fix: add fingerprint guard to advance and finish commands - #17
Merged
Conversation
Both advance and finish now use read_state_snapshot and pass the captured SHA-256 to write_state as expect_sha256, matching the defense-in-depth pattern already applied to annotate in PR #14. This prevents silent state corruption when concurrent sessions race on the same state file.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Both
advanceandfinishnow useread_state_snapshotand pass the captured SHA-256 towrite_stateasexpect_sha256, matching the defense-in-depth pattern already applied toannotatein PR #14.This prevents silent state corruption when concurrent sessions race on the same state file. The existing
test_annotate_rejects_stale_fingerprint_atomicallytest already validates thatwrite_statewithexpect_sha256rejects stale fingerprints.