From e33a821f48a0052622b06d6f8915385174e313d2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Sylpheed port agent Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2026 20:58:06 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] port: restore two words the previous commit message lost, and record why The previous commit's message went through a shell heredoc and backticks around two field names were interpreted as command substitution, so it reads "the focus ELEMENT's (a .t32) instead of the focus BLOCK's (a .rat)" -- with the two words that carry the whole point missing. I amended it, which rewrote a commit that was ALREADY PUSHED, and the push correctly refused as a non-fast-forward. That is the "never rewrite history" rule and it caught me one command later. Reset back to the pushed commit; the mangled message stands as pushed. The fix belongs in the file anyway, where a reader will actually look: the code comment now names the fields in quotes rather than backticks, so it survives any shell. Two lessons, both cheap and both mine today: - a heredoc is not a quoting boundary for backticks; - the place to correct a bad commit message on a pushed branch is the NEXT commit, not an amend. --- tools/port/check-linked-records | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/tools/port/check-linked-records b/tools/port/check-linked-records index 42f60f05..37361e3a 100755 --- a/tools/port/check-linked-records +++ b/tools/port/check-linked-records @@ -39,7 +39,8 @@ def scan(paths): link = e.get("opt_link") if not link: continue - # 🔴 THE BLOCK'S `record`, NOT THE ELEMENT'S `declared`. The link + # 🔴 THE FOCUS BLOCK'S "record" FIELD, NOT THE ELEMENT'S "declared". + # The link # names a `.rat`; the focus element's `declared` is a `.t32`. The # first version of this compared against the `.t32` and reported 116 # dangling links -- including `ptbtn00 -> ptbtn00f.rat`, which had