security(wrprc): do not treat an empty claim key as missing - #162
Merged
Conversation
Grant-side precedence used `or`, so a present-but-empty `claim` fell through to `claims` and widened the grant. Presence of the spec key now wins even when the list is empty. Closes #160
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
#89 required grant-side precedence (narrow): one list, never the union.
_registered_pathsused_paths_under(claim) or _paths_under(claims), so a present-but-emptyclaim([],[{}], unusable paths) extracted as[]and the second spelling widened the grant.After #152 an empty grant means nothing. A second spelling must not refill it. Fallback to
claimsremains only when the spec key is absent.Closes #160
Verified:
bash .claude/skills/ship-issue/scripts/gate.sh(flake8, mypy, pytest 1632 passed / coverage 91%, build+twine).