Repository navigation
desktop-flow-lint is red on main: relocated notification bridge actions were never registered in ACTION_SOURCE_RELATIVE_PATHS #11985
Description
desktop-flow-lint fails on current main (41afef9b), which reddens desktop-core-e2e-t0 for every desktop PR that merges main.
notifications-settings.yaml: unknown bridge action 'settings_notifications_snapshot'
notifications-settings.yaml: unknown bridge action 'set_notification_settings'
desktop-flow-lint: 2 error(s)
Reproduce against a pristine checkout of main, no branch involved:
git archive origin/main | tar -x -C /tmp/mainlint
cd /tmp/mainlint && python3 desktop/macos/scripts/desktop-flow-lint.pyCause. d5596a6 ("refactor(macos): relocate journal copy + notification bridge actions to satisfy line-count ratchet") moved settings_notifications_snapshot and set_notification_settings from DesktopAutomationBridge.swift into the new DesktopAutomationBridge+Notifications.swift, but did not add that file to ACTION_SOURCE_RELATIVE_PATHS in desktop/macos/scripts/desktop_flow_contract.py. The lint reads registered actions only from that list, so both actions became invisible while notifications-settings.yaml still references them.
Why it went unnoticed. Main's own Desktop Backend Contracts runs are sitting at action_required rather than executing, so nothing re-ran the lint after the relocation. The first signal was PRs merging main and inheriting the failure.
Fix is one line, opened as #11984.
Worth a second look beyond the one-liner: the contract file's comment says the list exists "so an added bridge action cannot skip its flow validation route", but nothing currently enforces that a file defining a bridge action appears on it. A relocation silently defeats it. A check that every file matching the action-registration shape is present in ACTION_SOURCE_RELATIVE_PATHS would make this mechanical rather than depending on the author remembering — worth considering, though I'd rather land the one-line unblock first and let a maintainer decide whether the stronger guard is wanted.
Also worth a maintainer's attention separately: action_required on main's contract runs means this lane is not actually gating main right now.
Activity
aryanorastar commentedon Aug 21, 2026
Correcting this: the immediate breakage is already fixed on main, so the one-line PR (#11984) is closed as a no-op.
4d7c209e(#11962) added theDesktopAutomationBridge+Notifications.swiftentry toACTION_SOURCE_RELATIVE_PATHSas part of otherwise-unrelated memory-TTL work. Current main (78028bf4) passes standalone:The report was accurate when filed — main was
41afef9band reproducibly failed both errors — and4d7c209elanded 53 minutes later. My mistake was not re-checking main before opening the PR, given how fast this repo moves.What is still worth keeping this open for, since #11962 does not address it: the contract file's comment says the list exists "so an added bridge action cannot skip its flow validation route", but nothing enforces that. A file defining a bridge action can be added or relocated without being registered, and the only signal is a flow that references the action going red later — as happened here. A check that every file matching the action-registration shape appears in
ACTION_SOURCE_RELATIVE_PATHSwould make it mechanical rather than dependent on the author remembering.Also still open and independent of the fix: main's Desktop Backend Contracts runs were sitting at
action_requiredrather than executing, which is why the window between the relocation and #11962 went unobserved. That is a gating gap regardless of this particular action list.Happy for a maintainer to close this if the residual points aren't wanted — the concrete bug is gone.
aryanorastar commentedon Aug 21, 2026
Closing — the concrete bug is fixed on main by
4d7c209e(#11962), and current main passes standalone:Not worth holding an issue open for the two residual points, so recording them here instead of leaving this in the backlog:
ACTION_SOURCE_RELATIVE_PATHS. The list's own comment says it exists "so an added bridge action cannot skip its flow validation route", but a relocation silently defeats it — which is exactly what happened. Worth a check if this recurs.action_requiredrather than executing, which is why the window between the relocation and fix(memory): require adjudication before TTL expiry #11962 went unobserved.Happy to reopen if either bites again.