flex-auth had no image workflow, so its production images were hand-built
on a workstation and pushed with workstation credentials -- an artifact
whose provenance was someone's working tree rather than a forge revision.
Ports activity-core's canonical image.yaml: the container-build runner
fetches a tarball of the pushed commit, builds, and pushes :latest and
:main-<short-sha>, then reports the immutable digest for the rollout step.
examples/** is a build-trigger path on purpose -- policy packages are
COPYed into the image and there is no hot reload, so a policy change is
an image change.
Runbook updated to say plainly that images are not built on workstations.
FLEX-WP-0011 filed for the rest of the gap: flex-auth runs two production
Deployments on railiance01 but has never been brought under the
staged-promotion contract (RAIL-BS-WP-0006). No railiance/app.toml, no
stage commands, no canary or approval evidence; the deploy/ directory is
a rescue of specs that existed nowhere, not the sanctioned overlay shape.
Pre-existing debt found during the FLEX-WP-0010 rollout, not a regression
from it, and not a blocker for routine policy rollouts -- flex-auth fails
closed. T03 also flags that the coulombcore drain plan still lists
flex-auth on a host it no longer runs on.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The two flex-auth Deployments were applied from a YAML file that lived
outside this repo, so the only surviving copy of their authored spec was
the last-applied-configuration annotation on the live objects. That made
rollback depend on a cluster annotation -- recovered them into deploy/
before the FLEX-WP-0010 rollout rather than after an incident.
Covers Deployment, Service, and the default-deny NetworkPolicy for both
flex-auth-tenant-engine and flex-auth-user-engine. Verified with
kubectl apply --dry-run=server: Deployments and Services round-trip as
unchanged. The NetworkPolicies report "configured" because the manifests
keep an explicit egress: [] that the API server normalises away -- same
deny-all semantics, documented so nobody chases it.
The runbook records that policy packages are baked into the image with no
hot reload, that both Deployments share one image repo at deliberately
different digests (so roll only the one whose policy changed), and pins
both last-known-good digests as rollback targets.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
