bootc composefs: implement bootc edit

Composefs limitation from the stabilization draft (cgwalters-forge/bootc#15): 'bootc edit' bails on composefs. Map the ostree implementation onto composefs switch/rollback.

Per cgwalters' answer on tracker#238 (D2): the tmt test-number conflict will go away rather than be worked around by renumbering. The prep PR cgwalters-forge/bootc#41 drops test numbers (tests and plans are named by slug) and generates one tmt file per test and plan. Once it merges, this rebases onto it, dropping its # number: header, with no renumbering.

Generated-by: https://github.com/cgwalters/#llms

Board scheduler: this issue has no job plan, and its body is too short to write one from. It needs design: say what to change and how to check it, and the next pass asks a triage run to plan it.

{
  "schema": "agent-board/job-plan/v1",
  "repo": "cgwalters-forge/tracker",
  "item": 11,
  "kind": "triage",
  "runner": "hosted",
  "pool": "openai",
  "brief": "Triage for epic #160 (Composefs Stable). This issue is a short stub from early October. Against current bootc-dev/bootc `main`, and its open and merged PRs and issues:\n\n1. Is it still needed, already done upstream (cite the PR), or being done by someone else (cite it)?\n2. If still needed: a concrete implement-sized slice for the midstream fork `cgwalters-forge/bootc` (staged; the operator promotes upstream), with the files it touches, what proves it, and whether it should stack on another #160 slice.\n\nPost one comment, with at most 25 links. If it is done or overtaken, close this issue.\n\n## Issue\n\n# bootc composefs: implement bootc edit\n\nComposefs limitation from the stabilization draft (cgwalters-forge/bootc#15): 'bootc edit' bails on composefs. Map the ostree implementation onto composefs switch/rollback.\n\n\n**Note on secret-shaped strings.** Never write a literal secret-shaped string (`sk-ant-…`, `sk-…`, `ghp_…`, `github_pat_…`, AWS keys, private-key blocks) into code, tests, fixtures or docs. Where a test needs a key-shaped value, build it at run time from parts, or use an obviously fake value such as `test-key-not-secret`. Grep your diff for these patterns before you hand back.\n"
}

Generated-by: https://github.com/cgwalters/#llms

Dispatched the plan in #11 (comment): run. Run independently: the issue names no path.

Valid on current main, but implementation is already upstream in open bootc-dev/bootc#2501; this stub is overtaken, not completed on main. cgwalters-bot already staged it in fork PR #20 and promoted it. Close this duplicate implementation item and track #2501 for #160; do not start another fork slice.

At main 3c5d235a, the composefs branch of edit() still unconditionally errors; the current limitations agree. This is reproducible by code inspection on a composefs-booted host with bootc edit --filename host.yaml; I did not run a guest.

The existing patch is the implement-sized slice: share edited-spec parsing/validation in crates/lib/src/cli.rs, extract the reusable switch target helper in crates/lib/src/bootc_composefs/switch.rs, dispatch image changes to switch and boot-order changes to rollback. It includes a validation unit test and tmt/tests/booted/test-edit.nu, registered in tmt/tests/tests.fmf and tmt/plans/integration.fmf as plan-59-edit (the PR body’s plan-50 name is stale). Its prep commit is already in the PR; no additional #160 slice is needed underneath.

Proof: the test covers no-op, rejection of simultaneous image+rollback changes, staging/booting a changed image, and rollback across reboots. Upstream CI is green, including composefs sealed UKI matrix jobs, superseding the body’s earlier unverified-UKI caveat. Remaining work is upstream review/merge and resolving the DCO check currently marked action-required, not new implementation. The patch deliberately retains switch’s identical-fs-verity-digest rejection; supporting edits back to an already deployed image is a separate policy question.

Closure requested: this run can publish comments only, so I cannot apply the issue’s closed state.

Generated by dispatch · ◷

Done upstream, not dropped. The 17 Oct triage on this issue found that bootc edit for composefs is already written: it was staged as cgwalters-forge/bootc#20 and promoted as bootc-dev/bootc#2501, which is open with green CI and waiting for upstream review. No other fork slice is needed. Epic #160 tracks #2501 on the Composefs Stable board.

✅ dispatch ended well. Result: #11 (comment)

(Run status from 2026-10-17T16:35:51Z, re-posted by the bot without the agent's own words. The original job-token comment was removed so this issue counts as collaborator-only input, tracker#738.)

Generated-by: https://github.com/cgwalters/#llms

Navigation Menu

Repository navigation

bootc composefs: implement bootc edit #11

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

bootc composefs: implement bootc edit #11

Description

Activity

cgwalters-bot commented on Oct 3, 2026

cgwalters-bot commented on Oct 17, 2026

cgwalters-bot commented on Oct 17, 2026

cgwalters-bot commented on Oct 17, 2026

cgwalters-bot commented on Oct 17, 2026

cgwalters-bot commented on Oct 18, 2026

cgwalters-bot commented on Oct 18, 2026

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Issue actions