Establish delivery-loop hosting feasibility - #6
Conversation
|
@coderabbitai review |
|
@codex please review |
✅ Action performedReview finished.
|
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 56 minutes Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available. How can I continue?After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the 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 configurationConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: ASSERTIVE Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
WalkthroughThe changelog records a feasibility report, while ChangesDelivery-loop hosting feasibility
Estimated code review effort: 2 (Simple) | ~10 minutes Poem
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
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. Comment |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@docs/feasibility.md`:
- Around line 128-155: Expand the EffectRequested/EffectCompleted protocol in
docs/feasibility.md to define committed-but-undispatched recovery, explicit
dispatch retry state with ownership or leases and timeout handling, and
crash-safe retry rules. Specify effect_id (or a separate stable key) as the
adapter-visible idempotency key, and make program_id an immutable binding to the
admitted program, capability set, and authority so completions are validated
against the exact request. Document recovery behavior for stranded requests and
fail closed for non-idempotent effects when idempotency cannot be guaranteed.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Organization UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
Plan: Pro Plus
Run ID: 34de03e4-60cf-4c89-bf61-9496d7ad9b5e
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
CHANGELOG.mddocs/feasibility.md
📜 Review details
🔇 Additional comments (1)
CHANGELOG.md (1)
9-13: LGTM!
|
@coderabbitai review |
|
@codex please review |
✅ Action performedReview finished.
|
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: f66eacc3bc
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".
| EffectCompleted | EffectFailed { | ||
| effect_id, | ||
| adapter_idempotency_key, | ||
| program_binding_digest, | ||
| canonical_result, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When a read-only or idempotent effect is retried after its lease expires, the original adapter invocation can still finish late. Because this completion record carries no attempt, lease_epoch, or dispatch-claim identity, both the old and new results have the same correlation fields, so a stale result can win the race and resume the transition. Persist and validate the dispatch attempt or claim token with every completion.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
|
|
||
| | Delivery-loop operation | Exposed to Edict now | Gap class | Required extension | | ||
| | --- | --- | --- | --- | | ||
| | Process spawn | No | Genuine gap | A typed process capability with executable identity, argv, environment, working-directory, resource, and output bounds; an Echo-owned effect adapter; durable request/result evidence. | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When the loop runs a compiler, test runner, or other permitted executable, bounding its identity, arguments, environment, working directory, resources, and output does not prevent that child from reading or writing arbitrary files or opening network connections with the host's authority. Without OS-level isolation derived from the declared filesystem and network capabilities, process spawn bypasses the separate typed effect boundaries this design is intended to enforce. Require the process adapter to sandbox child filesystem, network, credential, and subprocess access.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| program_binding_digest, | ||
| state_schema, | ||
| canonical_state, | ||
| next_transition, | ||
| awaited_effect_id |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When a transition reaches an effect boundary, its EffectRequested and SuspendedContinuation records must become durable in the same atomic commit. The protocol orders the dispatch claim before the adapter call and the completion before resumption, but never makes these initial records atomic; a crash between their writes can therefore leave an executable request with no continuation to resume, or a suspended continuation with no request, potentially causing an orphaned side effect or duplicate request on transition replay. Require one atomic WAL transaction for suspension and request creation before dispatch.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
|
Merge gate OPEN at |
1 participant
Records the current Edict-to-Echo operation surface and names the missing effect, capability, and suspension seams. Verdict: not-yet-hostable.
Closes #5.