[roodboi]

The Compose and native tracked-env consent tests still expected the cleanup phrase from before #768 (HACK-2171). Update their shared assertion to match the full current doctor sentence after normalizing Clack borders and whitespace. Consent, file-change, and secret-omission assertions remain intact; production behavior is unchanged.

Fixes https://linear.app/hackdance/issue/HACK-2182

flowchart TD
  A[Old cleanup assertion] --> B[Current doctor wording]
  B --> C[Normalize terminal wrapping]
  C --> D[Assert full sentence]

Loading

Overlap: #784 carries the same assertion fix alongside proxy-test changes. This PR isolates the assertion update on current next (0a0bfdb8); it does not include those proxy changes.

Validation: Bun 1.4.4, bun test tests/env-migration-tracked-consent.test.ts — 12 pass, 0 fail, 146 assertions. bunx biome check tests/env-migration-tracked-consent.test.ts passes. Persistent Claude Opus 5.5 review round 1 at d0cf767: VERDICT: CLEAN; reviewer independently reran the test file. Cosmetic P3 about redundant newline normalization retained for explicit terminal-output handling.

Release signal: test-only correction; no product behavior or API change.

---

^{Open in [code]smith · Need help on this PR? Tag @codesmith-bot with what you need.}

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated
hack-docs	Ready	Preview	Nov 13, 2026 6:01pm UTC

[linear-code]

HACK-2182

[roodboi]

@codex review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review Summary: ✅ Completed

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	✅ Completed 2026-11-13T18:02:55.764216Z	d0cf767	Manual request
🔒 Security Review	✅ Completed 2026-11-13T18:04:12.813540Z	d0cf767	Manual request

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Chef's kiss.

Reviewed commit: d0cf767efa

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

🛡️ Codex Security Review · Automatically triggered

Security review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request.

Reviewed commit: d0cf767efa

View security finding report

Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex.

ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHub

This is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:

• You comment "@codex security review"
• A regular code review gets triggered (for example, "@codex review" or when a PR is opened), and you’re opted in so security review runs alongside code review

Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found.

[roodboi]

Confirmed against #768's parent 156ee7f1 and merged head a7ec3c73: the Compose/native tracked-consent flow keeps the same exact file changes. The two reported failures were only the obsolete sentence assertion.

With doctor --accept-tracked-env-changes in these fixtures, the tracked changes remain:

• delete .hack/hack.env.json;
• modify .hack/docker-compose.yml to remove its legacy env_file reference.

The exact Git-status assertions are unchanged. The flow also still removes the untracked .hack/.env, creates .hack/.gitignore and hack.env.default.yaml, and writes the ignored local YAML layer. I ran the complete tracked-consent file on merged next 7e2e6301: 12/12 pass, 146 assertions, including those exact status checks and the no-value-output assertions.

#768 as a whole did more than change a sentence, but did not add eligible tracked cleanup paths: it added receipt/delivery/lock checks that retain remaining legacy files when safety cannot be verified, removes a store before its key, and moves an untracked key into its tracked store's consent batch. That batching change explains the new wording; with tracked consent accepted and unchanged valid inputs, it does not expand the tracked deletion set. On a refusal, legacy dotenv/contract/store/key candidates may now be kept rather than deleted. No extra tracked-file deletion or modification needs an upgrade-guide entry for this normal successful flow; the preservation/refusal behavior remains as documented in #768.