feat(adaptive): demonstrate the storage relay — device-master over a wire - #62
feat(adaptive): demonstrate the storage relay — device-master over a wire#62sanil-23 wants to merge 2 commits into
Conversation
…wire The execution relay had a worked example; the storage half of the topology did not, and it is the half that makes the device master: the device's own store is the durable workflow home, and the service holds no workflow durably — a Snapshot in memory during the episode, nothing after. The example now carries both relays. VaultFrame is the wire (load / records / put / remove / ack, ids minted service-side so a late reply cannot resolve the wrong waiter); DeviceVault is the service's stateless adapter implementing Vault over it, with the run relay's own deadline discipline — and a timeout that says the consequence out loud: the record was NOT stored, and nothing pretends it was. The device side is deliberately the whole obligation in one task: deserialize, apply to ITS store, reply. Episode start loads the catalogue FROM the device; the success gate flushes each kept record back across the wire; the run-2 selection reuses what the DEVICE now holds, listed from its store directly as proof the service kept nothing. Also updates the example's scripted author to the recipe surface — stale since the surface landed, compiling but failing at run time. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
How this change flows2 changed behaviours across 10 relationships. 6 surrounding behaviours are shown (57 graph nodes walked). 43 further behaviours left out to keep the diagram readable. flowchart LR
n0["main<br/>changed"]:::changed
n1["run_goal<br/>changed"]:::changed
n2["shelf"]:::impacted
n3["MemoryLedger"]:::impacted
n4["Remote"]:::impacted
n5["Goal"]:::impacted
n6["new"]:::impacted
n7["permissive"]:::impacted
n0 -->|calls| n1
n0 -->|calls| n2
n0 -->|calls| n6
n0 -->|calls| n7
n1 -->|uses| n3
n1 -->|uses| n4
n1 -->|uses| n5
n1 -->|calls| n6
n1 -->|calls| n7
n7 -->|calls| n6
classDef changed fill:#0d4429,stroke:#238636,color:#e6edf3
classDef impacted fill:#161b22,stroke:#6e7681,color:#c9d1d9
classDef flagged fill:#5a1e02,stroke:#d93f0b,color:#ffffff
classDef blocking fill:#67060c,stroke:#f85149,color:#ffffff
Green: changed behaviour. Grey: surrounding behaviour. Arrows name the call, use, implementation, or test relationship. Orange: has findings. Red: has a finding that blocks the merge. |
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 55 minutes Limit details: You’ve used all 1 included review currently available under your plan. You've used all free OSS reviews for now. Wait for the free limit to reset to keep reviewing this public repository. 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: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
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 |
clippy large_enum_variant: a WorkflowRecord dwarfs every sibling variant, and frames travel through queues sized for the small ones. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The execution relay (
RunRequest/RunReport+ChannelRelay) had a worked example; the storage half of the remote topology did not — and it is the half that makes the device master: the device's own store is the durable workflow home, and the service never holds a workflow durably (aSnapshotin memory during the episode, nothing after).examples/service.rsnow demonstrates both relays end to end:VaultFrame— the wire:load/records/put/remove/ack, wire ids minted service-side so a late reply can never resolve the wrong waiter (same discipline as the run relay).DeviceVault— the service's statelessVaultadapter over that wire: a sender, a deadline, a counter — never a record. A timeout reports the consequence out loud: the record was NOT stored.The demo run shows the full arc: episode start loads the catalogue from the device; run 1 authors, satisfies, and the success gate flushes the kept record across the wire (
→ VaultPut…← device stored it in ITS store); run 2 selects what the device now holds; the final listing reads the device store directly as proof the service kept nothing.Also fixes the example's scripted author, stale since the recipe surface (#60) — it still replied with a full graph, so the example compiled but panicked at run time.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code