fix(workbench): parse UTC timestamps on Python 3.10

[mldangelo-oai]

Summary

Restore Deep Scan deadlines and remediation-claim expiration on supported Python 3.10 installations.

Fixes #35. Fixes #450.

Changes

• Normalize UTC suffixes before parsing Deep Scan deadlines, coordinator heartbeats, and remediation claims.
• Preserve stored timestamps, explicit timezone offsets, exact lease cutoffs, and the existing handling of invalid or timezone-naive claims.
• Simplify the focused compatibility fixtures and cover stale or malformed coordinator heartbeats.
• Keep the bundled-plugin version paired at 0.1.21 so cached installations receive the fix.

Testing

• bun test --timeout 30000 tests-ts/deep-scan-timestamp-compat.test.ts tests-ts/workbench-remediation-timestamp.test.ts tests-ts/deep-scan-workbench.test.ts with Python 3.10.19 and tomli==2.3.0 — 49 passed, 274 assertions.
• Focused timestamp tests with Python 3.12.12 — 20 passed, 40 assertions.
• Existing Deep Scan workbench tests with Python 3.12.12 — 29 passed, 234 assertions.
• Focused runtime plugin-cache and Python-selection tests — 6 passed, 17 assertions.
• bun test --timeout 30000 --randomize --seed 12345 ./tests-ts with Bun 1.3.14 — 1,313 passed, 11 skipped, 0 failed; 9,186 assertions across 65 files. JUnit and the complete log were retained.
• pnpm run types, pnpm run format, Python 3.10 syntax validation, paired plugin-version validation, and git diff --check — passed.
• The repository's standard full-suite, cross-platform, and package CI must still pass on the pushed head.

Risk and rollout

No persisted data is rewritten, and deadline and lease semantics are unchanged. This changes only the bundled-plugin version, not the npm package version.

Recorded main uses plugin 0.1.20. If another plugin-changing PR lands first, merge the updated main additively, advance both plugin version fields to the next unused version, and rerun the cache/version and current-head checks. Coordinate the overlapping version updates in #467 and #472.

Public disclosure review

• No customer, partner, prospect, or user identities, data, or identifying details are included.
• No credentials, personal data, private source, scan findings, or nonpublic links or tickets are included.
• I reviewed the branch name, title, description, commits, changes, comments, logs, screenshots, attachments, and links for public disclosure.

Newly authored material was reviewed for public disclosure. Existing automated review comments contain access-restricted report references; maintainer cleanup remains outstanding.

[mldangelo-oai]

@codex review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. 🎉

Reviewed commit: 8a9606167d

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".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Security review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 8a9606167d

View security finding report

Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex.

ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHub

This is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:

• You comment "@codex security review"
• A regular code review gets triggered (for example, "@codex review" or when a PR is opened), and you’re opted in so security review runs alongside code review

Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found.

[mldangelo-oai]

@codex review

Please review the current head, 21c1a7764a0a18b302c0380855b6402980de1b22.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. What shall we delve into next?

Reviewed commit: 21c1a7764a

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".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Security review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 21c1a7764a

View security finding report

Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex.

ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHub

This is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:

• You comment "@codex security review"
• A regular code review gets triggered (for example, "@codex review" or when a PR is opened), and you’re opted in so security review runs alongside code review

Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found.