fix(miner): scope checkSubmissionFreshness's claim match to the candidate's own forge host

[bitfathers94]

fix(miner): scope checkSubmissionFreshness's claim match to the candidate's own forge host

listClaims(repoFullName) is forge-blind, so .find() picked whichever host's row had the
lowest id instead of the row this attempt's own claim was recorded under -- a stale row on
an unrelated forge host could discard a completed attempt (or false-pass on a claim this
attempt never held). Thread apiBaseUrl through the candidate and attempt-runner's call site,
defaulting to DEFAULT_FORGE_CONFIG.apiBaseUrl exactly like the ledger's own normalization,
and ignore rows on a different host entirely instead of matching the first one found.

Closes #10004

[loopover-orb]

Tip

✅ LoopOver review result - approve/merge recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-31 07:12:47 UTC}

4 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · readiness 93/100 · CI green · clean

✅ Suggested Action - Approve/Merge

• safe to merge

Review summary
This threads an apiBaseUrl through SubmissionFreshnessCandidate/AttemptInput and switches the claim lookup from `.find(issueNumber)` (whichever row `listClaims` returns first) to `.find(issueNumber && host-match)`, closing the described bug where a stale/released row on an unrelated forge host could either falsely abort or falsely pass a submission. The host-normalization mirrors claim-ledger.js's own default-to-github.com convention, and the new tests in miner-submission-freshness-check.test.ts and miner-attempt-runner.test.ts exercise the actual regression scenario (a lower-id released row on one host vs. an active row on another) rather than a fabricated one. The fix closes #10004 as required and is well-scoped to the freshness-check call site plus its one real caller.

Nits — 5 non-blocking

• The production `SubmissionFreshnessClaimLedger.listClaims` implementation (claim-ledger.js, not shown in this diff) must actually populate `apiBaseUrl` on each row for this fix to work end-to-end -- worth confirming that wiring exists outside this diff.
• submission-freshness-check.ts's `resolveFreshnessApiBaseUrl` and claim-conflict-resolver.ts's similar host-normalization logic (referenced in the doc comment) look like near-duplicates; consider extracting a shared helper if a third caller ever needs the same normalization.
• The verbose block-comment style (e.g. the `/** ... Scope local ledger keys by forge host, not bare repoFullName #5563 composite key ... */` on `apiBaseUrl?`) is heavier than typical JSDoc but consistent with this file's existing convention, so not asking for a change here.
• Confirm claim-ledger.js's listClaims already returns apiBaseUrl per row in production (not just in the test stub) before considering this fix complete end-to-end.
• Consider whether attempt-cli.js (the real production call site building AttemptInput) needs updating to pass its own apiBaseUrl through, since this diff only shows attempt-runner.ts and its test.

Decision drivers

• ✅ Code review — No blockers (1 reviewer)
• ✅ Gate result — Passing (No configured blocker found.)

Context & advisory signals — never blocks the verdict

Signal	Result	Evidence
Linked issue	✅ Linked	#10004
Related work	✅ No active overlap found	No same-issue or scoped active PR overlap found.
Change scope	✅ 20/20	Low review scope from cached public metadata (1 linked issue).
Validation posture	⚠️ 20/25	Preflight is ready, but the PR body does not name the validation run.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 98 registered-repo PR(s), 67 merged, 3 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	bitfathers94; Gittensor profile; 98 PR(s), 3 issue(s).
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: clean · value: minor · LLM: moderate

Linked issue satisfaction

Addressed
The diff threads apiBaseUrl through SubmissionFreshnessCandidate (defaulting to DEFAULT_FORGE_CONFIG.apiBaseUrl), widens SubmissionFreshnessClaimLedger's row type to include apiBaseUrl, and changes the .find() match to require equal resolved hosts so a differing-host row is ignored rather than matched, with attempt-runner.ts passing its own apiBaseUrl through; tests cover the released-other-host/a

Review context

• Author: bitfathers94
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: not available
• Official Gittensor activity: 98 PR(s), 3 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Start here: Add validation command/output.

Signal definitions

• Related work = same linked issue, overlapping active PRs, or title/path similarity.
• Change scope = cached public metadata such as size labels, draft state, and review-burden hints.
• Validation posture = whether the PR provides enough public validation/test evidence for maintainer review.
• Contributor workload = public contributor activity and cleanup pressure, not a repo-wide quality failure.
• Contributor context = public GitHub/Gittensor identity context; non-Gittensor status is not a blocker.

🧪 Chat with LoopOver

Ask LoopOver a question about this PR directly in a comment — grounded only in the same cached, public-safe facts shown above, never a new claim.

• @loopover ask <question> answers contribution-quality Q&A with source citations and freshness.
• @loopover chat <question> answers in natural prose from cached decision-pack facts via local inference (maintainer/collaborator; read-only).
• A plain-language @loopover mention with a real question is routed to the closest matching read-only command automatically — no exact syntax required.

Full command reference: https://loopover.ai/docs/loopover-commands

🧪 Experimental — new and may change.

_{🟩 Safe / merged · 🟦 Advisory · 🟨 Held for review · 🟥 Blocked / closed}

---

💰 Earn for open-source contributions like this. Gittensor lets GitHub contributors earn for the work they already do — register to start earning →.

Checked by LoopOver, a quiet PR intelligence layer for OSS maintainers.

• Re-run LoopOver review

[superagent-security]

Superagent didn't find any vulnerabilities or security issues in this PR.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 79.79%. Comparing base (83d8b40) to head (ab0f942).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #10104      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   79.75%   79.79%   +0.03%     
==========================================
  Files         282      284       +2     
  Lines       58685    58798     +113     
  Branches     6878     6933      +55     
==========================================
+ Hits        46804    46917     +113     
  Misses      11593    11593              
  Partials      288      288              

Flag	Coverage Δ
backend	100.00% <100.00%> (?)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
packages/loopover-miner/lib/attempt-runner.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...s/loopover-miner/lib/submission-freshness-check.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

[loopover-orb]

LoopOver approves — the gate is satisfied and CI is green.