feat(warp-core): add WAL evidence segment catalog

[flyingrobots]

Summary

• Adds a rebuildable CausalSegmentCatalog over committed WAL recovery evidence, with one base evidence segment per committed WAL transaction.
• Adds a non-authoritative live catalog cache in TrustedRuntimeWal; cache update failures mark the catalog NeedsRebuild without turning successful WAL commits into failures.

Scope

• Tests only
• Docs only
• Runtime code

Links

• Refs WAL/WSC Storage Relationship #521

Checklist

• CI green (fmt, clippy, tests, rustdoc, audit/deny)
• Kept PR small and focused (one thing)

Local verification

• git diff --check
• cargo fmt --all -- --check
• cargo clippy -p warp-core --lib
• cargo clippy -p warp-core --features "native_rule_bootstrap trusted_runtime host_test" --test trusted_runtime_host_loop_tests
• cargo xtask test-slice runtime-wal-ack
• cargo xtask test-slice durable-runtime-wal

Notes

• RED/GREEN was missed for this slice: the implementation landed before the focused witnesses were added. The added witnesses prove the current patched branch behavior, not that the tests failed before the implementation.
• The catalog is intentionally a derived read model. RecoveryScanReport remains the canonical rebuild seam, and live catalog updates are cache-only posture.
• No derived WscBundle, CheckpointRange, or ZkWormhole coverage is implemented in this PR; those segment kinds are reserved for later covering evidence.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

@flyingrobots, you've reached your PR review limit, so we couldn't start this review.

Next review available in: 21 minutes

Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available.
You're only billed for reviews past your plan's rate limits ($0.25/file).

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews.

How do review limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window.

Please refer docs for additional details.

Review details

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro

Run ID: da8d4839-fcc8-44fa-963b-042ca6c3d737

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 5c968a4 and cca3ecd.

⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)

• Cargo.lock is excluded by !**/*.lock

📒 Files selected for processing (11)

• AGENTS.md
• CHANGELOG.md
• Cargo.toml
• crates/echo-trace/Cargo.toml
• crates/echo-trace/README.md
• crates/echo-trace/src/lib.rs
• crates/warp-core/src/causal_wal.rs
• crates/warp-core/src/evidence.rs
• crates/warp-core/src/lib.rs
• crates/warp-core/src/trusted_runtime_host.rs
• crates/warp-core/tests/trusted_runtime_host_loop_tests.rs

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch echo/wal-evidence-segment-catalog

---

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

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: b168e48436

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[flyingrobots]

@codex second opinion requested. Code Lawyer self-audit found additional issues beyond the unresolved review threads.

Priority	File	Lines	Issue	Required action
P2	crates/warp-core/src/evidence.rs	164-177, 208-223	coverings_by_range is documented as the range index but committed base segments are never inserted into it.	Add a deterministic regression proving base segments are range-query indexed, then populate the range index for committed transaction segments.
P2	crates/warp-core/tests/trusted_runtime_host_loop_tests.rs	1581-1590	Empty placeholder test compiles without asserting the advertised failure posture.	Replace with a real regression for the catalog failure/recovery behavior or remove the fake test while covered elsewhere.
P3	crates/echo-trace/Cargo.toml, crates/echo-trace/src/lib.rs, crates/warp-core/src/evidence.rs	file headers	scripts/check_spdx.sh fails on three new files.	Add the repository-standard SPDX/copyright headers.

I will address these in the same priority queue as the review-thread findings unless a human redirects scope.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: b168e48436

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[flyingrobots]

Activity Summary

Severity	Source	File	Issue	Commit	Outcome
P2	PR	crates/warp-core/src/trusted_runtime_host.rs	Rebuild live evidence catalog after recovered filesystem WAL commits	934d4c70	Regression added; recovery refresh rebuilds catalog; duplicate threads resolved
P2	PR	crates/warp-core/src/trusted_runtime_host.rs	Preserve the real last-good commit when catalog update fails	65a5057d	Regression replaced placeholder; posture records prior fresh commit; thread resolved
P2	PR	crates/echo-trace/Cargo.toml	Add required package metadata	348a6b73	Metadata and crate README added; duplicate metadata threads resolved
P2	PR	crates/echo-trace/src/lib.rs	Format echo-trace source	fbf6d53c	rustfmt applied; duplicate format threads resolved
P2	Self	crates/warp-core/src/evidence.rs	Populate coverings_by_range for base committed segments	a510da10	Regression added; range index now maps exact LSN range to segment ID; thread resolved
P2	Self	crates/warp-core/tests/trusted_runtime_host_loop_tests.rs	Replace placeholder catalog-failure test	65a5057d	Placeholder replaced with deterministic WAL-success/catalog-failure regression; thread resolved
P3	Self	crates/echo-trace/Cargo.toml, crates/echo-trace/src/lib.rs, crates/warp-core/src/evidence.rs	Add repository SPDX headers	348a6b73, fbf6d53c, f053004e	SPDX checker green; thread resolved
P3	Self	CHANGELOG.md	Document evidence catalog invariant fixes	58637e29	Changelog updated because the fixes alter catalog invariants

Validation run locally after fixes:

• cargo fmt --all -- --check
• scripts/check_spdx.sh
• cargo clippy -p echo-trace --lib --tests -- -D warnings
• cargo check -p echo-trace
• cargo clippy -p warp-core --lib -- -D warnings
• cargo check -p warp-core
• cargo test -p warp-core evidence::tests::test_base_segments_populate_covering_range_index
• cargo test -p warp-core --test trusted_runtime_host_loop_tests runtime_wal_live_evidence_catalog_rebuilds_after_recovered_filesystem_ack --features native_rule_bootstrap,trusted_runtime,host_test
• cargo test -p warp-core --test trusted_runtime_host_loop_tests runtime_wal_live_evidence_catalog_failure_marks_needs_rebuild_without_failing_commit --features native_rule_bootstrap,trusted_runtime,host_test
• cargo test -p warp-core --test trusted_runtime_host_loop_tests runtime_wal_live_evidence_catalog_matches_read_only_recovery_after_submission --features native_rule_bootstrap,trusted_runtime,host_test

All previously unresolved review threads are resolved via GraphQL; unresolved thread count is now 0.

[flyingrobots]

Code Lawyer Self-Review

@codex second opinion requested on this strict self-review finding.

Severity	File	Lines	Type	Issue	Recommended mitigation prompt
P5	Cargo.toml	31-32	Style / manifest consistency	The new echo-trace workspace member is appended as , "crates/echo-trace"] after the existing closing-list style instead of following the established one-item-per-line member formatting. This is valid TOML, but it is repository-style drift in the root manifest.	Normalize the root Cargo.toml workspace members list by moving "crates/echo-trace" onto its own list entry with the same trailing-comma formatting as the surrounding workspace members; do not change dependency semantics.

No P0-P4 functional, determinism, API, Markdown, SPDX, audit, or CI issues were found in this pass. Evidence checked: clean worktree before review, git fetch origin, git diff origin/main...HEAD, Graft reads of the new catalog implementation, targeted WAL integration/test review, git diff --check, Markdown lint for changed Markdown, and current PR checks.

[flyingrobots]

Resolved the strict self-review P5 manifest formatting issue in 638d0610.

Severity	File	Commit	Outcome
P5	Cargo.toml	638d0610	Normalized crates/echo-trace to the established one-entry-per-line workspace member formatting.

Validation after the fix:

• git diff --check
• cargo metadata --format-version=1 --no-deps
• cargo check -p echo-trace

@codex please confirm the self-review finding is fully resolved.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Breezy!

Reviewed commit: 638d061049

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[flyingrobots]

Code Lawyer Self-Review — Recheck

@codex second opinion requested: this recheck found no new actionable violations at current head 638d0610.

Severity	Count	Result
P0 Critical	0	None found
P1 High	0	None found
P2 Medium	0	None found
P3 Low	0	None found
P4 Minor	0	None found
P5 Style	0	None found

Area	Evidence
Lockdown	Clean worktree before review; git fetch origin completed.
Diff scope	Reviewed origin/main...HEAD for PR #644 at 638d0610, base main.
Graft reads	Re-read Cargo.toml, crates/warp-core/src/evidence.rs, crates/warp-core/src/trusted_runtime_host.rs, and crates/echo-trace/src/lib.rs through Graft.
Formatting / style	git diff --check origin/main...HEAD, cargo fmt --all -- --check, npx markdownlint-cli2 AGENTS.md CHANGELOG.md crates/echo-trace/README.md, and scripts/check_spdx.sh all passed.
Build / focused witness	cargo metadata --format-version=1 --no-deps, cargo check -p echo-trace, and cargo test -p warp-core evidence::tests::test_base_segments_populate_covering_range_index passed.
Remote gate	gh pr checks 644 reports all checks passing, including CodeRabbit Review completed.

The prior P5 root-manifest formatting issue is resolved by 638d0610; no additional Code Lawyer findings are open from this recheck.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 638d061049

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".