chore(pegboard): add exit code log from container runner

[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 👈 (View in Graphite)
• fix(workflows): fix branch version bug #2475
• chore(pegboard): replace computing image size manually with using tar bytes read #2625
• chore: a mess of merging everything together #2720 : 1 other dependent PR (#2719 )
• chore(pegboard): add workaround fetching image size when not using ats #2744
• chore: update download logs button to use export #2718 : 1 other dependent PR (#2673 )
• fix(dev-full): update to use new ports #2717
• feat: expose GET /actors/usage, GET /actors/logs, GET /actors/logs/export, GET /routes/history #2716
• fix(pegboard): include namespace in actor log query #2712
• chore: update clickhouse user query to dynamically bind subproperties #2715
• feat: implement clickhouse-user-query #2554
• fix(toolchain): mark external deps #2713
• fix(toolchain): fix compat with deploying using podman #2571 : 1 other dependent PR (#2710 )
• fix(toolchain): dont upgrade for deploys by default #2743
• fix(workflows): fix signal publish/listen race condition #2742
• fix: upgrade actors by build name #2741
• fix: gracefully handle prom failure for pb topo #2731
• 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

Added exit code logging functionality to the container runner to improve observability of container termination states.

• Added logging to packages/edge/infra/client/container-runner/src/main.rs that captures container exit codes and sends them to stderr and the log shipper
• Added message formatting for both successful exits (Exited with exit code {exit_code}) and failures (Aborting)

_{1 file(s) reviewed, 1 comment(s)
Edit PR Review Bot Settings | Greptile}

[greptile-apps]

style: Consider using stdout instead of stderr for successful exit codes since this is expected behavior, not an error condition

[cloudflare-workers-and-pages]

Deploying rivet with    Cloudflare Pages

Latest commit:	d6072b5
Status:	🚫  Build failed.

View logs

[cloudflare-workers-and-pages]

Deploying rivet-studio with    Cloudflare Pages

Latest commit:	d6072b5
Status:	🚫  Build failed.

View logs

[cloudflare-workers-and-pages]

Deploying rivet-hub with    Cloudflare Pages

Latest commit:	d6072b5
Status:	🚫  Build failed.

View logs

[claude]

Claude finished @MasterPtato's task —— View job

---

Code Review Complete ✅

I've reviewed this PR for code quality, potential bugs, performance, security concerns, and test coverage.

Todo List:

• Read and analyze the modified file packages/edge/infra/client/container-runner/src/main.rs
• Review code quality and best practices
• Check for potential bugs or issues
• Evaluate performance considerations
• Assess security concerns
• Review test coverage implications
• Provide comprehensive feedback

Review Feedback

✅ Code Quality & Best Practices

• Well-structured changes: The modifications follow existing code patterns and error handling conventions
• Consistent messaging: Both success and failure cases now send appropriate messages to the log shipper
• Good observability: Adding exit code logging improves debugging and monitoring capabilities

⚠️ Recommendations

1. Stream Type Consideration (main.rs:70,82)

   • Currently using StdErr for both success and failure cases
   • Recommendation: Consider using StdOut for successful exits and StdErr for failures, as suggested by the existing Greptile review
   • Rationale: Successful container termination is expected behavior, not an error condition

2. Message Consistency (main.rs:71,82)

   • Success message: "Exited with exit code {exit_code}"
   • Failure message: "Aborting"
   • Recommendation: Consider making the failure message more descriptive, e.g., "Container failed, aborting"

✅ Potential Bugs & Issues

• No bugs identified: The code is straightforward and follows existing patterns correctly
• Error handling: Properly integrated with existing error handling mechanisms
• Resource management: No resource leaks or threading issues introduced

✅ Performance Considerations

• Minimal impact: Only adds two simple message sending operations
• Existing throttling: The log shipper already handles rate limiting and buffering appropriately
• No blocking operations: Uses existing async message sending infrastructure

✅ Security Concerns

• No sensitive data exposure: Exit codes are standard process information (0 for success, non-zero for failure)
• Safe logging: Messages don't contain user data or system secrets
• Consistent with existing patterns: Uses the same logging mechanisms as other parts of the system

✅ Test Coverage

• Observability code: This type of logging code is typically covered by integration tests rather than unit tests
• Existing test coverage: The container runner likely has integration tests that would exercise these code paths
• Low risk: Simple logging additions are unlikely to introduce regressions

Summary

This is a solid improvement that enhances observability without introducing risks. The main suggestion is to consider using StdOut for successful exits to better align with Unix conventions where stderr is reserved for error conditions.

Overall Assessment: ✅ Approve with minor suggestions

---

[claude]

Claude finished @MasterPtato's task —— View job

---

Code Review Complete ✅

I've reviewed this PR for code quality, potential bugs, performance, security concerns, and test coverage.

Todo List:

• Read and analyze the modified file packages/edge/infra/client/container-runner/src/main.rs
• Review code quality and best practices
• Check for potential bugs or issues
• Evaluate performance considerations
• Assess security concerns
• Review test coverage implications
• Provide comprehensive feedback

Review Feedback

✅ Code Quality & Best Practices

• Well-structured changes: The modifications follow existing code patterns and error handling conventions
• Consistent messaging: Both success and failure cases now send appropriate messages to the log shipper
• Good observability: Adding exit code logging improves debugging and monitoring capabilities

⚠️ Recommendations

1. Stream Type Consideration (main.rs:70,82)

   • Currently using StdErr for both success and failure cases
   • Recommendation: Consider using StdOut for successful exits and StdErr for failures, as suggested by the existing Greptile review
   • Rationale: Successful container termination is expected behavior, not an error condition

2. Message Consistency (main.rs:71,82)

   • Success message: "Exited with exit code {exit_code}"
   • Failure message: "Aborting"
   • Recommendation: Consider making the failure message more descriptive, e.g., "Container failed, aborting"

✅ Potential Bugs & Issues

• No bugs identified: The code is straightforward and follows existing patterns correctly
• Error handling: Properly integrated with existing error handling mechanisms
• Resource management: No resource leaks or threading issues introduced

✅ Performance Considerations

• Minimal impact: Only adds two simple message sending operations
• Existing throttling: The log shipper already handles rate limiting and buffering appropriately
• No blocking operations: Uses existing async message sending infrastructure

✅ Security Concerns

• No sensitive data exposure: Exit codes are standard process information (0 for success, non-zero for failure)
• Safe logging: Messages don't contain user data or system secrets
• Consistent with existing patterns: Uses the same logging mechanisms as other parts of the system

✅ Test Coverage

• Observability code: This type of logging code is typically covered by integration tests rather than unit tests
• Existing test coverage: The container runner likely has integration tests that would exercise these code paths
• Low risk: Simple logging additions are unlikely to introduce regressions

Summary

This is a solid improvement that enhances observability without introducing risks. The main suggestion is to consider using StdOut for successful exits to better align with Unix conventions where stderr is reserved for error conditions.

Overall Assessment: ✅ Approve with minor suggestions

---

[claude]

Claude finished @MasterPtato's task —— View job

---

Code Review Complete ✅

I've reviewed this PR for code quality, potential bugs, performance, security concerns, and test coverage.

Todo List:

• Read and analyze the modified file packages/edge/infra/client/container-runner/src/main.rs
• Review code quality and best practices
• Check for potential bugs or issues
• Evaluate performance considerations
• Assess security concerns
• Review test coverage implications
• Provide comprehensive feedback

Review Feedback

✅ Code Quality & Best Practices

• Well-structured changes: The modifications follow existing code patterns and error handling conventions
• Consistent messaging: Both success and failure cases now send appropriate messages to the log shipper
• Good observability: Adding exit code logging improves debugging and monitoring capabilities

⚠️ Recommendations

1. Stream Type Consideration (main.rs:70,82)

   • Currently using StdErr for both success and failure cases
   • Recommendation: Consider using StdOut for successful exits and StdErr for failures, as suggested by the existing Greptile review
   • Rationale: Successful container termination is expected behavior, not an error condition

2. Message Consistency (main.rs:71,82)

   • Success message: "Exited with exit code {exit_code}"
   • Failure message: "Aborting"
   • Recommendation: Consider making the failure message more descriptive, e.g., "Container failed, aborting"

✅ Potential Bugs & Issues

• No bugs identified: The code is straightforward and follows existing patterns correctly
• Error handling: Properly integrated with existing error handling mechanisms
• Resource management: No resource leaks or threading issues introduced

✅ Performance Considerations

• Minimal impact: Only adds two simple message sending operations
• Existing throttling: The log shipper already handles rate limiting and buffering appropriately
• No blocking operations: Uses existing async message sending infrastructure

✅ Security Concerns

• No sensitive data exposure: Exit codes are standard process information (0 for success, non-zero for failure)
• Safe logging: Messages don't contain user data or system secrets
• Consistent with existing patterns: Uses the same logging mechanisms as other parts of the system

✅ Test Coverage

• Observability code: This type of logging code is typically covered by integration tests rather than unit tests
• Existing test coverage: The container runner likely has integration tests that would exercise these code paths
• Low risk: Simple logging additions are unlikely to introduce regressions

Summary

This is a solid improvement that enhances observability without introducing risks. The main suggestion is to consider using StdOut for successful exits to better align with Unix conventions where stderr is reserved for error conditions.

Overall Assessment: ✅ Approve with minor suggestions

---

[claude]

Claude finished @MasterPtato's task —— View job

---

Code Review Complete ✅

I've reviewed this PR for code quality, potential bugs, performance, security concerns, and test coverage.

Todo List:

• Read and analyze the modified file packages/edge/infra/client/container-runner/src/main.rs
• Review code quality and best practices
• Check for potential bugs or issues
• Evaluate performance considerations
• Assess security concerns
• Review test coverage implications
• Provide comprehensive feedback

Review Feedback

✅ Code Quality & Best Practices

• Well-structured changes: The modifications follow existing code patterns and error handling conventions
• Consistent messaging: Both success and failure cases now send appropriate messages to the log shipper
• Good observability: Adding exit code logging improves debugging and monitoring capabilities

⚠️ Recommendations

1. Stream Type Consideration (main.rs:70,82)

   • Currently using StdErr for both success and failure cases
   • Recommendation: Consider using StdOut for successful exits and StdErr for failures, as suggested by the existing Greptile review
   • Rationale: Successful container termination is expected behavior, not an error condition

2. Message Consistency (main.rs:71,82)

   • Success message: "Exited with exit code {exit_code}"
   • Failure message: "Aborting"
   • Recommendation: Consider making the failure message more descriptive, e.g., "Container failed, aborting"

✅ Potential Bugs & Issues

• No bugs identified: The code is straightforward and follows existing patterns correctly
• Error handling: Properly integrated with existing error handling mechanisms
• Resource management: No resource leaks or threading issues introduced

✅ Performance Considerations

• Minimal impact: Only adds two simple message sending operations
• Existing throttling: The log shipper already handles rate limiting and buffering appropriately
• No blocking operations: Uses existing async message sending infrastructure

✅ Security Concerns

• No sensitive data exposure: Exit codes are standard process information (0 for success, non-zero for failure)
• Safe logging: Messages don't contain user data or system secrets
• Consistent with existing patterns: Uses the same logging mechanisms as other parts of the system

✅ Test Coverage

• Observability code: This type of logging code is typically covered by integration tests rather than unit tests
• Existing test coverage: The container runner likely has integration tests that would exercise these code paths
• Low risk: Simple logging additions are unlikely to introduce regressions

Summary

This is a solid improvement that enhances observability without introducing risks. The main suggestion is to consider using StdOut for successful exits to better align with Unix conventions where stderr is reserved for error conditions.

Overall Assessment: ✅ Approve with minor suggestions

---

[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

---

Code Review Complete ✅

I've reviewed this PR for code quality, potential bugs, performance, security concerns, and test coverage.

Todo List:

• Read and analyze the modified file packages/edge/infra/client/container-runner/src/main.rs
• Review code quality and best practices
• Check for potential bugs or issues
• Evaluate performance considerations
• Assess security concerns
• Review test coverage implications
• Provide comprehensive feedback

Review Feedback

✅ Code Quality & Best Practices

• Well-structured changes: The modifications follow existing code patterns and error handling conventions
• Consistent messaging: Both success and failure cases now send appropriate messages to the log shipper
• Good observability: Adding exit code logging improves debugging and monitoring capabilities
• Proper integration: Uses the existing container::send_message function correctly

⚠️ Recommendations

1. Stream Type Consideration (main.rs:70,82)

   • Currently using StdErr for both success and failure cases
   • Recommendation: Consider using StdOut for successful exits and StdErr for failures, as suggested by the existing Greptile review
   • Rationale: Successful container termination is expected behavior, not an error condition

2. Message Consistency (main.rs:71,83)

   • Success message: "Exited with exit code {exit_code}"
   • Failure message: "Aborting"
   • Recommendation: Consider making the failure message more descriptive, e.g., "Container failed, aborting"

✅ Potential Bugs & Issues

• No bugs identified: The code is straightforward and follows existing patterns correctly
• Error handling: Properly integrated with existing error handling mechanisms
• Resource management: No resource leaks or threading issues introduced

✅ Performance Considerations

• Minimal impact: Only adds two simple message sending operations
• Existing throttling: The log shipper already handles rate limiting and buffering appropriately
• No blocking operations: Uses existing async message sending infrastructure

✅ Security Concerns

• No sensitive data exposure: Exit codes are standard process information (0 for success, non-zero for failure)
• Safe logging: Messages don't contain user data or system secrets
• Consistent with existing patterns: Uses the same logging mechanisms as other parts of the system

✅ Test Coverage

• Observability code: This type of logging code is typically covered by integration tests rather than unit tests
• Existing test coverage: The container runner likely has integration tests that would exercise these code paths
• Low risk: Simple logging additions are unlikely to introduce regressions

Summary

This is a solid improvement that enhances observability without introducing risks. The main suggestion is to consider using StdOut for successful exits to better align with Unix conventions where stderr is reserved for error conditions.

Overall Assessment: ✅ Approve with minor suggestions

---

[claude]

Claude finished @MasterPtato's task —— View job

---

Code Review Complete ✅

I've reviewed this PR for code quality, potential bugs, performance, security concerns, and test coverage.

Todo List:

• Read and analyze the modified file packages/edge/infra/client/container-runner/src/main.rs
• Review code quality and best practices
• Check for potential bugs or issues
• Evaluate performance considerations
• Assess security concerns
• Review test coverage implications
• Provide comprehensive feedback

Review Feedback

✅ Code Quality & Best Practices

• Well-structured changes: The modifications follow existing code patterns and error handling conventions in main.rs:67-72,78-83
• Consistent messaging: Both success and failure cases now send appropriate messages to the log shipper
• Good observability: Adding exit code logging improves debugging and monitoring capabilities

⚠️ Recommendations

1. Stream Type Consideration (main.rs:70,82)

   • Currently using StdErr for both success and failure cases
   • Recommendation: Consider using StdOut for successful exits and StdErr for failures, as suggested by the existing Greptile review
   • Rationale: Successful container termination is expected behavior, not an error condition

2. Message Consistency (main.rs:71,83)

   • Success message: "Exited with exit code {exit_code}"
   • Failure message: "Aborting"
   • Recommendation: Consider making the failure message more descriptive, e.g., "Container failed, aborting"

✅ Potential Bugs & Issues

• No bugs identified: The code is straightforward and follows existing patterns correctly
• Error handling: Properly integrated with existing error handling mechanisms
• Resource management: No resource leaks or threading issues introduced

✅ Performance Considerations

• Minimal impact: Only adds two simple message sending operations
• Existing throttling: The log shipper already handles rate limiting and buffering appropriately
• No blocking operations: Uses existing async message sending infrastructure

✅ Security Concerns

• No sensitive data exposure: Exit codes are standard process information (0 for success, non-zero for failure)
• Safe logging: Messages don't contain user data or system secrets
• Consistent with existing patterns: Uses the same logging mechanisms as other parts of the system

✅ Test Coverage

• Observability code: This type of logging code is typically covered by integration tests rather than unit tests
• Existing test coverage: The container runner likely has integration tests that would exercise these code paths
• Low risk: Simple logging additions are unlikely to introduce regressions

Summary

This is a solid improvement that enhances observability without introducing risks. The main suggestion is to consider using StdOut for successful exits to better align with Unix conventions where stderr is reserved for error conditions.

Overall Assessment: ✅ Approve with minor suggestions

---

[claude]

Claude finished @MasterPtato's task —— View job

---

Code Review Complete ✅

I've reviewed this PR for code quality, potential bugs, performance, security concerns, and test coverage.

Todo List:

• Read and analyze the modified file packages/edge/infra/client/container-runner/src/main.rs
• Review code quality and best practices
• Check for potential bugs or issues
• Evaluate performance considerations
• Assess security concerns
• Review test coverage implications
• Provide comprehensive feedback

Review Feedback

✅ Code Quality & Best Practices

• Well-structured changes: The modifications follow existing code patterns and error handling conventions in main.rs:71-76,82-87
• Consistent messaging: Both success and failure cases now send appropriate messages to the log shipper
• Good observability: Adding exit code logging improves debugging and monitoring capabilities
• Proper integration: Uses the existing container::send_message function correctly

⚠️ Recommendations

1. Stream Type Consideration (main.rs:74,85)

   • Currently using StdErr for both success and failure cases
   • Recommendation: Consider using StdOut for successful exits and StdErr for failures, as suggested by the existing Greptile review
   • Rationale: Successful container termination is expected behavior, not an error condition

2. Message Consistency (main.rs:75,86)

   • Success message: "Exited with exit code {exit_code}"
   • Failure message: "Aborting"
   • Recommendation: Consider making the failure message more descriptive, e.g., "Container failed, aborting"

✅ Potential Bugs & Issues

• No bugs identified: The code is straightforward and follows existing patterns correctly
• Error handling: Properly integrated with existing error handling mechanisms
• Resource management: No resource leaks or threading issues introduced

✅ Performance Considerations

• Minimal impact: Only adds two simple message sending operations
• Existing throttling: The log shipper already handles rate limiting and buffering appropriately
• No blocking operations: Uses existing async message sending infrastructure

✅ Security Concerns

• No sensitive data exposure: Exit codes are standard process information (0 for success, non-zero for failure)
• Safe logging: Messages don't contain user data or system secrets
• Consistent with existing patterns: Uses the same logging mechanisms as other parts of the system

✅ Test Coverage

• Observability code: This type of logging code is typically covered by integration tests rather than unit tests
• Existing test coverage: The container runner likely has integration tests that would exercise these code paths
• Low risk: Simple logging additions are unlikely to introduce regressions

Summary

This is a solid improvement that enhances observability without introducing risks. The main suggestion is to consider using StdOut for successful exits to better align with Unix conventions where stderr is reserved for error conditions.

Overall Assessment: ✅ Approve with minor suggestions

---

[claude]

Claude finished @MasterPtato's task —— View job

---

Code Review Complete ✅

I've reviewed this PR for code quality, potential bugs, performance, security concerns, and test coverage.

Todo List:

• Read and analyze the modified file packages/edge/infra/client/container-runner/src/main.rs
• Review code quality and best practices
• Check for potential bugs or issues
• Evaluate performance considerations
• Assess security concerns
• Review test coverage implications
• Provide comprehensive feedback

Review Feedback

✅ Code Quality & Best Practices

• Well-structured changes: The modifications follow existing code patterns and error handling conventions in main.rs:71-76,82-87
• Consistent messaging: Both success and failure cases now send appropriate messages to the log shipper
• Good observability: Adding exit code logging improves debugging and monitoring capabilities
• Proper integration: Uses the existing container::send_message function correctly

⚠️ Recommendations

1. Stream Type Consideration (main.rs:74,85)

   • Currently using StdErr for both success and failure cases
   • Recommendation: Consider using StdOut for successful exits and StdErr for failures, as suggested by the existing Greptile review
   • Rationale: Successful container termination is expected behavior, not an error condition

2. Message Consistency (main.rs:75,86)

   • Success message: "Exited with exit code {exit_code}"
   • Failure message: "Aborting"
   • Recommendation: Consider making the failure message more descriptive, e.g., "Container failed, aborting"

✅ Potential Bugs & Issues

• No bugs identified: The code is straightforward and follows existing patterns correctly
• Error handling: Properly integrated with existing error handling mechanisms
• Resource management: No resource leaks or threading issues introduced

✅ Performance Considerations

• Minimal impact: Only adds two simple message sending operations
• Existing throttling: The log shipper already handles rate limiting and buffering appropriately
• No blocking operations: Uses existing async message sending infrastructure

✅ Security Concerns

• No sensitive data exposure: Exit codes are standard process information (0 for success, non-zero for failure)
• Safe logging: Messages don't contain user data or system secrets
• Consistent with existing patterns: Uses the same logging mechanisms as other parts of the system

✅ Test Coverage

• Observability code: This type of logging code is typically covered by integration tests rather than unit tests
• Existing test coverage: The container runner likely has integration tests that would exercise these code paths
• Low risk: Simple logging additions are unlikely to introduce regressions

Summary

This is a solid improvement that enhances observability without introducing risks. The main suggestion is to consider using StdOut for successful exits to better align with Unix conventions where stderr is reserved for error conditions.

Overall Assessment: ✅ Approve with minor suggestions

---

[vercel]

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

Name	Status	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
rivet-site	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	💬 Add feedback	Jul 18, 2025 7:01pm

[claude]

Claude finished @MasterPtato's task —— View job

---

Code Review Complete ✅

I've reviewed this PR for code quality, potential bugs, performance, security concerns, and test coverage.

Todo List:

• Read and analyze the modified file packages/edge/infra/client/container-runner/src/main.rs
• Review code quality and best practices
• Check for potential bugs or issues
• Evaluate performance considerations
• Assess security concerns
• Review test coverage implications
• Provide comprehensive feedback

Review Feedback

✅ Code Quality & Best Practices

• Well-structured changes: The modifications follow existing code patterns and error handling conventions in main.rs:71-76,82-87
• Consistent messaging: Both success and failure cases now send appropriate messages to the log shipper
• Good observability: Adding exit code logging improves debugging and monitoring capabilities
• Proper integration: Uses the existing container::send_message function correctly

⚠️ Recommendations

1. Stream Type Consideration (main.rs:74,85)

   • Currently using StdErr for both success and failure cases
   • Recommendation: Consider using StdOut for successful exits and StdErr for failures, as suggested by the existing Greptile review
   • Rationale: Successful container termination is expected behavior, not an error condition

2. Message Consistency (main.rs:75,86)

   • Success message: "Exited with exit code {exit_code}"
   • Failure message: "Aborting"
   • Recommendation: Consider making the failure message more descriptive, e.g., "Container failed, aborting"

✅ Potential Bugs & Issues

• No bugs identified: The code is straightforward and follows existing patterns correctly
• Error handling: Properly integrated with existing error handling mechanisms
• Resource management: No resource leaks or threading issues introduced

✅ Performance Considerations

• Minimal impact: Only adds two simple message sending operations
• Existing throttling: The log shipper already handles rate limiting and buffering appropriately
• No blocking operations: Uses existing async message sending infrastructure

✅ Security Concerns

• No sensitive data exposure: Exit codes are standard process information (0 for success, non-zero for failure)
• Safe logging: Messages don't contain user data or system secrets
• Consistent with existing patterns: Uses the same logging mechanisms as other parts of the system

✅ Test Coverage

• Observability code: This type of logging code is typically covered by integration tests rather than unit tests
• Existing test coverage: The container runner likely has integration tests that would exercise these code paths
• Low risk: Simple logging additions are unlikely to introduce regressions

Summary

This is a solid improvement that enhances observability without introducing risks. The main suggestion is to consider using StdOut for successful exits to better align with Unix conventions where stderr is reserved for error conditions.

Overall Assessment: ✅ Approve with minor suggestions

---