didericis
84a9fdd457
Splits the Linux clean-install harness into two variants, selected with
BB_TEST_PREREQS:
with (default) — install python3 + git + pipx first, then install.sh.
The ready-host happy path; PASS = install.sh exits 0 and
leaves a runnable bot-bottle entry point.
without — run install.sh on the BARE cloud image. Exercises
install.sh's own prerequisite-guard logic (python gate,
git-for-git-specs gate, pipx/pip PEP-668 handling). PASS =
install.sh either fully succeeds OR declines with one of
its own recognized, actionable prerequisite errors; a
crash or unrecognized failure is a FAIL.
cmd_run now captures install.sh's exit code + full output (install.rc /
install.log) instead of aborting on non-zero, so the verdict step applies the
variant's criterion. The old assert_installed is replaced by a quiet
entry_point_runnable helper plus classify_outcome, which matches the bare-host
declines against the exact die() messages install.sh prints. doctor still runs
for visibility, but only when an entry point exists.
test-all now runs the full matrix -- every distro x both variants -- each cell
in its own throwaway VM, and can be pinned to one variant via BB_TEST_PREREQS.
Research note updated to document both variants and their pass criteria.
Validated with `bash -n` and `shellcheck`.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Research notes
Investigations into a question or a design space — landscape surveys,
tradeoff analyses, "should we do X or Y," assessments of an approach
before (or instead of) committing it to a PRD. A research note is where
the thinking lives; a PRD is where a decided feature lives, and a
decision record is where a settled choice lives (see
../README.md for picking between them).
Notes are opinionated. They reach a conclusion rather than dumping a neutral survey — the point is to move a decision forward and leave a durable record of why it went the way it did.
Naming
kebab-case-topic.md, named by subject and not numbered (unlike
PRDs and decision records). Pick a name that says what was
investigated: bash-vs-python-vs-go.md, pipelock-assessment.md,
issue-tracking-vs-in-repo-decision-history.md.
Shape (freeform)
There's no fixed template — use whatever structure fits the question. In practice most notes share a loose shape:
- Open with the question — a sentence or two on what's being investigated and why it came up.
- Lead with the verdict — a
## Summarynear the top stating the conclusion, so a reader gets the answer without reading the whole thing. - Then the analysis — whatever the argument needs: comparison tables, per-option sections, failure-mode walkthroughs, the axes that actually matter.
- End with a recommendation when the note exists to drive a decision.
Keep the reasoning self-contained and grounded: cite sources, link files and PRDs, and prefer concrete evidence from this repo over generic claims — a note should stand on its own without a chat log or a Gitea thread. When a note's recommendation gets acted on, capture the resulting decision in a PRD or a decision record; the note stays as the "why we looked into it," not the system of record for the choice.