Hacktoberfest 2026: the issues maintainers tagged for October, open and beginner-friendly. Browse Hacktoberfest issues

[Phase 16] S9 — Compliance evidence integrity and GDPR erasure completeness

Open
  • Is something wrong?
#895 0 comments 0 reactions 0 assignees View on GitHub

Nobody has claimed this yet.

Assessment

Difficulty
4/5
Estimated time
Over a week
Newbie friendliness
22/100
Issue type
Bug
Clarity
Mostly clear
Activity status
Active
Tech stack
python
Domain
backend, data

Research direction

Start with _artefact_targets_for_run and the _legacy_staging_owned_by marker pattern in _purge.py, then trace how generate_training_manifest() and export_compliance_artifacts() name the bundle files. The first step is a writer-to-reader integration test that exports a real bundle and purges by run id. Done means the matching run's bundle is fully removed, a wrong run id removes nothing, and pipeline_manifest.json and audit_log.jsonl survive.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.

Description

phase: 16 source: roadmap

Roadmap · Phase 16, step S9 · size L · 5 unit(s) · planned in docs/roadmap/phase-16-trust-surface-hardening.md:553-581

Summary

The compliance surface claims a stronger evidentiary state than it holds. purge --kind artefacts cannot find the compliance bundle ForgeLM itself writes: the exporter emits fixed basenames while the resolver looks for file names that embed the run id. It fails safe (deletes nothing, emits data.erasure_failed with NoMatchingArtefacts, exits 1), so the defect is completeness, not destruction. The trainer also writes data_governance_report.json there, and the pipeline writes compliance/pipeline_manifest.json, which belongs to the whole pipeline and must not be deleted by one run's purge.

Units

Unit Tracked by (October 2026 review)
F-W20260729-TRUST-02 #101 · #102 · #477 · #554 · #635
F-W20260729-TRUST-13, F-W20260729-TRUST-01 #386 · #651
F-W20260729-TRUST-14 #386 · #554
F-W20260729-TRUST-07 #386 · #679 · #680 · #681 · #715

Plan

  • Rewrite _artefact_targets_for_run to the allow-list + ownership-proof model the design document already specifies, mirroring the _legacy_staging_owned_by marker pattern in the same file.
  • Breaking changes planned here: AuditLogger.log_event becomes fail-closed; reverse-pii and purge move to non-zero exits on states that returned 0.

Exit criteria

  • A real bundle produced by generate_training_manifest() + export_compliance_artifacts() is fully removed by a matching run id and untouched by a wrong one, while pipeline_manifest.json and audit_log.jsonl survive — a writer → reader integration test, not a synthetic-filename fixture; the fabricated docstring examples in _purge.py are deleted.
  • A malformed line sharing an identifier blocks the completion record.
  • reverse-pii returns non-zero when AuditLogger initialisation raises.
  • An OSError injected separately at the manifest open, fsync and os.replace steps never yields silent success.
  • A required → rejected → required chain is served by one shared ordered-state helper across the listing and mutation surfaces.

How to deliver

  • One root-cause family, committed on its own; then an Opus review round and a Sonnet review round, each with verified findings fixed and committed before the next step begins.
  • A reproducer that is red before the fix and green after; the full gauntlet from CLAUDE.md passes under ./.venv/bin/python.
  • Every English documentation edit ships with its Turkish mirror in the same commit; a new or renamed audit event gets its EN and TR catalog rows in the same PR.
  • A step that grows a deferred module carries its budget_history justification in the same diff; a widened guard rolls out non-strict first, then flips.
  • Commit bodies cite Absorbs F-W20260729-…; the CHANGELOG [Unreleased] section gets an entry only for a change a user or library consumer can observe (decision C-20).

Planned in docs/roadmap/phase-16-trust-surface-hardening.md (read at f94595f). Unit IDs (F-W20260729-…) come from the 2026-07-29/30 full-project review; the issue numbers next to them are the October 2026 review's records of the same defects.

Dominant language
Python
Stars
9
Forks
1
Avg merge
8h 10m
Merged PRs (30d)
5

Getting set up

First steps

  1. Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
  2. Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
  3. Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
  4. Open a pull request that references the issue number.

More from HodeTech/ForgeLM

All issues in HodeTech/ForgeLM

Similar issues

More Python issues

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.