literal. The independent check is another language —node -e JSON.parse(...)refused the file this gate passed.Exactly one tracked file carried it in value position. (My first count said 20; 19 of those have the word inside strings and always parsed.)
The encoding was not chosen — it was read off the corpus
"inf"vs"Infinity"across the vectorstools/wp18_selftest_gate.pyown fixtures"input_f64": "inf","decoded_f64": "nan"Nothing is lost. Every affected row already carried the same value as
..._hex—0x7FF0000000000000is +infinity in IEEE754 — so the authoritative bits were already in the file in a legal form, and the bare literal was a redundant convenience field.Verified end to end
nodeINDEX_all_formats.jsonandREADME.md; both updated, and the old hash appears nowhere afterwards — checkedtools/wp18_selftest_gate.pyexits 0 with the same 30 PASS before and aftercheck_json_parses.py: 2078 tracked files, none unparseable, self-check passesThis is deliberately not on auto-merge
It re-stamps a hash on a conformance artifact — and gf16 is the one format the repository notes as having an FPGA oracle behind it. The encoding question was settled by evidence and I acted on it. Whether a measurement record may be re-stamped is a different question, and it is yours.
If you would rather not re-stamp: the alternative is to leave the file alone and revert the
parse_constanthunk intools/check_json_parses.py, which returns the gate to accepting a literal thatJSON.parserefuses. The defect is then recorded rather than fixed, which is where #3389 left it.