[bug] `cards/template.html` is missing — was renamed instead of copied in PR #4681

[AnisHerdev]

The cards/template.html file that contributors are instructed to copy in the README (Step 4) no longer exists in the repo.

It was accidentally renamed (not copied) in PR #4681 — template.html was moved to Lu-86.html. This means anyone following the README tutorial will reach Step 4 and find no template file to work with.

Expected: cards/template.html exists with the starter template content.
Actual: No template.html in the cards/ directory.

Please restore cards/template.html from git history so new contributors can follow the README instructions as intended.

[jatintakhtani2612]

Hi! I'd like to work on this issue. Please assign it to me.

I understand that cards/template.html was accidentally renamed instead of being copied, which means new contributors following the README can't find the expected template.

I'd like to restore the missing cards/template.html from the repository history and verify that the README workflow works correctly afterward.

If this is still available, I'd be happy to work on it. Thanks!

[jatintakhtani2612]

Thanks for assigning this to me!

I noticed that PRs #4693 and #4699 are already attempting to restore cards/template.html, and both appear to be running into the card-submission validation workflow.

Before I create a duplicate PR, would you prefer me to:

help improve/fix the existing restoration approach, or
work on a separate solution for #4691?

I'm happy to follow whichever approach you prefer.

[jatintakhtani2612]

@Syknapse Thanks for the update. I’ve checked the existing PRs, including #4693, #4699, and the latest #4709.

Since #4709 already restores cards/template.html, I don’t want to create another duplicate restoration PR.

As I’m assigned to #4691, I’d like to help move this issue to completion by investigating the card-submission validation workflow that is currently treating these bug-fix PRs as contributor-card submissions.

I can look into the validation logic and propose a minimal fix or adjustment so that legitimate repository maintenance PRs like this one can pass without requiring contributors to submit a personal card.

If that approach is acceptable, I’m happy to work on the validation side and coordinate with the existing PR rather than duplicating the template restoration.

[Syknapse]

That sounds great. But the investigation should start with the PR that managed to delete the card, because the validation logic should have never allowed the PR to pass. I don't know how it managed to escape the validation and if there is a weakness in that logic, it should be the first thing we fix.

Regarding the current PRs, the validation is doing its work, because no one is supposed to touch this file, so it might only be solved with an admin PR (me), to skip validation.

[jatintakhtani2612]

@Syknapse
Thanks, that makes sense.

I’ll start the investigation from PR #4681 and trace exactly how cards/template.html was renamed to Lu-86.html without the validation workflow rejecting the change.

I’ll first identify:

• which validation workflow was responsible,
• what files/changes it checks,
• what happened in luciano's card #4681,
• and why that change was allowed to pass.

I’ll focus on finding the weakness in the validation logic first, as you suggested, rather than trying to bypass the current validation for the restoration PRs.

Once I understand the failure in #4681, I’ll report back with the cause and the appropriate fix.

[jatintakhtani2612]

@Syknapse I’ve completed the investigation into PR #4681.

I found the validation gap: the existing template.html guard only checked the current file path returned by gh pr view --json files.

In PR #4681, cards/template.html was renamed to cards/Lu-86.html, so the current path no longer contained template.html. As a result, the existing guard did not detect that the protected template had been renamed.

I’ve addressed this in PR #4714 by querying the GitHub Pull Request Files API and checking previous_filename for renamed files.

This means a rename such as:

cards/template.html → cards/<username>.html

will now be rejected by the validation logic.

I’ve also verified the JavaScript syntax and reproduced the original rename scenario from PR #4681.

PR: #4714