fix(workflows): fix branch version bug

[MasterPtato]

Changes

[MasterPtato]

Warning

This pull request is not mergeable via GitHub because a downstack PR is open. Once all requirements are satisfied, merge this PR as a stack on Graphite.
Learn more

• fix: get pb manager test working e2e again #2721
• fix: convert runner protocol to protobuf #2702
• fix: even more actor api changes #2714
• chore: flatten actor api spec #2698
• fix: increase default actor kill timeout to 5s #2701
• fix: dont clear ingress ports on reschedule #2700
• fix: add cpu constraints to oci config #2697
• fix: api changes #2692
• fix: fix logs for new actors #2649
• feat: add actor queue #2644
• feat: add actor kv to runners #2638
• feat: get multi actors working e2e on docker compose #2637
• fix: add udp ports to docker compose #2635
• chore: fix merge conflicts #2634
• fix: get new actors working on docker compose #2623
• fix: figure out actor log shipping #2622
• fix(pegboard): convert ws manager socket to unix socket #2478
• fix(pb): get new actor ids working e2e #2471
• feat: implement new actor ids #2467
• feat(pb): get multi-actors working e2e, add resources for builds #2465
• feat(pb): add runner logs #2447
• feat: add runners to pb protocol #2433
• chore(pegboard): add exit code log from container runner #2477
• fix(workflows): fix branch version bug #2475 👈 (View in Graphite)
• chore(pegboard): replace computing image size manually with using tar bytes read #2625
• fix: make pb image downloads random, remove prewarm from pb protocol #2784
• fix: clean up worker threads in the event of an error #2783
• fix: make query_as macros retry #2773
• main

---

How to use the Graphite Merge Queue

Add the label merge-queue to this PR to add it to the merge queue.

You must have a Graphite account in order to use the merge queue. Sign up using this link.

An organization admin has enabled the Graphite Merge Queue in this repository.

Please do not merge from GitHub as this will restart CI on PRs being processed by the merge queue.

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

[greptile-apps]

PR Summary

This PR addresses a workflow branching bug and removes unnecessary OK server installation from the Guard pool type.

• Removed components::ok_server::install() from Guard pool type in packages/core/services/cluster/src/workflows/server/install/install_scripts/mod.rs
• Fixed workflow branching version consistency by correctly passing version parameter to commit_workflow_branch_event in packages/common/chirp-workflow/core/src/ctx/workflow.rs
• Added clarifying documentation about branch validation in workflow context
• Ensures proper version tracking in workflow history for branched executions

_{2 file(s) reviewed, no comment(s)
Edit PR Review Bot Settings | Greptile}

[cloudflare-workers-and-pages]

Deploying rivet with    Cloudflare Pages

Latest commit:	7179109
Status:	🚫  Build failed.

View logs

[cloudflare-workers-and-pages]

Deploying rivet-studio with    Cloudflare Pages

Latest commit:	7179109
Status:	🚫  Build failed.

View logs

[cloudflare-workers-and-pages]

Deploying rivet-hub with    Cloudflare Pages

Latest commit:	7179109
Status:	🚫  Deploy failed.

View logs

[coderabbitai]

Important

Review skipped

Auto reviews are disabled on base/target branches other than the default branch.

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

---

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

🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

• Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
  • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
  • Explain this complex logic.
  • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
• Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai explain this code block.
  • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
• PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
  • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and explain its main purpose.
  • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
  • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Support

Need help? Create a ticket on our support page for assistance with any issues or questions.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

• @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
• @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
• @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
• @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
• @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR.
• @coderabbitai generate sequence diagram to generate a sequence diagram of the changes in this PR.
• @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
• @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
• @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

• Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
• Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
• Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

• You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
• Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
• If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

• Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
• Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
• Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

[claude]

Claude finished @MasterPtato's task —— View job

---

Claude is reviewing the PR

PR Review: Fix Branch Version Bug

• Read and analyze the modified file
• Review code quality and best practices
• Check for potential bugs or issues
• Evaluate performance considerations
• Assess security concerns
• Review test coverage
• Provide comprehensive feedback

---

Code Quality & Best Practices ✅

Positive aspects:

• Clear, focused fix: The change directly addresses the version inconsistency bug by passing the correct version parameter instead of self.version
• Improved documentation: Added clarifying comments about "latent history" validation and the branch_inner method's purpose
• Minimal scope: Only changes what's necessary to fix the bug, reducing risk of introducing new issues

Suggestions:

• The fix is well-implemented and follows good practices

Bug Analysis ✅

Primary bug fix (workflow.rs:403):

// Before: Used context's version
self.version,

// After: Uses the correct version parameter  
version,

This fix ensures that commit_workflow_branch_event receives the intended version rather than the workflow context's version, which could differ during branching operations. This prevents version inconsistencies in workflow history tracking.

Risk assessment: Low risk - the fix is targeted and addresses a clear logical error in parameter passing.

Performance Considerations ✅

• No performance impact: The change only affects which variable is passed to the database call - no computational overhead added
• Database calls remain unchanged: The fix doesn't introduce additional database operations

Security Assessment ✅

• No security concerns: The change is purely internal logic - doesn't affect input validation, authentication, or data exposure
• Data integrity improvement: Actually improves data consistency by ensuring correct version tracking

Test Coverage ⚠️

Current state: No test changes included in this PR

Recommendations:

1. Unit tests: Consider adding tests for custom_branch method to verify correct version parameter passing
2. Integration tests: Tests that verify workflow branching operations maintain version consistency
3. Regression tests: Tests that would have caught this bug originally

Example test scenarios:

#[test]
async fn test_custom_branch_uses_correct_version() {
    // Test that commit_workflow_branch_event is called with 
    // the branch version, not the context version
}

#[test] 
async fn test_workflow_branch_version_consistency() {
    // Test end-to-end workflow branching with different versions
}

Overall Assessment

Score: 8.5/10

Strengths:

• ✅ Fixes a clear bug in version parameter handling
• ✅ Minimal, targeted change reduces risk
• ✅ Improved documentation clarity
• ✅ No performance or security concerns

Areas for improvement:

• ⚠️ Missing test coverage for the bug fix
• 💡 Could benefit from additional tests to prevent similar issues

Recommendation: APPROVE - This is a solid bug fix that addresses a clear issue with workflow version consistency. The change is minimal, well-reasoned, and improves the correctness of the workflow branching system.

---

[claude]

Claude finished @MasterPtato's task —— View job

---

Claude is reviewing the PR

PR Review: Fix Branch Version Bug

• Read and analyze the modified file
• Review code quality and best practices
• Check for potential bugs or issues
• Evaluate performance considerations
• Assess security concerns
• Review test coverage
• Provide comprehensive feedback

---

Code Quality & Best Practices ✅

Positive aspects:

• Clear, focused fix: The change directly addresses the version inconsistency bug by passing the correct version parameter instead of self.version
• Improved documentation: Added clarifying comments about "latent history" validation and the branch_inner method's purpose
• Minimal scope: Only changes what's necessary to fix the bug, reducing risk of introducing new issues

Suggestions:

• The fix is well-implemented and follows good practices

Bug Analysis ✅

Primary bug fix (workflow.rs:403):

// Before: Used context's version
self.version,

// After: Uses the correct version parameter  
version,

This fix ensures that commit_workflow_branch_event receives the intended version rather than the workflow context's version, which could differ during branching operations. This prevents version inconsistencies in workflow history tracking.

Risk assessment: Low risk - the fix is targeted and addresses a clear logical error in parameter passing.

Performance Considerations ✅

• No performance impact: The change only affects which variable is passed to the database call - no computational overhead added
• Database calls remain unchanged: The fix doesn't introduce additional database operations

Security Assessment ✅

• No security concerns: The change is purely internal logic - doesn't affect input validation, authentication, or data exposure
• Data integrity improvement: Actually improves data consistency by ensuring correct version tracking

Test Coverage ⚠️

Current state: No test changes included in this PR

Recommendations:

1. Unit tests: Consider adding tests for custom_branch method to verify correct version parameter passing
2. Integration tests: Tests that verify workflow branching operations maintain version consistency
3. Regression tests: Tests that would have caught this bug originally

Example test scenarios:

#[test]
async fn test_custom_branch_uses_correct_version() {
    // Test that commit_workflow_branch_event is called with 
    // the branch version, not the context version
}

#[test] 
async fn test_workflow_branch_version_consistency() {
    // Test end-to-end workflow branching with different versions
}

Overall Assessment

Score: 8.5/10

Strengths:

• ✅ Fixes a clear bug in version parameter handling
• ✅ Minimal, targeted change reduces risk
• ✅ Improved documentation clarity
• ✅ No performance or security concerns

Areas for improvement:

• ⚠️ Missing test coverage for the bug fix
• 💡 Could benefit from additional tests to prevent similar issues

Recommendation: APPROVE - This is a solid bug fix that addresses a clear issue with workflow version consistency. The change is minimal, well-reasoned, and improves the correctness of the workflow branching system.

---

[claude]

Claude finished @MasterPtato's task —— View job

---

Claude is reviewing the PR

PR Review: Fix Branch Version Bug

• Read and analyze the modified file
• Review code quality and best practices
• Check for potential bugs or issues
• Evaluate performance considerations
• Assess security concerns
• Review test coverage
• Provide comprehensive feedback

---

Code Quality & Best Practices ✅

Positive aspects:

• Clear, focused fix: The change directly addresses the version inconsistency bug by passing the correct version parameter instead of self.version
• Improved documentation: Added clarifying comments about "latent history" validation and the branch_inner method's purpose
• Minimal scope: Only changes what's necessary to fix the bug, reducing risk of introducing new issues

Suggestions:

• The fix is well-implemented and follows good practices

Bug Analysis ✅

Primary bug fix (workflow.rs:403):

// Before: Used context's version
self.version,

// After: Uses the correct version parameter  
version,

This fix ensures that commit_workflow_branch_event receives the intended version rather than the workflow context's version, which could differ during branching operations. This prevents version inconsistencies in workflow history tracking.

Risk assessment: Low risk - the fix is targeted and addresses a clear logical error in parameter passing.

Performance Considerations ✅

• No performance impact: The change only affects which variable is passed to the database call - no computational overhead added
• Database calls remain unchanged: The fix doesn't introduce additional database operations

Security Assessment ✅

• No security concerns: The change is purely internal logic - doesn't affect input validation, authentication, or data exposure
• Data integrity improvement: Actually improves data consistency by ensuring correct version tracking

Test Coverage ⚠️

Current state: No test changes included in this PR

Recommendations:

1. Unit tests: Consider adding tests for custom_branch method to verify correct version parameter passing
2. Integration tests: Tests that verify workflow branching operations maintain version consistency
3. Regression tests: Tests that would have caught this bug originally

Example test scenarios:

#[test]
async fn test_custom_branch_uses_correct_version() {
    // Test that commit_workflow_branch_event is called with 
    // the branch version, not the context version
}

#[test] 
async fn test_workflow_branch_version_consistency() {
    // Test end-to-end workflow branching with different versions
}

Overall Assessment

Score: 8.5/10

Strengths:

• ✅ Fixes a clear bug in version parameter handling
• ✅ Minimal, targeted change reduces risk
• ✅ Improved documentation clarity
• ✅ No performance or security concerns

Areas for improvement:

• ⚠️ Missing test coverage for the bug fix
• 💡 Could benefit from additional tests to prevent similar issues

Recommendation: APPROVE - This is a solid bug fix that addresses a clear issue with workflow version consistency. The change is minimal, well-reasoned, and improves the correctness of the workflow branching system.

---

[claude]

Claude finished @MasterPtato's task —— View job

---

Claude finished @MasterPtato's task —— View job

---

PR Review: Fix Branch Version Bug

• Read and analyze the modified file
• Review code quality and best practices
• Check for potential bugs or issues
• Evaluate performance considerations
• Assess security concerns
• Review test coverage
• Provide comprehensive feedback

---

Code Quality & Best Practices ✅

Positive aspects:

• Clear, focused fix: The change directly addresses the version inconsistency bug by passing the correct version parameter instead of self.version
• Improved documentation: Added clarifying comments about "latent history" validation and the branch_inner method's purpose
• Minimal scope: Only changes what's necessary to fix the bug, reducing risk of introducing new issues

Suggestions:

• The fix is well-implemented and follows good practices

Bug Analysis ✅

Primary bug fix (workflow.rs:403):

// Before: Used context's version
self.version,

// After: Uses the correct version parameter  
version,

This fix ensures that commit_workflow_branch_event receives the intended version rather than the workflow context's version, which could differ during branching operations. This prevents version inconsistencies in workflow history tracking.

Risk assessment: Low risk - the fix is targeted and addresses a clear logical error in parameter passing.

Performance Considerations ✅

• No performance impact: The change only affects which variable is passed to the database call - no computational overhead added
• Database calls remain unchanged: The fix doesn't introduce additional database operations

Security Assessment ✅

• No security concerns: The change is purely internal logic - doesn't affect input validation, authentication, or data exposure
• Data integrity improvement: Actually improves data consistency by ensuring correct version tracking

Test Coverage ⚠️

Current state: No test changes included in this PR

Recommendations:

1. Unit tests: Consider adding tests for custom_branch method to verify correct version parameter passing
2. Integration tests: Tests that verify workflow branching operations maintain version consistency
3. Regression tests: Tests that would have caught this bug originally

Example test scenarios:

#[test]
async fn test_custom_branch_uses_correct_version() {
    // Test that commit_workflow_branch_event is called with 
    // the branch version, not the context version
}

#[test] 
async fn test_workflow_branch_version_consistency() {
    // Test end-to-end workflow branching with different versions
}

Overall Assessment

Score: 8.5/10

Strengths:

• ✅ Fixes a clear bug in version parameter handling
• ✅ Minimal, targeted change reduces risk
• ✅ Improved documentation clarity
• ✅ No performance or security concerns

Areas for improvement:

• ⚠️ Missing test coverage for the bug fix
• 💡 Could benefit from additional tests to prevent similar issues

Recommendation: APPROVE - This is a solid bug fix that addresses a clear issue with workflow version consistency. The change is minimal, well-reasoned, and improves the correctness of the workflow branching system.

---

[claude]

Claude finished @MasterPtato's task —— View job

---

Claude is reviewing the PR

PR Review: Fix Branch Version Bug

• Read and analyze the modified file
• Review code quality and best practices
• Check for potential bugs or issues
• Evaluate performance considerations
• Assess security concerns
• Review test coverage
• Provide comprehensive feedback

---

Code Quality & Best Practices ✅

Positive aspects:

• Clear, focused fix: The change directly addresses the version inconsistency bug by passing the correct version parameter instead of self.version
• Improved documentation: Added clarifying comments about "latent history" validation and the branch_inner method's purpose
• Minimal scope: Only changes what's necessary to fix the bug, reducing risk of introducing new issues

Suggestions:

• The fix is well-implemented and follows good practices

Bug Analysis ✅

Primary bug fix (workflow.rs:403):

// Before: Used context's version
self.version,

// After: Uses the correct version parameter  
version,

This fix ensures that commit_workflow_branch_event receives the intended version rather than the workflow context's version, which could differ during branching operations. This prevents version inconsistencies in workflow history tracking.

Risk assessment: Low risk - the fix is targeted and addresses a clear logical error in parameter passing.

Performance Considerations ✅

• No performance impact: The change only affects which variable is passed to the database call - no computational overhead added
• Database calls remain unchanged: The fix doesn't introduce additional database operations

Security Assessment ✅

• No security concerns: The change is purely internal logic - doesn't affect input validation, authentication, or data exposure
• Data integrity improvement: Actually improves data consistency by ensuring correct version tracking

Test Coverage ⚠️

Current state: No test changes included in this PR

Recommendations:

1. Unit tests: Consider adding tests for custom_branch method to verify correct version parameter passing
2. Integration tests: Tests that verify workflow branching operations maintain version consistency
3. Regression tests: Tests that would have caught this bug originally

Example test scenarios:

#[test]
async fn test_custom_branch_uses_correct_version() {
    // Test that commit_workflow_branch_event is called with 
    // the branch version, not the context version
}

#[test] 
async fn test_workflow_branch_version_consistency() {
    // Test end-to-end workflow branching with different versions
}

Overall Assessment

Score: 8.5/10

Strengths:

• ✅ Fixes a clear bug in version parameter handling
• ✅ Minimal, targeted change reduces risk
• ✅ Improved documentation clarity
• ✅ No performance or security concerns

Areas for improvement:

• ⚠️ Missing test coverage for the bug fix
• 💡 Could benefit from additional tests to prevent similar issues

Recommendation: APPROVE - This is a solid bug fix that addresses a clear issue with workflow version consistency. The change is minimal, well-reasoned, and improves the correctness of the workflow branching system.

---

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project	Deployment	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
rivet-site	Ready	Preview	Comment	Aug 21, 2025 8:29pm

[claude]

Claude finished @MasterPtato's task —— View job

---

Claude is reviewing the PR

PR Review: Fix Branch Version Bug

• Read and analyze the modified file
• Review code quality and best practices
• Check for potential bugs or issues
• Evaluate performance considerations
• Assess security concerns
• Review test coverage
• Provide comprehensive feedback

---

Code Quality & Best Practices ✅

Positive aspects:

• Clear, focused fix: The change directly addresses the version inconsistency bug by passing the correct version parameter instead of self.version
• Improved documentation: Added clarifying comments about "latent history" validation and the branch_inner method's purpose
• Minimal scope: Only changes what's necessary to fix the bug, reducing risk of introducing new issues

Suggestions:

• The fix is well-implemented and follows good practices

Bug Analysis ✅

Primary bug fix (workflow.rs:403):

// Before: Used context's version
self.version,

// After: Uses the correct version parameter  
version,

This fix ensures that commit_workflow_branch_event receives the intended version rather than the workflow context's version, which could differ during branching operations. This prevents version inconsistencies in workflow history tracking.

Risk assessment: Low risk - the fix is targeted and addresses a clear logical error in parameter passing.

Performance Considerations ✅

• No performance impact: The change only affects which variable is passed to the database call - no computational overhead added
• Database calls remain unchanged: The fix doesn't introduce additional database operations

Security Assessment ✅

• No security concerns: The change is purely internal logic - doesn't affect input validation, authentication, or data exposure
• Data integrity improvement: Actually improves data consistency by ensuring correct version tracking

Test Coverage ⚠️

Current state: No test changes included in this PR

Recommendations:

1. Unit tests: Consider adding tests for custom_branch method to verify correct version parameter passing
2. Integration tests: Tests that verify workflow branching operations maintain version consistency
3. Regression tests: Tests that would have caught this bug originally

Example test scenarios:

#[test]
async fn test_custom_branch_uses_correct_version() {
    // Test that commit_workflow_branch_event is called with 
    // the branch version, not the context version
}

#[test] 
async fn test_workflow_branch_version_consistency() {
    // Test end-to-end workflow branching with different versions
}

Overall Assessment

Score: 8.5/10

Strengths:

• ✅ Fixes a clear bug in version parameter handling
• ✅ Minimal, targeted change reduces risk
• ✅ Improved documentation clarity
• ✅ No performance or security concerns

Areas for improvement:

• ⚠️ Missing test coverage for the bug fix
• 💡 Could benefit from additional tests to prevent similar issues

Recommendation: APPROVE - This is a solid bug fix that addresses a clear issue with workflow version consistency. The change is minimal, well-reasoned, and improves the correctness of the workflow branching system.

---

[claude]

Claude encountered an error —— View job

---

Claude is reviewing the PR

PR Review: Fix Branch Version Bug

• Read and analyze the modified file
• Review code quality and best practices
• Check for potential bugs or issues
• Evaluate performance considerations
• Assess security concerns
• Review test coverage
• Provide comprehensive feedback

---

Analyzing the workflow branching bug fix...

[claude]

Claude encountered an error —— View job

---

I'll analyze this and get back to you.

[claude]

Claude encountered an error —— View job

---

I'll analyze this and get back to you.