Run Tamanu pre-release checks

Given a Tamanu release — the current release branch release/X.YY (e.g. release/2.57, release/2.59) — verify hotfix integrity before releasing. Two checks and a summary, all reconstructed from the git history. You are working inside a clone of the Tamanu repo, so read the history directly with git.

This skill is about hotfix integrity, not test scope. Deciding which tests to run for a release is a separate concern — use scope-tamanu-release-tests for that.

How Tamanu releases work (read this first)

Tamanu uses a train-release model. Each minor version is cut from main as a long-lived branch release/X.YY (e.g. release/2.57). Patch releases (vX.YY.Z) are tags/commits on that branch, and hotfixes land directly on the release branch and are then cherry-picked to other lines.

Consequences that matter here:

• The prior released line is not always X.(YY-1). Historically v2.58 was skipped (a regression; it was never released) and its work shipped in the 2.59 line. So "the prior released line" must be determined from which release branches actually shipped, not by decrementing the minor. Always enumerate the real release/* branches.
• Hotfixes are cherry-picked, so the same logical fix has different commit SHAs on different branches.

Critical matching rule

NEVER compare by SHA — cherry-picked commits always have different SHAs. ALWAYS match by commit message subject (the first line), after normalizing away:

• PR-number suffixes (e.g. (#9939))
• per-branch annotations like (HOTFIX 2.XX), (backport 2.XX), (MAIN), [2.XX]

A fix counts as included if a commit with an equivalent subject exists in the target branch.

Exemptions — these never need to be merged forward, so filter them out before comparing:

• version-bump commits (release: Bump version to ...)
• dependency-update commits

Caveat — squash merges to main. Fixes often reach main via a squash "merge ... into main" commit that collapses several individual subjects into one. If a subject match fails, do not immediately declare the fix missing — verify via the commit's content/date and merge ancestry (git merge-base --is-ancestor <commit> origin/main) before concluding it is absent.

Check 1 — Hotfixes to Main

Every hotfix on the current release/X.YY branch must have an equivalent-subject commit on main.

Steps:

1. List the commits on release/X.YY since its branch point from main (git log --oneline $(git merge-base origin/main origin/release/X.YY)..origin/release/X.YY).
2. Filter out version-bump and dependency-update commits.
3. For each remaining commit, confirm an equivalent subject exists on main — directly, or via a squash merge-to-main (apply the caveat above).

Output status line:

Hotfixes to Main: [All merged / N missing]

If any are missing, list only the missing ones, each with its commit hash and a one-line description.

Note: missing-from-main does not block the release — the fix is already in the release branch. It is a forward-merge to-do so future release lines don't regress.

Check 2 — Prior Branch Hotfixes

Hotfixes from prior release branches must be included in the current release.

Steps:

1. Enumerate the prior release/* branches (the lines that actually shipped — mind the skipped-2.58 caveat).
2. For each prior branch, determine its hotfixes and whether an equivalent-subject commit is present in release/X.YY — either directly, or inherited via main's base.

Inclusion rule. If a prior branch's most recent merge-to-main happened after all of that branch's hotfixes and before the current release branch was created, then those hotfixes are already inherited via main. Verify with:

git merge-base --is-ancestor <priorMergeCommit> origin/release/X.YY

The dangerous case: watch for hotfixes that landed on a prior branch after its merge-to-main window. Those are orphaned — on neither main nor the new release — and are the single most important thing to catch here.

Output status line:

Prior Branch Hotfixes: [All included / N missing from M branches]

Only call out branches that have missing hotfixes; otherwise just confirm inclusion. For each missing fix, give the hash, a one-line description, and which prior branch it came from.

Summary

Finish with 1-2 sentences: either ready to release, or action needed — stating concretely what to cherry-pick or forward-merge.

Output style

• No emojis.
• Be concise — summarise findings; do not list every commit.
• Show the refs/branches you compared as evidence (e.g. origin/release/2.59 vs origin/main, merge-base SHA).

How to run

# Get every release branch and tag locally as origin/* refs
git fetch origin --tags
git fetch origin '+refs/heads/release/*:refs/remotes/origin/release/*'
git branch -r | grep 'origin/release/'          # enumerate the release lines

# Check 1: hotfixes on the current release branch since it diverged from main
base=$(git merge-base origin/main origin/release/X.YY)
git log --oneline --no-merges "$base"..origin/release/X.YY

# Normalize a subject for matching: drop the trailing PR number and branch annotations,
# e.g. strip "(#1234)", "(HOTFIX 2.57)", "(backport 2.57)", "(MAIN)", "[2.57]".
# Then look for the same normalized subject in the target branch's log.
git log --oneline origin/main | grep -iF "<normalized subject>"

# Verify inheritance / presence by ancestry rather than by SHA
git merge-base --is-ancestor <commit> origin/release/X.YY && echo included || echo missing
git merge-base --is-ancestor <priorMergeCommit> origin/release/X.YY

Source of truth

The Tamanu commit history is authoritative. This skill encodes a method, not a fixed answer — branch names, the skipped-version caveat, and annotation conventions can change over time. If the repo disagrees with this skill, the repo wins. Never decide a fix is present or missing from memory of a past release — always read the actual history for the branches in question, and match by subject, never by SHA.