Refuse to end a process under running dependants and ask the entry before its neighbours

[donislawdev]

What changes for somebody using the tool

• bws kill NAME and the window's Force stop refuse while services depending on the entry, or on anything sharing its process, are running outside the plan. The sentence names them. --dependents still stops the entry's own dependents as part of the plan.
• bws kill NAME --force --dependents is refused (exit code 2) before the machine is read. Its preview listed the dependents as stopping while the run skipped their stops and ended the process under them.
• A force stop asks the entry to stop first, and the services sharing its process only if the entry did not stop. A neighbour refusing its stop no longer skips the entry's own polite stop, and a dependant that refuses holds the process ending back.
• Steps not needed are reported with "skippedBecause": "processStays" in the JSON of a run - a new value, nothing existing changed - and the run still counts as completed.
• The forced preview names a critical service arriving with the cascade, a neighbour that does not accept a stop, and a disabled neighbour a forced restart could not bring back.
• The way back after a forced stop names the services that ended with the process, also under --force. A forced restart with --force no longer hands back "stop it" for a neighbour that was running before and after.
• The equivalent command of kill carries --dependents, and the window offers no Force stop after error 1051 or 5.

How it was checked

• New tests: ForcedStopRefusalTests (11 cases), ForcedRunTests (8), one each in ArgumentRefusalTests, EquivalentCommandTests and ForcedStopGuards (two cases). Existing forced stop tests moved to an entry nothing depends on, because they are about other properties and would otherwise meet the new refusal first.
• Narrow runs: core 193 of 193 in the plan and run classes, command line 27 of 27, window 64 of 64 plus text guards 20 of 20, architecture 182 of 182.
• Mutation registry: 20 new entries, 6 re-anchored, 9 neighbours of the topic - every one proved itself. One first came back MISSED and showed a redundant condition, which was removed.

Not in this change

• Listing the process again just before it is ended, and a dependant started between the preview and the run - planned with the recovery actions package.
• A real kill on a throwaway machine. Everything here was checked against the service manager double.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[coderabbitai]

Important

• 🔍 Trigger review

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

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Repository UI (base), Organization UI (inherited)

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Advanced

Run ID: ac4f19de-7624-44c6-9685-c45886a864a4

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

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