stack/agents/filbert/work/queue-101/r1/body.md at dev-console

0 Fork 1

Files

T

jason.woltje b9ea9304fd lead: commit filbert's untracked evidence (273 files: queue-101 queue-102 queue-105 queue-107 queue-108 queue-109 queue-110 queue-112 queue-113 queue-114 queue-115 queue-116 queue-119 queue-120 queue-122 queue-123 queue-125 queue-126 queue-128 queue-129 queue-130 queue-131 queue-132 queue-133 queue-134 queue-135 queue-136 queue-137 queue-139 queue-140 queue-141 queue-142 queue-145 queue-146 queue-147 queue-148 queue-149 queue-150 queue-151 queue-152 queue-153 queue-154 queue-155 queue-156 queue-162 queue-163 queue-165 queue-166 queue-167 queue-169 queue-170 queue-175 queue-177 queue-181 queue-182 queue-184 queue-185 queue-186 queue-187 queue-188 queue-49 queue-64 queue-66 queue-70 queue-71 queue-80 queue-84 queue-85 queue-87 queue-88)

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.

2026-11-02 15:05:14 -06:00

4.2 KiB

Raw Permalink Blame History

Row 101 round 1 (#1595), Filbert: approve.

Candidate manifest SHA-256: ee1335a6e44610f676ade116733d180ac6f0b3603a58306110cbd1dd1e9c1f69. Base: 0d71b9ddd. Packet: agents/researcher/work/queue-101/r1/. This answers request 28244.

I rebuilt the candidate in my own worktree at 0d71b9ddd and applied build.patch. All 5 manifest hashes match, git diff --check is clean, and the worktree shows only the 5 paths. None of the 5 paths changed from 0d71b9ddd to the current refactor head. No dashes, curly quotes, bidi or soft-hyphen characters appear in added lines. My review is static: I ran no suites, mutants or queue-commit.sh.

What Sage asked me to check

The refusal follows the idempotent-retry return. In mutateAs the order is: step 3 (a recorded op with the same verb and args returns its receipt, or a different payload is refused), then accept-history, then step 4 (view unknown or stale refusals), then the new check, then step 5 (resolveFor, applyEntry, write). So a retried add whose op is already in the log still gets (already recorded at rev N), including an add recorded before this row with gateOwner: null. canonArgs gives gateOwner: null when the flag is absent (nullable, queue.mjs:459), so === null is the right test. The refusal throws inside withLock before any write, and test 3 shows queue.json, QUEUE.md and the revision unchanged for both jason and sage. Correct.

data.test.mjs direct applyEntry adds rightly untouched. step() (data.test.mjs:38) builds the entry and calls applyEntry directly. It never reaches mutateAs, and applyEntry is unchanged from base (queue.mjs isn't in the patch). Adding gateOwner there would change rows those tests assert (a.gateOwner ?? "jason", queue.mjs:916). Leaving them alone is right.

Brief and rulings

What ships: a privileged add without --gate-owner is refused with exit 2, the message names the flag, and the refusal comes before the entry is written. A non-privileged add is unchanged (refused if it names one, gets jason otherwise). applyEntry, canonArgs, replay and the log format are unchanged, and SEMANTICS stays 2, so the live Console's old store.mjs keeps loading new entries. Explicit --gate-owner jason still works for a gate that is meant to be Jason's.
The store.mjs change is one check in the write path, per Sage's ruling. The store.test.mjs edits are exactly the four listed lines (179, 229, 248, 397), each gaining --gate-owner filbert and nothing else.
No other code calls queue add (I searched packages and scripts outside tests), so no programmatic caller breaks.
Tests cover the four cases the brief names: refused and nothing written, named owner carried, non-privileged gets jason, and an old privileged add with null gate owner replays (semantics 1 and 2, through loadDoc).
usage text and README say the flag is required for jason and sage, and why. The README paragraph is new and sits after the owner-as-reviewer paragraph. Since the README had no add paragraph before, that is a fair reading of "the add paragraph only".

Notes (none blocking)

N1. The ordering Sage asked about is right by the code but no test pins it. Every retry test passes --gate-owner, so moving the new check above step 3 would still pass the suite. Then a retry of an add recorded before this lands (for example, a request repeated after landing) would be refused instead of answered with its receipt. A test that appends a sage add with null gate owner to the log (as addUnder does), then retries the same op and args through the CLI and expects (already recorded at rev N), would pin it. A sixth mutant that hoists the check would show it. Worth a follow-up, not a reason to hold the row.
N2. The refusal message ends with "(row 100 got jason by default)". A permanent CLI message that cites one row's history will read oddly later. The store.mjs comment already carries that history. Cosmetic.
N3. The packet's gate ran in a worktree, so the queue verify and render --check case of test-queue.sh was skipped, and that is the check closest to the brief's "queue verify --current passes on the current file". Replay is unchanged by construction, but Sage's gate rerun from the canonical root is the evidence of record for it.

4.2 KiB Raw Permalink Blame History

What Sage asked me to check

Brief and rulings

Notes (none blocking)

4.2 KiB

Raw Permalink Blame History