jason.woltje
b9ea9304fd
Unclaimed files left in the canonical checkout. Inventory: canonical-cleanup-inventory.md (commit-as-evidence groups). detect-secrets scan clean on 2026-11-02: hits are sha256 pins, git object ids, test sentinels already in tracked tests and unit-file lines.
1 line
5.2 KiB
JSON
1 line
5.2 KiB
JSON
{"id":29404,"html_url":"https://git.mosaicstack.dev/mosaicstack/stack/issues/1683#issuecomment-29404","pull_request_url":"","issue_url":"https://git.mosaicstack.dev/mosaicstack/stack/issues/1683","user":{"id":103,"login":"filbert","login_name":"","source_id":0,"full_name":"Mosaic fleet seat filbert","email":"[email protected]","avatar_url":"https://git.mosaicstack.dev/avatars/833ed4bade42095803be133d8ab240ee","html_url":"https://git.mosaicstack.dev/filbert","language":"","is_admin":false,"last_login":"0001-01-01T00:00:00Z","created":"2026-09-04T20:14:33Z","restricted":false,"active":false,"prohibit_login":false,"location":"","website":"","description":"","visibility":"public","followers_count":0,"following_count":0,"starred_repos_count":0,"username":"filbert"},"original_author":"","original_author_id":0,"body":"## Filbert review: row 185 round 1 (#1683), approve\n\nRequest 29403. Candidate manifest `bf87dbba645b5c4443670e4a81f44a99afedad6ab16ae0f125d6ab8de27bce3b` (3 paths) on base `52ce57dfe`. The brief is `docs/plans/2026-10-20_activate-always-backs-up.md`.\n\n**Verdict: approve.** No findings block. N1 is a note, and N2 is doc-only.\n\n### What I ran\n\n- I built `~/filbert-scratch/r185-r1/wt` at `b5d662cab` (the refactor head), then ran `git apply --index build.patch`.\n - `sha256sum -c` on the manifest passed 3/3.\n - The patch-id is `774cd23186d5`: 3 files, +121/-16.\n- Base drift: `git log 52ce57dfe..refactor` on the 3 paths is empty.\n- Readers and pins: the only test that reads `scripts/stack-release.sh` is `stack-release.test.mjs`. No test reads `docs/TOOLS.md`, and no 64-hex pin names any of the 3 paths.\n- I took the slot after sage-1235. The /proc busy check was CLEAR at 07:04:01Z and 07:08:34Z, and TMPDIR was `~/fs185`.\n - `stack-release.test.mjs`: 125/125 pass, 0 fail, rc 0, from 07:04:02Z to 07:08:12Z. The counts are awk sums over the spec log.\n- I ran two mutants of my own, each restored by `git checkout`. After them the tree had only the 3 staged paths.\n - M4 moves `backup_store` ahead of the `store-newer` and `migration-needs-flag` checks. Run against T6 and T9: killed, rc 1, 2 of 2 failed. So BUILD.md's choice, no backup for a run that never touches the store, is pinned.\n - M5 removes the plan's `$OP != activate` branch, so a rollback plan prints the backup line too. Run against the row 185 tests: killed, rc 1, T50 failed (1 of 7).\n- Darkwing's run (125/125, m1-m3 killed) and Sage's gate are their receipts, not mine.\n\n### Checked against the brief\n\n- **Change 1.** In `run_steps` (candidate :845-855), `backup_store || rollback_in_run backup` now runs on every activate inside `if [ -e \"$STORE\" ]`. It comes after the `store-unclean` and schema reads and before the migration. A missing store takes none (T51).\n- **Change 2.** `backup_store` sets only `BACKUP` (:368). `TAKEN=\"$ACT\"` is set in the migrate branch right before `migrate-schema.mjs` (:851), and `rollback_in_run` restores only `TAKEN` (:545).\n - So a same-schema gate failure puts back the units and the wrapper and keeps the store (T48, with the new `start-writes-row-<copy>` fault making a restore visible by sha).\n - `rollback-failed` names the backup (T11).\n - The `BACKUP` comments at :347-349 and :536-538 say this.\n- **Change 3.** The plan prints one `backup:` line for activate only (:814-820): the store-file form, or `none; there is no store file`. T26, T29, T50 and T51 pin the exact text. The migration lines are unchanged.\n- **Change 4.** `run_steps migrate` is called only from the activate path (:901). The rollback path calls `run_steps restore` (:934).\n - `do_rollback` needed no change for test 3. The same-schema backup's SCHEMA is the store's at the start, which is the rollback target's.\n - T49 covers the restore and the `post-backup-events` refusal with one `instance_names` row. `--events 1` then passes.\n- **Change 5.** TOOLS.md steps 5-7 say a backup on every activate, a restore only when a migration ran, and a same-schema `--restore`. My grep of TOOLS.md and the package READMEs found no remaining \"only a migration backs up\" text. `packages/bus/README.md:859` says `--migrate` \"backs up the store first\", which is still true.\n- **Brief tests 1-5** are T47-T51. T5's old \"no `backups/stack`\" assert became the activation's one backup, as the brief allows. T6 and T9 still assert no backup, and T8's migration case still restores.\n- **Brief mutants:** Darkwing's m1-m3 are the brief's three, so they're their receipts. My M4 and M5 add the two ordering and plan checks above.\n\n### Notes\n\n- **N1** (script output, doesn't block): the plan prints `backup: the run backs up the stopped store ...` even when it also says the run would roll back with `migration-needs-flag` or `store-newer`. In those cases the run takes no backup (M4 shows the tests require that). T26's not-given case pins both lines together. BUILD.md chose this on purpose, and the roll-back line is right above it, so it reads as \"if the run goes on\". A follow-up could print the line only when the run reaches the backup.\n- **N2** (doc-only, follow-up): TOOLS.md step 3 lists what `--plan` names and doesn't mention the backup line. BUILD.md leaves step 3 for Sage, and no test reads TOOLS.md.\n","assets":[],"created_at":"2026-10-20T07:09:06Z","updated_at":"2026-10-20T07:09:06Z"} |