c209e654d954045377052a8ac9db110589635013
2
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Omar SobhandClaude Opus 5
|
75d09241fb |
fix(missions): the first real approval found two bugs the tests could not
Deploying Slice 5 and approving one roster in production broke it twice, in ways
528 green tests had nothing to say about.
**1. `jsonb_set` refuses a scalar.** A mission created through the API without a
`config` stores jsonb `null` — a scalar — and `jsonb_set` fails on it with
"cannot set path in scalar". The guard was `coalesce(config, '{}')`, which
protects against SQL NULL; this is a perfectly good JSON null of the wrong shape,
and coalesce passes it straight through. Every test wrote `'{}'::jsonb` because
that is what a test author types. Production types nothing at all.
**2. The approval was not atomic, and failing halfway is permanent.** The claim
and the mission write were two statements, claim first, so when the write failed
the proposal stood `approved` with nothing applied — and the partial unique index
then makes that state unrecoverable: no other proposal for that mission can ever
be approved. The mission ran solo with `team_engine` still NULL while its
proposal said otherwise.
`approve_and_apply` is now one transaction: claim, write, commit or roll back.
The type guard is `CASE WHEN jsonb_typeof(config) = 'object' THEN config ELSE
'{}'::jsonb END`, which answers the question that was actually being asked.
Both regressions are tested in the shape production had, and both NEGATIVE
CONTROLS were run rather than assumed:
- restore `coalesce` → `a_roster_applies_to_a_mission_whose_config_is_json_null`
FAILS with Postgres's own "cannot set path in scalar", the exact production
error.
- commit instead of roll back on a failed apply →
`a_failed_apply_leaves_the_proposal_undecided` FAILS with the proposal stuck
`approved`.
Worth stating plainly: the API returned 500 for that approval, so this was not
silent to the caller — but the row it left behind claimed the mission had a
roster it never received, and the mission then ran and delivered, which is the
shape that gets believed.
530 tests pass, clippy clean.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <[email protected]>
|
||
|
Omar SobhandClaude Opus 5
|
1797669296 |
feat(missions): Slice 5 — let a model size the mission's team
`routes/planner.rs` has had Opus proposing rosters since the Master Planner
shipped, and none of it ever reached a mission: the proposal lived in React state
and died with the tab. A mission's shape came from a team template instead —
fixed roles, and every claw minted `claude-sonnet-5` from a literal in
`mint_team_from_template`. That literal is why no mission has ever run more than
one provider.
A roster is `(topology_kind, [(role, backend)])`, which is exactly what the
composed executor already consumes: `Roster::graph` builds a `TopologyGraph` with
the backend in `attrs`, and `MicroVmTurnExecutor` reads `attrs["backend"]` per
node. So a verifier on another provider's rootfs stops being a bolt-on and
becomes a graph node — the correlated-failure break the independent judge exists
for, one layer down.
Three verbs, and the split is the point. **suggest** asks the model and persists
the answer, changing nothing. **decide** approves (writes `config.roster` and
switches the mission to the composed engine) or rejects. A proposal is never
applied on arrival: a model sizing a team is a suggestion about how many VMs to
boot, and this codebase treats model output that costs money as evidence for a
decision, not the decision.
Fail-closed at every seam, because each of these otherwise surfaces much later
and much more expensively:
- a backend no ONLINE node can boot is refused when PROPOSED, naming the ones
the fleet actually has. Placement would refuse it too — at launch, after the
roster was approved and someone believed the mission would run. The model is
handed that same list in its prompt, so the usual case never arises.
- an invented `topology_kind` is refused, not defaulted. `parse_topology_kind`
defaults to hub-spoke, which is right for a template we wrote and wrong for a
string a model just produced: running a `pipeline` proposal as a hub-and-spoke
changes what every node sees and nothing would say so.
- the roster is validated BEFORE it is stored, so a stored proposal is always
one that could be approved; and again at approval, against the fleet as it is
then — a node can go offline in between.
- `MAX_MEMBERS = 6`. Each member is a whole VM, not a subagent, and a model
asked to size a team proposes twelve happily.
Two properties live in SQL rather than in the handler: at most one approved
roster per mission (partial unique index — two approved rosters are two answers
to "what shape is this mission", and the executor reads one field), and
decide-once (`WHERE status = 'proposed'`, so a double-clicked approve claims
nothing the second time). Both tested against a real database, including that the
second approval is refused by Postgres rather than merely losing a race.
NEGATIVE CONTROL, run rather than assumed: with the roster preference removed
from `composed_graph`, `an_approved_roster_outranks_the_template` FAILS — 3 nodes
from the template instead of the roster's 2. A stored roster that is silently
ignored at launch is precisely the shape this project keeps paying for.
Not closed: per-role models for CLAWS. `template_roles` has no model column, so a
ZeroClaw team still mints one model for every role. The literal is now a named
constant that says so and points at the roster path, rather than sitting inline
where nobody reads it.
527 tests pass, clippy clean. Migration 0070. Not yet exercised against the
deployed stack — the route has never been called with a live model.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <[email protected]>
|