[ptr727]

Summary

A Dockerfile opening on a BuildKit check= parser directive, such as # check=skip=CopyIgnoredFile, drew comment-case in a whole-tree scan and comment-added in diff mode. The directive vocabulary lives in .github/actions/prose-gate/prose-gate.json, where syntax= and escape= sat in tool_directives and check= did not.

• .github/actions/prose-gate/prose-gate.json: check= now sits beside syntax= and escape= in exemptions.tool_directives. prose_lint.py is unchanged.
• tests/test_prose_lint.py: a new test runs main in both scan modes over a constructed Dockerfile. The directive line draws nothing, and a lowercase prose line in the same position, the control, fails both modes. The test pins PROSE_ALLOW_COMMENTS off, as its sibling diff-mode tests do.

One correction to the issue's premise. The Dockerfile reference says "Parser directive keys, such as syntax or check, aren't case-sensitive, but they're lowercase by convention." So capitalizing the line would not stop BuildKit reading it. The exemption is still the fix. A # Check=skip=CopyIgnoredFile line still draws comment-added, which asks for a deletion that changes the build, and the test's docstring gives that reason.

Verification

• Reproduced the issue's case with the gate before the change: Dockerfile:1: comment-case: comment sentence opens in lowercase.
• With the JSON entry reverted, the new test fails on (0, 0) != (1, 1). With it in place the test passes, also with PROSE_ALLOW_COMMENTS=1 exported.
• python -m unittest discover -s tests -p 'test_prose*.py' passes, and ruff format --check and ruff check are clean on the test file.

Local review

Three recorded local-strict-review passes. Round 1 found the unpinned PROSE_ALLOW_COMMENTS and the docstring's wrong claim that BuildKit reads the directive only in lowercase, both fixed. Round 2 found one over-length docstring sentence the fix added, fixed. Round 3 found nothing.

Closes on promotion: #3372

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[ptr727]

A recorded local strict-review pass covers head 0a0efea1f299690eedb33545d490deaa41572b01, the content this pull request carries at that commit against develop, and it recorded 0 findings.

[coderabbitai]

Important

• 🔍 Trigger review

This repository does not receive automatic reviews because it has fewer than 10 stars.

Run configuration

• Source mode: Auto
• Repository: ptr727/ProjectTemplate
• Branch: feature/auto-3372
• File: .coderabbit.yaml
• Commit: 0a0efea
• Layers: Repository YAML
• Review profile: CHILL
• Plan: Advanced
• Run ID: 04570bb6-e57a-4bfe-92ab-7e4e226a2339

• Autofix · Keep fixing CodeRabbit findings and required CI, and resolving merge conflicts

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.}

[Copilot]

🟢 Approval recommended

The change is a one-entry exemption with a test that fails without it and passes with it, and the only open item is an optional naming nit.

No open issues 🎉

What changed in this PR

This PR stops the prose gate from flagging a Dockerfile's BuildKit check= parser directive. The gate already exempts syntax= and escape= directives, and check= was missing from the same list. The fix is a one-entry data change, and the directive is still checked for the line position where it appears in a Dockerfile. It closes the downstream report in issue #3372.

Changes:

• Adds check= to the tool_directives exemption list in the prose gate config, beside syntax= and escape=.
• Adds a test that runs the gate in whole-tree and diff modes over a Dockerfile. The directive line must draw no findings, and a lowercase prose line in the same position must still fail in both modes.

File	Description
tests/​test_prose_lint.py	Adds a test that checks the check= directive is exempt in both scan modes, with a prose line as the control.
.github/​actions/​prose-gate/​prose-gate.json	Adds check= to tool_directives so the gate treats that line as a directive rather than prose.

_{Review effort: Lite}

[ptr727]

Answer to the Copilot round on 0a0efea (review 5641051070), suppressed-finding count (0).

the only open item is an optional naming nit.

No change needed. The headline is the only place the round mentions a nit. Its body states "No open issues", its overview counts 0 findings, and it opens no thread, so no nit is named to act on. The test name and the data key both follow the file's existing shape: test_a_known_tool_directive_is_not_prose sits beside the new test, and the entry joins the tool_directives list as syntax= and escape= already appear there.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
⚠️ Please upload report for BASE (develop@a3ff33f). Learn more about missing BASE report.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             develop    #3446   +/-   ##
==========================================
  Coverage           ?   80.76%           
==========================================
  Files              ?       23           
  Lines              ?     8839           
  Branches           ?        0           
==========================================
  Hits               ?     7139           
  Misses             ?     1700           
  Partials           ?        0           

Flag	Coverage Δ
python-3.13	80.76% <ø> (?)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.