docs: explain how to find the release ECP

[BohdanMar]

Follow-up from review on #246.

Adds instructions for finding the release ECP:

• Look up the ReleasePlanAdmission name from ReleasePlan labels via oc get
• Browse the konflux-release-data repo as an alternative
• Fallback: ask your SRE team

Fixes: https://redhat.atlassian.net/browse/EC-2007

[coderabbitai]

Important

• 🔍 Trigger review

This repository does not receive automatic reviews because it has fewer than 10 stars.

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Team

Run ID: 0f992243-003d-4170-b481-1cc4e9514ca1

---

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[fullsend-ai-review]

🤖 Finished Review · ✅ Success · Started 1:30 PM UTC · Completed 1:43 PM UTC

Commit: ca5794c · View workflow run →

Runtime: claude · Model: opus → claude-opus-4-6 · Effort: high · Cost: $3.15

[fullsend-ai-review]

Risk Assessment: low (1/5)

Details

Docs-only 29-line change to a single AsciiDoc page by a recurring contributor with no protected paths, security-sensitive files, CI, or dependency impact.

Previous run

Risk Assessment: low (1/5)

Details

Docs-only 28-line change to a single AsciiDoc page with no protected paths, no security-sensitive files, no CI/dependency changes, and a known contributor; Tier 2 shows modest recent churn but no coupling or regression concerns, yielding a composite well within the low band.

Previous run (2)

Risk Assessment: low (1/5)

Details

Minimal-risk documentation-only change: a single AsciiDoc file with 22 lines changed, no protected paths, no security-sensitive files, no CI/dependency changes, and a known non-first-time contributor; slightly elevated file churn and fix frequency are explained by an active review cycle on a recently-added guide.

[fullsend-ai-review]

Review

Findings

Info

• [provenance-warning] — Prior review context was discarded because provenance validation failed (PRIOR_REVIEW_PROVENANCE=unverifiable-wrong-app: the prior review comment was created by a different app than expected). This run treats all findings as first-time assessments; severity anchoring was skipped.

All six review dimensions (correctness of oc/yq commands and Kubernetes label/field references, style/conventions against sibling .adoc files, intent-coherence with the linked Jira EC-2007 and PR #246 follow-up, and docs-currency across nav.adoc, partials, and other pages) returned no findings. Risk assessment: low (1/5) — docs-only 29-line change to a single AsciiDoc page, no protected paths, no security-sensitive files, no CI or dependency impact.

Previous run

Review

Docs-only change to a single AsciiDoc page (+23 / -5). The new oc get /
yq steps replace the previous "ask your SRE team" fallback and are a
substantive improvement. No blocking issues found. A few observations for
the author's consideration below — none require action to merge.

Findings

Low

• [cli-invocation-consistency] modules/ROOT/pages/early-policy-violations.adoc:83 — The first command oc get releaseplan __<releaseplan-name>__ ... omits -n <tenant-namespace> while the follow-up command on line 90 uses -n __<managed-namespace>__. Users whose current kube-context namespace is not their tenant namespace will get a NotFound. The partial$oc_login.adoc include only appears at Step 2, so Step 1 runs against whatever context the user has. Advisory — the common Konflux workflow has the tenant namespace as the current context.
  Remediation: Consider adding -n __<tenant-namespace>__ for symmetry, or moving the oc_login include earlier and noting that Step 1 must run in the tenant namespace.
• [command-output-usability] modules/ROOT/pages/early-policy-violations.adoc:83 — yq .metadata.labels | grep releasePlanAdmission emits a full YAML line (release.appstudio.openshift.io/releasePlanAdmission: my-rpa-name) rather than the bare RPA name that Step 2's __<rpa-name>__ placeholder wants. Readers can identify the value, but a direct key lookup would be cleaner and copy-pasteable.
  Remediation: Consider yq -r '.metadata.labels["release.appstudio.openshift.io/releasePlanAdmission"]' (or equivalent) so Step 1's output feeds Step 2 verbatim.

Info

• [unverified-external-claim] modules/ROOT/pages/early-policy-violations.adoc:83 — The command assumes a ReleasePlan carries a release.appstudio.openshift.io/releasePlanAdmission label populated by the release-service controller. Consistent with the known Konflux convention, but not verifiable from this docs-only repo. If matching hasn't happened yet, the label is absent and the pipe produces no output; the doc does not mention this failure mode.
• [unverified-external-claim] modules/ROOT/pages/early-policy-violations.adoc:90 — Claims yq .spec.policy on an RPA returns an ECP reference as a namespace/name string. Consistent with the release-service field being a string reference, but the current CRD shape could not be verified from this repo. If spec.policy is a structured object, the yq output would not be usable as-is for POLICY_CONFIGURATION.
• [unverified-external-claim] modules/ROOT/pages/early-policy-violations.adoc:98 — Path tenants-config/auto-generated/cluster/<cluster>/tenants/<tenant>/ in konflux-release-data could not be verified from this repo. Worth a spot-check that the layout still matches.
• [provenance-warning] N/A — Prior review context was discarded: PRIOR_REVIEW_PROVENANCE = unverifiable-wrong-app (the pre-existing review comment was authored by a different app than expected, so authorship — and any post-creation edits — cannot be reliably attributed). This review treats all findings as first-time assessments; severity anchoring was skipped for this run.

Previous run (2)

Review

Findings

Medium

• [logic-error] modules/ROOT/pages/early-policy-violations.adoc:82 — Step 1 instructs the user to find the ReleasePlanAdmission (RPA) name and prepend the managed namespace to form a reference like rhtap-releng-tenant/<rpa-name>. However, Step 2's YAML template uses the placeholder <managed-namespace>/<ecp-name>, and the surrounding text says to "set POLICY_CONFIGURATION to the ECP used by your release pipeline," referencing an EnterpriseContractPolicy CR. This creates an inconsistency: Step 1 produces an RPA reference, but Step 2 asks for an ECP reference. If POLICY_CONFIGURATION accepts RPA references directly, the Step 2 placeholder and description should be updated to match Step 1's output. If it only accepts ECP references, Step 1 needs an additional command to extract the ECP name from within the RPA.
  Remediation: Align the two steps. Either (a) update the Step 2 placeholder from <managed-namespace>/<ecp-name> to <managed-namespace>/<rpa-name> and adjust the explanatory text to clarify that POLICY_CONFIGURATION accepts RPA references, or (b) add a command in Step 1 that extracts the ECP reference from the RPA (e.g., oc get releaseplanadmission <rpa-name> -n <managed-namespace> -o yaml | yq .spec.policy).

---

Next steps:

• /fs-fix — agent addresses review findings automatically
• /fs-fix <your instruction> — agent fixes with your specific guidance
• Push commits directly — review re-runs automatically on push
• /fs-fix-stop — disable automatic fix runs for this PR

[fullsend-ai-review]

🤖 Finished Review · ✅ Success · Started 9:21 AM UTC · Completed 9:30 AM UTC

Commit: cd01138 · View workflow run →

Runtime: claude · Model: opus → claude-opus-4-7 · Effort: high · Cost: $4.13

Superseded by updated review

[fullsend-ai-review]

🤖 Finished Review · ✅ Success · Started 11:11 AM UTC · Completed 11:16 AM UTC

Commit: cd01138 · View workflow run →

Runtime: claude · Model: opus → claude-opus-4-7 · Effort: high · Cost: $2.80