ci: wire control-plane into CI mirroring rees job pattern (#7743)

[kai392]

Summary

• Wire control-plane/ into CI with path-filtered install, test, and coverage steps mirroring the existing rees job pattern.
• Add scripts/control-plane-coverage.mjs and a dedicated control-plane Codecov flag with carryforward.
• Extend codecov-policy unit test to lock in the workflow and codecov wiring.

Closes #7743

Test plan

• npm run control-plane:test (34 tests pass)
• npm run control-plane:coverage produces control-plane/coverage/lcov.info (~99.8% statements)
• CI validate-code runs control-plane steps when control-plane/** changes
• Codecov upload uses control-plane flag

[superagent-security]

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

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 88.65%. Comparing base (0709850) to head (8fb3567).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #7748      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   88.57%   88.65%   +0.07%     
==========================================
  Files         725      730       +5     
  Lines       76410    76960     +550     
  Branches    22762    22789      +27     
==========================================
+ Hits        67683    68230     +547     
- Misses       7681     7684       +3     
  Partials     1046     1046              

Flag	Coverage Δ
control-plane	99.45% <ø> (?)
rees	88.56% <ø> (ø)
shard-1	55.40% <ø> (ø)
shard-2	52.57% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️
shard-3	47.38% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
see 5 files with indirect coverage changes

[loopover-orb]

Warning

⏸️ LoopOver review result - manual review recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-21 13:05:15 UTC}

7 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · CI green · clean

⏸️ Suggested Action - Manual Review

• Touches a guarded path — held for manual review: This PR changes guardrail-protected path(s): codecov.yml (matched **/codecov.yml), .github/workflows/ci.yml (matched .github/workflows/**).

Review summary
This PR mirrors the existing REES pattern to wire control-plane into CI: path-filtered install/test/coverage steps, a dedicated Codecov flag with carryforward, and a coverage-conversion script that runs c8 from the monorepo root so lcov paths resolve to control-plane/src/**. The wiring looks correct and consistent — trigger conditions on validate-code, validate-tests, and validate-tests-merge are all updated in tandem, the fork/trusted upload split matches the REES precedent, and the codecov-policy test asserts the concrete wiring rather than just existence. The `coverage script's error handling swallows failures via `|| true` before the follow-up verify step, which is intentional (comment says it fails closed there) and checks out.

Nits — 6 non-blocking

• scripts/control-plane-coverage.mjs:25 uses console.error for a fatal condition then process.exit(1) — consistent with Node script conventions elsewhere but worth confirming matches the rees-coverage.mjs sibling script's style.
• The bare `catch {}` around the SF: path rewrite in scripts/control-plane-coverage.mjs swallows any read/write error silently; a one-line console.error before falling through to the exit-status check would make silent lcov-rewrite failures easier to diagnose.
• control-plane/package-lock.json is a large generated diff (+1074 lines) — expected for a first dependency add and doesn't need review scrutiny, but worth noting for anyone skimming the diff size.
• Consider extracting the shared restore/install/save-cache/test/coverage/verify/upload step sequence (now duplicated across rees and control-plane in ci.yml) into a reusable composite action if a third workspace-style package is ever added, per the pattern in ci.yml's rees block.
• In scripts/control-plane-coverage.mjs, log the caught error message before falling through in the try/catch around the SF: path rewrite so a corrupted lcov.info surfaces a clearer failure reason.
• Touches a guarded path — held for manual review — A maintainer must review and merge this change.

Decision drivers

• ✅ Code review — No blockers (1 reviewer)
• ⚠️ Gate result — Not blocking (Advisory; not blocking this PR.)

Context & advisory signals — never blocks the verdict

Signal	Result	Evidence
Linked issue	✅ Linked	#7743
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 (1 linked issue).
Validation posture	✅ 25/25	PR body includes validation/test evidence.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 31 registered-repo PR(s), 21 merged, 0 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	kai392; Gittensor profile; 31 PR(s), 0 issue(s).
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: clean · value: minor

Linked issue satisfaction

Addressed
The PR adds a path-filtered controlPlane job wired identically to the rees pattern (cache/install/test/coverage/upload steps gated on control-plane/** changes), a distinct control-plane Codecov flag with carryforward in codecov.yml, and runs control-plane:install/control-plane:test as required, plus a regression test locking in the wiring.

Review context

• Author: kai392
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: not available
• Official Gittensor activity: 31 PR(s), 0 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Keep the PR focused and include validation evidence before maintainer review.

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.

🧪 Chat with LoopOver

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

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

Full command reference: https://loopover.ai/docs/loopover-commands

🧪 Experimental — new and may change.

_{🟩 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 LoopOver, a quiet PR intelligence layer for OSS maintainers.

• Re-run LoopOver review