fix: fail closed for stopped Podman machine evidence

[seonghobae]

Purpose

Fail closed when podman machine inspect reports a non-running machine. The reclaim probe previously skipped guest filesystem evidence but could continue live API probes and return incomplete evidence without a stable machine-state issue.

Exact current state

• Exact source head: 0041a492fbb398abad167c9259ad9c81ed936f9a.
• Independently resolved live protected main: be418bac9bfbdc8aa41b1a698713833e3dbccfdc.
• GitHub reports the PR Draft and mergeable.
• Current semantic delta is the stopped-machine production repair in src-tauri/src/podman_reclaim.rs plus its focused integration regression.
• Exact-head native workflows are green: Test 31595798025, Release 31595798087, Security Scan 31595798037, and SAST Semgrep 31595798023 all completed success.
• The only observed formal review is a GHAS COMMENTED review whose Scorecard finding targeted a predecessor temporary repair workflow. That thread is now both resolved and outdated; the repair workflow is no longer part of the current semantic delta. It is not treated as approval.

Test-first repair

• RED head d4bfa028cfdb5aee60643d8efa9cba109ffa8f0c added a credential-free Unix regression using a local fake executable and filesystem fixture.
• Current implementation derives an explicit running-state predicate from podman machine inspect, emits stable podman-machine-not-running when a discovered machine is stopped, retains raw-image observation, and gates guest/store/system-df/image probes so they are not invoked for the stopped machine.
• The repair does not start, stop, delete, prune, trim, or otherwise mutate Podman.

Remaining integration blocker

Feature-local/current-head evidence is green, but repository-wide exact 100% owned-production statement/branch/function/line coverage remains materially unsatisfied on canonical coverage owner #156. This PR therefore remains Draft; local green evidence does not waive the repository-wide quality contract.

Required before merge

Keep Draft until the unchanged exact head satisfies every applicable live required workflow at integration time, every valid current-head finding is addressed, repository-wide exact coverage is satisfied without exclusions or threshold weakening, and fresh live-base ancestry remains current. Pending, queued, skipped-required, failed, stale, predecessor, diagnostic-only, status-only, model-only, or synthetic evidence is not passing.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

@seonghobae, you've reached your PR review limit, so we couldn't start this review.

Next review available in: 50 minutes

You've used all free OSS reviews for now. Wait for the free limit to reset to keep reviewing this public repository.

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews.

How do review limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window.

Please refer docs for additional details.

Review details

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: d0fd463c-ccd7-4b60-a99e-0ca2ccef22ba

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between be418ba and df84cf6.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• src-tauri/src/podman_reclaim.rs
• src-tauri/tests/podman_reclaim_stopped_machine.rs

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[seonghobae]

@coderabbitai review

[coderabbitai]

⚠️ Action not completed

Review rate limited.

Note: CodeRabbit is an incremental review system and does not re-review already reviewed commits. This command is applicable only when automatic reviews are paused.

[opencode-agent]

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

• Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.

• Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.

• Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

• Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.

• Result: REQUEST_CHANGES

• Reason: coverage-evidence result was failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head df84cf60a26755f697f346fce065c74533f3028b.

• Head SHA: df84cf60a26755f697f346fce065c74533f3028b

• Workflow run: 31900463765

• Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage Decision

• Result: FAIL
• Test evidence: not proven passing
• Docstring evidence: not proven passing when configured
• Failure count: 1

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (2 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (2 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]

Loading

[opencode-agent]

OpenCode Review Overview

• Head SHA: df84cf60a26755f697f346fce065c74533f3028b
• Workflow run: 31900463765
• Workflow attempt: 1
• Gate result: REQUEST_CHANGES (approval step)

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

• Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.

• Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.

• Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

• Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.

• Result: REQUEST_CHANGES

• Reason: coverage-evidence result was failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head df84cf60a26755f697f346fce065c74533f3028b.

• Head SHA: df84cf60a26755f697f346fce065c74533f3028b

• Workflow run: 31900463765

• Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage Decision

• Result: FAIL
• Test evidence: not proven passing
• Docstring evidence: not proven passing when configured
• Failure count: 1

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (2 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (2 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]

Loading

Dismissing: this REQUEST_CHANGES referenced workflow run 31900463765 where coverage-evidence failed at the same head SHA. coverage-evidence has since been re-run and now reports pass (verified via gh pr checks). No unresolved review threads remain. Re-request review to re-validate.