Git hooks silently no-op when only .entire/settings.local.json exists (entire enable --local)

[jstewmon]

Description

Running entire enable --local installs git hooks but creates only .entire/settings.local.json. The hooks then silently do nothing because their activation check requires .entire/settings.json to exist.

Steps to reproduce

1. Fresh repo with no prior Entire setup.
2. Run entire enable --local.
3. Make changes and commit — hooks fire but do nothing (no checkpoints saved).
4. Run entire enable (which creates .entire/settings.json) — hooks now work.

Root cause

The hooks' PersistentPreRunE calls settings.IsSetUpAndEnabled(), which internally calls IsSetUp(). That function checks only for .entire/settings.json:

// settings.go
func IsSetUp(ctx context.Context) bool {
    _, err = os.Stat(settingsFileAbs)  // only checks settings.json
    return err == nil
}

func IsSetUpAndEnabled(ctx context.Context) bool {
    if !IsSetUp(ctx) {  // returns false when only settings.local.json exists
        return false
    }
    ...
}

IsSetUpAny() already exists and correctly checks either file, but IsSetUpAndEnabled doesn't use it.

Fix

Change IsSetUpAndEnabled to use IsSetUpAny instead of IsSetUp. Load() already merges both files and defaults Enabled: true when settings.json is absent, so the loaded value is correct — the only broken piece is the presence check.

Workaround

Run entire enable (without --local) after entire enable --local to create .entire/settings.json.

[ivasuy]

I’d like to work on this as a first contribution.

From the issue, the scoped fix seems to be:

• update settings.IsSetUpAndEnabled() to use IsSetUpAny() instead of IsSetUp()
• add regression coverage for the entire enable --local case where only .entire/settings.local.json exists
• verify hooks no longer silently no-op in local-only setup

I checked #1126 and it appears to fix the entire enable --agent <name> re-enable path for #988 by changing setupAgentHooksNonInteractive, but it does not seem to touch settings.IsSetUpAndEnabled() or the local-only setup check from this issue.

Is #1123 still available to take with the scoped approach above?

[peyton-alt]

Hi @ivasuy, go ahead! Thanks so much for the contribution. We'll also merge #1126 when it's ready.