fix(core): tolerate disappearing guarded files - #1383
Conversation
Signed-off-by: phernandez <paul@basicmachines.co>
|
@codex review |
Codex Review SummaryThis comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings. |
![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: fae73a4f0d
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".
Signed-off-by: phernandez <paul@basicmachines.co>
|
@codex review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 3a9ecaf4c9
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".
Signed-off-by: phernandez <paul@basicmachines.co>
|
@codex review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 5dbdf95514
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".
Signed-off-by: phernandez <paul@basicmachines.co>
|
@codex review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 88e13811f6
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".
Signed-off-by: phernandez <paul@basicmachines.co>
|
@codex review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 14dc261fdc
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".
Signed-off-by: phernandez <paul@basicmachines.co>
|
@codex review |
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Delightful! Reviewed commit: ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
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". |
1 participant
Why
A hosted note object can be deleted after the materializer confirms it exists but before it reads the checksum. That ordinary object-store race currently escapes as a terminal checksum failure and poisons every durable materialization retry.
Production Logfire issue #2533 captured the exact sequence: the S3 existence probe succeeded,
GetObjectreturnedNoSuchKey, and the materialization job failed instead of treating the destination as absent.What Changed
FileNotFoundErrorfrom the checksum read after a successful existence probe as an absent runtime file.FileServiceFileErrorcontract for direct callers, and translate only a missing-file cause in the local materialization and directory-delete storage adapters.Implementation Details
The portable guard remains lock-free. It does not retry or introduce a second probe: absence before the probe and absence during the checksum read have the same domain result, so both return
Noneto the existing conflict planner.Cloud's S3 adapter change is delivered in basic-memory-cloud PR #1893 so
NoSuchKeycrosses this boundary asFileNotFoundError.Testing
uv run pytest tests/runtime/test_note_file_guard_races.py tests/services/test_file_service.py tests/repository/test_chunk_inspection.py -q: 59 passed, 1 skipped.git diff --check: passed.The broad
just fast-checkreached type checking but the fresh worktree lacks the optionalpymilvusdependency; the four failures are unresolved optional imports outside these paths. CI installs the repository's required matrix dependencies.Risks / Follow-ups
FileNotFoundError; permissions, transport failures, malformed content, and other checksum errors still fail.FileServicecontract regression, and the final-checksum seams in both local delete adapters; commits throughaeb09978address those findings and the threads are resolved.