fix(session): prevent concurrent commit re-committing old messages

[deepakdevp]

Summary

• Adds an asyncio.Lock to Session to serialize concurrent commit_async() calls
• Reorders Phase 1 of commit_async() to clear live messages before the slow LLM summary generation, closing the race window where a second commit could see stale data
• Includes rollback logic if the file-clear fails, so messages aren't lost

Fixes #580

Root Cause

commit_async() had no synchronization. When called concurrently, both calls would copy the same self._messages, generate separate archives, and trigger duplicate memory extraction. The race window spanned the entire LLM summary generation (seconds), during which the live messages.jsonl still contained the old messages.

Changes Made

• openviking/session/session.py:
  • Added self._commit_lock = asyncio.Lock() to Session.__init__
  • Wrapped Phase 1 (copy + clear + file write) in async with self._commit_lock
  • Moved empty-check inside the lock to prevent both callers from passing it
  • Lock released before slow operations (LLM summary, memory extraction)
  • Added rollback: if file-clear fails, messages are restored from the copy
• tests/session/test_session_commit_race.py (new): 2 tests
  • Concurrent commits produce exactly 1 archive (dedup)
  • Messages added during commit are not lost

Type of Change

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)

Testing

• 2 new race condition tests
• Ruff lint + format clean
• Existing commit tests unaffected (pre-existing VLM config requirement)

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[qin-ctx]

Thanks for the contribution! The race condition analysis is spot-on — there is indeed a window during commit_async() where concurrent calls can re-commit the same messages. However, we'd like to suggest a different approach for the locking mechanism.

Existing protections

The session commit path already has several layers of protection:

1. HTTP API layer — TaskTracker (server/routers/sessions.py): create_if_no_running("session_commit", session_id) atomically rejects duplicate background commits for the same session at the API entry point.
2. Phase 2 crash recovery — RedoLog: On restart, LockManager._recover_pending_redo() replays incomplete memory extraction tasks.

What's missing is exactly what you identified: Phase 1 atomicity — the gap between copying messages and clearing them, with a slow LLM summary call in between.

Why asyncio.Lock() is not the right fit here

The asyncio.Lock you added is an in-process, in-memory lock. It only protects concurrent calls within the same Python process on the same Session object. It won't help when:

• The HTTP server runs multiple workers (each has its own process/memory)
• Multiple service instances handle the same session
• Direct Python client usage across threads

Suggested approach: use existing PathLock

We already have a filesystem-based distributed lock infrastructure in openviking/storage/transaction/ — PathLock + LockManager + LockContext. It:

• Locks via .path.ovlock files on AGFS — works across processes and instances
• Has fencing tokens, stale lock cleanup, and timeout support
• Is already used elsewhere in the codebase for write coordination

The session has self._session_uri which maps to an AGFS path, so it naturally fits into this locking scheme. The Phase 1 critical section would look roughly like:

from openviking.storage.transaction import LockContext, get_lock_manager

session_path = self._viking_fs._uri_to_path(self._session_uri, ctx=self.ctx)
async with LockContext(get_lock_manager(), [session_path], "point"):
    if not self._messages:
        return result
    self._compression.compression_index += 1
    messages_to_archive = self._messages.copy()
    self._messages.clear()
    await self._write_to_agfs_async(messages=[])
# Lock released — slow LLM summary + archive write proceeds without holding the lock

What we do agree on

The reordering of Phase 1 operations (copy + clear before the LLM summary call) is the right call — it closes the race window regardless of lock implementation. The rollback logic on _write_to_agfs_async failure is also a good idea.

Would you be open to reworking this PR to use PathLock instead of asyncio.Lock? Happy to help if you have questions about the transaction module.

[deepakdevp]

Thanks @qin-ctx for the thorough review and the suggestion! You're absolutely right that asyncio.Lock is insufficient for multi-worker deployments.

I've replaced it with LockContext(get_lock_manager(), [session_path], lock_mode="point") — same pattern used in the content router and resource processor. The Phase 1 reordering and rollback logic remain unchanged.

Changes in the latest push:

• Removed import asyncio and self._commit_lock = asyncio.Lock()
• Phase 1 now uses async with LockContext(...) with the session's AGFS path
• Docstring updated to reflect PathLock

Please take another look when you get a chance!