🤖 refactor: centralize prepared history publication and origin - #4187
🤖 refactor: centralize prepared history publication and origin#4187ThomasK33 wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
Codex Review SummaryThis comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings. |
1512246 to
41f5ab3
Compare
41f5ab3 to
04977de
Compare
|
@codex review Please review current head Generated with |
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Another round soon, please! Reviewed commit: ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍. Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback". |
🛡️ Codex Security Review · Automatically triggeredSecurity review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request. Reviewed commit: Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex. ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHubThis is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:
Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found. |
04977de to
2f180b0
Compare
|
@codex review Please review current head Generated with |
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Keep them coming! Reviewed commit: ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍. Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback". |
🛡️ Codex Security Review · Automatically triggeredSecurity review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request. Reviewed commit: Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex. ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHubThis is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:
Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found. |
2f180b0 to
7235c68
Compare
|
@codex review Please review current head Generated with |
🛡️ Codex Security Review · Automatically triggeredSecurity review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request. Reviewed commit: Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex. ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHubThis is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:
Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found. |
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 7235c68bc0
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
7235c68 to
a54cba5
Compare
|
Addressed PRRT_kwDOPxxmWM6hM7oo (finding) in The foreign row still lands after the first owned prefix and before the failing write. Exact call order and persisted sequence assertions prove interleaving; rollback must preserve that row and start no provider. All 11 isolated middle tests and 15 integrated runtime tests pass, as do canonical static checks. No production change was needed for this finding. Generated with |
|
@codex review Please review current head Generated with |
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Chef's kiss. Reviewed commit: ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍. Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback". |
🛡️ Codex Security Review · Automatically triggeredSecurity review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request. Reviewed commit: Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex. ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHubThis is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:
Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found. |
a54cba5 to
2c8c781
Compare
|
@codex review Please review current head Generated with |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 2c8c7818a6
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Delightful! Reviewed commit: ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍. Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback". |
🛡️ Codex Security Review · Automatically triggeredSecurity review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request. Reviewed commit: Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex. ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHubThis is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:
Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found. |
1a5231b to
fe7f0e7
Compare
|
@codex review Please review the current head after the complete phase was composed on current main. All known findings have fixes and replies in their owning layers; the eight-member phase stays held until all members are approved and green. Generated with |
🛡️ Codex Security Review · Automatically triggeredSecurity review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request. Reviewed commit: Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex. ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHubThis is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:
Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: fe7f0e7618
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
fe7f0e7 to
c3cb906
Compare
|
Addressed 3990173176: retained the existing real-service Result Err controls and added mockRejectedValueOnce variants for skill, prompt and trigger publication. Those three variants exposed orphaned prepared prefixes; normalizing the rejected publication promise into Result Err now runs the existing rollback checkpoints while preserving foreign writes. All 14 preparation tests / 85 assertions and canonical static checks pass. The final batch-based runtime carries equivalent rejection coverage without restoring obsolete per-prefix writes. For 3990173187, activation belongs to the next runtime layers. This preparation PR neither creates nor enforces retained cancellation; its lower API is explicitly inactive (the reviewed preparation head). The production producer, manual capture and guarded send/Resume calls are already in #4191: manual trigger, Resume. #4209 extends the settled-Stop automatic path. The eight PRs are one coordinated phase merge; this PR intentionally supplies the preparation contract while those later PRs own activation. The goal admission CI failure was also reproduced as an existing test race in files identical to main. Its fixture now awaits publication entry and drains the outstanding write before cleanup; all 189 goal tests pass, with no production goal change. Combined phase validation: 3,715 tests across 50 affected service suites passed (34,595 assertions). Full Generated with |
|
@codex review Please review the updated head Generated with |
🛡️ Codex Security Review · Automatically triggeredSecurity review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request. Reviewed commit: Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex. ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHubThis is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:
Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found. |
c3cb906 to
00397fa
Compare
|
@codex review Please review the updated head Generated with |
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. 🎉 Reviewed commit: ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍. Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback". |
🛡️ Codex Security Review · Automatically triggeredSecurity review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request. Reviewed commit: Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex. ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHubThis is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:
Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found. |
00397fa to
ab882a4
Compare
|
@codex review Please review the updated head Final integrated validation passes on #4191 Generated with |
🛡️ Codex Security Review · Automatically triggeredSecurity review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request. Reviewed commit: Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex. ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHubThis is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:
Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found. |
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. More of your lovely PRs please. Reviewed commit: ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍. Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback". |
--- _Generated with `xum` • Model: `unavailable` • Thinking: `unavailable` • Cost: `$unavailable`_ <!-- mux-attribution: model=unavailable thinking=unavailable costs=unavailable -->
ab882a4 to
1ce1db1
Compare
|
@codex review Please review updated head Final integrated validation passes on #4191 All eight members remain held until current-head review approval and required CI are complete. Generated with |
🛡️ Codex Security Review · Automatically triggeredSecurity review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request. Reviewed commit: Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex. ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHubThis is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:
Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found. |
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. You're on a roll. Reviewed commit: ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍. Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback". |
1 participant
Centralizes prepared history publication so manual triggers and their prefixes use one publication boundary. Origin remains independent of visibility and billing, and later runtime layers consume durable receipts and rollback facts instead of interpreting a successful send as acceptance.
This preparation layer exposes #4182's guarded publication without activating cancellation policy; that activation belongs to #4191/#4209 in the same phase. Both Result errors and unexpectedly rejected publication promises reach the existing rollback checkpoints. Only the publication service promise is normalized: acceptance receipts and subsequent callback failures retain their distinct semantics.
Real HistoryService tests inject both failure forms after each prepared prefix and assert rollback preserves concurrent foreign history. A CI-only goal fixture now waits for publication entry and settles its held promise before teardown; observing an atomic rename no longer substitutes for write completion. Production goal behavior is unchanged. Final integrated validation passes on #4191
052fc084517c1a6fd8cfbecdf08c05b635358a32(4026 tests / 36442 assertions) and #420902651d365f63c9dc04d95744207f42f8065d6f35(4095 tests / 36847 assertions), across 54 affected suites each. Full source/test TypeScript andmake static-checkpass on both exact commits.Risk: publication callbacks govern queue and budget accounting. The real-disk assertions protect against lost or duplicated input and incorrect refunds.
This is one layer of the cancellation phase: #4214 → #4215 → #4219 → #4221 → #4182 → #4187 → #4191 → #4209. All eight PRs merge together after every member has current-head approval and passing CI.
Generated with
xum• Model:unavailable• Thinking:unavailable• Cost:$unavailable