Skip to content

Comments

Update quality docs#18

Open
rodmhgl wants to merge 6 commits intoInternalDeveloperPlatform:mainfrom
rodmhgl:fix/update_quality_docs
Open

Update quality docs#18
rodmhgl wants to merge 6 commits intoInternalDeveloperPlatform:mainfrom
rodmhgl:fix/update_quality_docs

Conversation

@rodmhgl
Copy link
Contributor

@rodmhgl rodmhgl commented Feb 18, 2026

This pull request updates the workshop/capoc/quality/readme.md documentation to clarify the expected results and quality policy enforcement details in the deployment workflow. The changes improve the accuracy of command outputs, clarify the reasoning behind policy decisions, and correct step numbering for better instructional flow.

Documentation and instructional improvements:

  • Updated the expected error message for a failed deployment to include specific code coverage details and the commit SHA, illustrating how the policy enforces minimum coverage requirements.
  • Updated the expected output for a successful deployment to use my-app instead of frontend-service, aligning with the deployment manifest.
  • Clarified the comparison of deployments by specifying which commit SHAs correspond to allowed and rejected deployments, the associated coverage percentages, and that the policy uses a static lookup in the constraint's coverageData map.

Instructional corrections:

  • Corrected the step numbering for examining quality differences and cleaning up test resources to maintain sequential order. [1] [2]

deployment-working.yaml defines name: my-app, not frontend-service.
Steps went 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 — renaming to sequential 1–5.
Verification sections were numbered 1, 2, 4 — section 3 was absent.
…output

The previous message 'Deployment violates quality standards' was invented.
The actual sprintf format from quality-constraint-template.yaml line 34 produces
the constraint name, percentage, minimum, and commit SHA in the denial message.
Replace vague 'sha for the working image has met the quality requirement' with
a concrete explanation: which SHA maps to which percentage, why one is rejected
and one allowed, and that the policy uses a static coverageData map (not live
image scanning).
Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings February 18, 2026 16:23
Copy link

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

Updates the Quality module workshop documentation to better reflect Gatekeeper policy behavior and to improve instructional flow for the code coverage enforcement exercise.

Changes:

  • Updated the expected Gatekeeper denial output to include commit-specific coverage details.
  • Corrected the expected successful deployment output to match the my-app manifest.
  • Fixed step numbering and clarified how the constraint’s coverageData lookup drives allow/deny decisions.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant