Continue retained native operation strands across host recovery - #728
Draft
flyingrobots wants to merge 4 commits into
Draft
flyingrobots wants to merge 4 commits into
flyingrobots wants to merge 4 commits into
Conversation
Contributor
|
Important Draft PR not reviewedDraft PRs are not automatically reviewed by default.
To automatically review draft PRs, update your CodeRabbit configuration: reviews:
auto_review:
drafts: trueThanks 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 |
Owner
Author
|
@coderabbitai review |
Contributor
|
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Goal
Continue a retained alternative on its original native strand, preserving fork ancestry, observations and operation outcomes across process loss.
Plan
Current status
Stacked on #727 (
feature/observation-bound-actions), not main. The original consumer calibration was pinned to e364510. Seven checks in one scripted Edict consumer schedule passed, including a fresh-process reopen. The review-updated branch passes all 42 host integration tests and 126 WAL hardening tests (one helper entry point ignored). Parent review fixes were propagated by normal merges; original consumer calibration results remain pinned to their original source.A clean confirmation passes all seven checks; the prior nine-check communication loop also passes against the same executable. Three deliberately incorrect variants were caught: collapsed lanes, omitted fork recovery, and an adaptation failing the new fallback requirement. Source was restored exactly after calibration.
The native host retains the original candidate and its observations while a later operation advances the same losing worldline. Application selection is an append-only Edict mark naming a worldline and commit; it is not merge, promotion, or atomic cross-worldline selection-policy enforcement. The driver creates two fixed strands after one durable bootstrap operation. No authenticated service, LLM efficiency, or braid-settlement claim.
Canonical behavior and limitations are in
docs/architecture/application-contract-hosting.md; CHANGELOG records the extension. Telepathy's interactive consumer record is underdocs/sandbox/retained-strands/and remains separate from the unrun effectiveness comparison.Open questions
Review the bounded local authority profile, fork-prefix recovery validation, and the change allowing a parent commit authored by a different writer on the same worldline.