fix(observability): avoid leaking Sentry setup secrets

[JSONbored]

Motivation

• Prevent accidental local exposure of high-value credentials (SENTRY_API_TOKEN and GRAFANA_ADMIN_PASSWORD) that were being placed on curl command lines and exported into child environments while preserving the script's idempotent create/update/health-check behavior.

Description

• Stop auto-exporting .env by removing set -a when sourcing .env so secrets are not put into child process environments.
• Replace Basic-Auth-in-argv with a temporary, permissioned netrc file and use --netrc-file so Grafana admin credentials are not visible in process argv.
• Add a grafana_curl() wrapper that calls env -u GRAFANA_ADMIN_PASSWORD -u SENTRY_API_TOKEN curl ... to ensure those env vars are removed from curl's child environment.
• Pipe the JSON payload to curl with --data-binary @- (stdin) instead of -d "$(payload)" to keep the Sentry API token out of curl process arguments.
• Add a unit regression assertion in test/unit/selfhost-grafana-sentry-datasource.test.ts that verifies the script no longer contains set -a, -u "$AUTH", or -d "$(payload)" and that the new secure patterns (--netrc-file, --data-binary @-, and env -u ... curl) are present.

Testing

• Ran bash -n scripts/setup-sentry-datasource.sh and it returned clean syntax (no errors).
• Ran npx vitest run test/unit/selfhost-grafana-sentry-datasource.test.ts and the test file passed (10 tests total).
• Confirmed behavior is preserved: idempotent datasource GET/PUT/POST and health-check continue to run while secrets are no longer exposed in argv or inherited child environments.

---

Codex Task

[superagent-security]

Superagent didn't find any vulnerabilities or security issues in this PR.

[loopover-orb]

Warning

🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨

⏸️ Gittensory review result - manual review recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-12 23:23:04 UTC}

2 files · 2 blockers · readiness 89/100 · CI green · clean

⏸️ Suggested Action - Manual Review

Concerns raised — review before merging

• No linked issue detected — If this PR is intended to solve an issue, link it explicitly in the PR body.
• Maintainer requires a linked issue — Link the relevant issue (for example Closes #123) before opening the PR.

📋 Copy for AI agents — paste into your coding agent

Fix the following blocker(s) from this PR review:

1. No linked issue detected — If this PR is intended to solve an issue, link it explicitly in the PR body.

2. Maintainer requires a linked issue — Link the relevant issue (for example `Closes #123`) before opening the PR.

Signal	Result	Evidence
Code review	❌ 2 blockers	No AI review summary
Linked issue	⚠️ Missing	No linked issue or no-issue rationale found.
Related work	✅ No active overlap found	No same-issue or scoped active PR overlap found.
Change scope	✅ 20/20	Low review scope from cached public metadata (draft PR; no linked issue context).
Validation posture	✅ 25/25	PR body includes validation/test evidence.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 44 registered-repo PR(s), 36 merged, 424 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	JSONbored; Gittensor profile; 44 PR(s), 424 issue(s).
Gate result	❌ Blocking	Repo-configured hard blocker found.
Improvement	⚠️ ℹ️ Insufficient signal	risk: clean · value: insufficient-signal — Nothing measurable for the structural-improvement analyzers on this PR (e.g. no code files changed).

Review context

• Author: JSONbored
• Role context: owner (maintainer lane)
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: not available
• Official Gittensor activity: 44 PR(s), 424 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Treat this as maintainer-lane context rather than normal contributor-lane activity.
• Explain no-issue PR.
• Mark ready when done.
• Link the issue being solved, or explicitly explain why this is a no-issue PR.

Signal definitions

• Related work = same linked issue, overlapping active PRs, or title/path similarity.
• Change scope = cached public metadata such as size labels, draft state, and review-burden hints.
• Validation posture = whether the PR provides enough public validation/test evidence for maintainer review.
• Contributor workload = public contributor activity and cleanup pressure, not a repo-wide quality failure.
• Contributor context = public GitHub/Gittensor identity context; non-Gittensor status is not a blocker.

[BETA] Chat with Gittensory

Ask Gittensory a question about this PR directly in a comment — grounded only in the same cached, public-safe facts shown above, never a new claim.

• @gittensory ask <question> answers contribution-quality Q&A with source citations and freshness.
• @gittensory chat <question> answers in natural prose from cached decision-pack facts via local inference (maintainer/collaborator; read-only).
• A plain-language @gittensory mention with a real question is routed to the closest matching read-only command automatically -- no exact syntax required.

Full command reference: https://gittensory.aethereal.dev/docs/gittensory-commands

_{🟩 Safe / merged · 🟦 Advisory · 🟨 Held for review · 🟥 Blocked / closed}

---

💰 Earn for open-source contributions like this. Gittensor lets GitHub contributors earn for the work they already do — register to start earning →.

Checked by Gittensory, a quiet PR intelligence layer for OSS maintainers.

• Re-run Gittensory review

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 94.72%. Comparing base (29c18f2) to head (3dff84b).
⚠️ Report is 17 commits behind head on main.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #5489   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   94.72%   94.72%           
=======================================
  Files         559      559           
  Lines       44664    44664           
  Branches    14664    14664           
=======================================
  Hits        42308    42308           
  Misses       1621     1621           
  Partials      735      735           

Flag	Coverage Δ
shard-1	44.04% <ø> (ø)
shard-2	35.20% <ø> (ø)
shard-3	32.00% <ø> (ø)
shard-4	32.05% <ø> (ø)
shard-5	32.67% <ø> (ø)
shard-6	43.70% <ø> (ø)

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.