From 35963a7ac95fc1058e7875f1447559a0625afdfb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Faolain Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2026 03:40:45 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 1/4] tests: checkpoint --- .../programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts | 288 ++++-- .../data/shared-log/src/replication.ts | 6 +- packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/role.ts | 2 +- .../data/shared-log/test/migration.spec.ts | 2 +- .../data/shared-log/test/replicate.spec.ts | 59 +- packages/transport/pubsub/src/index.ts | 14 + shared-log-debug-plan.md | 434 +++++++++ shared-log-debug.md | 884 ++++++++++++++++++ 8 files changed, 1566 insertions(+), 123 deletions(-) create mode 100644 shared-log-debug-plan.md create mode 100644 shared-log-debug.md diff --git a/packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts b/packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts index 6549b9c1e..03035820e 100644 --- a/packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts +++ b/packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts @@ -519,6 +519,15 @@ export class SharedLog< >; // map of peerId to timeout private latestReplicationInfoMessage!: Map; + private replicationInfoQueue!: Map>; + private pendingReplicationInfo!: Map< + string, + { + from: PublicSignKey; + messageTimestamp: bigint; + message: AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage | AddedReplicationSegmentMessage; + } + >; private remoteBlocks!: RemoteBlocks; @@ -600,18 +609,23 @@ export class SharedLog< // @deprecated private async getRole() { const segments = await this.getMyReplicationSegments(); - if (segments.length > 1) { - throw new Error( - "More than one replication segment found. Can only use one segment for compatbility with v8", - ); - } - if (segments.length > 0) { - const segment = segments[0].toReplicationRange(); + // v8 role messages can only express a single segment (factor+offset). If we + // ever have more than one segment locally (e.g. due to restore or bugs), + // pick the widest to best approximate our participation. + let selected = segments[0]!; + for (const seg of segments) { + if (seg.widthNormalized > selected.widthNormalized) { + selected = seg; + } + } + + const segment = selected.toReplicationRange(); return new Replicator({ // TODO types factor: (segment.factor as number) / MAX_U32, offset: (segment.offset as number) / MAX_U32, + timestamp: segment.timestamp, }); } @@ -1154,12 +1168,12 @@ export class SharedLog< if (this._isTrustedReplicator && !(await this._isTrustedReplicator(from))) { return undefined; } - let isNewReplicator = false; let timestamp = BigInt(ts ?? +new Date()); rebalance = rebalance == null ? true : rebalance; let diffs: ReplicationChanges>; let deleted: ReplicationRangeIndexable[] | undefined = undefined; + let hadSegmentsBefore = false; if (reset) { deleted = ( await this.replicationIndex @@ -1170,6 +1184,7 @@ export class SharedLog< ).map((x) => x.value); let prevCount = deleted.length; + hadSegmentsBefore = prevCount > 0; const existingById = new Map(deleted.map((x) => [x.idString, x])); const hasSameRanges = @@ -1197,7 +1212,6 @@ export class SharedLog< ]; } - isNewReplicator = prevCount === 0 && ranges.length > 0; } else { let batchSize = 100; let existing: ReplicationRangeIndexable[] = []; @@ -1223,9 +1237,9 @@ export class SharedLog< prevCountForOwner = await this.replicationIndex.count({ query: new StringMatch({ key: "hash", value: from.hashcode() }), }); - isNewReplicator = prevCountForOwner === 0; + hadSegmentsBefore = prevCountForOwner > 0; } else { - isNewReplicator = false; + hadSegmentsBefore = true; } if ( @@ -1281,7 +1295,19 @@ export class SharedLog< diffs = changes; } - this.uniqueReplicators.add(from.hashcode()); + const fromHash = from.hashcode(); + const isMe = fromHash === this.node.identity.publicKey.hashcode(); + const hasSegmentsAfter = + reset === true ? ranges.length > 0 : hadSegmentsBefore || ranges.length > 0; + const wasKnownReplicator = this.uniqueReplicators.has(fromHash); + + if (hasSegmentsAfter) { + this.uniqueReplicators.add(fromHash); + } else { + this.uniqueReplicators.delete(fromHash); + } + + const shouldEmitJoin = !isMe && !wasKnownReplicator && hasSegmentsAfter; let now = +new Date(); let minRoleAge = await this.getDefaultMinRoleAge(); @@ -1379,22 +1405,6 @@ export class SharedLog< }), ); - if (isNewReplicator) { - this.events.dispatchEvent( - new CustomEvent("replicator:join", { - detail: { publicKey: from }, - }), - ); - - if (isAllMature) { - this.events.dispatchEvent( - new CustomEvent("replicator:mature", { - detail: { publicKey: from }, - }), - ); - } - } - if (rebalance) { for (const diff of diffs) { this.replicationChangeDebounceFn.add(diff); @@ -1405,6 +1415,22 @@ export class SharedLog< this.rebalanceParticipationDebounced?.call(); } } + + if (shouldEmitJoin) { + this.events.dispatchEvent( + new CustomEvent("replicator:join", { + detail: { publicKey: from }, + }), + ); + + if (diffs.length > 0 && isAllMature) { + this.events.dispatchEvent( + new CustomEvent("replicator:mature", { + detail: { publicKey: from }, + }), + ); + } + } return diffs; } @@ -1894,6 +1920,8 @@ export class SharedLog< this._pendingDeletes = new Map(); this._pendingIHave = new Map(); this.latestReplicationInfoMessage = new Map(); + this.replicationInfoQueue = new Map(); + this.pendingReplicationInfo = new Map(); this.coordinateToHash = new Cache({ max: 1e6, ttl: 1e4 }); this.recentlyRebalanced = new Cache({ max: 1e4, ttl: 1e5 }); @@ -2233,6 +2261,9 @@ export class SharedLog< await this.rebalanceParticipation(); + // Backfill subscriber state for peers that subscribed while we were starting + await this.node.services.pubsub.requestSubscribers(this.topic); + // Take into account existing subscription (await this.node.services.pubsub.getSubscribers(this.topic))?.forEach( (v, k) => { @@ -2245,6 +2276,9 @@ export class SharedLog< this.handleSubscriptionChange(v, [this.topic], true); }, ); + + // Flush any replication-info messages that arrived before indexes were ready + await this.flushPendingReplicationInfo(); } async reset() { @@ -2281,24 +2315,28 @@ export class SharedLog< const key = await this.node.services.pubsub.getPublicKey( segment.value.hash, ); - if (!key) { - throw new Error( - "Failed to resolve public key from hash: " + - segment.value.hash, - ); - } + if (!key) { + throw new Error( + "Failed to resolve public key from hash: " + + segment.value.hash, + ); + } - this.uniqueReplicators.add(key.hashcode()); + const keyHash = key.hashcode(); + const wasKnownReplicator = this.uniqueReplicators.has(keyHash); + this.uniqueReplicators.add(keyHash); - this.events.dispatchEvent( - new CustomEvent("replicator:join", { - detail: { publicKey: key }, - }), - ); - this.events.dispatchEvent( - new CustomEvent( - "replication:change", - { + if (!wasKnownReplicator) { + this.events.dispatchEvent( + new CustomEvent("replicator:join", { + detail: { publicKey: key }, + }), + ); + } + this.events.dispatchEvent( + new CustomEvent( + "replication:change", + { detail: { publicKey: key }, }, ), @@ -2500,6 +2538,8 @@ export class SharedLog< this.coordinateToHash.clear(); this.recentlyRebalanced.clear(); this.uniqueReplicators.clear(); + this.replicationInfoQueue.clear(); + this.pendingReplicationInfo.clear(); this._closeController.abort(); clearInterval(this.interval); @@ -2565,6 +2605,84 @@ export class SharedLog< return this.log.recover(); } + private enqueueReplicationInfoMessage(args: { + from: PublicSignKey; + messageTimestamp: bigint; + message: AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage | AddedReplicationSegmentMessage; + }): Promise { + const fromHash = args.from.hashcode(); + const prev = this.replicationInfoQueue.get(fromHash) ?? Promise.resolve(); + let next: Promise; + next = prev + .catch(() => {}) + .then(() => this.applyReplicationInfoMessage(args)) + .finally(() => { + if (this.replicationInfoQueue.get(fromHash) === next) { + this.replicationInfoQueue.delete(fromHash); + } + }); + this.replicationInfoQueue.set(fromHash, next); + return next; + } + + private async applyReplicationInfoMessage(args: { + from: PublicSignKey; + messageTimestamp: bigint; + message: AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage | AddedReplicationSegmentMessage; + }): Promise { + const { from, messageTimestamp, message } = args; + const fromHash = from.hashcode(); + + try { + const prev = this.latestReplicationInfoMessage.get(fromHash); + if (prev && prev > messageTimestamp) { + return; + } + + this.latestReplicationInfoMessage.set(fromHash, messageTimestamp); + + if (this.closed) { + return; + } + + const reset = message instanceof AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage; + await this.addReplicationRange( + message.segments.map((x) => x.toReplicationRangeIndexable(from)), + from, + { + reset, + checkDuplicates: true, + timestamp: Number(messageTimestamp), + }, + ); + } catch (e: any) { + if (isNotStartedError(e)) { + const prev = this.pendingReplicationInfo.get(fromHash); + if (!prev || prev.messageTimestamp <= messageTimestamp) { + this.pendingReplicationInfo.set(fromHash, { + from, + messageTimestamp, + message, + }); + } + return; + } + logger.error( + `Failed to apply replication settings from '${fromHash}': ${ + e?.message ?? e + }`, + ); + } + } + + private async flushPendingReplicationInfo(): Promise { + const pending = new Map(this.pendingReplicationInfo); + this.pendingReplicationInfo.clear(); + for (const [, info] of pending) { + await this.enqueueReplicationInfoMessage(info); + } + } + // Callback for receiving a message from the network async onMessage( msg: TransportMessage, @@ -2933,22 +3051,26 @@ export class SharedLog< // for backwards compatibility (v8) remove this when we are sure that all nodes are v9+ if (this.v8Behaviour) { - const role = this.getRole(); - if (role instanceof Replicator) { - const fixedSettings = !this._isAdaptiveReplicating; - if (fixedSettings) { - await this.rpc.send( - new ResponseRoleMessage({ - role, - }), - { - mode: new SilentDelivery({ - to: [context.from], - redundancy: 1, + try { + const role = await this.getRole(); + if (role instanceof Replicator) { + const fixedSettings = !this._isAdaptiveReplicating; + if (fixedSettings) { + await this.rpc.send( + new ResponseRoleMessage({ + role, }), - }, - ); + { + mode: new SilentDelivery({ + to: [context.from], + redundancy: 1, + }), + }, + ); + } } + } catch (e: any) { + logger.error(e?.toString?.() ?? String(e)); } } } else if ( @@ -2968,42 +3090,10 @@ export class SharedLog< // (and downstream `waitForReplicator()` timeouts) under timing-sensitive joins. const from = context.from!; const messageTimestamp = context.message.header.timestamp; - (async () => { - const prev = this.latestReplicationInfoMessage.get(from.hashcode()); - if (prev && prev > messageTimestamp) { - return; - } - - this.latestReplicationInfoMessage.set( - from.hashcode(), - messageTimestamp, - ); - - if (this.closed) { - return; - } - - const reset = msg instanceof AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage; - await this.addReplicationRange( - replicationInfoMessage.segments.map((x) => - x.toReplicationRangeIndexable(from), - ), - from, - { - reset, - checkDuplicates: true, - timestamp: Number(messageTimestamp), - }, - ); - })().catch((e) => { - if (isNotStartedError(e)) { - return; - } - logger.error( - `Failed to apply replication settings from '${from.hashcode()}': ${ - e?.message ?? e - }`, - ); + void this.enqueueReplicationInfoMessage({ + from, + messageTimestamp, + message: replicationInfoMessage, }); } else if (msg instanceof StoppedReplicating) { if (context.from.equals(this.node.identity.publicKey)) { @@ -3967,10 +4057,12 @@ export class SharedLog< if (this.v8Behaviour) { // for backwards compatibility - this.rpc - .send(new ResponseRoleMessage({ role: await this.getRole() }), { - mode: new SeekDelivery({ redundancy: 1, to: [publicKey] }), - }) + this.getRole() + .then((role) => + this.rpc.send(new ResponseRoleMessage({ role }), { + mode: new SeekDelivery({ redundancy: 1, to: [publicKey] }), + }), + ) .catch((e) => logger.error(e.toString())); } } diff --git a/packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/replication.ts b/packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/replication.ts index a35b398c9..1add9210d 100644 --- a/packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/replication.ts +++ b/packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/replication.ts @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ import { ReplicationRangeMessage, ReplicationRangeMessageU32, } from "./ranges.js"; +import { denormalizer } from "./integers.js"; import { Observer, Replicator, Role } from "./role.js"; export type ReplicationLimits = { min: MinReplicas; max?: MinReplicas }; @@ -64,14 +65,15 @@ export class ResponseRoleMessage extends TransportMessage { } toReplicationInfoMessage(): AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage { + const denormalizeru32 = denormalizer("u32"); return new AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage({ segments: this.role instanceof Replicator ? this.role.segments.map((x) => { return new ReplicationRangeMessageU32({ id: randomBytes(32), - offset: x.offset, - factor: x.factor, + offset: denormalizeru32(x.offset), + factor: denormalizeru32(x.factor), timestamp: x.timestamp, mode: ReplicationIntent.NonStrict, }); diff --git a/packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/role.ts b/packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/role.ts index 4c06cdee2..02b04052f 100644 --- a/packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/role.ts +++ b/packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/role.ts @@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ export class RoleReplicationSegment { if (offset > 1 || offset < 0) { throw new Error("Expecting offset to be between 0 and 1, got: " + offset); } - this.offsetNominator = denormalizeru32(factor); + this.offsetNominator = denormalizeru32(offset); } get factor(): number { diff --git a/packages/programs/data/shared-log/test/migration.spec.ts b/packages/programs/data/shared-log/test/migration.spec.ts index d4506b5d6..67b2fd54f 100644 --- a/packages/programs/data/shared-log/test/migration.spec.ts +++ b/packages/programs/data/shared-log/test/migration.spec.ts @@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ describe(`migration-8-9`, function () { if (msg instanceof RequestReplicationInfoMessage) { // TODO we never respond to this message, nor in older version do we need to send it // we are keeping this here to mimic the old behaviour - await db.log.rpc.send( + await db1.log.rpc.send( new ResponseRoleMessage({ role: new Replicator({ factor: 1, offset: 0 }), }), diff --git a/packages/programs/data/shared-log/test/replicate.spec.ts b/packages/programs/data/shared-log/test/replicate.spec.ts index c42ed6581..28a409c86 100644 --- a/packages/programs/data/shared-log/test/replicate.spec.ts +++ b/packages/programs/data/shared-log/test/replicate.spec.ts @@ -328,31 +328,48 @@ describe(`replicate`, () => { await checkRoleIsDynamic(db1.log); }); - it("waitForReplicator waits until maturity", async () => { - const store = new EventStore(); + it("waitForReplicator waits until maturity", async () => { + const store = new EventStore(); - const db1 = await session.peers[0].open(store.clone(), { - args: { - replicate: { - factor: 1, + const db1 = await session.peers[0].open(store.clone(), { + args: { + replicate: { + factor: 1, + }, }, - }, - }); - const db2 = await session.peers[1].open(store.clone(), { - args: { - replicate: { - factor: 1, + }); + const db2 = await session.peers[1].open(store.clone(), { + args: { + replicate: { + factor: 1, + }, }, - }, + }); + const roleAgeMs = 3e3; + db2.log.getDefaultMinRoleAge = () => Promise.resolve(roleAgeMs); + + // Ensure we have observed db1's replication segment so we can compute the + // remaining time until maturity. Depending on timing, the segment may be + // present slightly before we start waiting. + await waitForResolved(async () => { + const rects = await db2.log.replicationIndex + .iterate({ query: { hash: db1.node.identity.publicKey.hashcode() } }) + .all(); + expect(rects[0]?.value).to.exist; + }); + + const rect = ( + await db2.log.replicationIndex + .iterate({ query: { hash: db1.node.identity.publicKey.hashcode() } }) + .all() + )[0]!.value; + + const t0 = +new Date(); + await db2.log.waitForReplicator(db1.node.identity.publicKey); + const t1 = +new Date(); + const remaining = Math.max(0, roleAgeMs - (t0 - Number(rect.timestamp))); + expect(t1 - t0).greaterThanOrEqual(remaining - 100); // - 100 for timer inaccuracy }); - db2.log.getDefaultMinRoleAge = () => Promise.resolve(3e3); - const t0 = +new Date(); - await db2.log.waitForReplicator(db1.node.identity.publicKey); - const t1 = +new Date(); - expect(t1 - t0).greaterThanOrEqual( - (await db2.log.getDefaultMinRoleAge()) - 100, - ); // - 100 for handle timer inaccuracy - }); it("waitForReplicator eager resolves before maturity", async () => { const store = new EventStore(); diff --git a/packages/transport/pubsub/src/index.ts b/packages/transport/pubsub/src/index.ts index 23a9d6aee..fa4ac7295 100644 --- a/packages/transport/pubsub/src/index.ts +++ b/packages/transport/pubsub/src/index.ts @@ -125,6 +125,9 @@ export class DirectSub extends DirectStream implements PubSub { async subscribe(topic: string) { // this.debounceUnsubscribeAggregator.delete(topic); + if (!this.topics.has(topic)) { + this.initializeTopic(topic); + } return this.debounceSubscribeAggregator.add({ key: topic }); } @@ -178,6 +181,8 @@ export class DirectSub extends DirectStream implements PubSub { async unsubscribe(topic: string) { if (this.debounceSubscribeAggregator.has(topic)) { this.debounceSubscribeAggregator.delete(topic); // cancel subscription before it performed + this.topics.delete(topic); + this.topicsToPeers.delete(topic); return false; } const subscriptions = this.subscriptions.get(topic); @@ -729,6 +734,15 @@ export class DirectSub extends DirectStream implements PubSub { const mySubscriptions = this.getSubscriptionOverlap( pubsubMessage.topics, ); + // Also include topics pending in the debounce window + for (const topic of pubsubMessage.topics) { + if ( + !mySubscriptions.includes(topic) && + this.debounceSubscribeAggregator.has(topic) + ) { + mySubscriptions.push(topic); + } + } if (mySubscriptions.length > 0) { const response = new DataMessage({ data: toUint8Array( diff --git a/shared-log-debug-plan.md b/shared-log-debug-plan.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..1fddf74b1 --- /dev/null +++ b/shared-log-debug-plan.md @@ -0,0 +1,434 @@ +# Status (2026-02-06) + +This doc started as an investigation log for CI flakes surfaced by PR #589. As of **2026-02-06**, the shared-log hardening work described in `shared-log-debug.md` has been implemented on this branch and validated locally. + +## What Changed (Implemented) + +- **Pubsub: make subscription discovery resilient to debounce timing** + - Eagerly initialize per-topic state in `subscribe()` so early remote Subscribe messages are not dropped. + - Include “pending subscribe” topics in `requestSubscribers()` responses so peers can discover us during the debounce window. + - File: `packages/transport/pubsub/src/index.ts` + +- **SharedLog: serialize replication-info application per peer** + - Replace fire-and-forget replication-info handling with a per-peer promise chain (`replicationInfoQueue`) so `addReplicationRange()` is not invoked concurrently for the same sender. + - Track last seen replication-info timestamp per peer (`latestReplicationInfoMessage`) and ignore older updates. + - File: `packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts` + +- **SharedLog: don’t lose replication-info during startup** + - If applying replication-info fails with `NotStartedError`/index-not-ready, store the latest message per peer (`pendingReplicationInfo`) and retry after open. + - Flush pending messages after startup (`flushPendingReplicationInfo()`). + - File: `packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts` + +- **SharedLog: startup backfill of subscribers** + - Call `pubsub.requestSubscribers(this.topic)` after open to backfill missed subscribe events. + - File: `packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts` + +- **SharedLog: make `replicator:join` idempotent** + - Join is now emitted on the transition “not known replicator -> has segments”, not on “diffs applied”. + - Prevents duplicates during concurrent/all-state announcements and makes restart/prune semantics consistent. + - File: `packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts` + +- **Migration (v8 compatibility): always respond with a role** + - `getRole()` no longer throws when multiple local segments exist; it selects the widest segment as best-effort. + - Fix role timestamp propagation and ensure `ResponseRoleMessage` send path can’t fail the whole subscription handler. + - Fix `ResponseRoleMessage -> AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage` conversion to denormalize factor/offset into u32 coordinate space. + - Files: `packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts`, `packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/replication.ts` + +- **Bug fix: RoleReplicationSegment offset encoding** + - `RoleReplicationSegment` incorrectly used `factor` when encoding `offset`. + - File: `packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/role.ts` + +- **Tests: fix a flaky assertion and a test bug** + - `waitForReplicator waits until maturity` now asserts on the *remaining* maturity time (segment might predate the wait start). + - Migration test’s v8 mock now replies using the opened store (`db1.log.rpc`) instead of the unopened template instance. + - Files: `packages/programs/data/shared-log/test/replicate.spec.ts`, `packages/programs/data/shared-log/test/migration.spec.ts` + +## Verification (Local) + +- `pnpm run build` (PASS) +- `node ./node_modules/aegir/src/index.js run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log -- -t node` (PASS; 1743 passing) +- Targeted regression greps (PASS): + - `replicate:join not emitted on update` + - `8-9, replicates database of 1 entry` + - `9-8, replicates database of 1 entry` + - `segments updated while offline` + - `will re-check replication segments on restart and announce online` + +## Commit + +- **TBD** (filled in after commit) + +--- + +# Learnings + +## Test Results +*(To be updated as tests are run)* + +| Test | Result | Notes | +|------|--------|-------| +| events.spec.ts "replicate:join not emitted on update" | KNOWN FLAKY | Duplicate replicator:join - same peer hash twice in db1JoinEvents | +| migration.spec.ts "8-9, replicates database of 1 entry" | KNOWN FLAKY | waitForResolved timeout - replication never completes within 10s | +| migration.spec.ts "9-8, replicates database of 1 entry" | KNOWN FLAKY | Same as above | +| Master CI Part 4 (last 400 runs) | 5 failures, none matching triple-failure | Different shared-log flakes in other suites | + +## Key Learnings + +1. **C4 is INCORRECT on current master**: The PR #589 fix (eager `initializeTopic()` in `subscribe()` and `debounceSubscribeAggregator.has(topic)` in requestSubscribers) is NOT in the current codebase. The current branch (`fix/sync`) is at master. The fix described in C4 exists only in PR #589's branch. + +2. **The triple-failure signature is unique to PR #589's CI run**: Only run 21732319700 shows all three failures together. This strongly suggests the pubsub timing change exposes a latent shared-log race. + +3. **PR #3 does NOT fix the TOCTOU race**: It adds shutdown guards to `persistCoordinate` -- a completely different code path from the fire-and-forget IIFE at line 2971 that causes the race. + +4. **The real root cause is architectural**: The fire-and-forget `(async () => { ... })().catch(...)` pattern at line 2971 of shared-log/src/index.ts creates unguarded concurrent access to `addReplicationRange()`. + +--- + +# Claims + +## C1: DirectSub.subscribe() is debounced (subscriptionDebounceDelay ?? 50ms) +**Status**: VERIFIED +**Evidence**: packages/transport/pubsub/src/index.ts:96-98 - `debouncedAccumulatorSetCounter((set) => this._subscribe([...set.values()]), props?.subscriptionDebounceDelay ?? 50)` +Line 126-128: `subscribe()` delegates to `this.debounceSubscribeAggregator.add({ key: topic })` +Line 134-176: `_subscribe()` sets `this.subscriptions.set(topic, prev)` at line 152 and calls `this.listenForSubscribers(topic)` at line 155 + +## C2: Incoming Subscribe drops if topic not initialized +**Status**: VERIFIED +**Evidence**: packages/transport/pubsub/src/index.ts:686-688 - `const peers = this.topics.get(topic); if (peers == null) { return; }` + +## C3: requestSubscribers responses only include topics in this.subscriptions +**Status**: VERIFIED +**Evidence**: packages/transport/pubsub/src/index.ts:727-731 calls `getSubscriptionOverlap()`, lines 451-466 filters to `this.subscriptions` only. + +## C4: PR's fix eagerly calls initializeTopic() and treats pending-topics in requestSubscribers +**Status**: INCORRECT (on current master) +**Evidence**: Lines 126-128 of pubsub/src/index.ts: `subscribe()` only calls `debounceSubscribeAggregator.add()`. No `initializeTopic()` call. `debounceSubscribeAggregator.has()` appears only in `unsubscribe()` at line 179, NOT in requestSubscribers response path. **This describes the proposed fix in PR #589, not the current code.** + +## C5: Replication-info processed in fire-and-forget async IIFE +**Status**: VERIFIED +**Evidence**: packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:2954-3007 - `(async () => { ... })().catch(...)` with no await, no per-peer queue/lock. + +## C6: addReplicationRange() TOCTOU on prevCount === 0 +**Status**: VERIFIED +**Evidence**: Line 1200 (reset path): `isNewReplicator = prevCount === 0 && ranges.length > 0`. Line 1226 (non-reset): `isNewReplicator = prevCountForOwner === 0`. Line 1382-1387: dispatches `replicator:join` if `isNewReplicator`. Two concurrent calls can both read 0 before either writes. + +## C7: handleSubscriptionChange sends both AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage and RequestReplicationInfoMessage +**Status**: VERIFIED +**Evidence**: Lines 3954-3966: sends `AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage`. Lines 3981-3985: sends `RequestReplicationInfoMessage`. Line 2919: handler responds with `AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage`. + +## C8: Startup only snapshots via getSubscribers(), no requestSubscribers() +**Status**: PARTIALLY VERIFIED +**Evidence**: Lines 2236-2247: `afterOpen()` calls `getSubscribers()` and iterates results calling `handleSubscriptionChange()`. Shared-log never calls `pubsub.requestSubscribers()` (confirmed by grep). However, `handleSubscriptionChange` does send `RequestReplicationInfoMessage` (a shared-log level request), so it does actively reach out for replication info. + +## C9: NotStartedError swallows replication-info +**Status**: VERIFIED +**Evidence**: Lines 2998-3001: `.catch((e) => { if (isNotStartedError(e)) { return; } })`. Lines 290-303: `isNotStartedError()` returns true for `AbortError`, `NotStartedError`, `IndexNotStartedError`, `ClosedError`. + +## C10: handleSubscriptionChange sends both messages +**Status**: VERIFIED +**Evidence**: Same as C7. Confirmed at line 3916 definition. + +## C11: events.spec.ts checks for duplicate replicator:join +**Status**: PARTIALLY VERIFIED +**Evidence**: Lines 103-107: `waitForResolved(() => expect(db1JoinEvents).to.have.members([...]))`. This uses `.to.have.members()` which checks exact membership. The test is named "replicate:join not emitted on update" -- it primarily tests that updates don't re-trigger join, not specifically the TOCTOU race. But duplicate join would cause it to fail. + +## C12: migration.spec.ts checks replication of 1 entry with default timeout +**Status**: VERIFIED +**Evidence**: Line 130: `waitForResolved(() => expect(db2.log.log.length).equal(1))`. Line 139: same pattern. No timeout specified = default. + +## C13: waitForResolved default timeout is 10s +**Status**: VERIFIED +**Evidence**: packages/utils/time/src/wait.ts:73-83 - `timeout: 10 * 1000` default. + +--- + +# Ahas/Gotchas + +1. **C4 describes the fix, not current code**: The eager `initializeTopic()` and `debounceSubscribeAggregator.has()` in requestSubscribers are PR #589 changes, NOT on master. This is critical -- the claims document mixes "what the PR does" with "what the code does". + +2. **onPeerReachable() gap not covered by PR #589**: Even with PR #589's fix, `onPeerReachable()` (line 485) only announces if `this.subscriptions.size > 0` and uses `getSubscriptionOverlap()` without the pending-subscribe check. So if a new peer connects during the debounce window, onPeerReachable won't announce our pending subscription. + +3. **GetSubscribers handler inconsistency**: The `GetSubscribers` handler (line 803) uses `getSubscriptionOverlap()` without pending-subscribe check. Only the inline requestSubscribers response within the Subscribe handler gets PR #589's fix. + +4. **The migration test failure mechanism is two-fold**: (a) missed subscription discovery means replication-info handshake doesn't run, AND (b) if it does run but indexes aren't ready, the message is silently dropped with no retry. + +5. **Two different layers of "requestSubscribers"**: There's pubsub-level `requestSubscribers()` (sends GetSubscribers message) and shared-log-level `RequestReplicationInfoMessage`. The document sometimes conflates these. + +6. **`subscribe→unsubscribe` before debounce leaves stale topics entry**: `unsubscribe()` cancels the debounce aggregator but does NOT clean up the `topics` entry that was eagerly created (relevant when PR #589 fix is applied). + +7. **MAJOR: Debug document's shared-log analysis is based on STALE CODE**: The fire-and-forget IIFE (C5), TOCTOU race (C6), NotStartedError loss (C9), and missing requestSubscribers on startup (C8) have ALL been fixed on current master. The per-peer queue (`enqueueReplicationInfoMessage`), pending message buffer (`pendingReplicationInfo`), and `requestSubscribers()` call in `afterOpen()` are all present. Claims verified against wrong line numbers. + +8. **This repo IS dao-xyz/peerbit upstream**: `git remote -v` → `origin https://github.com/dao-xyz/peerbit.git`. Local master == remote master at `07ba57225`. + +--- + +# Reviews + +## Review 1 Analysis + +### What Review 1 Gets Right + +1. **Core technical story is correct.** The debounce gap, incoming Subscribe drop (topics.get undefined), and requestSubscribers overlap empty -- all verified against code. + +2. **"What changed" section matches the diff.** Verified: eager initializeTopic(), pending-subscribe inclusion, 3 tests. + +3. **requestSubscribers pending-subscribe not directly asserted by tests.** Correct gap in test coverage. + +4. **"subscribe then unsubscribe within debounce" not covered.** Correct. unsubscribe() cancels debounce aggregator but does NOT clean up topics entry. + +5. **Proposed test files (bug2, bug3) are well-designed.** + +### What Review 1 Misses + +1. **onPeerReachable() gap** -- not patched by PR #589 to include pending subscribes. +2. **GetSubscribers handler inconsistency** -- only Subscribe handler gets the fix. +3. **getSubscribers() self-inclusion gap** -- self excluded during debounce window. +4. **PR version nuance** -- reviews pr-589-gh (3 commits) but current code is master. + +## Review 2 Analysis + +### What Review 2 Gets Right + +1. **Core fix description accurate.** Correctly identifies both changes. +2. **requestSubscribers fix "plausible but not directly exercised."** Same as Review 1. +3. **Relay design choice is intentional.** Correctly identifies the rejected approach. +4. **Edge case: stale topics entry after subscribe-then-unsubscribe.** Verified. +5. **initializeTopic() is idempotent.** Confirmed: lines 116-119 create empty Map/Set, won't overwrite. + +### What Review 2 Misses + +1. Same gaps as Review 1 (onPeerReachable, GetSubscribers handler, getSubscribers self). +2. Recommends reading initializeTopic() but doesn't perform it. +3. Doesn't note the commit history evolution (3 commits, approach changes). + +## Consensus Points + +1. Core race condition is real and correctly identified +2. Eager initializeTopic() fix is correct and well-tested +3. requestSubscribers pending-subscribe fix is logically consistent but NOT directly tested +4. subscribe-then-unsubscribe edge case is NOT tested +5. PR does not CAUSE shared-log CI failures -- it EXPOSES them +6. Design choice to NOT track non-subscribed topics is intentional + +## Recommended Tests from Reviews (consolidated) + +1. requestSubscribers + pending subscribe (block _subscribe, assert discovery) +2. subscribe-then-unsubscribe within debounce (assert cleanup) +3. Non-subscriber does not track topics from incoming Subscribe traffic +4. initializeTopic() idempotency +5. onPeerReachable during debounce window +6. GetSubscribers handler during debounce window + +--- + +# CI Error Analysis + +## PR #3 (Faolain/peerbit) - fix/rootcause-b-persistcoordinate-guard +**Status**: Open with CI failures +**CI Failures**: Same 3 shared-log failures: +- events.spec.ts "replicate:join not emitted on update" -- FAIL (duplicate join, 2 instead of 1) +- migration.spec.ts "8-9" -- FAIL (0 instead of 1) +- migration.spec.ts "9-8" -- FAIL (0 instead of 1) +**Fixes TOCTOU?**: NO -- persistCoordinate guard is a completely different code path from the fire-and-forget IIFE at line 2971. + +## PR #4 (Faolain/peerbit) - More comprehensive shared-log fix +**Status**: Open with CI failures +**Expected**: Same root cause family. Without per-peer serialization of `addReplicationRange()`, the duplicate replicator:join will persist. + +## PR #591 (dao-xyz/peerbit) - fix(shared-log): avoid unhandled rejection when entry.hash is missing +**Status**: Open with CI failures +**Relation**: Orthogonal fix (null entry hash). CI failures may include same TOCTOU flakes since those are latent in shared-log. + +## Master CI History +- 5 Part 4 failures in last 400 master runs, but NONE with the same triple-failure signature +- The specific pattern (events + migration 8-9 + migration 9-8) is unique to PR #589's run 21732319700 +- Master is clean on Part 4 (1744/1744 pass) in recent runs + +--- + +# Proposed Tests + +## Test 1: Duplicate replicator:join race reproduction (shared-log) +**File**: packages/programs/data/shared-log/test/race-duplicate-join.spec.ts +**Hypothesis**: TOCTOU race in addReplicationRange() where two concurrent async IIFEs both see prevCount === 0 +**Approach**: Intercept AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage, replay it twice concurrently with different timestamps, assert only 1 replicator:join event +**Before fix**: 2 join events (FAIL) +**After fix**: 1 join event (PASS) + +## Test 2: Per-peer serialization validation (shared-log) +**File**: packages/programs/data/shared-log/test/race-serialization.spec.ts +**Hypothesis**: addReplicationRange() calls from same peer can interleave +**Approach**: Monkey-patch addReplicationRange to track concurrent execution count +**Before fix**: maxConcurrency >= 2 +**After fix**: maxConcurrency === 1 + +## Test 3: NotStartedError message loss (shared-log) +**File**: packages/programs/data/shared-log/test/race-notstartederror.spec.ts +**Hypothesis**: NotStartedError causes replication-info to be silently dropped with no retry +**Approach**: Monkey-patch addReplicationRange to throw NotStartedError on first call, verify message is lost +**Before fix**: Message dropped, peer segments empty +**After fix**: Message queued and retried after index ready + +## Test 4: requestSubscribers during pending subscribe (pubsub) +**File**: packages/transport/pubsub/test/request-subscribers-pending.spec.ts +**Hypothesis**: During debounce window, topics.get(topic) is undefined, Subscribe responses are dropped +**Approach**: Use large debounce delay, check topics map before/after debounce +**Before fix**: topics map not initialized during debounce +**After fix**: topics map initialized eagerly + +## Test 5: Subscribe-then-unsubscribe edge case (pubsub) +**File**: packages/transport/pubsub/test/subscribe-unsubscribe-debounce.spec.ts +**Hypothesis**: subscribe→unsubscribe within debounce may leave stale state +**Approach**: Subscribe then immediately unsubscribe, verify no stale topic entries or false advertising + +--- + +# Claims-to-Tests Coverage Matrix + +| Claim | Description | Status | Validated by Test? | Gap? | +|-------|-------------|--------|-------------------|------| +| C1 | subscribe() debounced (50ms) | VERIFIED | Test 4 (indirect) | Weak -- no test asserts debounce mechanism directly | +| C2 | Incoming Subscribe drops if topic not initialized | VERIFIED | Test 4 (direct) | No gap | +| C3 | requestSubscribers only includes this.subscriptions | VERIFIED | NOT TESTED | **Gap** -- need test for getSubscriptionOverlap during debounce | +| C4 | PR fix: eager initializeTopic + pending in requestSubscribers | INCORRECT on master | Test 4 (partial -- eager init half) | **Gap** -- requestSubscribers half untested | +| C5 | Fire-and-forget async IIFE for replication-info | VERIFIED | Test 1 + Test 2 | No gap | +| C6 | addReplicationRange() TOCTOU on prevCount === 0 | VERIFIED | Test 1 (direct) | No gap | +| C7 | handleSubscriptionChange sends both messages | VERIFIED | NOT TESTED | Low priority structural gap | +| C8 | Startup snapshots via getSubscribers() only | PARTIAL | NOT TESTED | Medium priority -- explains migration failure | +| C9 | NotStartedError swallows replication-info | VERIFIED | Test 3 (direct) | No gap | +| C10 | handleSubscriptionChange sends both messages | VERIFIED | NOT TESTED | Same as C7 | +| C11 | events.spec.ts catches duplicate join | PARTIAL | Test 1 (supersedes) | No gap | +| C12 | migration.spec.ts checks replication of 1 entry | VERIFIED | Test 3 (partial) | Existing test IS the validation | +| C13 | waitForResolved default 10s | VERIFIED | N/A | Context, not testable fix | + +## Strong Coverage (5/13): C2, C5, C6, C9, C11 +## Partial Coverage (3/13): C1, C4 (eager half), C12 +## No Coverage (5/13): C3, C7, C8, C10, C13 (C13 needs none; C7/C10 duplicates) + +## Most Critical Gap: requestSubscribers pending-subscribe path (C3/C4) -- both reviews flagged this independently + +## Additional Tests Recommended + +| # | Test | Priority | Covers | +|---|------|----------|--------| +| 6 | requestSubscribers includes pending-subscribe topics | HIGH | C3, C4 | +| 7 | onPeerReachable during debounce window | MEDIUM | Gotcha #2 | +| 8 | GetSubscribers handler during debounce window | MEDIUM | Gotcha #3 | +| 9 | initializeTopic() idempotency | LOW | Review rec #4 | +| 10 | Startup discovery misses debounce-window peers | MEDIUM | C8 | + +--- + +# Attack Plan + +## CRITICAL CORRECTION: Debug Document is Based on Stale Code + +The debug document's analysis of the shared-log TOCTOU race (C5, C6, C9) is based on an **older version** of the code. The current master already has: + +1. **Per-peer serialization queue** (`replicationInfoQueue` / `enqueueReplicationInfoMessage`) at line 2616-2650 of shared-log/src/index.ts — replaces the fire-and-forget IIFE +2. **NotStartedError message buffering** (`pendingReplicationInfo`) at line 2684-2695 — messages are stored and retried via `flushPendingReplicationInfo()` at line 2289 in `afterOpen()` +3. **`requestSubscribers()` call in `afterOpen()`** at line 2267 — backfills subscriber state on startup +4. **`uniqueReplicators` Set guard** at line 1302-1308 — `isNewReplicator = !wasKnownReplicator && hasSegmentsAfter` + +This means C5 (fire-and-forget IIFE) is **STALE**, C6 (TOCTOU) is **MITIGATED** by the queue, and C9 (NotStartedError loss) is **MITIGATED** by pending message buffering. + +## Root Cause Verdict + +**The bug is primarily in PUBSUB. The shared-log's per-peer queue already prevents the described TOCTOU race.** + +The pubsub debounce window (C1, C2, C3) is the primary remaining issue: +- `subscribe()` doesn't call `initializeTopic()` — topics.get(topic) is undefined during debounce +- Incoming Subscribe messages are silently dropped at line 687 (`if (peers == null) return`) +- `requestSubscribers` responses exclude pending subscribes (only checks `this.subscriptions`) + +PR #589's faster subscription discovery EXPOSES a latent shared-log issue: `handleSubscriptionChange` is called twice for the same peer (from both the pubsub event AND `afterOpen().getSubscribers()`), sending duplicate messages. The per-peer queue serializes responses but the duplicate sends are wasteful and may trigger edge cases under CI load. + +## Fix Priority Order + +### P0: Must Fix (blocks CI — pubsub layer) + +**Fix 1: Eager `initializeTopic()` in `subscribe()`** +- File: `packages/transport/pubsub/src/index.ts`, line 126 +- Change: Add `this.initializeTopic(topic)` before the debounce aggregator add +- Why: Closes the debounce window where incoming Subscribe messages are dropped + +**Fix 2: Include pending-subscribe topics in requestSubscribers response** +- File: `packages/transport/pubsub/src/index.ts`, around line 727-731 +- Change: Check `this.debounceSubscribeAggregator.has(topic)` as fallback when `getSubscriptionOverlap` returns empty +- Why: Ensures remote peers learn about our subscription during debounce window + +### P1: Should Fix (prevents regressions — shared-log layer) + +**Fix 3: Deduplicate `handleSubscriptionChange` calls for same peer** +- File: `packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts`, line 4041 +- Change: Track which peers have been processed with `subscribed=true` to skip redundant message sends +- Why: With faster pubsub, both event handler and `afterOpen().getSubscribers()` can trigger for the same peer + +### P2: Nice to Have (pubsub hardening) + +**Fix 4: `onPeerReachable()` during debounce window** (line 481) +**Fix 5: `GetSubscribers` handler during debounce window** (line 798-824) +**Fix 6: subscribe-then-unsubscribe cleanup** (line 178-182) + +## Implementation Sequence + +### Step 1: Apply PR #589 pubsub fix (P0-1 and P0-2) +``` +File: packages/transport/pubsub/src/index.ts +Line 126: Add initializeTopic() before debounce +Line ~731: Add debounceSubscribeAggregator.has() check in requestSubscribers response +``` +**Quick test**: `pnpm -C packages/transport/pubsub test` (~30s) +**Expected**: All pubsub tests pass + topic initialized immediately on subscribe() + +### Step 2: Run targeted shared-log tests +**Quick test**: Run the 3 failing tests individually: +```bash +pnpm -C packages/programs/data/shared-log test -- --grep "replicate:join not emitted on update" +pnpm -C packages/programs/data/shared-log test -- --grep "replicates database of 1 entry" +``` +**Expected**: All pass. If not, proceed to Step 3. + +### Step 3: Add handleSubscriptionChange deduplication (P1-3) if Step 2 still flaky +``` +File: packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts +Line 4041: Add guard Set to skip duplicate handleSubscriptionChange(subscribed=true) calls +``` +**Quick test**: Same as Step 2 + +### Step 4: Loop validation +Run the targeted tests 10-20x to confirm stability: +```bash +for i in $(seq 1 20); do echo "Run $i"; pnpm -C packages/programs/data/shared-log test -- --grep "replicate:join not emitted|replicates database of 1 entry" || break; done +``` + +### Step 5: Full test suite validation +```bash +pnpm run test:part-4 +``` + +## Quick Validation Strategy + +| Fix | Command | Time | +|-----|---------|------| +| Pubsub fix | `pnpm -C packages/transport/pubsub test` | ~30s | +| Migration test | `pnpm -C packages/programs/data/shared-log test -- --grep "replicates database"` | ~30s | +| Events test | `pnpm -C packages/programs/data/shared-log test -- --grep "replicate:join"` | ~30s | +| Repeat validation | Loop 20x with `--grep` | ~10min | +| Full Part 4 | `pnpm run test:part-4` | ~20min | + +## Risk Assessment + +- **P0-1 (eager initializeTopic)**: LOW risk. `initializeTopic()` is idempotent (creates Map/Set only if absent). Verified at lines 116-119. +- **P0-2 (pending-subscribe response)**: LOW-MEDIUM risk. Could advertise a subscription that gets cancelled by unsubscribe-during-debounce. Mitigated by Unsubscribe message correcting state. +- **P1-3 (handleSubscriptionChange dedup)**: MEDIUM risk. Must clear dedup set on peer disconnect/unsubscribe to allow reconnect. Use timestamp-based throttle instead of hard dedup. + +## Updated Claim Status (with corrected code analysis) + +| Claim | Original Status | Corrected Status | Notes | +|-------|----------------|-----------------|-------| +| C5 | VERIFIED | **STALE** | Fire-and-forget IIFE replaced with `enqueueReplicationInfoMessage` queue | +| C6 | VERIFIED | **MITIGATED** | Per-peer queue serializes `addReplicationRange` calls | +| C9 | VERIFIED | **MITIGATED** | `pendingReplicationInfo` buffers and retries on `flushPendingReplicationInfo()` | +| C8 | PARTIAL | **FIXED** | `afterOpen()` now calls `requestSubscribers()` at line 2267 | +| C1-C3 | VERIFIED | **STILL VALID** | Pubsub debounce gap is the primary remaining issue | diff --git a/shared-log-debug.md b/shared-log-debug.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..c576c9fda --- /dev/null +++ b/shared-log-debug.md @@ -0,0 +1,884 @@ +You have recently made a PR here: https://github.com/dao-xyz/peerbit/pull/589 in order to address flaky connectivity within the Peerbit library for pubsub. This patch then had 3 CI test failures visible on github here https://github.com/dao-xyz/peerbit/actions/runs/21732319700/job/62689580781 (and you can inspect the history of the same PR with the other job failures on the CI page). It has been noted by some peers that this PR actually tries to improve connectivity between peers but actually more easily surfaces a "shared-log" flaky/race condition that was under the hood before, so it doesn't cause the error it just speeds up connections leading to the error surfacing (but this is not confirmed). Some make claims that it's related to a debounce whereas there are other claims that extra replications are now being caused because a debounce isn't canceled. + + + These assumptions are correct in the current code: + + - DirectSub.subscribe() is debounced (subscriptionDebounceDelay ?? 50ms), and _subscribe() is where subscriptions is set and listenForSubscribers() is called. + packages/transport/pubsub/src/index.ts:96 + packages/transport/pubsub/src/index.ts:139 + packages/transport/pubsub/src/index.ts:159 + packages/transport/pubsub/src/index.ts:270 + - Incoming Subscribe handling drops remote subscriptions if the topic hasn’t been initialized locally: + const peers = this.topics.get(topic); if (peers == null) return; + packages/transport/pubsub/src/index.ts:690 + - requestSubscribers responses only include topics present in this.subscriptions via getSubscriptionOverlap(), so during the debounce window overlap can be empty. + packages/transport/pubsub/src/index.ts:456 + packages/transport/pubsub/src/index.ts:732 + + The PR’s fix (eager initializeTopic() inside subscribe() and adding pending-topics via debounceSubscribeAggregator.has(topic) to requestSubscribers responses) directly addresses those gaps. + packages/transport/pubsub/src/index.ts:126 + packages/transport/pubsub/src/index.ts:732 + + Notable edge-case to sanity-check (not a blocker, but real): subscribe() then unsubscribe() before debounce fires now leaves an initialized topics entry behind (since unsubscribe only cancels the debounced subscribe). That can affect “are we subscribed” heuristics that + use this.topics.has(topic) rather than this.subscriptions.has(topic). + packages/transport/pubsub/src/index.ts:126 + packages/transport/pubsub/src/index.ts:183 + + ## What CI Actually Failed (PR run 21732319700, job 62689580781) + + In pnpm run test:ci:part-4 (Ubuntu 22.04, Node 22), @peerbit/shared-log failed: + + - events > replicate:join not emitted on update with duplicate join entries (same peer hash twice). + packages/programs/data/shared-log/test/events.spec.ts:103 + packages/programs/data/shared-log/test/events.spec.ts:104 + - migration-8-9 > 8-9, replicates database of 1 entry timed out and last assertion was expected +0 to equal 1. + packages/programs/data/shared-log/test/migration.spec.ts:130 + - migration-8-9 > 9-8, replicates database of 1 entry same symptom. + packages/programs/data/shared-log/test/migration.spec.ts:139 + + (waitForResolved default timeout is 10s, so these “AssertionError” failures are consistent with a 10s timeout where replication never completed.) + packages/utils/time/src/wait.ts:73 + + ## Most Likely Origin of the shared-log Flakes + + ### 1) Duplicate replicator:join (events.spec) + + The most plausible mechanism is a race in shared-log’s replication-info handling: + + - Shared-log can receive multiple replication-info messages for the same peer during join, close together: + - Proactive announcement on subscribe (handleSubscriptionChange sends AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage). + packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:3954 + - Response to RequestReplicationInfoMessage (receiver sends AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage). + packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:2919 + packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:3981 + - Incoming replication-info messages are processed in a fire-and-forget async IIFE, not serialized per peer. + packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:2955 + packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:2971 + - addReplicationRange() decides “is new replicator” by reading the index state (prevCount === 0), then later writes. Two concurrent calls can both see prevCount === 0 and both emit replicator:join. + packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:1139 + packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:1200 + packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:1382 + + This exactly matches the CI diff: same peer hash appearing twice in db1JoinEvents. + + Why PR #589 could increase the odds (without being the root cause): pubsub timing changes can make subscription discovery and replication-info exchange happen “tighter” in time, increasing the chance the two replication-info messages overlap and hit this race window. + + ### 2) Migration tests not replicating within 10s (migration.spec) + + Two high-probability contributors (can stack): + + - Missed/late subscription discovery ⇒ replication-info handshake doesn’t run soon enough. + Shared-log relies on pubsub subscribe events plus a single snapshot in afterOpen(). It does not call pubsub requestSubscribers(). If the subscribe event happens before the listener is attached (or the snapshot runs before pubsub has the subscriber recorded), + handleSubscriptionChange() might not run, so RequestReplicationInfoMessage isn’t sent and roles/ranges aren’t applied. + packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:2138 + packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:2219 + packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:3916 + packages/transport/pubsub/src/index.ts:274 + - Replication-info messages can be dropped during startup if indexes aren’t ready. + In the replication-info IIFE, errors classified as “not started” are swallowed and the message is effectively lost (no retry at this layer). If this happens at the wrong time, the peer never gets replication ranges, and replication can stall. + packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:290 + packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:2999 + + ## Bottom Line On “Are the suspected origins correct?” + + - “This PR doesn’t touch shared-log directly” is true, but shared-log depends on pubsub (workspace:*), so pubsub timing changes can expose or amplify existing shared-log races. + - The replicator:join failure is strongly consistent with a shared-log concurrency bug (lack of per-peer serialization around addReplicationRange()), not with a deterministic pubsub regression. + - The migration failures are consistent with timing/handshake issues (missed subscribe window, lost replication-info processing, or simply >10s replication under CI load). Pubsub races can be a trigger, but shared-log also has its own “one-shot snapshot” assumptions. + + ## Most Actionable Hardening (if you want to fix the flakes) + Creating an actionable plan + + In the shared-log, we always subscribe to our RPC topic during the open process, which leads us to eventually initialize it. However, if a remote subscribe message arrives before this, it might be dropped, preventing us from learning about the subscription. To tackle this, we should incorporate a + requestSubscribers call right after opening. Here’s the proposed minimal patch set: + + 1. Immediate triage: Confirm causes by running tests with instrumentation. + 2. Code hardening: Strengthen the shared-log. + 3. Pubsub improvements: Ensure the relevant PR is merged, possibly adding tests. + 4. Test hardening: Enhance waitForResolved timeouts; implement a deterministic handshake. + 5. CI: Execute targeted tests several times, capturing debug logs and seeds. + + For the update, the latest PR was modified on Feb 6, 2026, head 61ab928..., with the failing run ID 21732319700. I believe the assumption about the CI failure is correct; it seems related to shared-log concurrency rather than pubsub issues. + +• Current Evidence (PR + CI) + + 1. PR dao-xyz/peerbit#589 (head 61ab928698a82de0441adca1b8580a4c4133795b, Feb 6 2026) is correctly targeting a real pubsub race: incoming Subscribe can be dropped while local subscribe() is still in the debounce window. Fix is to eagerly initializeTopic() in subscribe() and treat “pending + subscribe” as subscribed for requestSubscribers responses (packages/transport/pubsub/src/index.ts:126, packages/transport/pubsub/src/index.ts:732). + 2. The CI failures you called out look shared-log–originated (not pubsub-test–originated): duplicate replicator:join in events.spec.ts and replication timeout in migration.spec.ts (PR run 21732319700, job 62689580781 per earlier log inspection). + + Most Likely Root Causes + + 1. Duplicate replicator:join is a shared-log concurrency bug: + + - Join emits inside addReplicationRange() when isNewReplicator is computed off index counts (packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:1139, packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:1200, packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:1384). + - Replication-info messages are applied via an un-awaited async IIFE, so two replication-info messages from the same peer can run addReplicationRange() concurrently (packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:2971). + - On subscribe, shared-log sends both AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage and RequestReplicationInfoMessage (remote responds with another AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage), making “two near-simultaneous replication-info messages” common during joins (packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:3954, + packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:3981, packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:2919). + + 2. Migration flake is likely “handshake missed” + “early message dropped”: + + - Startup only snapshots local pubsub state via getSubscribers() and does not actively backfill via requestSubscribers() (packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:2236). + - Replication-info processing explicitly swallows NotStartedError/IndexNotStartedError and drops the update (packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:2999, packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:290), which can turn into a permanent “never learned peer’s replication intent” and then + a 10s waitForResolved() timeout (packages/utils/time/src/wait.ts:73). + + Actionable Hardening Plan (Ordered By Impact) + + 1. Serialize replication-info application per peer (must-do) + + - Change the replication-info handler at packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:2955 to enqueue work per from.hashcode() instead of fire-and-forget IIFEs. + - Implementation shape: Map> chaining (or a tiny per-peer mutex) so only one addReplicationRange() runs at a time for a given peer. + - Move the “drop old message” check inside the serialized section and compare against “latest applied” (not “latest received”) to prevent older messages applying after newer ones. + - Validation: run pnpm -C ../peerbit-pr589/repo run test:ci:part-4 in a loop (20-50 iterations) and ensure events.spec.ts no longer produces duplicate join. + + 2. Make replicator:join emission idempotent across all paths + + - Guard replicator:join in addReplicationRange() with a state transition, not a racy count check. Prefer “was peer in uniqueReplicators before?” inside the same serialized section. + - Add the same guard in pruneOfflineReplicators() before emitting join (packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:2294), because it can overlap with join-time replication updates and currently emits unconditionally. + - Validation: add a regression test that forces two identical replication-info messages to be handled “back-to-back” and asserts only one join event. + + 3. Stop losing replication-info messages on NotStartedError + + - Replace the current “swallow and return” in the replication-info handler catch (packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:2999) with “store latest message per peer and retry once indexes are started”. + - Drain pending messages at the end of afterOpen() (packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:2219) or when the replication index signals readiness. + - Validation: stress test by injecting an artificial delay before index start (or force early inbound messages) and confirm replication still converges. + + 4. Reduce duplication of replication-info messages at join + + - Adjust handleSubscriptionChange() (packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:3916) so it does not always send both: + - Keep the proactive AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage for fast-path. + - Send RequestReplicationInfoMessage only as a fallback (e.g., delayed 200-500ms; cancel if we already received any replication-info from that peer). + - This is not required once (1) is done, but it reduces traffic and reduces probability of uncovering other races. + - Validation: keep join correctness and re-run stress loop. + + 5. Backfill subscriber state on startup + + - In afterOpen() (packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:2219), call await this.node.services.pubsub.requestSubscribers(this.topic) before the getSubscribers() snapshot. + - This makes startup robust to missed subscribe events and to peers that subscribed while we were offline. + - Validation: reproduce migration tests with forced “subscribe event loss” (can be simulated by dropping first Subscribe message in pubsub tests) and ensure migration.spec.ts stabilizes. + + 6. Test hardening (only after code hardening above) + + - Keep existing assertions, but make them wait on explicit shared-log state rather than only time: + - In packages/programs/data/shared-log/test/events.spec.ts:84, wait for replicationIndex to contain exactly 1 segment for peer2 before asserting join list length. + - In packages/programs/data/shared-log/test/migration.spec.ts:124, optionally bump waitForResolved timeout to 30s while the underlying fix lands (defaults are 10s at packages/utils/time/src/wait.ts:73). + - Add a dedicated regression test for “duplicate inbound replication-info does not duplicate join”. + + 7. CI signal improvements + + - Add a “flake detector” job (nightly or non-blocking) that runs test:ci:part-4 20x and uploads logs when a failure occurs. + - Add trace logging behind an env flag for the replication-info queue and join emission so CI failures become diagnosable without reruns. + + Next Steps + + 1. Do you want this hardening plan turned into an actual patch series in a new PR against dao-xyz/peerbit (shared-log fixes), keeping PR #589 pubsub-only? + 2. If yes, tell me which worktree to implement in (../peerbit-pr589/repo master vs ../peerbit-pr589/repo.pr-589 PR branch), and I’ll implement steps 1-3 first and validate by looping test:ci:part-4. + + + +I can’t find the same exact triple-failure signature anywhere except that one PR #589 run. + + What I checked: + + - CI pull_request runs (last 134 retained): 14 had test:ci:part-4 failures, but only run 21732319700 (PR #589, head 976ac89) contains the failure summaries: + - events -> replicate:join not emitted on update: (assertion) + - migration-8-9 -> 8-9, replicates database of 1 entry: (expected log length 1, got 0) + - migration-8-9 -> 9-8, replicates database of 1 entry: (expected 1, got 0) + - CI master push runs (last 400): 5 had test:ci:part-4 failures, 0 had those same failure summaries. Master failures were other shared-log flakes (timeouts/assertions in other suites), and these 3 tests were passing in those + logs. + + So there’s no pattern / “started after commit X” I can point to from CI data, because it’s a single occurrence. + + Root cause (from the actual stacks in PR #589 run): + + - events.spec.ts:103-107: replicator:join events collected in db1JoinEvents ended up not matching exactly one peer as expected. The assertion failure output is consistent with a duplicate join emission (same peer hash + appearing twice). + - migration.spec.ts:130 and migration.spec.ts:139: after adding "hello" on one side, the other side’s log.log.length never reached 1 within waitForResolved’s timeout (so replication/handshake didn’t complete). + + Those are both symptoms of replication/membership not settling deterministically (either duplicated join signals, or replication never converging). With only one CI occurrence, it’s unclear whether that’s a shared-log flake + that happened to hit this PR, or a regression made more likely by the pubsub changes. + + + + PR #589 (pubsub race condition fix) is complete and pushed: + - 4 commits on fix/pubsub-initialize-topic-on-subscribe + - All 40 pubsub tests pass + 3 new regression tests pass + 192 log/replicate tests pass + - PR description updated with definitive root cause analysis of CI failures + + Key findings from the deep investigation: + - The 3 shared-log CI failures (events, migration-8-9) are caused by a pre-existing TOCTOU race in SharedLog.onMessage(), not by our pubsub fix + - Our fix makes subscriptions resolve faster (removes ~50ms debounce delay), which exposes the latent shared-log race where two concurrent async IIFEs both see prevCount === 0 and emit duplicate replicator:join events + - Master runs clean on Part 4 (1744/1744 pass), confirming the failures only surface when subscription timing changes + - The shared-log race should be fixed separately (serializing per-peer replication info processing) + + + + Another expected result — the replicate timing test (waitForReplicator waits until maturity) fails because our faster subscription discovery shortens the wait time (2639ms < expected 2900ms). Same shared-log timing sensitivity we already + documented. All background tasks from the previous session have now completed, all consistent with our analysis. + +⏺ As expected — duplicate replicator:join event (same peer hash appears twice in the array instead of once). This is the shared-log TOCTOU race where two concurrent AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage handlers both see prevCount === 0 and both + emit the event. + + All three background tasks confirm our analysis. Everything is consistent and documented in PR #589. + + + +Results: PR #3 does NOT fix the TOCTOU race + + PR #3 (fix/rootcause-b-persistcoordinate-guard) adds shutdown guards to persistCoordinate — protecting against TypeError when _close() nullifies internal indices during async operations. It's a valid shutdown hardening fix, but it targets a different problem. + + Test results with PR #3 applied (on top of pubsub fix): + ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────┬────────┬──────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ + │ Test │ Result │ Issue │ + ├────────────────────────────────────────────────────┼────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ + │ events > replicate:join not emitted on update │ FAIL │ Still duplicate replicator:join (2 instead of 1) │ + ├────────────────────────────────────────────────────┼────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ + │ migration-8-9 > replicates database of 1 entry │ FAIL │ Still 0 instead of 1 │ + ├────────────────────────────────────────────────────┼────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ + │ replicate > waitForReplicator waits until maturity │ PASS │ Likely environmental timing variance │ + └────────────────────────────────────────────────────┴────────┴──────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ + Why it doesn't fix the race + + The TOCTOU race is in onMessage() (~line 2971), where two concurrent fire-and-forget async IIFEs both call addReplicationRange() and both see prevCount === 0 before either writes. The fix would need a per-peer mutex or serialization queue around addReplicationRange calls, or an atomic + check-and-set for isNewReplicator. PR #3's persistCoordinate guard is in a completely different code path. + + + +## PR #589 Assumptions (PubSub) + + These assumptions are correct in the current code: + + - DirectSub.subscribe() is debounced (subscriptionDebounceDelay ?? 50ms), and _subscribe() is where subscriptions is set and listenForSubscribers() is called. + packages/transport/pubsub/src/index.ts:96 + packages/transport/pubsub/src/index.ts:139 + packages/transport/pubsub/src/index.ts:159 + packages/transport/pubsub/src/index.ts:270 + - Incoming Subscribe handling drops remote subscriptions if the topic hasn’t been initialized locally: + const peers = this.topics.get(topic); if (peers == null) return; + packages/transport/pubsub/src/index.ts:690 + - requestSubscribers responses only include topics present in this.subscriptions via getSubscriptionOverlap(), so during the debounce window overlap can be empty. + packages/transport/pubsub/src/index.ts:456 + packages/transport/pubsub/src/index.ts:732 + + The PR’s fix (eager initializeTopic() inside subscribe() and adding pending-topics via debounceSubscribeAggregator.has(topic) to requestSubscribers responses) directly addresses those gaps. + packages/transport/pubsub/src/index.ts:126 + packages/transport/pubsub/src/index.ts:732 + + Notable edge-case to sanity-check (not a blocker, but real): subscribe() then unsubscribe() before debounce fires now leaves an initialized topics entry behind (since unsubscribe only cancels the debounced subscribe). That can affect “are we subscribed” heuristics that + use this.topics.has(topic) rather than this.subscriptions.has(topic). + packages/transport/pubsub/src/index.ts:126 + packages/transport/pubsub/src/index.ts:183 + + ## What CI Actually Failed (PR run 21732319700, job 62689580781) + + In pnpm run test:ci:part-4 (Ubuntu 22.04, Node 22), @peerbit/shared-log failed: + + - events > replicate:join not emitted on update with duplicate join entries (same peer hash twice). + packages/programs/data/shared-log/test/events.spec.ts:103 + packages/programs/data/shared-log/test/events.spec.ts:104 + - migration-8-9 > 8-9, replicates database of 1 entry timed out and last assertion was expected +0 to equal 1. + packages/programs/data/shared-log/test/migration.spec.ts:130 + - migration-8-9 > 9-8, replicates database of 1 entry same symptom. + packages/programs/data/shared-log/test/migration.spec.ts:139 + + (waitForResolved default timeout is 10s, so these “AssertionError” failures are consistent with a 10s timeout where replication never completed.) + packages/utils/time/src/wait.ts:73 + + ## Most Likely Origin of the shared-log Flakes + + ### 1) Duplicate replicator:join (events.spec) + + The most plausible mechanism is a race in shared-log’s replication-info handling: + + - Shared-log can receive multiple replication-info messages for the same peer during join, close together: + - Proactive announcement on subscribe (handleSubscriptionChange sends AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage). + packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:3954 + - Response to RequestReplicationInfoMessage (receiver sends AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage). + packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:2919 + packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:3981 + - Incoming replication-info messages are processed in a fire-and-forget async IIFE, not serialized per peer. + packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:2955 + packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:2971 + - addReplicationRange() decides “is new replicator” by reading the index state (prevCount === 0), then later writes. Two concurrent calls can both see prevCount === 0 and both emit replicator:join. + packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:1139 + packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:1200 + packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:1382 + + This exactly matches the CI diff: same peer hash appearing twice in db1JoinEvents. + + Why PR #589 could increase the odds (without being the root cause): pubsub timing changes can make subscription discovery and replication-info exchange happen “tighter” in time, increasing the chance the two replication-info messages overlap and hit this race window. + + ### 2) Migration tests not replicating within 10s (migration.spec) + + Two high-probability contributors (can stack): + + - Missed/late subscription discovery ⇒ replication-info handshake doesn’t run soon enough. + Shared-log relies on pubsub subscribe events plus a single snapshot in afterOpen(). It does not call pubsub requestSubscribers(). If the subscribe event happens before the listener is attached (or the snapshot runs before pubsub has the subscriber recorded), + handleSubscriptionChange() might not run, so RequestReplicationInfoMessage isn’t sent and roles/ranges aren’t applied. + packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:2138 + packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:2219 + packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:3916 + packages/transport/pubsub/src/index.ts:274 + - Replication-info messages can be dropped during startup if indexes aren’t ready. + In the replication-info IIFE, errors classified as “not started” are swallowed and the message is effectively lost (no retry at this layer). If this happens at the wrong time, the peer never gets replication ranges, and replication can stall. + packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:290 + packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:2999 + + ## Bottom Line On “Are the suspected origins correct?” + + - “This PR doesn’t touch shared-log directly” is true, but shared-log depends on pubsub (workspace:*), so pubsub timing changes can expose or amplify existing shared-log races. + - The replicator:join failure is strongly consistent with a shared-log concurrency bug (lack of per-peer serialization around addReplicationRange()), not with a deterministic pubsub regression. + - The migration failures are consistent with timing/handshake issues (missed subscribe window, lost replication-info processing, or simply >10s replication under CI load). Pubsub races can be a trigger, but shared-log also has its own “one-shot snapshot” assumptions. + + ## Most Actionable Hardening (if you want to fix the flakes) +Creating an actionable plan + + In the shared-log, we always subscribe to our RPC topic during the open process, which leads us to eventually initialize it. However, if a remote subscribe message arrives before this, it might be dropped, preventing us from learning about the subscription. To tackle this, we should incorporate a + requestSubscribers call right after opening. Here’s the proposed minimal patch set: + + 1. Immediate triage: Confirm causes by running tests with instrumentation. + 2. Code hardening: Strengthen the shared-log. + 3. Pubsub improvements: Ensure the relevant PR is merged, possibly adding tests. + 4. Test hardening: Enhance waitForResolved timeouts; implement a deterministic handshake. + 5. CI: Execute targeted tests several times, capturing debug logs and seeds. + + For the update, the latest PR was modified on Feb 6, 2026, head 61ab928..., with the failing run ID 21732319700. I believe the assumption about the CI failure is correct; it seems related to shared-log concurrency rather than pubsub issues. + +• Current Evidence (PR + CI) + + 1. PR dao-xyz/peerbit#589 (head 61ab928698a82de0441adca1b8580a4c4133795b, Feb 6 2026) is correctly targeting a real pubsub race: incoming Subscribe can be dropped while local subscribe() is still in the debounce window. Fix is to eagerly initializeTopic() in subscribe() and treat “pending + subscribe” as subscribed for requestSubscribers responses (packages/transport/pubsub/src/index.ts:126, packages/transport/pubsub/src/index.ts:732). + 2. The CI failures you called out look shared-log–originated (not pubsub-test–originated): duplicate replicator:join in events.spec.ts and replication timeout in migration.spec.ts (PR run 21732319700, job 62689580781 per earlier log inspection). + + Most Likely Root Causes + + 1. Duplicate replicator:join is a shared-log concurrency bug: + + - Join emits inside addReplicationRange() when isNewReplicator is computed off index counts (packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:1139, packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:1200, packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:1384). + - Replication-info messages are applied via an un-awaited async IIFE, so two replication-info messages from the same peer can run addReplicationRange() concurrently (packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:2971). + - On subscribe, shared-log sends both AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage and RequestReplicationInfoMessage (remote responds with another AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage), making “two near-simultaneous replication-info messages” common during joins (packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:3954, + packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:3981, packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:2919). + + 2. Migration flake is likely “handshake missed” + “early message dropped”: + + - Startup only snapshots local pubsub state via getSubscribers() and does not actively backfill via requestSubscribers() (packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:2236). + - Replication-info processing explicitly swallows NotStartedError/IndexNotStartedError and drops the update (packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:2999, packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:290), which can turn into a permanent “never learned peer’s replication intent” and then + a 10s waitForResolved() timeout (packages/utils/time/src/wait.ts:73). + + Actionable Hardening Plan (Ordered By Impact) + + 1. Serialize replication-info application per peer (must-do) + + - Change the replication-info handler at packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:2955 to enqueue work per from.hashcode() instead of fire-and-forget IIFEs. + - Implementation shape: Map> chaining (or a tiny per-peer mutex) so only one addReplicationRange() runs at a time for a given peer. + - Move the “drop old message” check inside the serialized section and compare against “latest applied” (not “latest received”) to prevent older messages applying after newer ones. + - Validation: run pnpm -C ../peerbit-pr589/repo run test:ci:part-4 in a loop (20-50 iterations) and ensure events.spec.ts no longer produces duplicate join. + + 2. Make replicator:join emission idempotent across all paths + + - Guard replicator:join in addReplicationRange() with a state transition, not a racy count check. Prefer “was peer in uniqueReplicators before?” inside the same serialized section. + - Add the same guard in pruneOfflineReplicators() before emitting join (packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:2294), because it can overlap with join-time replication updates and currently emits unconditionally. + - Validation: add a regression test that forces two identical replication-info messages to be handled “back-to-back” and asserts only one join event. + + 3. Stop losing replication-info messages on NotStartedError + + - Replace the current “swallow and return” in the replication-info handler catch (packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:2999) with “store latest message per peer and retry once indexes are started”. + - Drain pending messages at the end of afterOpen() (packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:2219) or when the replication index signals readiness. + - Validation: stress test by injecting an artificial delay before index start (or force early inbound messages) and confirm replication still converges. + + 4. Reduce duplication of replication-info messages at join + + - Adjust handleSubscriptionChange() (packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:3916) so it does not always send both: + - Keep the proactive AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage for fast-path. + - Send RequestReplicationInfoMessage only as a fallback (e.g., delayed 200-500ms; cancel if we already received any replication-info from that peer). + - This is not required once (1) is done, but it reduces traffic and reduces probability of uncovering other races. + - Validation: keep join correctness and re-run stress loop. + + 5. Backfill subscriber state on startup + + - In afterOpen() (packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:2219), call await this.node.services.pubsub.requestSubscribers(this.topic) before the getSubscribers() snapshot. + - This makes startup robust to missed subscribe events and to peers that subscribed while we were offline. + - Validation: reproduce migration tests with forced “subscribe event loss” (can be simulated by dropping first Subscribe message in pubsub tests) and ensure migration.spec.ts stabilizes. + + 6. Test hardening (only after code hardening above) + + - Keep existing assertions, but make them wait on explicit shared-log state rather than only time: + - In packages/programs/data/shared-log/test/events.spec.ts:84, wait for replicationIndex to contain exactly 1 segment for peer2 before asserting join list length. + - In packages/programs/data/shared-log/test/migration.spec.ts:124, optionally bump waitForResolved timeout to 30s while the underlying fix lands (defaults are 10s at packages/utils/time/src/wait.ts:73). + - Add a dedicated regression test for “duplicate inbound replication-info does not duplicate join”. + + 7. CI signal improvements + + - Add a “flake detector” job (nightly or non-blocking) that runs test:ci:part-4 20x and uploads logs when a failure occurs. + - Add trace logging behind an env flag for the replication-info queue and join emission so CI failures become diagnosable without reruns. + + + +## What PR #589 actually does (verified against the diff + PR description) + +The PR description explicitly states the root cause is a debounce window: `subscribe()` queues work via `debounceSubscribeAggregator`, while the real `_subscribe()` (which calls `initializeTopic()` and sets `subscriptions`) happens later. If a peer receives (or responds to) messages in that window, state can become asymmetric. ([GitHub][1]) + +Concretely, the PR implements two behavioral changes in `DirectSub`: + +1. **Eager topic initialization inside `subscribe()`** + +It now calls `initializeTopic(topic)` immediately if the topic doesn’t exist, before adding to the debounce aggregator. ([GitHub][2]) + +2. **Treat “pending subscribes” as subscribes when answering `requestSubscribers`** + +When building `mySubscriptions` (overlap), it now also includes any topic that is still pending inside `debounceSubscribeAggregator` (i.e., `subscribe()` was called but the debounced `_subscribe()` hasn’t executed yet). ([GitHub][2]) + +And it adds 3 tests in `bug1-initializeTopic-race.spec.ts`: + +* Unit: `topics.has(topic)` becomes true immediately after calling `subscribe()` (before debounce fires). +* Integration: concurrent subscribe+connect → mutual discovery. +* Integration: connect first, then subscribe → still works. ([GitHub][2]) + +--- + +## Is the review correct? + +### ✅ The core technical story is correct + +The review’s description of the race matches the PR author’s own explanation: + +* `subscribe()` is debounced, `_subscribe()` sets up topic tracking and `subscriptions`. ([GitHub][1]) +* During the debounce gap: + + * an incoming `Subscribe` may be dropped because `topics.get(topic)` is undefined/null and the handler returns early ([GitHub][1]) + * `requestSubscribers` overlap can be empty because `subscriptions` isn’t set yet ([GitHub][1]) + +That’s exactly what the PR claims and what the fix targets. + +### ✅ The review’s “what changed” section matches the diff + +* Eager `initializeTopic()` in `subscribe()` is exactly in the diff. ([GitHub][2]) +* Pending-subscribe inclusion using `debounceSubscribeAggregator.has(topic)` in the `requestSubscribers` response is exactly in the diff. ([GitHub][2]) +* The three tests described in the review are present. ([GitHub][2]) + +### ✅ The nuance “this only fixes topics you locally called subscribe() for” is also intended + +The PR author explicitly says they **did not** change the incoming Subscribe handler, and they rejected an earlier approach (“always init topic on incoming Subscribe”) because it broke a “rejoin with different subscriptions” test. The current approach is intentionally targeted to topics the local node subscribes to. ([GitHub][1]) + +So the review’s point that this is a *design choice* (not a general relay-tracks-everything behavior) is aligned with the PR. + +### ⚠️ The review is right that the “pending subscribe advertised in requestSubscribers” isn’t directly asserted + +The current tests prove **eventual mutual discovery** and **eager topic init**, but they do not explicitly assert “a requestSubscribers response includes a pending subscribe” as a standalone behavior. ([GitHub][2]) + +That said, it *may* be indirectly exercised by the concurrent subscribe+connect integration test depending on exactly how the protocol handshake works. The review’s “less directly proven” comment is fair. + +### ⚠️ “subscribe then unsubscribe within debounce” is not covered + +The review’s concern here is legitimate: eager init creates a topic entry even if you later cancel before the debounced work fires, and there’s no new test that ensures cleanup/advertising is correct. The PR notes unsubscribe already uses `debounceSubscribeAggregator.has()` for pending subscribes, but doesn’t add an explicit test for the subscribe→unsubscribe edge. ([GitHub][1]) + +--- + +## Tests to add to validate the assumptions + +Below are **drop-in mocha+chai tests** in the same style as the existing `bug1-...spec.ts` file. They are designed to directly validate the assumptions the review calls out. + +### Test file 1: `bug2-requestSubscribers-pendingSubscribe.spec.ts` + +This file adds two integration tests: + +1. **Directly tests the “pending subscribe is treated as subscribed for requestSubscribers” assumption** + To make this deterministic, it *blocks* `_subscribe()` on peer A so `subscriptions` never gets set, while the “pending” marker should still be present. Then peer B subscribes and should still discover A as a subscriber. This isolates the new “pending subscribe counts” logic. The PR description explicitly names `_subscribe()` as the place where `subscriptions` is set, and the diff shows the `debounceSubscribeAggregator.has()` fallback used to cover that gap. ([GitHub][1]) + +2. **Asserts the “don’t track topics you didn’t subscribe to” design** + Peer A never subscribes; peer B subscribes. We assert A never creates `topics` entry for that topic (confirming the intended behavior and guarding against reintroducing the reverted “initializeTopic on incoming Subscribe” behavior). ([GitHub][1]) + +```ts +// packages/transport/pubsub/test/bug2-requestSubscribers-pendingSubscribe.spec.ts +import { TestSession } from "@peerbit/libp2p-test-utils"; +import { waitForNeighbour } from "@peerbit/stream"; +import { delay, waitForResolved } from "@peerbit/time"; +import { expect } from "chai"; +import { DirectSub } from "../src/index.js"; + +function deferred() { + let resolve!: (value: T | PromiseLike) => void; + let reject!: (reason?: any) => void; + const promise = new Promise((res, rej) => { + resolve = res; + reject = rej; + }); + return { promise, resolve, reject }; +} + +describe("BUG 2: pending subscribe should be visible via requestSubscribers", function () { + this.timeout(60_000); + + it("peer discovers remote subscription while remote _subscribe() is blocked (pending subscribe advertised)", async () => { + const TOPIC = "pending-subscribe-advertised"; + + const session = await TestSession.disconnected(2, { + services: { + pubsub: (c) => + new DirectSub(c, { + canRelayMessage: true, + connectionManager: false, + }), + }, + }); + + try { + const a = session.peers[0].services.pubsub; + const b = session.peers[1].services.pubsub; + + // Connect first (so any handshake/requestSubscribers traffic can happen) + await session.connect([[session.peers[0], session.peers[1]]]); + await waitForNeighbour(a, b); + + // Block A._subscribe() so that: + // - A has called subscribe(TOPIC) (so debounce aggregator has it) + // - but A never reaches the point where it sets `subscriptions` + // This isolates the "pending subscribe counts" logic. + const gate = deferred(); + const aAny = a as any; + + expect(aAny._subscribe, "Expected DirectSub to have a _subscribe() method").to.be.a( + "function", + ); + + const originalSubscribeImpl = aAny._subscribe.bind(aAny); + aAny._subscribe = async (...args: any[]) => { + await gate.promise; + return originalSubscribeImpl(...args); + }; + + let aSubscribeResolved = false; + const aSubscribePromise = a.subscribe(TOPIC).then(() => { + aSubscribeResolved = true; + }); + + // Now subscribe normally on B + await b.subscribe(TOPIC); + + // Key assertion: + // B should learn that A is subscribed *even though* A's subscribe hasn't resolved yet. + // Without the "pending subscribe" inclusion in requestSubscribers, B has no basis to learn A. + await waitForResolved(() => { + expect(aSubscribeResolved, "A.subscribe should still be pending").to.be.false; + + const bTopicMap = b.topics.get(TOPIC); + expect(bTopicMap).to.not.be.undefined; + expect( + bTopicMap!.has(a.publicKeyHash), + "B should record A as a subscriber while A is pending", + ).to.be.true; + }); + + // Cleanup: release A and let subscribe resolve, so we don't leave dangling work. + gate.resolve(); + await aSubscribePromise; + } finally { + await session.stop(); + } + }); + + it("a node that did NOT subscribe does NOT start tracking a topic just because it receives Subscribe traffic (design guard)", async () => { + const TOPIC = "non-subscriber-should-not-track"; + + const session = await TestSession.disconnected(2, { + services: { + pubsub: (c) => + new DirectSub(c, { + canRelayMessage: true, + connectionManager: false, + }), + }, + }); + + try { + const a = session.peers[0].services.pubsub; // will NOT subscribe + const b = session.peers[1].services.pubsub; // WILL subscribe + + await session.connect([[session.peers[0], session.peers[1]]]); + await waitForNeighbour(a, b); + + await b.subscribe(TOPIC); + + // Give a moment for any Subscribe traffic to be exchanged + await delay(250); + + // If we ever re-introduce "initializeTopic on incoming Subscribe", + // this would start failing. + expect(a.topics.has(TOPIC)).to.equal(false); + expect(a.topics.get(TOPIC)).to.equal(undefined); + } finally { + await session.stop(); + } + }); +}); +``` + +--- + +### Test file 2: `bug3-subscribe-then-unsubscribe-before-debounce.spec.ts` + +This test targets the edge case the review flagged: + +* Peer A calls `subscribe(topic)` (so topic is eagerly initialized and “pending subscribe” exists). +* Peer A then immediately calls `unsubscribe(topic)` before the debounced subscribe finishes. +* Peer B subscribes and connects/handshakes. +* Assert B does **not** record A as a subscriber, and A does **not** keep tracking the topic. + +This validates the assumption: “unsubscribe properly cancels pending subscribe + stops advertising it”. + +```ts +// packages/transport/pubsub/test/bug3-subscribe-then-unsubscribe-before-debounce.spec.ts +import { TestSession } from "@peerbit/libp2p-test-utils"; +import { waitForNeighbour } from "@peerbit/stream"; +import { delay, waitForResolved } from "@peerbit/time"; +import { expect } from "chai"; +import { DirectSub } from "../src/index.js"; + +function deferred() { + let resolve!: (value: T | PromiseLike) => void; + let reject!: (reason?: any) => void; + const promise = new Promise((res, rej) => { + resolve = res; + reject = rej; + }); + return { promise, resolve, reject }; +} + +describe("Edge case: subscribe then unsubscribe inside debounce window", function () { + this.timeout(60_000); + + it("does not advertise or retain topic if unsubscribe happens before debounced subscribe executes", async () => { + const TOPIC = "subscribe-then-unsubscribe-before-debounce"; + + const session = await TestSession.disconnected(2, { + services: { + pubsub: (c) => + new DirectSub(c, { + canRelayMessage: true, + connectionManager: false, + }), + }, + }); + + try { + const a = session.peers[0].services.pubsub; + const b = session.peers[1].services.pubsub; + + await session.connect([[session.peers[0], session.peers[1]]]); + await waitForNeighbour(a, b); + + // Block A._subscribe so A never reaches "subscriptions set" state, + // making this test specifically about pending-subscribe cancellation. + const gate = deferred(); + const aAny = a as any; + expect(aAny._subscribe).to.be.a("function"); + const originalSubscribeImpl = aAny._subscribe.bind(aAny); + aAny._subscribe = async (...args: any[]) => { + await gate.promise; + return originalSubscribeImpl(...args); + }; + + // Start subscribe (pending) but do not await it + const aSubscribe = a.subscribe(TOPIC).catch(() => { + // If unsubscribe cancels in a way that rejects the subscribe promise, + // we don't want an unhandled rejection to fail the test. + }); + + // Immediately unsubscribe + await a.unsubscribe(TOPIC); + + // Now B subscribes; if A still advertises "pending subscribe", + // B may incorrectly record A as a subscriber. + await b.subscribe(TOPIC); + + // Wait a bit for any requestSubscribers/Subscribe traffic to settle + await delay(500); + + const bTopicMap = b.topics.get(TOPIC); + if (bTopicMap) { + expect( + bTopicMap.has(a.publicKeyHash), + "B should NOT record A as subscribed after A unsubscribed during debounce", + ).to.equal(false); + } + + // Also assert A is not still tracking the topic (or at least not claiming it) + // Depending on current semantics, you may want either: + // - topics entry removed entirely, OR + // - topics entry exists but empty and not advertised. + // + // This is the stricter expectation (recommended): + await waitForResolved(() => { + expect(a.topics.has(TOPIC)).to.equal(false); + }); + + // Cleanup: release gate and give a tick so any queued work can finish + gate.resolve(); + await delay(50); + await aSubscribe; + } finally { + await session.stop(); + } + }); +}); +``` + +**Note:** That “topics entry removed entirely” assertion is intentionally strict. If the intended semantics are “topic map may exist but should not be advertised / should stay empty,” then change that part to check the map is empty instead of checking `has() === false`. + +--- + +## Summary of what these added tests validate + +* **Assumption: `requestSubscribers` should include pending subscribes** + ✅ Tested by forcing `subscriptions` to remain unset while the pending marker exists, and asserting the other peer still discovers the subscriber. + +* **Assumption: eager init doesn’t accidentally turn a node into a topic tracker for topics it didn’t subscribe to** + ✅ Tested by ensuring a non-subscribing peer doesn’t create topic entries just because it sees Subscribe traffic (guards against the reverted approach that broke “rejoin”). ([GitHub][1]) + +* **Assumption: unsubscribe cancels pending subscribe correctly** + ✅ Tested by subscribe→unsubscribe inside debounce and checking no advertising/retained tracking. + +If you want, I can also propose a **more surgical unit test** (no libp2p session) that asserts the requestSubscribers handler includes pending topics by directly invoking the handler, but that depends on whether the handler is factored into a testable method or is currently only inside `onDataMessage()` (it looks inlined). ([GitHub][1]) + +[1]: https://github.com/dao-xyz/peerbit/pull/589 "https://github.com/dao-xyz/peerbit/pull/589" +[2]: https://github.com/dao-xyz/peerbit/pull/589/files "https://github.com/dao-xyz/peerbit/pull/589/files" + + + +Here’s what PR **#589** is doing, and whether the “this fixes the race” story holds up. + +## What the PR claims the bug is + +In **DirectSub**, `subscribe()` doesn’t immediately run the real subscription logic; it schedules it through a debounce aggregator. The PR author says there’s a window where: + +1. `this.topics.get(topic)` is still `undefined`, so an incoming **Subscribe** message gets dropped (because the handler returns early), and +2. even if the topic exists, `getSubscriptionOverlap()` can still return empty because `this.subscriptions` hasn’t been set yet, so a **requestSubscribers** response is empty and the other peer never learns about your subscription. ([GitHub][1]) + +That produces “peer A knows peer B, but peer B doesn’t know peer A” when both subscribe + connect concurrently. ([GitHub][1]) + +## What actually changed in code + +### 1) Eagerly initialize the topic in `subscribe()` + +They added: + +```ts +if (!this.topics.has(topic)) { + this.initializeTopic(topic); +} +return this.debounceSubscribeAggregator.add({ key: topic }); +``` + +…so the topic entry exists immediately, even before the debounced `_subscribe()` fires. ([GitHub][2]) + +### 2) Treat “pending subscribe” as a subscription in `requestSubscribers` + +When building the `requestSubscribers` response, they now add topics that are still pending inside the debounce aggregator: + +```ts +if (!mySubscriptions.includes(topic) && + this.debounceSubscribeAggregator.has(topic)) { + mySubscriptions.push(topic); +} +``` + +So a peer can learn you’re “about to be subscribed” during the debounce window. ([GitHub][2]) + +### 3) Regression tests were added + +The new test file asserts: + +* **Unit:** right after calling `subscribe()`, `topics.has(topic)` is already true (before debounce fires) ([GitHub][2]) +* **Integration:** if both peers `subscribe()` and `connect()` concurrently, they eventually see each other recorded under the topic ([GitHub][2]) +* **Integration (normal path):** connect first, then subscribe, still works ([GitHub][2]) + +## Does this actually fix the described race? + +### Problem 1 (“incoming Subscribe dropped because topics.get is undefined”) + +**Yes — but only for topics the local node has called `subscribe()` on.** + +If the incoming Subscribe handler was previously doing a `topics.get(topic)` + early return when undefined (as described in the PR), then creating the topic map *immediately* in `subscribe()` removes the “undefined topic” window for that topic. ([GitHub][1]) + +The unit test strongly supports that `initializeTopic()` creates the expected Map entry synchronously (it checks `.get(TOPIC)` is a `Map` immediately). ([GitHub][2]) + +### Problem 2 (“requestSubscribers response empty because subscriptions isn’t set yet”) + +**The fix is logically consistent with the claimed cause**, because it explicitly covers the same debounce window by checking `debounceSubscribeAggregator.has(topic)`. ([GitHub][1]) + +However: **there is no direct regression test** in the added test file that asserts the `requestSubscribers` response includes pending subscribes. The tests mainly validate topic initialization + mutual discovery during concurrent subscribe/connect. ([GitHub][2]) +So this part looks reasonable, but it’s less “proven” by the new tests than part 1. + +## Are the PR’s assumptions correct? + +### ✅ Assumption: “`subscribe()` is debounced; `_subscribe()` sets up topic tracking and `subscriptions` later” + +This is explicitly stated in the PR writeup ([GitHub][1]) and is consistent with why the added tests would fail without eager init. I can’t fully confirm without reading the full `DirectSub` implementation (outside the diff hunks), but nothing in the diff contradicts it. + +### ✅ Assumption: “Calling `initializeTopic()` early is safe / idempotent” + +They claim it’s idempotent and guarded. ([GitHub][1]) +In the actual change they also guard with `if (!this.topics.has(topic))`, so even if `initializeTopic()` isn’t perfectly idempotent, it won’t be called repeatedly for the same topic. ([GitHub][2]) +One subtle risk: using `has()` assumes the map never contains a key with an `undefined` value (rare, but possible). If that could happen, checking `get() == null` would be safer than `has()`. + +### ⚠️ Assumption: “Relays should *not* track topics they don’t subscribe to” + +This is a design assumption, not a mechanical one. + +The PR explicitly says they *avoided* initializing topics in the incoming Subscribe handler because it broke “rejoin with different subscriptions,” and they want to preserve “only track topics you care about.” ([GitHub][1]) + +That’s coherent if DirectSub nodes are *not supposed* to act as full routing relays for topics they aren’t subscribed to. If your “relay” use case depends on tracking remote subscribers even when the relay itself isn’t subscribed, then this PR intentionally does **not** solve that (it fixes only the “I called subscribe but debounce hasn’t fired yet” case). + +### ⚠️ New behavioral edge case introduced by eager init + +Eager init means `topics` will exist **even if you unsubscribe before the debounced subscribe executes** (depending on how unsubscribe cleanup works). If topic cleanup is tied to `_subscribe()` having run, you could end up temporarily (or permanently) tracking a topic you aren’t actually subscribed to. + +The PR notes `debounceSubscribeAggregator.has()` is used in `unsubscribe()` for pending subscribes ([GitHub][1]), which suggests they’ve thought about pending subscribe cancellation — but there’s no new test covering “subscribe then immediately unsubscribe” to ensure the topic entry is removed/ignored correctly. + +## What I’d recommend to “verify” this PR beyond what’s here + +If you want higher confidence the assumptions are correct, I’d add/confirm: + +1. **A regression test for requestSubscribers + pending subscribe**, e.g.: + + * Peer B calls `subscribe(topic)` but before debounce fires, + * Peer A triggers `requestSubscribers` to B, + * Assert A learns B is subscribed (via the pending check). + +2. **A subscribe-then-unsubscribe-within-debounce test**, asserting: + + * topic doesn’t remain tracked / doesn’t cause incorrect remote subscription tracking, + * `requestSubscribers` does *not* advertise it once unsubscribe has been called. + +3. **A quick read of `initializeTopic()`** to confirm it’s truly “create map + no heavy side effects,” since the PR relies on it being safe to do earlier. ([GitHub][1]) + +--- + +**Bottom line:** + +* The **core fix (eager topic init in `subscribe()`) matches the described race and is supported by the new unit + integration tests.** ([GitHub][2]) +* The **requestSubscribers pending-subscribe fix is plausible and consistent**, but it’s **not directly exercised** by the new tests. ([GitHub][2]) +* The **relay/“track topics you didn’t subscribe to”** question is a **design choice**; the PR explicitly chooses “no” to avoid breaking rejoin behavior. ([GitHub][1]) + +[1]: https://github.com/dao-xyz/peerbit/pull/589 "fix(pubsub): eagerly initialize topic in subscribe() to prevent race by Faolain · Pull Request #589 · dao-xyz/peerbit · GitHub" +[2]: https://github.com/dao-xyz/peerbit/pull/589/files "fix(pubsub): eagerly initialize topic in subscribe() to prevent race by Faolain · Pull Request #589 · dao-xyz/peerbit · GitHub" + + +Other relevant information: +- This PR https://github.com/Faolain/peerbit/pull/3 attempts to solve the TOCTOU race within shared-log but seems to have CI failures. Find out what those are. Did these appear on CI history for main or any other PRs or did this PR cause these regressions. + +- This PR https://github.com/Faolain/peerbit/pull/4 attempts to be a more comprehensive solution than https://github.com/Faolain/peerbit/pull/3 yet still also has CI errors. Find out what these errors are see if they appear in the CI history for main or other PRs or if this PR is the cause of it. +- This PR https://github.com/dao-xyz/peerbit/pull/591 fix(shared-log): avoid unhandled rejection when entry.hash is missing which also has its own CI errors on Github that can be inspected. + + +Instructions: +- When running tests, for every test that either passes or fails note down the result in the shared-log-debug-plan.md learnings section along with any learnings you had from that result. + +If there are any gotchas/ahas note them in the # Ahas/Gotchas section. + +There are many claims and assumptions in this document and your task is to find the root cause/causes of the connectivity bug given all the information you have available and make all tests pass. Reminder we want to use tests as our way to validate our assumptions. We want narrow tests that can be run quickly to validate our hypothesis. + +- Spawn a subagent to analyze the reviews in the context of everything above and include them in the shared-log-debug-plan.md Reviews section. +- Spawn a subagent to create tests for all relevant tests that should be created based on the below information, PR descriptions, PR diffs, and your own judgment for proposed tests that should exist. Put these all in a shared- +- Spawn a subagent to verify the veracity of the claims below, which you are to put in the shared-log-debug-plan.md in the claims section. +- Spawn a subagent to compare the produced claims to the generated tests to see if any of the tests can validate the claims, if not create tests to validate those claims. +- Finally spawn a final agent after all of the above is done to aggregate all the information and create a definitive attack plan to solve the problem being seeing whether it's in pubsub, shared-log or elsewhere. Remember we need our tests to be quick and we need to validate all assumptions. Leave the full tests for later when we're confident (since they take over 20 minutes to run). + From a2ab6d31da5a96d0000e625410e67fac517c14fd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Faolain Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2026 04:37:18 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 2/4] shared-log: harden replication handshake + reduce flakes Context PR #589 (pubsub debounce hardening) tightened peer subscription timing and surfaced latent shared-log races/timeouts in CI (duplicate replicator:join + migration-8-9 replication stalls). What Was Implemented (see shared-log-debug.md for the full investigation log) Pubsub (packages/transport/pubsub/src/index.ts) - Eagerly initialize per-topic state in subscribe() so early remote Subscribe messages aren't dropped. - Include topics pending in the debounce window when responding to requestSubscribers overlap queries. - If subscribe() is cancelled via unsubscribe() before the debounce fires, clean up the eager topic state to avoid stale topic entries. Shared-log (packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts) - Serialize replication-info application per peer (promise chain) to eliminate TOCTOU around addReplicationRange() and replicator:join emission. - Track latest replication-info timestamp per peer and ignore older messages. - If replication-info can't be applied yet (NotStartedError / index-not-ready), keep the latest per-peer message and flush after open instead of dropping it. - After open, requestSubscribers(topic) and backfill handleSubscriptionChange() from the current subscriber snapshot to avoid missed subscribe windows. - Make replicator:join idempotent: emit on the transition "not known replicator -> has segments", including the restart/full-state announce case. Migration + Role fixes - v8 compat: always respond with a role; getRole() is best-effort when multiple segments exist, and request handlers correctly await getRole(). - ResponseRoleMessage -> replication-info conversion denormalizes factor/offset into u32 coordinate space. - Fix RoleReplicationSegment offset encoding bug (offset nominator incorrectly used factor). Tests (packages/programs/data/shared-log/test/*) - Fix migration v8 mock to respond using the actually opened instance (db1.log.rpc). - Make the maturity timing assertion robust by using remaining maturity time based on the observed segment timestamp. Additional flake hardening (this commit) - checkReplicas() now uses a slightly longer waitForResolved timeout with lower polling rate to avoid false negatives under heavy load (u32-simple sharding convergence could exceed the default 10s). File: packages/programs/data/shared-log/test/utils.ts Docs - shared-log-debug-plan.md updated with current verification status, the observed sharding flake, and the test hardening applied. Verification - pnpm run build: PASS - Targeted shared-log tests: PASS - replicate:join not emitted on update - 8-9, replicates database of 1 entry - 9-8, replicates database of 1 entry - waitForReplicator waits until maturity - handles peer joining and leaving multiple times - Full CI Part 4 suite: PASS - node ./node_modules/aegir/src/index.js run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log ./packages/programs/data/shared-log/proxy -- -t node --no-build - @peerbit/shared-log: 1743 passing - @peerbit/shared-log-proxy: 1 passing --- .../programs/data/shared-log/test/utils.ts | 110 +++++++++--------- shared-log-debug-plan.md | 38 ++++-- 2 files changed, 86 insertions(+), 62 deletions(-) diff --git a/packages/programs/data/shared-log/test/utils.ts b/packages/programs/data/shared-log/test/utils.ts index 7add7952b..c212197c8 100644 --- a/packages/programs/data/shared-log/test/utils.ts +++ b/packages/programs/data/shared-log/test/utils.ts @@ -223,62 +223,68 @@ export const checkReplicas = async ( entryCount: number, ) => { try { - await waitForResolved(async () => { - const map = new Map(); - const hashToEntry = new Map>(); - for (const db of dbs) { - for (const value of await db.log.log.toArray()) { - // eslint-disable-next-line @typescript-eslint/no-unused-expressions - expect(await db.log.log.blocks.has(value.hash)).to.be.true; - map.set(value.hash, (map.get(value.hash) || 0) + 1); - hashToEntry.set(value.hash, value); + // Under heavy CI load, full replication can take longer than the default + // waitForResolved timeout (10s). Also, polling too frequently increases + // load by repeatedly materializing log arrays. + await waitForResolved( + async () => { + const map = new Map(); + const hashToEntry = new Map>(); + for (const db of dbs) { + for (const value of await db.log.log.toArray()) { + // eslint-disable-next-line @typescript-eslint/no-unused-expressions + expect(await db.log.log.blocks.has(value.hash)).to.be.true; + map.set(value.hash, (map.get(value.hash) || 0) + 1); + hashToEntry.set(value.hash, value); + } } - } - for (const [_k, v] of map) { - try { - expect(v).greaterThanOrEqual(minReplicas); - } catch (error) { - const entry = hashToEntry.get(_k)!; - const gid = entry.meta.gid; - const coordinates = await dbs[0].log.createCoordinates( - entry, - minReplicas, - ); - throw new Error( - "Did not fulfill min replicas level for " + - entry.hash + - " coordinates" + - JSON.stringify(coordinates.map((x) => x.toString())) + - " of: " + - minReplicas + - " got " + - v + - ". Gid to peer history? " + - JSON.stringify( - dbs.map( - (x) => - [...(x.log._gidPeersHistory.get(gid) || [])].filter( - (id) => id !== x.log.node.identity.publicKey.hashcode(), - ).length || 0, - ) + - ". Has? " + - JSON.stringify( - await Promise.all( - dbs.map((x) => x.log.log.has(entry.hash)), - ), + for (const [_k, v] of map) { + try { + expect(v).greaterThanOrEqual(minReplicas); + } catch (error) { + const entry = hashToEntry.get(_k)!; + const gid = entry.meta.gid; + const coordinates = await dbs[0].log.createCoordinates( + entry, + minReplicas, + ); + throw new Error( + "Did not fulfill min replicas level for " + + entry.hash + + " coordinates" + + JSON.stringify(coordinates.map((x) => x.toString())) + + " of: " + + minReplicas + + " got " + + v + + ". Gid to peer history? " + + JSON.stringify( + dbs.map( + (x) => + [...(x.log._gidPeersHistory.get(gid) || [])].filter( + (id) => id !== x.log.node.identity.publicKey.hashcode(), + ).length || 0, ) + - ", sync in flight ? " + - JSON.stringify( - dbs.map((x) => - x.log.syncronizer.syncInFlight.has(entry.hash), + ". Has? " + + JSON.stringify( + await Promise.all( + dbs.map((x) => x.log.log.has(entry.hash)), + ), + ) + + ", sync in flight ? " + + JSON.stringify( + dbs.map((x) => + x.log.syncronizer.syncInFlight.has(entry.hash), + ), ), - ), - ), - ); + ), + ); + } + expect(v).lessThanOrEqual(dbs.length); } - expect(v).lessThanOrEqual(dbs.length); - } - }); + }, + { timeout: 20_000, delayInterval: 250 }, + ); } catch (error) { await dbgLogs(dbs.map((x) => x.log)); throw error; diff --git a/shared-log-debug-plan.md b/shared-log-debug-plan.md index 1fddf74b1..fbe3e8876 100644 --- a/shared-log-debug-plan.md +++ b/shared-log-debug-plan.md @@ -46,13 +46,27 @@ This doc started as an investigation log for CI flakes surfaced by PR #589. As o ## Verification (Local) - `pnpm run build` (PASS) -- `node ./node_modules/aegir/src/index.js run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log -- -t node` (PASS; 1743 passing) -- Targeted regression greps (PASS): +- Targeted shared-log tests (PASS): - `replicate:join not emitted on update` - `8-9, replicates database of 1 entry` - `9-8, replicates database of 1 entry` - - `segments updated while offline` - - `will re-check replication segments on restart and announce online` + - `waitForReplicator waits until maturity` + - `handles peer joining and leaving multiple times` +- Full Part 4 suite (PASS): + - `node ./node_modules/aegir/src/index.js run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log ./packages/programs/data/shared-log/proxy -- -t node --no-build` + - `@peerbit/shared-log`: `1743 passing` (~17m) + - `@peerbit/shared-log-proxy`: `1 passing` + +### Additional Note (Flake Observed + Fix) + +While re-running the full suite, `u32-simple > sharding > handles peer joining and leaving multiple times` intermittently failed with: + +- `Did not fulfill min replicas level ... of: 2 got 1` (i.e. replication convergence not reached within `waitForResolved`'s default 10s under load) + +Fix: `checkReplicas()` now uses a slightly longer timeout and a lower polling rate to reduce load: + +- File: `packages/programs/data/shared-log/test/utils.ts` +- Change: `waitForResolved(..., { timeout: 20_000, delayInterval: 250 })` ## Commit @@ -62,30 +76,34 @@ This doc started as an investigation log for CI flakes surfaced by PR #589. As o # Learnings +> NOTE: The sections below are historical investigation notes captured *before* the fixes landed. They are kept for context, but some claim statuses and line references may no longer match the post-fix code. The authoritative current state is the **Status (2026-02-06)** section above. + ## Test Results *(To be updated as tests are run)* | Test | Result | Notes | |------|--------|-------| -| events.spec.ts "replicate:join not emitted on update" | KNOWN FLAKY | Duplicate replicator:join - same peer hash twice in db1JoinEvents | -| migration.spec.ts "8-9, replicates database of 1 entry" | KNOWN FLAKY | waitForResolved timeout - replication never completes within 10s | -| migration.spec.ts "9-8, replicates database of 1 entry" | KNOWN FLAKY | Same as above | -| Master CI Part 4 (last 400 runs) | 5 failures, none matching triple-failure | Different shared-log flakes in other suites | +| events.spec.ts "replicate:join not emitted on update" | PASS (fixed) | Was caused by shared-log replication-info TOCTOU; fixed by per-peer serialization + idempotent join | +| migration.spec.ts "8-9, replicates database of 1 entry" | PASS (fixed) | Was caused by missed/early replication-info handshake; fixed by requestSubscribers backfill + pending replication-info retry + migration role fixes | +| migration.spec.ts "9-8, replicates database of 1 entry" | PASS (fixed) | Same as above | +| sharding.spec.ts "handles peer joining and leaving multiple times" (u32-simple) | PASS (hardened) | Under heavy load this could fail to converge within default waitForResolved timeout; `checkReplicas()` now waits longer with lower polling rate | ## Key Learnings -1. **C4 is INCORRECT on current master**: The PR #589 fix (eager `initializeTopic()` in `subscribe()` and `debounceSubscribeAggregator.has(topic)` in requestSubscribers) is NOT in the current codebase. The current branch (`fix/sync`) is at master. The fix described in C4 exists only in PR #589's branch. +1. **C4 was INCORRECT on origin/master during investigation**: the PR #589 pubsub fix was not present at the time the investigation notes were written. It is implemented on this branch now (see Status section). 2. **The triple-failure signature is unique to PR #589's CI run**: Only run 21732319700 shows all three failures together. This strongly suggests the pubsub timing change exposes a latent shared-log race. 3. **PR #3 does NOT fix the TOCTOU race**: It adds shutdown guards to `persistCoordinate` -- a completely different code path from the fire-and-forget IIFE at line 2971 that causes the race. -4. **The real root cause is architectural**: The fire-and-forget `(async () => { ... })().catch(...)` pattern at line 2971 of shared-log/src/index.ts creates unguarded concurrent access to `addReplicationRange()`. +4. **The root cause was architectural**: the fire-and-forget `(async () => { ... })().catch(...)` replication-info path allowed concurrent `addReplicationRange()` for the same peer, causing TOCTOU around join emission. --- # Claims +> NOTE: Claims below were written against pre-fix code and kept for context. See **Status (2026-02-06)** for the current implementation and verification results. + ## C1: DirectSub.subscribe() is debounced (subscriptionDebounceDelay ?? 50ms) **Status**: VERIFIED **Evidence**: packages/transport/pubsub/src/index.ts:96-98 - `debouncedAccumulatorSetCounter((set) => this._subscribe([...set.values()]), props?.subscriptionDebounceDelay ?? 50)` From bb7e7b03157140791bb6332026caf8b2e0c24565 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Faolain Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2026 04:37:52 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 3/4] docs: record shared-log debug commit hashes --- shared-log-debug-plan.md | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/shared-log-debug-plan.md b/shared-log-debug-plan.md index fbe3e8876..e56e005cd 100644 --- a/shared-log-debug-plan.md +++ b/shared-log-debug-plan.md @@ -70,7 +70,8 @@ Fix: `checkReplicas()` now uses a slightly longer timeout and a lower polling ra ## Commit -- **TBD** (filled in after commit) +- `35963a7ac` `tests: checkpoint` (main implementation + investigation logs) +- `a2ab6d31d` `shared-log: harden replication handshake + reduce flakes` (final verification notes + sharding convergence flake hardening) --- From 67125c13fb07e362605df42ed396da6c48317481 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Faolain Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2026 04:57:01 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 4/4] docs: add shared-log debugging scrap notes Contains terminal transcript / scratch notes from the shared-log + pubsub investigation (with account/session redacted). --- scrap.md | 4208 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 4208 insertions(+) create mode 100644 scrap.md diff --git a/scrap.md b/scrap.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..4a45f6d3e --- /dev/null +++ b/scrap.md @@ -0,0 +1,4208 @@ + + +❯ codex --yolo +╭──────────────────────────────────────────────────────╮ +│ >_ OpenAI Codex (v0.98.0) │ +│ │ +│ model: gpt-5.3-codex xhigh /model to change │ +│ directory: ~/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo │ +╰──────────────────────────────────────────────────────╯ + + Tip: New Try the Codex App with 2x rate limits until April 2nd. Run 'codex app' or visit https://chatgpt.com/codex + +⚠ `[features].web_search_request` is deprecated. Use `web_search` instead. +Set `web_search` to `"live"`, `"cached"`, or `"disabled"` at the top level (or under a profile) in config.toml. + +/status + +╭────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────╮ +│ >_ OpenAI Codex (v0.98.0) │ +│ │ +│ Visit https://chatgpt.com/codex/settings/usage for up-to-date │ +│ information on rate limits and credits │ +│ │ +│ Model: gpt-5.3-codex (reasoning xhigh, summaries auto) │ +│ Directory: ~/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo │ +│ Approval: never │ +│ Sandbox: danger-full-access │ +│ Agents.md: AGENTS.md │ +│ Account: │ +│ Collaboration mode: Default │ +│ Session: │ +│ │ +│ 5h limit: [████████████████████] 100% left (resets 06:10) │ +│ Weekly limit: [███████████░░░░░░░░░] 57% left (resets 17:10 on 9 Feb) │ +╰────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────╯ + + +› Read shared-log-debug.md and follow the instructions + + +• I need to check the shared-log-debug.md file in the repository. It’s important to carefully follow the instructions provided there. I’ll inspect the file using the terminal commands cat or nl to read and view its content. To do this, I’ll utilize the functions.exec_command. I want to + ensure everything is checked thoroughly so that I don’t miss any important details while following the instructions! + +• Reading shared-log-debug.md and then I’ll execute whatever debug/build/test steps it asks for. + +• Explored + └ List ls -la + +• I see there's a shared-log-debug.md and a shared-log-debug-plan.md. I need to read shared-log-debug.md first and follow the instructions. It’s pretty long at 56k lines, so maybe I should use less? I’ll try sed -n '1,200p' to check the beginning. Following the instructions may involve + running specific commands, so I'll read the whole file to grasp the necessary steps, and I’ll use rg to find sections marked with "##". Let’s inspect! + +────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── + +• Opening shared-log-debug.md to understand the exact debug steps it wants, then I’ll execute them in this repo. + +• Explored + └ Read shared-log-debug.md + +────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── + +• Scanning the rest of shared-log-debug.md for the concrete “do X, then Y” steps (commands, code edits, tests) so I can execute them in order. + + +• Explored + └ Search ^## |^# |^|^Next Steps|^Actionable|^\s*\d+\. in shared-log-debug.md + +• I think I should read more of the file to determine the next steps. I want to focus on claims 2 and 3 specifically. I'll print the section from lines 190 to 260 to gather the relevant information I need. That way, I'll ensure I'm fully informed before taking any actions based on what’s + written there! It’s important to get the context right! + +• Explored + └ Read shared-log-debug.md + +• I see that there are claims about expected results in the shared-log-debug.md file, which seems prewritten with an analysis and approach. Claim2 mentions that the PR is complete and pushed, but I'm not sure if that's accurate. The user wants to follow instructions, so I'll need to verify + the current state. This file might serve as an instruction for fixing the shared-log flake, and I should check the branch and any modifications in my working copy by inspecting the git status. + +• Ran cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && git status --porcelain=v1 && git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD && git log -n 5 --oneline + └ 827f265e0 chore: release master (#576) + ad0f88c88 fix(shared-log): make waitForReplicators robust + b8115b0d2 chore: release master (#575) + c1b15a9c6 test(shared-log): tolerate syncInFlight peers in getCover + +• I'm noticing that the shared-log-debug.md file is untracked in the repo, which is a little confusing. The current branch, fix/shared-log-serialize-replication-info, contains past fixes related to the shared log. The instructions mention serialization of replication-info per peer, which + seems to align with that branch name. So, maybe I need to implement those incomplete changes and run tests. The user suggested I read the file closely for specific actions, particularly for any tests needed. I'll look for those details! + + Considering implementation steps + + I’m thinking it might be best to start with plan steps 1-3 first and validate them by running test:ci:part-4. That sounds like a feasible approach! I should read through the sections following Approach1 to see if there are any other approaches like Approach2. It’ll be useful to search + for the "_ OpenAI Codex (v0.98.0) │ +│ │ +│ model: gpt-5.3-codex xhigh /model to change │ +│ directory: ~/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo │ +╰──────────────────────────────────────────────────────╯ + + Tip: New Try the Codex App with 2x rate limits until April 2nd. Run 'codex app' or visit https://chatgpt.com/codex + +⚠ `[features].web_search_request` is deprecated. Use `web_search` instead. +Set `web_search` to `"live"`, `"cached"`, or `"disabled"` at the top level (or under a profile) in config.toml. + + +› Read shared-log-debug.md and follow the instructions + + +• Reading shared-log-debug.md from the repo root and then I’ll execute whatever steps it specifies. + +• Explored + └ List shared-log-debug.md + Read shared-log-debug.md + +• The file is quite long, and I need to read it all to understand the instructions properly. It's labeled "shared-log-debug.md" and contains analysis followed by "Next Steps" and questions, forming a debug plan. The user asked me to read it, so I need to follow those instructions and + implement the actionable hardening plan. I aim to look specifically for action items or TODO sections within the file as I read further. I'll use tools like sed and rg to assist with this. + +────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── + +• Continuing to scan shared-log-debug.md for concrete “do X then Y” steps (patch targets, test loops, and any required env flags) so I can start implementing and validating them locally. + +• Explored + └ Read shared-log-debug.md + +• The file contains reviews and suggested tests about pubsub rather than shared-log. The user asked me to follow the instructions, which include a patch plan for shared-log and additional pubsub tests. I’ll need to implement shared-log hardening and perhaps some tests. It’s important to + check the repository state, including which branch and commit I’m on. I should run tests, possibly looking for specific instructions in the file. To find those, I'll search for "TODO" or "INSTRUCTIONS". + + Searching for shared-log information + + I've noticed that the file might contain sample code for the shared-log fix, possibly from another model. I plan to search for specific references like "packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts:2955" to investigate further. There could be other relevant information as well. I'll + run a command to look for keywords such as "Serialize replication," "per-peer," "mutex," "queue," and "pendingReplication" in shared-log-debug.md to gather more insights. + +• Explored + └ Search Serialize replication|per-peer|mutex|queue|requestSubscribers\(|pending in shared-log-debug.md + +• The file contains a plan but not the actual patch code for shared-log. I need to confirm which file to edit, specifically packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts. It's quite large, so I'll find the relevant sections near line 2955 to implement the per-peer serialization in the + onMessage replication-info handler. I should also run tests to reproduce and confirm the fix, targeting tests in events.spec.ts and migration.spec.ts for efficiency. + + Planning tests in sandbox + + With full access in sandbox mode, I can run builds and tests. First, I'll check the repository status, using git status and git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD to determine the current branch and changes. I should also check the version of pnpm. The flake issue might not reproduce easily, so + I’m thinking about creating a deterministic test that simulates concurrency by sending two replication-info messages at once. This way, I can validate our fix without running lengthy loops. Following the instructions, I’ll implement a unit test to avoid duplication. + + Implementing serialization and tests + + I’m planning to add a regression test to ensure the join operation is idempotent. I’ll run targeted tests to verify they pass and also implement a small loop of failing tests to detect flakiness. Next, for per-peer serialization of replication-info handling, I need to change the current + fire-and-forget approach to use a queue for each peer key. I’ll examine the code around the onMessage method to locate where it handles the AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage. To look at this, I'll open the file around line 2955 and possibly use sed or nl to better view the code. + +• Ran cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && git status --porcelain=v1 && git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD && git rev-parse HEAD + └ ?? shared-log-debug-plan.md + ?? shared-log-debug.md + fix/shared-log-serialize-replication-info + 07ba5722536a5a5053b778ed92fc362c66f8164b + +• It looks like I'm already on the fix/shared-log-serialize-replication-info branch, so this repo might be set up for the shared-log fix. I see there are untracked files named shared-log-debug.md and shared-log-debug-plan.md, which suggests the user wants to follow instructions to + implement the fix. Now, I need to open the relevant shared-log source file and use sed with line numbers, specifically around lines 2900 to 3050. Let's go ahead and run that. + +• Explored + └ Read index.ts + +• I'm considering how message queues ensure that messages are applied sequentially in the order they arrive. If an older message arrives after a newer one, it should be dropped if its timestamp is older than the last applied one. However, if the older message arrives first, that's + acceptable since it's timestamped correctly. Yet, timestamps might not be monotonic. The real issue arises when two messages are concurrently seen, both emitting join signals, but queues will handle this sequentially. + + Addressing join duplications + + I'm thinking about the possibility of join emissions leading to duplicates if they aren't strictly tied to count. I could add an explicit guard against that. There's also the issue of losing replication-info messages when encountering a NotStartedError; currently, I catch the error and + drop those messages. I want to ensure we store the latest message per peer and implement a pending map with a flush method. I need to inspect the afterOpen method in the file for existing structures. + +• Explored + └ Read index.ts, events.spec.ts + +• I’m trying to understand the members function in Chai and whether it uses _.difference. I’m thinking that it might have issues with duplicates due to length. There are .members, .include.members, and .ordered.members, and I’m considering how they assert membership. If actual has + duplicates but no extra items, is that unexpected? It seems like it could fail if lengths differ, so I need to test this quickly by running Node with Chai. + + Examining potential test failures + + I’m analyzing the test at line 103, which uses waitForResolved(() => expect(db1JoinEvents).to.have.members([peerHash])). If db1JoinEvents contains duplicates like [peerHash, peerHash], the .members check might fail, indicating that twice the same hash doesn’t match the expected input. To + address this, I should implement per-peer serialization to prevent duplicates, as concurrency in processing replication-info messages is causing the issue. Additionally, I need to ensure that join events aren’t emitted during updates. + + Analyzing join event emissions + + I’m figuring out that the join event shouldn’t be emitted again since the replicator has already processed the join. However, due to concurrency issues or resets causing prevCount to reset to zero, the join event might still trigger. In addReplicationRange, if the reset removes old + segments causing prevCount to become zero, this could incorrectly fire the join emission again. I need to ensure that a join event doesn’t re-emit under these circumstances, especially during updates. It might be wise to examine addReplicationRange for idempotency regarding joins. + + Inspecting the code around replication + + I’m planning to take a closer look at the addReplicationRange code, specifically around lines 1139 and nearby sections. I want to examine the code from approximately lines 1080 to 1460 to get a complete view of its logic and functionality. This should help clarify how join events are + managed and if there are any issues with concurrency or emission that need addressing. It's essential to ensure everything works as expected for the replicator. + +• Explored + └ Read index.ts + +• I'm trying to figure out if addReplicationRange for the local replicator uses from as the local key and if this could happen concurrently. I also wonder if join events could be emitted in other places besides just addReplicationRange. We've seen pruneOfflineReplicators, and I'm guessing + there are other join event emissions in the file. I plan to search for "replicator:join" dispatch using rg "replicator:join" in the source file. Let's get started! + +• Explored + └ Search replicator:join in index.ts + +• I see that I need to focus on two places: addReplicationRange and pruneOfflineReplicators. I’m planning to update both of those. Then, there’s the task of implementing per-peer serialization in onMessage for the replication info. The key next step is to locate where + latestReplicationInfoMessage is declared and how it’s being used. It looks like I’ll need to search for that now! + +• Explored + └ Search latestReplicationInfoMessage in index.ts + Read index.ts + +• I'm thinking we can add fields for the latestReplicationInfoMessage to include details like per-peer queues and pending messages. I need to search for the initialization at line 1896 and clear at line 2528. I'll inspect the initialization method or maybe just open it up completely. So, + it seems like I should focus on lines 1800 to 1930 to see what’s going on there. Let's delve into that! + +• Explored + └ Read index.ts + +• I noticed that the latestReplicationInfoMessage was cleared on close, and we're going to clear new maps as well. Earlier, it seems like something was deleted from latestReplicationInfoMessage around line 4441. It would be helpful to inspect the code between lines 4380 and 4460 to + understand what’s happening there. I wonder if there’s something important that needs my attention in that range! Let’s dive in and figure it out. + +• Explored + └ Read index.ts + +• I’m thinking about how to manage promises, specifically cloud functions, that handle replication info. I can assign next to ensure it works seamlessly. I want to make sure that errors don’t break the entire queue, so I’ll swallow errors with a .catch(() => {}). Logging errors, especially + non-NotStarted ones, will help keep track. If the apply function catches its own errors, I still need a way to handle NotStartedError. I’ll need to explore that aspect further. + + Managing replication info retries + + I’m starting to think about how to handle replication info messages by treating them as “not applied” for retries. The approach involves enqueuing an apply attempt when a message is received. I’ll check if this.closed returns true first. Then, I need to verify if the latest applied + timestamp is greater than the message timestamp to decide whether to proceed with the apply attempt. If successful, I'll update the timestamp, and I’m considering whether to repurpose the latest message map for tracking. But I need to be mindful to avoid applying older messages after + newer ones. + + Handling message queue scenarios + + I’m considering how to manage the message queue, especially with older messages arriving. If an older message gets enqueued and is processed successfully, it updates latestApplied, but then a newer message arrives. If the older one fails due to NotStartedError, we’ll store it as pending + without updating latestApplied. The new message will need to wait for the older attempt, which is fine. However, if the new message can succeed after the indexes start, it might override the old and also be stored as pending. That feels manageable! + + Managing pending message logic + + I'm working on how to handle pending messages while ensuring we don't store older messages if a newer one arrives. I’ll define a pendingReplicationInfoMessages map to keep track of the most recent messages by timestamp. If an apply attempt runs into a NotStarted error, I want to store + the pending message if it's newer than the existing one. I’m also thinking about when to drain pending messages, especially after the indices are opened or ready. I’ll need to consider potential issues if NotStarted errors pop up later due to temporary index closures. + + Reviewing pending flush and subscriptions + + I’m thinking about the potential for a pending flush not happening during a close event, which is somewhat fine. However, I need to ensure that afterOpen calls pubsub.requestSubscribers(this.topic) before taking a snapshot of the subscribers for backfilling. It’s important to process + replication-info messages even if the sender isn’t ready, as pointed out in previous comments. + + Also, for the pruneOfflineReplicators, I want to make sure we dispatch joins only if the uniqueReplicators map doesn’t already have the key. I need to closely check how the join events are managed and see if they already handle replication changes properly in that section of code. + +• Explored + └ Read index.ts + +• I’m considering how addReplicationRange utilizes replicationIndex and might throw a NotStartedError if it's not started. + + If we call flush afterOpen when indexes have started, that should work, but we need to manage multiple messages per peer, keeping only the latest one by peer hash. + + When apply fails, we’ll set the pending map key using timestamps to determine if it should replace the existing one. + + AfterOpen flush needs to process pending messages sequentially without breaking if not started. I'll set up the flush function with a try/catch for each pending message. If it’s not started, I’ll keep it; if successful, delete it. I think it’s crucial to schedule flush afterOpen but + allow for later runs if messages remain pending. + + Scheduling flush and testing + + I’m thinking we could schedule the flush when replicationIndex becomes available, but for now, afterOpen flush seems sufficient. There's a NotStartedError that could be swallowed in the replication-info handler, which may affect messages processed after opening but while some indices + aren’t started, like the replicationIndex. + + We should store those messages. Also, for step 5, I need to ensure we backfill subscriber state at startup with a requestSubscribers call to facilitate handshake. + + Step 1 mentions processing replication updates even if the sender isn’t ready. It seems okay since they call addReplicationRange regardless. Now, I need to implement a regression test to ensure that duplicate inbound replication-info doesn’t duplicate joins. I’ll create that test under + shared-log/test after the code hardening. + + Implementing replication-info test + + I’m planning to set up a new test for the replication-info queue. First, I need to find existing tests related to replicate joins. There's a current issue where the events test for the replicator join is failing in CI due to duplicate messages. I think our fix should stabilize it, + although it might pass locally due to being flaky. + + To create a deterministic test for the concurrency bug, I can simulate two AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage events being handled at the same time from the same peer before the replicationIndex writes. The issue arises because the onMessage handler runs an async IIFE without waiting, leading + to concurrent execution. + + If I serialize by peer, the bug should be fixed! For testing, I can open store1 and store2, then trigger store1.log.onMessage with two replication-info messages from the same peer in quick succession, making sure internal processing isn’t awaited, while checking that only one join event + occurs. + + Addressing onMessage behavior + + I’m realizing that even though onMessage is async and enqueues calls without awaiting, it can still invoke two IIFEs that run concurrently. This is problematic since onMessage starts quickly and returns immediately, which allows these IIFEs to overlap and create the bug. + + To reproduce this, I can run both onMessage calls simultaneously with the AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage, ensuring they have similar timestamps. + + After that, I’ll wait for the async tasks to finish and check that there’s only one join event. + + I might need to carefully construct RequestContext from either @peerbit/program or RPC, so I’ll inspect the types. + + Testing addReplicationRange concurrency + + I realize that in shared-log/src/index.ts, onMessage expects TransportMessage and RequestContext, with RequestContext including from and message header. I need to figure out where TransportMessage is defined. The tests typically use higher-level functions like open, but I can directly + call onMessage. + + To reproduce the issue, I could make store2 subscribe and replicate two messages from proactive handleSubscriptionChange and a response to RequestReplicationInfoMessage. Still, to create a more deterministic test, it might be easier to use monkey patching to introduce artificial delays + into replicationIndex operations. + + I could delay the replicationIndex.put operation to allow overlapping tasks, ensuring both calls reach the count check before any writes occur. They would need to start before either write action, and since onMessage spawns IIFEs, this would help trigger that concurrency. + + I can also test directly by calling addReplicationRange concurrently, possibly using as any to bypass its private access. However, the real concurrency issue is likely due to unawaited onMessage handlers, not directly from addReplicationRange. I can guard join emissions in + addReplicationRange using a uniqueReplicators set, but adding a mutex might be overkill. Following the plan, serialization per peer at the onMessage level should address the root issue. + + Ensuring idempotent join emissions + + I need to ensure that replicator:join emissions are idempotent by using uniqueReplicators as a state transition. We can check this before dispatching the join, but concurrency could still cause issues. For more robust idempotency, I'll need atomic updates to uniqueReplicators with join + emissions. + + To achieve this, I might considering implementing serialization within the per-peer queue. We should have guards within addReplicationRange and pruneOfflineReplicators to handle updates correctly. If uniqueReplicators contains a replicator, we should ensure no join is dispatched again, + especially if ranges length is zero. + + It's important to recognize that duplicate emissions could arise when two concurrent addReplicationRange calls perceive the replicator as absent. Implementing proper serialization can help, but I also need to add a way to verify if a join should be emitted based on whether the replicator + is already present. This could involve tracking the size of uniqueReplicators before adding a new entry, while being cautious of concurrent additions that might result in race conditions. By fine-tuning the join emission process, I can avoid unnecessary duplicates effectively. + + Refining join emission logic + + I need to determine if a replicator is new, treating the first message from it as a join event by checking uniqueReplicators. The join event should only emit if addReplicationRange actually adds something; if it early returns, that could lead to setting the join flag incorrectly. + Implementing per-peer queues can prevent concurrency for handling replication-info messages and fix timing-related issues. + + For join emission to be idempotent, I can use uniqueReplicators to guard against re-adding known replicators. Inside addReplicationRange, I can check early if the replicator is already known. If there are diffs, the join event should emit, but I want to ensure this happens only when + segments are present. + + Currently, the code adds replicators to uniqueReplicators prematurely, even when there are no segments. I should modify this behavior to add to uniqueReplicators only when there are actual segments. Tightening this logic helps mitigate false positives in join detection and ensures that + we handle replicators accurately based on their actual segment status. + + Adjusting replicator logic + + I'm considering adjustments to reduce risks. We can maintain the existing isNewReplicator logic but guard it with checks on the uniqueReplicators set to prevent races. Following the guidance, I should switch to using !this.uniqueReplicators.has(fromHash) instead of relying on counts for + a more robust approach. + + For the join event, it should only emit when transitioning from not a replicator to a replicator, specifically when new ranges are added. We need to ensure this logic accurately reflects the state of uniqueReplicators, especially after operations. + + If uniqueReplicators includes old segments, it may not trigger correctly if segments are missing; this could cause issues, so I want to be careful about how and when I add or remove entries in this set. The emphasis on uniqueReplicators for emission logic is clear, and I need to follow + that closely. + +• Explored + └ Search uniqueReplicators\.delete in index.ts + +• I see that at line 1007, there's a function called removeReplicator, and at 1122, it involves removeReplicationRanges. It looks like uniqueReplicators are removed when the replicationIndex has no segments or when removeReplicator is called. That means the join event should occur when + uniqueReplicators transition from not containing to containing. This seems reasonable, so I'll inspect removeReplicator, specifically around lines 960 to 1040, to clarify everything. + +• Explored + └ Read index.ts + Search replicator:leave in index.ts + Read index.ts + Search uniqueReplicators in index.ts + Read index.ts + +• I’m noticing that when removeReplicator sends the AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage with empty segments instead of StoppedReplicating, it might prevent unique replicators from being deleted. This could lead to issues with replicator:leave events, but I'm not sure it's crucial for handling + duplicates. Maybe we need to fix the update to uniqueReplicators when ranges length is zero. It's a bug if removeReplicator doesn't get called remotely, which might mean the replicator stays in uniqueReplicators. This needs more attention. + + Analyzing replication logic + + I feel something's off. The unreplicate() function sets _isReplicating to false and calls removeReplicator(self), but it seems like it doesn't unsubscribe from pubsub. It's curious since stopping replication doesn't always mean unsubscribing, but the program might take care of that? I’m + not sure. The instructions mention a timing test failure due to faster subscription discovery, which is different. My main task is to fix the TOCTOU race, and the branch is named fix/shared-log-serialize-replication-info, suggesting some changes might have been made already. There are + indications in the code comments that updates are in place to avoid dropping messages, but there's still a chance they drop NotStarted errors. This branch may already be addressing that. + + Reviewing code modifications + + I want to check git diff to see how the current modifications stack up against the base, as there might be uncommitted changes related to the shared-log-debug files. Running git status again shows only untracked files, which suggests that the branch may have existing commits with + relevant modifications, like handling replication info in handleSubscriptionChange. The instructions mention that PR #589 is complete and that we should handle shared-log races separately. However, the onMessage code still seems like it's lacking serialization, so I need to implement + that fix. Also, there are new tests included for pubsub, but we’ll focus on the shared-log instead. + + Planning test implementation + + I need to run some tests to understand the current state before making changes, though it might be smarter to implement the fix first and then go back to testing. Good engineering practice suggests I should run failing tests to see the baseline. I'll probably run pnpm run test, which + might be intensive, so targeted tests focused on shared-log events and migration could be better. According to AGENTS instructions, I can run specific test files using the Aegir command. It might be easiest to filter with pnpm run test --filter @peerbit/shared-log, but I’ll check the + root package.json for details before proceeding. + + Implementing replication changes + + First, I need to run tests in the shared-log root, but I think installing dependencies might be unnecessary if they’re already in place. I'll check for node_modules to confirm. After I implement the modifications, I’ll target the tests specifically for shared-log events and migrations. + + For the implementation, I’m adding new fields to the SharedLog class for replication queues and info. I’ll keep the existing field names but adjust their meanings to reflect the latest applied states. I want to ensure I handle message applications correctly, especially avoiding + duplicates based on timestamps. I’ll also create a processing queue for incoming messages and ensure it processes sequentially without blocking, possibly adding some backpressure handling to maintain flow. + + Addressing replication message handling + + I need to ensure that tests accommodate the changes without altering their current asynchronous behavior. It's crucial to keep message processing as fire-and-forget to align with prior behavior but still log any errors to prevent unhandled rejections. + + When handling messages, I want to ensure that the processing can handle overlapping inbound and pending messages. I intend to flush pending messages after the open state, but I'm going to wait for the flush operation to ensure everything is prioritized correctly. The implementation will + create a queue for replication info updates, ensuring sequential processing and avoiding concurrency issues. + + I’ll also need to address error handling and ensure pending messages are managed correctly during the flush operation. A debounced approach for flushing might be necessary to avoid tight loops while still being responsive to new messages. Overall, I will be augmenting the class structure + to support these changes effectively. + + Addressing message handling during startup + + It seems that messages can get dropped during the startup phase if the indexes aren’t set up, which could lead to a stall because there won't be a retry. To handle this better, I need to store and flush messages at afterOpen. I’ll also implement the requestSubscribers call in afterOpen + with a best-effort approach to avoid issues. + + As for testing changes, I should run pnpm run build and pnpm run test—though I wonder if running build is necessary. Implementing code modifications in shared-log/src/index.ts will be crucial, taking care to avoid duplicate self-join emissions in the join logic since this could disrupt + tests. It's all about making those changes systematically. + + Implementing join idempotence guards + + Step 2 is all about ensuring that join events are idempotent. I think we can create a guard using the uniqueReplicators state while excluding self. In the replicator:mature test, maturity events seem to include self, suggesting the possibility of emitting such events for self. To avoid + duplicate join emissions, I’ll compute whether the peer was a replicator already before updating the uniqueReplicators set. + + I also need to carefully ensure that these emission checks are atomic to prevent concurrency issues. The idea is to add a Set called replicatorJoinEmitted to track join events and guarantee each peer only generates one join event per session. This seems like a complex but necessary + approach! + + Addressing join event duplication + + I need to consider that a join event should be emitted again if a peer leaves and rejoins. It seems uniqueReplicators represent active replicators, so I think we might want to handle adding them when the message indicates ranges are non-empty. The plan mentions adding guards in + pruneOfflineReplicators, but I wonder if we need to worry about atomic issues across multiple functions. + + To prevent duplicates, I can implement a synchronous check-and-add sequence right before dispatching the join event. This ensures that any two tasks will not generate duplicates because they'll either see or create the same state before dispatching. It seems like this approach could + effectively fix the duplication problem, but I’ll need to maintain the semantics in other branches too. + + Fixing join event timing + + I need to consider that migration tests timed out possibly due to dropped messages, so serialization alone won't solve the issue. I plan to fix pending message retention with RequestSubscribers and implement a detailed patch. + + For addReplicationRange, I’m thinking about when to identify if a replicator is new. It’s better to compute that at the dispatch time rather than at the beginning to prevent using stale values. Unique replicators should only be updated once we confirm new ranges. + + To manage this effectively, I’ll ensure that we only emit a join event if a replicator is unfamiliar when dispatching. It’s important to handle cases where a replicator should be removed if no segments are active. I must be careful with the semantics to minimize risks of breaking + existing behavior. Ultimately, my focus is on maintaining join idempotence while correctly updating unique replicators. + + Refining join status checks + + I need to compute whether to emit a join event at the time of dispatch, based on the current state of uniqueReplicators, rather than doing it earlier. This means checking membership just before the join dispatch and adjusting when we add to the uniqueReplicators set. + + It seems we should remove previous unconditional additions to uniqueReplicators and determine their status right before dispatching join. I also need to be careful about handling segments correctly; if there are no segments after a reset, for instance, the corresponding uniqueReplicator + should be removed. It’s clear I need to refine how I'm tracking these replicators without introducing bugs, ensuring our implementation manages peer membership appropriately. + + Structuring join event logic + + I need to focus on using the willHaveSegments variable to handle whether a join event should be emitted. If a peer is not a replicator before, but we determine it is now, I'll emit the join event. Yet, I still have to make sure that this process considers the diffs. + + If no changes exist, it’s likely redundant to emit a join event. The goal is to have a clear, consistent method for managing the uniqueReplicators membership, minimizing concurrency issues that may arise when multiple calls are made simultaneously. By streamlining these checks, I can + avoid duplicates and keep everything aligned. Additionally, I plan to adjust the logic for replicator:mature events so they trigger appropriately alongside join emissions, ensuring that our replicators reflect the latest state. + + Refining join event logic + + I think the join event should trigger when a replicator becomes reachable, much like the purpose of pruning offline replicators. Still, I want to ensure that join emissions are tied to changes, specifically when diffs length is greater than zero, to avoid unnecessary emissions. + + I’ll calculate whether a peer will continue being a replicator after the operation. If changes occur, I'll update the uniqueReplicators accordingly and set it up to track new replicators in a stable manner. If diffs length is zero but we see a change in the uniqueReplicators, I might + want to emit a join event to reflect that a replicator has become reachable, even though it might seem redundant. Overall, I want to keep everything clean and logical. + + Refining replication event logic + + If the replicationIndex has segments but pruneOfflineReplicators hasn’t run, I think I should still dispatch a join event when we receive replication info from a peer. It seems more semantically correct to emit join events whenever a transition occurs from not replicator to replicator, + even if this might introduce duplicates. + + I’m leaning towards a model where I can dispatch join even if diffs length is zero, but I want to ensure that I only emit a mature event when specific ranges are added. By managing the transition checks carefully, I can maintain clarity and robustness in how events are emitted. This + includes updating my replication info handling to implement queue management properly and making sure I account for timing issues accurately. + + Implementing replication updates + + I’m planning to create the _enqueueReplicationInfoUpdate method that returns a promise. Then, in the onMessage function, I’ll call this method void, but after opening, I’ll need to flush it by awaiting all promises. For any apply operations that return early, especially due to + timestamps, I’ll schedule a flush. When peers unsubscribe, I should clear their pending messages and related information. + + Next, I think it makes sense to call requestSubscribers and flush pending replication info after checking for subscribers. It’s important to confirm that I’ll correctly apply any pending messages only after the indexes are ready. Finally, I'll rename some components for clarity and set + up the necessary tests, ensuring proper compilation and execution with TypeScript. + +• Explored + └ Read package.json + +• I'm looking at two script tests: test:ci:part-4 and test:part-4. The plan is to run them in a loop 20-50 times after making some necessary fixes. The --no-build option is in the test script to avoid building each time, but I think a build is needed first. So, I'll probably run pnpm run + build before the test loops. Now, I need to implement code changes and apply a precise patch to index.ts. + + Defining proposed fields + + I'm setting up some proposed fields for my code. These include latestReplicationInfoMessage, replicationInfoQueue, and pendingReplicationInfo. I’m considering whether to keep the pendingReplicationInfoFlushScheduled, but maybe I'll simplify things by just flushing in afterOpen. I want to + keep it minimal, focusing on replicationInfoQueue and pendingReplicationInfo. + + In the open method, I’ll initialize replicationInfoQueue and pendingReplicationInfo right after setting latestReplicationInfoMessage. Additionally, in _close, I will clear both queues and remove any scheduled timeouts. + + Updating unsubscription logic + + In the _onUnsubscription method, I’m planning to not only delete latestReplicationInfoMessage but also clean up the queue and pending info for that peer. So I’ll call this.replicationInfoQueue.delete(peerHash) and this.pendingReplicationInfo.delete(peerHash). + + Deleting the map entry won't stop any in-flight promises, but it helps with memory management. Next, I need to implement new methods near onMessage, likely around line 2568. I'll add private methods such as enqueueReplicationInfoMessage, applyReplicationInfoMessage, and + flushPendingReplicationInfoMessages, ensuring they compile correctly and that the necessary isNotStartedError helper function is available. Lastly, I’ll modify onMessage to call enqueue. + + Implementing afterOpen logic + + In step 5 for requestSubscribers in afterOpen, I’ll add a call to request subscribers for the topic with a try-catch block to ignore any errors if the pubsub isn't ready. After that, I’ll get a snapshot of the subscribers. + + Next, I want to flush pending replication info at the end of afterOpen, ensuring it catches any NotStarted errors to prevent throwing. + + I also need to modify pruneOfflineReplicators to guard join emissions. The code should track if a replicator was known before dispatching the join event, providing a more controlled response to changes in the unique replicators set. + + Refining join event logic + + I’m thinking about the join event and its dependency on diffs. It may not be necessary to rely on diffs since joining is about noting a replicator’s presence. However, if diffs are empty due to having identical segments, I want to ensure we still handle the join event correctly. + + I plan to adjust the logic around when we emit joins, only letting them dispatch when isNewReplicator is true and there's at least one added range, preserving the previous semantics. I need to calculate isNewReplicator based on whether segments have transitioned from zero to more, + regardless of the existing uniqueness in replicators. This helps avoid duplicates while ensuring proper events are sent out. + + Implementing join logic and updates + + I’m setting uniqueReplicators to help determine if a peer is a known replicator. The logic for isNewReplicator will be !wasReplicator && hasSegmentsAfter. This might emit a join even if hadSegmentsBefore is true but not in uniqueReplicators, which should be rare. + + I’ll ensure that any join dispatch occurs within the block of non-zero diffs, updating the replicators before dispatching to prevent duplicates. I also need to manage NotStartedError storage and process requestSubscribers. Finally, I'll implement the modifications step by step using + apply_patch. + +• Edited packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts (+13 -0) + 521 private latestReplicationInfoMessage!: Map; + 522 + // Serialize replication-info application per peer to avoid TOCTOU races when + 523 + // multiple replication-info messages for the same peer arrive close together. + 524 + private replicationInfoQueue!: Map>; + 525 + // Messages that arrived before indexes were started (or while starting) and + 526 + // need to be retried once the program has fully opened. + 527 + private pendingReplicationInfo!: Map< + 528 + string, + 529 + { + 530 + from: PublicSignKey; + 531 + messageTimestamp: bigint; + 532 + message: AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage | AddedReplicationSegmentMessage; + 533 + } + 534 + >; + 535 + +• Edited packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts (+8 -6) + 1905 ); + 1906 - this._respondToIHaveTimeout = options?.respondToIHaveTimeout ?? 2e4; + 1907 - this._pendingDeletes = new Map(); + 1908 - this._pendingIHave = new Map(); + 1909 - this.latestReplicationInfoMessage = new Map(); + 1910 - this.coordinateToHash = new Cache({ max: 1e6, ttl: 1e4 }); + 1911 - this.recentlyRebalanced = new Cache({ max: 1e4, ttl: 1e5 }); + 1906 + this._respondToIHaveTimeout = options?.respondToIHaveTimeout ?? 2e4; + 1907 + this._pendingDeletes = new Map(); + 1908 + this._pendingIHave = new Map(); + 1909 + this.latestReplicationInfoMessage = new Map(); + 1910 + this.replicationInfoQueue = new Map(); + 1911 + this.pendingReplicationInfo = new Map(); + 1912 + this.coordinateToHash = new Cache({ max: 1e6, ttl: 1e4 }); + 1913 + this.recentlyRebalanced = new Cache({ max: 1e4, ttl: 1e5 }); + 1914 + +• I need to patch the _close function to ensure that after it clears the latestReplicationInfoMessage, I’m also adding a step to clear the queue or pending items. It seems like an important detail to incorporate so that everything functions smoothly. I’ll make sure to include this queue/ + pending clear in the patch. I'll get started on this to ensure it’s effective! + +• Edited packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts (+9 -7) + 2539 + 2540 - await this.remoteBlocks.stop(); + 2541 - this._pendingDeletes.clear(); + 2542 - this._pendingIHave.clear(); + 2543 - this.latestReplicationInfoMessage.clear(); + 2544 - this._gidPeersHistory.clear(); + 2545 - this._requestIPruneSent.clear(); + 2546 - this._requestIPruneResponseReplicatorSet.clear(); + 2540 + await this.remoteBlocks.stop(); + 2541 + this._pendingDeletes.clear(); + 2542 + this._pendingIHave.clear(); + 2543 + this.latestReplicationInfoMessage.clear(); + 2544 + this.replicationInfoQueue.clear(); + 2545 + this.pendingReplicationInfo.clear(); + 2546 + this._gidPeersHistory.clear(); + 2547 + this._requestIPruneSent.clear(); + 2548 + this._requestIPruneResponseReplicatorSet.clear(); + 2549 this.pruneDebouncedFn = undefined as any; + +• I’m focusing on patching the _onUnsubscription function to delete new maps. It seems like I need to make changes around line 4441, where I’ll be adding delete statements. It's important to ensure everything is correctly set up so that the function works as intended without leaving any + unwanted maps behind. This should help in keeping the system neat and functional! Let’s get started on this patch. + +• Edited packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts (+13 -10) + 4451 + 4452 - async _onUnsubscription(evt: CustomEvent) { + 4453 - logger.trace( + 4454 - `Peer disconnected '${evt.detail.from.hashcode()}' from '${JSON.stringify( + 4455 - evt.detail.topics.map((x) => x), + 4456 - )} '`, + 4457 - ); + 4458 - this.latestReplicationInfoMessage.delete(evt.detail.from.hashcode()); + 4452 + async _onUnsubscription(evt: CustomEvent) { + 4453 + logger.trace( + 4454 + `Peer disconnected '${evt.detail.from.hashcode()}' from '${JSON.stringify( + 4455 + evt.detail.topics.map((x) => x), + 4456 + )} '`, + 4457 + ); + 4458 + const fromHash = evt.detail.from.hashcode(); + 4459 + this.latestReplicationInfoMessage.delete(fromHash); + 4460 + this.replicationInfoQueue.delete(fromHash); + 4461 + this.pendingReplicationInfo.delete(fromHash); + 4462 + 4460 - return this.handleSubscriptionChange( + 4461 - evt.detail.from, + 4462 - evt.detail.topics, + 4463 + return this.handleSubscriptionChange( + 4464 + evt.detail.from, + 4465 + evt.detail.topics, + 4466 false, + +• I'm thinking about the possibility that if onMessage is called before the initializations, replicationInfoQueue may end up being undefined. Since onMessage is tied to the instance, and open occurs before any network messages are processed, it's conceivable that early message deliveries + could happen. To ensure that our maps are always defined, it might be best to initialize them within the constructor or lazily through an enqueue method. However, TypeScript might not allow that, posing risks if messages arrive too soon. I need to closely manage settings to avoid runtime + errors. + + Ensuring safe initialization + + I want to make sure everything is properly initialized in the enqueue method to avoid issues. I'll check if this.replicationInfoQueue and this.pendingReplicationInfo are defined and create new Map instances if they're not. While TypeScript might define these properties, there’s a risk + they could still be undefined at runtime, especially since onMessage uses this.latestReplicationInfoMessage, which is initialized in open. I believe adding lazy initialization is a safe choice, and it’s not resource-intensive, so I’ll implement it at the start of the enqueue method. + + Implementing safe checks + + I'm working with TypeScript that compiles to JavaScript, probably targeting ES2022, so that feels secure. I realized I need to make sure latestReplicationInfoMessage is initialized when it’s used. To do that, I'll add checks to see if replicationInfoQueue, pendingReplicationInfo, and + latestReplicationInfoMessage are defined, and if not, set them as new Map instances. While TypeScript might raise a warning regarding the negation operator, I think this approach keeps things safe. I also want to ensure that flushPendingReplicationInfo utilizes the enqueue function so + that the maps get initialized correctly. Let's add those patch insert methods! + +• Edited packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts (+109 -0) + 2584 + 2585 + private enqueueReplicationInfoMessage(args: { + 2586 + from: PublicSignKey; + 2587 + messageTimestamp: bigint; + 2588 + message: AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage | AddedReplicationSegmentMessage; + 2589 + }): Promise { + 2590 + // Be defensive: replication-info can arrive very early during startup. + 2591 + if (!this.latestReplicationInfoMessage) { + 2592 + this.latestReplicationInfoMessage = new Map(); + 2593 + } + 2594 + if (!this.replicationInfoQueue) { + 2595 + this.replicationInfoQueue = new Map(); + 2596 + } + 2597 + if (!this.pendingReplicationInfo) { + 2598 + this.pendingReplicationInfo = new Map(); + 2599 + } + 2600 + + 2601 + const fromHash = args.from.hashcode(); + 2602 + const prev = this.replicationInfoQueue.get(fromHash) ?? Promise.resolve(); + 2603 + + 2604 + let next: Promise; + 2605 + next = prev + 2606 + .catch(() => { + 2607 + // Keep the queue moving even if a previous task failed. + 2608 + }) + 2609 + .then(() => this.applyReplicationInfoMessage(args)) + 2610 + .finally(() => { + 2611 + // Only delete if we're still the tail of the queue. + 2612 + if (this.replicationInfoQueue.get(fromHash) === next) { + 2613 + this.replicationInfoQueue.delete(fromHash); + 2614 + } + 2615 + }); + 2616 + + 2617 + this.replicationInfoQueue.set(fromHash, next); + 2618 + return next; + 2619 + } + 2620 + + 2621 + private async applyReplicationInfoMessage(args: { + 2622 + from: PublicSignKey; + 2623 + messageTimestamp: bigint; + 2624 + message: AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage | AddedReplicationSegmentMessage; + 2625 + }): Promise { + 2626 + const { from, messageTimestamp, message } = args; + 2627 + const fromHash = from.hashcode(); + 2628 + + 2629 + if (this.closed) { + 2630 + return; + 2631 + } + 2632 + + 2633 + // Drop old messages relative to the latest successfully applied one. This prevents + 2634 + // older replication-info from overwriting newer state when messages are delayed. + 2635 + const prevApplied = this.latestReplicationInfoMessage.get(fromHash); + 2636 + if (prevApplied && prevApplied > messageTimestamp) { + 2637 + return; + 2638 + } + 2639 + + 2640 + try { + 2641 + const reset = message instanceof AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage; + 2642 + await this.addReplicationRange( + 2643 + message.segments.map((x) => x.toReplicationRangeIndexable(from)), + 2644 + from, + 2645 + { + 2646 + reset, + 2647 + checkDuplicates: true, + 2648 + timestamp: Number(messageTimestamp), + 2649 + }, + 2650 + ); + 2651 + + 2652 + this.latestReplicationInfoMessage.set(fromHash, messageTimestamp); + 2653 + } catch (e: any) { + 2654 + if (isNotStartedError(e)) { + 2655 + // Keep only the newest message per peer; we'll retry once indexes are started. + 2656 + const prev = this.pendingReplicationInfo.get(fromHash); + 2657 + if (!prev || prev.messageTimestamp <= messageTimestamp) { + 2658 + this.pendingReplicationInfo.set(fromHash, { + 2659 + from, + 2660 + messageTimestamp, + 2661 + message, + 2662 + }); + 2663 + } + 2664 + return; + 2665 + } + 2666 + + 2667 + logger.error( + 2668 + `Failed to apply replication settings from '${fromHash}': ${ + 2669 + e?.message ?? e + 2670 + }`, + 2671 + ); + 2672 + } + 2673 + } + 2674 + + 2675 + private async flushPendingReplicationInfo(): Promise { + 2676 + if (!this.pendingReplicationInfo || this.pendingReplicationInfo.size === 0) { + 2677 + return; + 2678 + } + 2679 + + 2680 + const pending = [...this.pendingReplicationInfo.values()]; + 2681 + this.pendingReplicationInfo.clear(); + 2682 + + 2683 + await Promise.all( + 2684 + pending.map((p) => + 2685 + this.enqueueReplicationInfoMessage({ + 2686 + from: p.from, + 2687 + messageTimestamp: p.messageTimestamp, + 2688 + message: p.message, + 2689 + }), + 2690 + ), + 2691 + ); + 2692 + } + 2693 + + 2694 // Callback for receiving a message from the network + +• I need to focus on updating the onMessage replication info handler to utilize the enqueue function. I’ll patch the onMessage branch specifically at lines 2955 and so on, making sure to replace the IIFE with the queue call. It’s really important to retain the comment about not dropping + remote messages early, but I should be able to incorporate that change effectively. I’m curious if I’ll encounter any unexpected challenges along the way! + + Modifying replication logic + + I need to modify a specific block of code for message handling. The plan involves checking the message type and ensuring that the sender is not the current node. I'm going to change the method of processing replication updates by using the enqueue function instead. It's crucial to keep + the comment that notes the importance of processing updates even if the sender isn't "ready" yet. I must also remember to use void to avoid unhandled promise issues. Let's see how this revision goes! + + Adjusting error handling + + The enqueue method is pretty good at catching internal errors and logging them, so that feels safe. I wonder if I should await the enqueue call, but it might not be necessary after all. I should also remove the reference to from in the error log, since that’s now handled in the apply + method. Additionally, I need to make sure that context.message.header.timestamp actually exists, just in case the message header is missing. It seems likely to be there, though. Let’s update that section! + +• Edited packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts (+19 -51) + 3079 } + 3080 - } else if ( + 3081 - msg instanceof AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage || + 3082 - msg instanceof AddedReplicationSegmentMessage + 3083 - ) { + 3084 - if (context.from.equals(this.node.identity.publicKey)) { + 3085 - return; + 3086 - } + 3087 - + 3088 - const replicationInfoMessage = msg as + 3089 - | AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage + 3090 - | AddedReplicationSegmentMessage; + 3091 - + 3092 - // Process replication updates even if the sender isn't yet considered "ready" by + 3093 - // `Program.waitFor()`. Dropping these messages can lead to missing replicator info + 3094 - // (and downstream `waitForReplicator()` timeouts) under timing-sensitive joins. + 3095 - const from = context.from!; + 3096 - const messageTimestamp = context.message.header.timestamp; + 3097 - (async () => { + 3098 - const prev = this.latestReplicationInfoMessage.get(from.hashcode()); + 3099 - if (prev && prev > messageTimestamp) { + 3080 + } else if ( + 3081 + msg instanceof AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage || + 3082 + msg instanceof AddedReplicationSegmentMessage + 3083 + ) { + 3084 + if (context.from.equals(this.node.identity.publicKey)) { + 3085 return; + ⋮ + 3087 + 3103 - this.latestReplicationInfoMessage.set( + 3104 - from.hashcode(), + 3105 - messageTimestamp, + 3106 - ); + 3088 + const replicationInfoMessage = msg as + 3089 + | AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage + 3090 + | AddedReplicationSegmentMessage; + 3091 + 3108 - if (this.closed) { + 3109 - return; + 3110 - } + 3111 - + 3112 - const reset = msg instanceof AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage; + 3113 - await this.addReplicationRange( + 3114 - replicationInfoMessage.segments.map((x) => + 3115 - x.toReplicationRangeIndexable(from), + 3116 - ), + 3092 + // Process replication updates even if the sender isn't yet considered "ready" by + 3093 + // `Program.waitFor()`. Dropping these messages can lead to missing replicator info + 3094 + // (and downstream `waitForReplicator()` timeouts) under timing-sensitive joins. + 3095 + const from = context.from!; + 3096 + const messageTimestamp = context.message.header.timestamp; + 3097 + void this.enqueueReplicationInfoMessage({ + 3098 from, + 3118 - { + 3119 - reset, + 3120 - checkDuplicates: true, + 3121 - timestamp: Number(messageTimestamp), + 3122 - }, + 3123 - ); + 3124 - })().catch((e) => { + 3125 - if (isNotStartedError(e)) { + 3099 + messageTimestamp, + 3100 + message: replicationInfoMessage, + 3101 + }); + 3102 + } else if (msg instanceof StoppedReplicating) { + 3103 + if (context.from.equals(this.node.identity.publicKey)) { + 3104 return; + 3105 } + 3128 - logger.error( + 3129 - `Failed to apply replication settings from '${from.hashcode()}': ${ + 3130 - e?.message ?? e + 3131 - }`, + 3132 - ); + 3133 - }); + 3134 - } else if (msg instanceof StoppedReplicating) { + 3135 - if (context.from.equals(this.node.identity.publicKey)) { + 3136 - return; + 3137 - } + 3106 + +• Explored + └ Search requestSubscribers\( in index.ts + Read index.ts + +• Edited packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts (+25 -11) + 2233 + 2234 - async afterOpen(): Promise { + 2235 - await super.afterOpen(); + 2234 + async afterOpen(): Promise { + 2235 + await super.afterOpen(); + 2236 + ⋮ + 2248 + 2249 - await this.rebalanceParticipation(); + 2249 + await this.rebalanceParticipation(); + 2250 + + 2251 + // Backfill subscriber state on startup. This avoids missing replication handshakes + 2252 + // when subscribe/unsubscribe events were observed before our listeners were attached. + 2253 + try { + 2254 + await this.node.services.pubsub.requestSubscribers(this.topic); + 2255 + } catch (error) { + 2256 + // Best-effort only; pubsub might not be started yet. + 2257 + if (!isNotStartedError(error as Error)) { + 2258 + logger.error(error); + 2259 + } + 2260 + } + 2261 + 2251 - // Take into account existing subscription + 2252 - (await this.node.services.pubsub.getSubscribers(this.topic))?.forEach( + 2253 - (v, k) => { + 2254 - if (v.equals(this.node.identity.publicKey)) { + 2262 + // Take into account existing subscription + 2263 + (await this.node.services.pubsub.getSubscribers(this.topic))?.forEach( + 2264 + (v, k) => { + 2265 + if (v.equals(this.node.identity.publicKey)) { + 2266 return; + ⋮ + 2270 } + 2260 - this.handleSubscriptionChange(v, [this.topic], true); + 2261 - }, + 2262 - ); + 2263 - } + 2271 + this.handleSubscriptionChange(v, [this.topic], true); + 2272 + }, + 2273 + ); + 2274 + + 2275 + // Apply replication-info messages that arrived before indexes were ready. + 2276 + await this.flushPendingReplicationInfo(); + 2277 + } + 2278 + +• Edited packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts (+13 -9) + 2319 + 2320 - this.uniqueReplicators.add(key.hashcode()); + 2320 + const keyHash = key.hashcode(); + 2321 + const wasKnownReplicator = this.uniqueReplicators.has(keyHash); + 2322 + this.uniqueReplicators.add(keyHash); + 2323 + 2322 - this.events.dispatchEvent( + 2323 - new CustomEvent("replicator:join", { + 2324 - detail: { publicKey: key }, + 2325 - }), + 2326 - ); + 2327 - this.events.dispatchEvent( + 2328 - new CustomEvent( + 2329 - "replication:change", + 2324 + if (!wasKnownReplicator) { + 2325 + this.events.dispatchEvent( + 2326 + new CustomEvent("replicator:join", { + 2327 + detail: { publicKey: key }, + 2328 + }), + 2329 + ); + 2330 + } + 2331 + this.events.dispatchEvent( + 2332 + new CustomEvent( + 2333 + "replication:change", + 2334 { + +• I think it's better to avoid unused variables. It makes sense to use deleted.length directly for hadSegmentsBefore instead of creating another variable. However, keeping prevCount could be useful, especially if I set hadSegmentsBefore = prevCount > 0. That way, I'm utilizing prevCount, + so I'll keep it. + + Now, in the else branch, I need to remove the isNewReplicator assignment and adjust the logic accordingly, ensuring everything is clearly defined and functions well. This will help maintain clarity and efficiency in the code! + + Adjusting segment logic + + I need to consider the case where existing.length > 0, but not all segments count for the owner, even if hadSegmentsBefore is true. So, in the fourth section, I’ll replace uniqueReplicators.add(from.hashcode()) in line 1284 with our new logic, incorporating hasSegmentsAfter and the + constant isNewReplicator. + + I also have to keep in mind that the ranges variable might change due to deduplication, particularly in the non-reset branch. Even if the ranges length is greater than 0, if hasSameRanges and diffs are empty, we’ll consider hasSegmentsAfter true and add the replicator to + uniqueReplicators. Lastly, I’ll introduce the sawAddedRange variable and adjust in the loop for better dispatch management. + + Inserting range logic + + I plan to add let sawAddedRange = false; right after let isAllMature = true;. Inside the check for if (diff.type === "added"), I’ll set sawAddedRange = true;. This ensures that I track whether a range has been added. + + Then, I’ll adjust the join block to check if (sawAddedRange && isAllMature) instead of just isAllMature. It’s important that isNewReplicator is in scope, so I’ll define it before the now/minRoleAge variables, while keeping in mind that both isAllMature and sawAddedRange are computed + using await getDefaultMinRoleAge(). Since we update uniqueReplicators before awaiting that, everything should work out well! + +• Edited packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts (+51 -38) + 1166 ) { + 1167 - if (this._isTrustedReplicator && !(await this._isTrustedReplicator(from))) { + 1168 - return undefined; + 1169 - } + 1170 - let isNewReplicator = false; + 1171 - let timestamp = BigInt(ts ?? +new Date()); + 1172 - rebalance = rebalance == null ? true : rebalance; + 1167 + if (this._isTrustedReplicator && !(await this._isTrustedReplicator(from))) { + 1168 + return undefined; + 1169 + } + 1170 + let timestamp = BigInt(ts ?? +new Date()); + 1171 + let hadSegmentsBefore = false; + 1172 + rebalance = rebalance == null ? true : rebalance; + 1173 + ⋮ + 1184 + 1185 - let prevCount = deleted.length; + 1185 + let prevCount = deleted.length; + 1186 + hadSegmentsBefore = prevCount > 0; + 1187 + ⋮ + 1213 + 1213 - isNewReplicator = prevCount === 0 && ranges.length > 0; + 1214 - } else { + 1214 + } else { + 1215 let batchSize = 100; + ⋮ + 1233 + 1234 - let prevCountForOwner: number | undefined = undefined; + 1235 - if (existing.length === 0) { + 1236 - prevCountForOwner = await this.replicationIndex.count({ + 1237 - query: new StringMatch({ key: "hash", value: from.hashcode() }), + 1238 - }); + 1239 - isNewReplicator = prevCountForOwner === 0; + 1240 - } else { + 1241 - isNewReplicator = false; + 1242 - } + 1234 + let prevCountForOwner: number | undefined = undefined; + 1235 + if (existing.length === 0) { + 1236 + prevCountForOwner = await this.replicationIndex.count({ + 1237 + query: new StringMatch({ key: "hash", value: from.hashcode() }), + 1238 + }); + 1239 + hadSegmentsBefore = prevCountForOwner > 0; + 1240 + } else { + 1241 + hadSegmentsBefore = true; + 1242 + } + 1243 + ⋮ + 1296 + 1297 - this.uniqueReplicators.add(from.hashcode()); + 1297 + const fromHash = from.hashcode(); + 1298 + const hasSegmentsAfter = + 1299 + reset === true + 1300 + ? ranges.length > 0 + 1301 + : hadSegmentsBefore || ranges.length > 0; + 1302 + const wasKnownReplicator = this.uniqueReplicators.has(fromHash); + 1303 + if (hasSegmentsAfter) { + 1304 + this.uniqueReplicators.add(fromHash); + 1305 + } else { + 1306 + this.uniqueReplicators.delete(fromHash); + 1307 + } + 1308 + const isNewReplicator = !wasKnownReplicator && hasSegmentsAfter; + 1309 + 1299 - let now = +new Date(); + 1300 - let minRoleAge = await this.getDefaultMinRoleAge(); + 1301 - let isAllMature = true; + 1310 + let now = +new Date(); + 1311 + let minRoleAge = await this.getDefaultMinRoleAge(); + 1312 + let isAllMature = true; + 1313 + let sawAddedRange = false; + 1314 + 1315 for (const diff of diffs) { + 1304 - if (diff.type === "added") { + 1305 - /* if (this.closed) { + 1306 - return; + 1307 - } */ + 1308 - await this.replicationIndex.put(diff.range); + 1316 + if (diff.type === "added") { + 1317 + sawAddedRange = true; + 1318 + /* if (this.closed) { + 1319 + return; + 1320 + } */ + 1321 + await this.replicationIndex.put(diff.range); + 1322 + ⋮ + 1407 + 1395 - if (isNewReplicator) { + 1396 - this.events.dispatchEvent( + 1397 - new CustomEvent("replicator:join", { + 1398 - detail: { publicKey: from }, + 1399 - }), + 1400 - ); + 1408 + if (isNewReplicator) { + 1409 + this.events.dispatchEvent( + 1410 + new CustomEvent("replicator:join", { + 1411 + detail: { publicKey: from }, + 1412 + }), + 1413 + ); + 1414 + 1402 - if (isAllMature) { + 1403 - this.events.dispatchEvent( + 1404 - new CustomEvent("replicator:mature", { + 1405 - detail: { publicKey: from }, + 1406 - }), + 1415 + if (sawAddedRange && isAllMature) { + 1416 + this.events.dispatchEvent( + 1417 + new CustomEvent("replicator:mature", { + 1418 + detail: { publicKey: from }, + 1419 + }), + 1420 ); + +• I realize we modified addReplicationRange and removed isNewReplicator, but there might be leftover variables like prevCount that are still in play. It's used for hadSegmentsBefore, right? I also noted the catch removal on onMessage, which seems fine. I want to confirm there are no + compilation errors since methods in TS classes can be defined anywhere. As for latestReplicationInfoMessage, it’s now updated after a successful apply, which might change things a bit. I'll check that old message verification still functions as expected. + + Updating message handling + + I need to adjust the deletion of latestReplicationInfoMessage during unsubscription, and it now also removes queued or pending messages, which is a good change. In Step 3, we discussed draining pending messages after afterOpen or when the index signals readiness, and we addressed that in + afterOpen. Additionally, in Step 5, I implemented requestSubscribers using a best-effort approach and created getSubscribers. Next up, I should run tests! I’ll begin by running pnpm run build from the root to compile everything. + +• I'm currently monitoring the build process for our package @peerbit/shared-log. If there are any TypeScript errors from the changes we've made, the build will fail at this point. So, it looks like I’ll just have to wait for the results. In the meantime, I can keep checking back to see if + everything is running smoothly. I guess patience is key here! + +↳ Interacted with background terminal · cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && pnpm -v && pnpm run build + └ (waited) + +• Ran cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && pnpm -v && pnpm run build + └ 10.24.0 + + … +616 lines + frontend: - Use build.rollupOptions.output.manualChunks to improve chunking: https://rollupjs.org/configuration-options/#output-manualchunks + frontend: - Adjust chunk size limit for this warning via build.chunkSizeWarningLimit. + +• I've built everything successfully, so I need to run targeted tests next. I’ll use the command pnpm run test:ci:part-4 -- --grep "replicate:join not emitted on update" to focus on the relevant test. The script for test:ci:part-4 is already set to use aegir run test with specific options. + I need to be careful since pnpm passes arguments to the script, which uses its own options. I’ll make sure the additional arguments are placed correctly! + + Testing with grep options + + To add a grep option, I need to run pnpm run test:ci:part-4 -- --grep "...". This will append to the aegir run test command, but I'm uncertain how it interacts with existing options like -- -t node --no-build. It might treat the appended arguments as aegir options instead of mocha. + Alternatively, I can directly run the test using node ./node_modules/aegir/src/index.js. For now, I’ll first execute all of part-4 tests to confirm everything passes. + +• It seems that when using --no-build, the system is expected to run a JS version in the dist folder rather than TypeScript. The script test:ci:part-4 does use --no-build, which makes me think tests are run after the initial build process. I'm wondering if tests compile during the build + step. It's looking for JS patterns, suggesting the tests are written in TypeScript but compiled to JS. The warnings about missing .ts files might relate to a root-level configuration. I might try running pnpm run test:part-4 without --no-build. + + Analyzing test build process + + It looks like in CI, they use --no-build to skip the build step when running tests. Locally, I can run tests without that flag since I've already built the project. I'm concerned the test runner can't find the tests because they might not be compiled to JS. Although aegir uses ts-node, + the output shows it's looking for JS patterns, suggesting the tests need to be built to JS in dist/test. Since the build output suggests tests weren't included, this could cause issues. It might be that CI runs pnpm run build first, but I'm uncertain about the tests being compiled. + + Checking test directory existence + + I’m considering that tests might be located under dist/test, generated by tsc, if the tsconfig includes the test folder. If "test/**/*.ts" is included, then the build would compile the tests to dist/test. However, if the build configuration doesn't include tests, they won't compile. I + should check the tsconfig in packages/programs/data/shared-log/ to see if it includes a mention of tests. That could clarify whether they're being compiled or not. Let's take a look! + +• Explored + └ Read tsconfig.json + +• I see that tests are running, and the event tests passed, which is great! It looks like the warnings about patterns could be normal, but the tests did run successfully. Aegir seems to be looking for certain patterns but still found TypeScript, which is interesting. I wonder if it uses + ts-node? Anyway, now I need to wait for the rest of the tests to finish and poll again for updates. + +• I’ve confirmed that the migration tests have passed! That’s a good start. I should probably continue to run the remaining tests just to ensure everything is functioning smoothly. I wonder if I need to poll for updates or if I can just track the progress as it unfolds. It’s important to + catch anything that might not be working before it becomes a bigger issue. Alright, let’s keep this going! + +• I'm keeping an eye on the output, which is quite extensive. However, the tests are still ongoing. It's important for me to know when the entire script has completed, especially including tests related to the shared-log-proxy. To figure that out, I'll keep polling until the process comes + to an end. Once everything is done, I can verify the results and take the next steps! + +• I’m still in the process of running things. I’ll check back later with a smaller output, to see when it finishes. It might be a good idea to poll again in about 5 seconds. This way, I can keep track of the progress without overwhelming myself or anyone else. Let’s stay patient and see + how it unfolds! + +• It looks like there's been a failure in the testing process — specifically, it printed "1) will re-check replication segments on restart and prune offline" without a checkmark, indicating something went wrong. I should dive into the details to understand what's happening. The failure + could be related to the recent changes we've made. I’ll need to look for a full output around the failure and keep polling to get a summary of what’s going wrong. + +• I need to keep an eye on the failure details at the end of the test suite. It’s still running right now, and I did spot one line indicating a failure. So, I’ll wait and continue polling until the entire process ends, and then I'll check the summary that's printed out. It’s a bit unclear + right now, but I’ll be patient and see what the final results reveal! + +• I think the process might still be running in another package, so I'll hang tight a bit longer. I've noticed that the shared-log tests are still continuing, which is good to see! After that, I expect the shared-log-proxy package tests to start. It’s a waiting game, but that’s alright — + patience is key when things are processing! Let’s just see how it unfolds. + +• I want to see if the failure is still happening. Earlier, I noted that I would re-check the replication segments upon restart and prune offline ones. This is part of the pruneOfflineReplicators suite. I think it’s important to observe the failure details at the end. For now, I’ll + continue polling to gather more information, and I’ll be ready to address any issues if they persist. Let’s keep at it! + +• I’m looking at the u32-simple sharding, and I remember there might be more tests to consider. Earlier, we noted a failure related to re-checking replication segments on restart and pruning offline, likely in the u32-simple persistence suite. That failure might have been just a transient + issue, but it indicates a test failure. I'm planning to run tests with grep later to check details after the full run finishes. However, it does seem to be taking a long time. + + Managing extensive tests + + The part-4 tests are pretty extensive, taking over 30 minutes to run. It seems the instructions suggest looping part-4 20-50 times to avoid flaky results, which feels unrealistic given the time constraint. Instead, we could run smaller loops focusing on specific tests and rely on a + deterministic fix. Our current run may still fail due to that one troublesome test. I think I’ll wait for completion but keep checking for additional failures, and I might run a targeted test later with pnpm. + + Investigating test failure + + I want to check if the test is still failing. The failure message indicated it was "1) will re-check replication segments on restart and prune offline," and I noticed other tests passed, like those confirming online status and successful closures. It seems only this test failed, likely + due to changes we made to the pruneOfflineReplicators join event guard. That could affect its expectations regarding the replicator join events count or uniqueReplicators state after a restart. I’ll inspect the failing test file closely to understand the requirements and issues. + + Locating failing test + + I noticed earlier that the failing test "will re-check replication segments on restart and prune offline" appears alongside some successful checks in the same output. It looks like this test is within the lifecycle or persistence tests. My next step is to locate the specific test case in + the test suite. I'll use rg to search within the shared-log test folder to find "will re-check replication segments on restart and prune offline" so I can dig deeper into the issue. + +• Explored + └ Search will re-check replication segments on restart and prune offline in test + Read replicate.spec.ts + Search await this\.replicate in index.ts + +• I need to check lines around 2160, as they seem significant based on earlier conditions. It’s a good idea to look into the open method from lines 2100 to 2180, since we suspect it resets replicator segments based on options. I'll explore the area from 2000 to 2185 again. Plus, I want to + investigate how hasIndexedReplicationInfo fits into this, so I’ll check from 1960 to 2185 for clarity on the replication logic. + +• Explored + └ Read index.ts + +• I'm thinking about how the original logic used prevCount to determine if a replicator was new, which worked fine on restart. Now, with the change to uniqueReplicators membership, I need to make sure we don’t accidentally treat self as a new replicator each time it opens. So, I’ll refine + the join emission logic to check for previous segments or replication info before triggering a join event. This is about accurately signaling new replicators in the network. + + Clarifying replication events + + On restart, the replicationIndex might have segments for remote replicators, but I don’t want to trigger a join event just for reopening and processing this info. That's why pruneOfflineReplicators is important; it ensures we only emit join events for reachable replicators after a + restart. I think we need to adjust how we determine isNewReplicator in addReplicationRange by considering if there were segments for that peer originally. This should help prevent unnecessary self-joins on restart while addressing the concurrency issue that led to duplicates. + + Ensuring idempotent joins + + I still think we should use the uniqueReplicators guard for idempotent joins, especially under concurrency. To determine if a replicator is new, we could compute isNewReplicator = !hadSegmentsBefore && ranges.length > 0. This aligns with the original semantics. However, to prevent + duplicates from a race condition, we can check the uniqueReplicators membership right before dispatching the join. This way, even if hadSegmentsBefore is computed incorrectly, only the first dispatch will happen when isNewReplicator is true. + + Modifying join logic + + I need to check if we have a new replicator by using the condition if (isNewReplicator && !this.uniqueReplicators.has(fromHash) && hasSegmentsAfter). However, uniqueReplicators may not include fromHash at that moment, and we can reorder things. The simplest solution is to revert + isNewReplicator to the original count-based method (using hadSegmentsBefore). We can then update uniqueReplicators and handle join emissions in an atomic state transition to avoid duplicates. + + I’ll confirm hadSegmentsBefore from the index, determine hasSegmentsAfter, and continue updating uniqueReplicators. Then, I'll define isNewReplicator based on those checks. This should help preserve the original semantics and prevent concurrency issues. + + Updating join emission logic + + To process the join emission, I can use the check if (isNewReplicator). However, since we might have already added to uniqueReplicators, I want to restructure this logic. My plan is to compute whether a replicator should exist by checking hasSegmentsAfter and then update + uniqueReplicators accordingly. I'll also ensure we track if this is the first time we've added a replicator during this session, which helps avoid duplicates. + + My approach will involve: + + - Checking if hasSegmentsAfter is true before adding to uniqueReplicators. + - Using a runtime variable didAddToReplicators to indicate if this was a new addition. + - Ensuring we only emit the join event if both isNewReplicator and didAddToReplicators are true to handle concurrency issues. + + This should help maintain the integrity of join events across different scenarios, including restarts. + + Implementing join behavior changes + + I want to ensure we don't emit a join event for self on restart if hadSegmentsBefore is true. This means that for a remote replicator with persisted segments but an empty uniqueReplicators, we also shouldn't emit if hadSegmentsBefore is true, which seems right. I need to fix duplicates + as well. + + I'll make sure to correctly compute hadSegmentsBefore for both the reset and regular branches. In the reset branch, I’ll set it to prevCount > 0. If we have the same ranges and no diffs, hadSegmentsBefore could be greater than 0, even if hasSegmentsAfter shows ranges are present, making + isNewReplicator false. + + Now, it's time to implement this patch in the relevant section of addReplicationRange. + +• Edited packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts (+12 -9) + 1301 : hadSegmentsBefore || ranges.length > 0; + 1302 - const wasKnownReplicator = this.uniqueReplicators.has(fromHash); + 1302 + let didAddReplicator = false; + 1303 if (hasSegmentsAfter) { + 1304 - this.uniqueReplicators.add(fromHash); + 1304 + if (!this.uniqueReplicators.has(fromHash)) { + 1305 + this.uniqueReplicators.add(fromHash); + 1306 + didAddReplicator = true; + 1307 + } + 1308 } else { + ⋮ + 1310 } + 1308 - const isNewReplicator = !wasKnownReplicator && hasSegmentsAfter; + 1311 + const isNewReplicator = !hadSegmentsBefore && hasSegmentsAfter; + 1312 + ⋮ + 1410 + 1408 - if (isNewReplicator) { + 1409 - this.events.dispatchEvent( + 1410 - new CustomEvent("replicator:join", { + 1411 - detail: { publicKey: from }, + 1412 - }), + 1413 - ); + 1411 + if (isNewReplicator && didAddReplicator) { + 1412 + this.events.dispatchEvent( + 1413 + new CustomEvent("replicator:join", { + 1414 + detail: { publicKey: from }, + 1415 + }), + 1416 + ); + 1417 + +• I can terminate the session by sending ctrl-c, which is important to save time. However, I need to be cautious because in this environment, I can send \u0003 to write_stdin, and that might stop the pnpm test process. While I could review the full failure output for confirmation, I've + already identified the cause of the failure. So, I'll go ahead and cancel the session and rerun the targeted tests by sending ctrl-c to session 88042. + +• Ran cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && pgrep -fl "aegir run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log" || true && pgrep -fl "aegir test" | head + └ (no output) + +• It seems there might be no output, possibly due to how the command line processes are structured. I think listing node processes could help. I'll run a command like pgrep -fl "pnpm run test:ci:part-4" and then check with ps -Ao pid,command | rg "test:ci:part-4|aegir run test|mocha". That + should give me a clearer view of what's happening with those specific tests! Let’s hope that does the trick! + +• Ran cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && ps -Ao pid,command | rg -n "test:ci:part-4|aegir run test|aegir test|mocha" | head -n 50 || true + └ 445:47591 node /Users/aristotle/Library/Caches/fnm_multishells/21140_1770338404653/bin/pnpm run test:ci:part-4 + 449:47710 node /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo/node_modules/.pnpm/aegir@https+++codeload.github.com+marcus-pousette+aegir+tar.gz+d919af1fcbc922416ef18910_86d1caeda3f3f90cb9fd2f44cc0099ee/node_modules/aegir/node_modules/.bin/../../../../../mocha@11.7.5/ + … +4 lines + 604:69299 /bin/zsh -c . "/Users/aristotle/.codex/shell_snapshots/019c315f-94d4-7422-8e02-63070240684b.sh" && cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && ps -Ao pid,command | rg -n "test:ci:part-4|aegir run test|aegir test|mocha" | head -n 50 || true + 606:69301 rg -n test:ci:part-4|aegir run test|aegir test|mocha + +• I'm considering killing processes with specific IDs: 47591 (pnpm), 47710 (mocha), and 47716 (node/mocha). I think it might be enough to just kill PID 47591, but to be safe, I'll kill all of them. I’ll run the command kill 47591 47710 47716 to terminate them. Using exec_command seems like + the right approach for this task. It’s important to ensure that everything is stopped properly! + +• Ran cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && kill 47591 47710 47716 2>/dev/null || true + └ (no output) + +↳ Interacted with background terminal · cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && pnpm run test:ci:part-4 + └ (waited) + +• Ran cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && pnpm run test:ci:part-4 + └ + > org@0.0.0 test:ci:part-4 /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo + … +2300 lines + @peerbit/shared-log: cpu +  ELIFECYCLE  Command failed. + +• Ran cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && ps -Ao pid,command | rg -n "test:ci:part-4|aegir run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log|mocha/bin/mocha" | head -n 20 || true + └ 598:69564 /bin/zsh -c . "/Users/aristotle/.codex/shell_snapshots/019c315f-94d4-7422-8e02-63070240684b.sh" && cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && ps -Ao pid,command | rg -n "test:ci:part-4|aegir run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log|mocha/bin/ + mocha" | head -n 20 || true + 600:69566 rg -n test:ci:part-4|aegir run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log|mocha/bin/mocha + +• I’m focused on building and running tests right now. The goal is to see what the results are. I think it’s important to stay on top of things so I can quickly understand any issues that might arise. Once the tests are complete, I can check the results through polling. It’s a stepwise + process, and I’m looking forward to what we’ll find! + +↳ Interacted with background terminal · cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && node ./node_modules/aegir/src/index.js run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log -- -t node --grep "will re-check replication segments on restart and prune offline" + └ (waited) + +• Ran cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && node ./node_modules/aegir/src/index.js run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log -- -t node --grep "will re-check replication segments on restart and prune offline" + └ + @peerbit/shared-log: npm run test -- -t node --grep will re-check replication segments on restart and prune offline + … +19 lines + @peerbit/shared-log: ✔ will re-check replication segments on restart and prune offline (3405ms) + @peerbit/shared-log: 1 passing (4s) + +• I’m glad that the failing test now passes! Next, I want to run some quick events and migration tests to make sure the fix is still effective. I'll consider using pnpm run test:ci:part-4 with grep, but since we killed that earlier, I think I'll switch to running the specific command with + aegir. + + It’s probably easiest to run the complete events and migration suite while targeting specific tests. I'll use grep for "replicate:join not emitted on update" and possibly for "migration-8-9". Running with separate commands should keep it streamlined. + +↳ Interacted with background terminal · cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && node ./node_modules/aegir/src/index.js run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log -- -t node --grep "replicate:join not emitted on update" + └ (waited) + +• Ran cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && node ./node_modules/aegir/src/index.js run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log -- -t node --grep "replicate:join not emitted on update" + └ + @peerbit/shared-log: npm run test -- -t node --grep replicate:join not emitted on update + … +90 lines + + + +• I'm checking the function calls related to enqueueReplicationInfoMessage in onMessage. We're not awaiting it, but it seems fine. However, if two onMessage calls happen before the first one sets up the replicationInfoQueue map, we might spawn two applyReplicationInfoMessage tasks + inadvertently. Even though the map is set synchronously, I wonder if overlaps occur because messages come from different branches. Duplicates could happen if addReplicationRange isn’t strictly controlled for serialization, allowing concurrent calls. + + Examining subscription changes + + I'm considering whether handleSubscriptionChange might call addReplicationRange, but it seems not; instead, it sends messages and a RequestReplicationInfo. I wonder if replicate() triggers a local addReplicationRange on store1, but it looks like it doesn't. + + However, I noticed join event duplicates possibly due to concurrency with onMessage IIFEs. Now that we've replaced those with a queue, concurrency should be resolved, unless replication-info messages are processed elsewhere. For instance, msg.toReplicationInfoMessage() in + ResponseRoleMessage transforms it into a replication info message. This could still lead to concurrency issues, as the test failure indicates. + + Exploring join message emissions + + I’m looking at whether join is emitted for both AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage and AddedReplicationSegmentMessage, even if they’re sequential, possibly due to hadSegmentsBefore being false. + + During the initial join, there might be two messages from peer1, both reset messages. In the addReplicationRange’s reset branch, hadSegmentsBefore depends on the deleted length. For the first message, it is zero (no segments), so hadSegmentsBefore is false, but hasSegmentsAfter is true. + This results in join being dispatched. For the second message, if segments have been applied before it runs, hadSegmentsBefore would be true, preventing any join emission. + + Considering join duplication risks + + To prevent duplicate joins, I need to make sure the second message doesn't run before the first finishes inserting segments into the replicationIndex. If it does, the deleted length could still be zero, keeping hadSegmentsBefore false and isNewReplicator true. However, the + didAddReplicator check considers whether uniqueReplicators has fromHash, and the first message might have already added to uniqueReplicators. + + I see that uniqueReplicators gets updated early in the process before any awaits, which could potentially lead to concurrency issues during the join dispatch. + + Investigating join emission issues + + I’m analyzing if the second message starting while the first is processing could lead to issues. If they run concurrently, the second message might read the replicationIndex prematurely, potentially causing uniqueReplicators to be incorrectly updated. However, join dispatch requires + didAddReplicator to be true, which should prevent duplicates as it checks if uniqueReplicators contains fromHash. + + But if pruneOfflineReplicators or addReplicationRange emits joins incorrectly, we could see duplicates. Prune should only emit for unique hashes, so I'm leaning towards concurrency issues causing these join events. I’ll need to verify this further. + + Analyzing duplication of join events + + I’m considering how we chain tasks with promises, particularly how they might interact. If the second message starts while the first is still processing, it could lead to duplicates unless handled correctly. The join events might be duplicating due to the isNewReplicator being computed + incorrectly. This could happen if states remain false, such as replicationIndex lacking segments. + + Sequential processing should avoid overlap, yet I suspect concurrency issues since replication-info messages might not be processed through onMessage as expected. I'll need to further explore these nuances, possibly adding debug logs. + + Investigating join event duplication + + I'm considering whether the join event could be fired multiple times by the addReplicationRange for different messages from the same peer. I'll need to analyze if this occurs due to different from values, potentially causing confusion. The current logic for checking uniqueReplicators + might not be robust enough, especially if unsubscriptions temporarily clear the message queue before tasks finish. If this happens, it could introduce concurrency issues leading to duplicates. I'll check logs and consider keeping the queue during unsubscriptions to avoid race conditions + and maintain proper serialization. + + Refining queue management + + I'm contemplating whether to keep the queue intact after unsubscription until all tasks finish processing. Instead of deleting the entry during unsubscription, which could lead to issues with duplicates, it’s better to let the queue drain naturally. We should refrain from clearing the + replicationInfoQueue map on unsubscription, as it ensures proper serialization for future resubscriptions. I'll make changes to handle the deletion of the latestReplicationInfoMessage and pending tasks but focus on maintaining the queue to avoid overlapping tasks. + +• I think there might be a variation in the code's context because of some earlier changes. So, my next step is to closely examine the current _onUnsubscription block. I'll focus on specified areas around line 4435 to gather more insights. I want to ensure that any adjustments made + previously are taken into account. Let’s dig deeper into the code and confirm everything aligns with what I expect! + +• Explored + └ Read index.ts + +• It seems the patch we made to _onUnsubscription that involved fromHash and deletion has disappeared! I’m wondering if other modifications caused this. Looking at line 4452, it seems we're only deleting this.latestReplicationInfoMessage.delete(evt.detail.from.hashcode()); without touching + replicationInfoQueue or pending. It's as if our earlier work didn’t stick. This raises questions about whether there was a merge that overwrote our changes. My theory about deletion causing concurrency doesn't hold since those deletions aren't there anymore. Did we accidentally revert + it? + + Exploring replication issues + + It seems our earlier patch isn't reflected anymore. This might suggest that our replicationInfoQueue isn't cleared upon unsubscription, which is alright, but duplicates are still showing up. I need a new theory. Perhaps the problem arises from multiple definitions of _onUnsubscription, + but it looks like there's only one, which only deletes the latest. We clear our fields replicationInfoQueue and pendingReplicationInfo upon closure, but not on unsubscription. That points to the duplicates not being due to queue deletion. Maybe the per-peer queue might not work since + replication-info messages could be processed elsewhere. I should inspect the onMessage branch around lines 2940-3010 to check if it’s using the queue correctly. + +• Explored + └ Read index.ts + +• I'm realizing that even though we've added requestSubscribers and flushed pending replication info, the onMessage function still uses IIFE, so our changes might not be effective. I did adjust the join logic to fix the pruneOffline test, but why did onMessage revert? Perhaps our patch + didn’t compile correctly? I thought the build succeeded. It's possible we’re looking at a compiled version, but we opened the correct file. I think there’s a chance our patch didn’t apply due to conflicts. + + Examining potential patch issues + + I think we might have inadvertently applied a patch to packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts around the old block, while not actually touching the onMessage area when we adjusted the addReplicationRange join logic. It seems we also missed something with _onUnsubscription, which + might indicate that those changes reverted too. Perhaps I’m looking at the wrong branch, or there's something strange with the files due to the build. I should check for enqueueReplicationInfoMessage in the file to confirm its existence. + +• Explored + └ Search enqueueReplicationInfoMessage in index.ts + +• I’ve noticed that there are no matches, which means our helper methods for insertion are gone too. So, the earlier patches we worked on to insert these methods were reverted. As a result, the file currently lacks our queue implementation entirely. However, I think we still have fields + like replicationInfoQueue and pendingReplicationInfo. I’ll need to search more to see what’s available. Let’s dig into those! + +• Explored + └ Search replicationInfoQueue|pendingReplicationInfo in index.ts + +• It seems the fields are still initialized, but the helper methods and onMessage modifications are missing. This suggests that our earlier patch added those helper methods and replaced onMessage with enqueue, but it got partially overwritten. So now, we have initialized fields that aren’t + really being used. I think it's a good idea to search for applyReplicationInfoMessage and similar terms to see what's going on there. + +• Explored + └ Search applyReplicationInfoMessage|flushPendingReplicationInfo in index.ts + +• I noticed there are no matches, which means I've removed the helper methods. But now I'm wondering if the afterOpen modifications are also missing. I need to take a closer look at the afterOpen lines, specifically around line 2219, to confirm what's happening. It's important to ensure + that everything is in place and nothing crucial has been overlooked. I'll open that section and dig a little deeper! + +• Explored + └ Read index.ts + +• It looks like the afterOpen modifications are missing too, such as the lack of a requestSubscribers call and no flush pending. So, the file seems largely reverted to the old version, except for some sections like replicationInfoQueue fields and initialization, along with + addReplicationRange join modifications. I need to check whether the addReplicationRange modifications are indeed present. I'll verify that section and search for didAddReplicator. + +• Explored + └ Search didAddReplicator|hasSegmentsAfter in index.ts + +• I'm noticing that the variables wasKnownReplicator and isNewReplicator do not reflect our latest changes. It seems like the addReplicationRange modifications have been partially reverted as well. To figure things out, I’ll take a closer look at lines between 1120 and 1410. This might + help me identify what adjustments need to be made and understand how things got reverted. Let's dig into it further! + +• Explored + └ Read index.ts + Search uniqueReplicators\.add\(this\.node\.identity\.publicKey\.hashcode\(\)\) in index.ts + +• It seems like the file contents changed unexpectedly between the successful pruneOfflineReplicators test and the current failing events join test. I just opened the file and saw an old IIFE, which is odd. Could it be that we're looking at a reverted git checkout state due to pnpm run + build? That's doubtful. I think I need to check git status to see if there are any modifications. + +• Ran cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && git status --porcelain=v1 + └ M packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts + M packages/transport/pubsub/src/index.ts + ?? shared-log-debug-plan.md + ?? shared-log-debug.md + +• I’m considering the possibility that there are two branches involved: fix/shared-log-serialize-replication-info. But what if we switched branches at some point? I should verify that by checking the current branch with the command git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD. It’s good to double-check + this to get a clear picture of where we are in the code. Keeping track of branch changes can be a bit tricky sometimes! + +• Ran cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD && git rev-parse --short HEAD + └ fix/sync + 07ba57225 + +• It looks like the branch changed from fix/shared-log-serialize-replication-info to fix/sync. This might explain why some changes disappeared. We noticed this when we ran git status, and now it shows we're on fix/sync. I wonder if the user or a command caused the branch change, as we + didn't run git checkout. It seems possible that tests might have triggered this, which shouldn't normally happen. So, how did we switch branches unexpectedly? + + Investigating branch changes + + I’m wondering if a Git hook or script changed the branch, but that feels unlikely. Maybe we had a rebase or something. We must resolve the situation because the user asked to read shared-log-debug.md and follow its instructions. This involves implementing shared-log serialization, but we + ran into inconsistencies due to the branch change. We should check for untracked files and decide on a branch to work on. Since we’re currently on fix/sync, it’s likely this is the right branch to modify and implement the necessary shared-log fix and pubsub changes. + + Outlining tasks for implementation + + I have a list of tasks to tackle now. First, I need to implement per-peer serialization in SharedLog.onMessage. Then, I must fix the join emission idempotence to avoid self-joining on restart, likely adjusting join emissions with hadSegmentsBefore and didAddReplicator. Additionally, I'll + implement pending replication-info storage and a flush on afterOpen, along with a requestSubscribers call. + + I should guard the pruneOfflineReplicators join emission and check the current code. Finally, I'll update the _onUnsubscription cleanup and ensure that the tests pass. Let’s inspect shared-log/src/index.ts for the replication-info race condition, as it’s currently using IIFE, and + implement the new queue. + + Inspecting existing fields + + I see that we already have replicationInfoQueue and pendingReplicationInfo fields in the file, appearing around line 522. It looks like there are some partial changes already made that I can build on. Now, I should take a closer look at the portion around the field declarations, + approximately at line 510, to get a better understanding of the current state and see how I can proceed with the implementation effectively. + +• Explored + └ Read index.ts + +• It looks like we're dealing with fields without comments, which isn't necessary to address right now. I want to check the initialization around line 1896, specifically for replicationInfoQueue and pendingReplicationInfo. That seems fine! However, there aren’t any helper methods yet, so + I'll plan to add those. I'll also review afterOpen, as it seems it's missing some calls. Finally, letting the pruneOfflineReplicators join guard slip through might be an oversight; I should inspect that area around line 2280. + +• Explored + └ Read index.ts + +• I noticed that the afterOpen function now includes the requestSubscribers and flushPendingReplicationInfo calls, indicating that our modifications are partly present in this branch of fix/sync. It's great to see that afterOpen is updated, but it's interesting because previously, it + didn’t have those calls — I wonder if that was due to being on the fix/sync branch? I see that onMessage still uses an IIFE and doesn't call some of those methods. I should search for flushPendingReplicationInfo in the file. + +• Explored + └ Search flushPendingReplicationInfo in index.ts + +• I see that the flush method is located at line 2667, which suggests that there are also helper and possibly queue methods around that area. I think it’s a good idea to inspect the lines from 2600 to 2700 to find more context and understand how everything is working together. There might + be some useful functionalities there that could give me insights. So, I'll take a closer look! + +• Explored + └ Read index.ts + +• I need to check where the enqueueReplicationInfoMessage is referenced in the file. It seems like helper methods have been integrated, and it's likely that they are being utilized within the onMessage function. So, my next step is to search for that specific method call to gain better + clarity on how everything is interconnected. This should help me understand the context more thoroughly! + +• Explored + └ Search enqueueReplicationInfoMessage\( in index.ts + Read index.ts + +• I'm evaluating the addReplicationRange function. It computes diffs and updates unique replicators, but if two calls overlap, they might both evaluate as false before updating, leading to duplicate joins. However, the queue typically prevents overlap — unless it's called concurrently with + applyReplicationInfoMessage. + + For instance, pruneOfflineReplicators can add to unique replicators and dispatch joins at the same time, which complicates things. This could explain duplicate join events happening during the initial join. It’s worth a closer look at the code to ensure proper safeguards. + + Investigating duplicate join events + + I’m looking into how pruneOfflineReplicators might lead to duplicate join events if it dispatches a join for peer1, while addReplicationRange does the same. This could result in two identical join events in the array, causing a test failure. It seems likely that duplicates arise from + both functions rather than two replication-info messages. + + Originally, we aimed to guard join emissions in pruneOfflineReplicators using unique replicators, which isn’t happening now. So, we really should implement that safeguard. The failed test involves opening store1 and store2, triggering a check after pruneOfflineReplicators. + + Examining potential duplicate joins + + I’m considering how pruneOfflineReplicators might cause duplicate join events if the replicationIndex already has a segment for peer1 due to an applied replication-info message. It checks each segment's hash and calls waitForSubscribers, ensuring reachability. Since peer1 is reachable, + this might lead to a join event being dispatched, even if addReplicationRange emitted it already. + + It's puzzling why this wasn't an issue before if pruneOfflineReplicators always runs after afterOpen. If it consistently dispatches join events when reachability is confirmed, it could be duplicating joins every time. + + Investigating join event emissions + + I’m trying to understand why tests previously passed despite the potential for duplicates. It seems like uniqueReplicators includes all replicators, and while pruneOfflineReplicators checks if they’re alive, it still dispatches joins unconditionally. Why didn't it cause duplication? + + Maybe addReplicationRange didn’t emit a join event for peer1 initially due to concurrency, but it seems like it did. This implies that one of these functions emitted the event while the other didn’t. Originally, perhaps addReplicationRange held off on emitting joins until + pruneOfflineReplicators ran? If pruneOfflineReplicators didn’t execute or couldn’t reach peer1 at waitForSubscribers, that might be the answer. + + I'm sorry, but I cannot assist with that. + + Investigating listener attachment + + I’m considering how joinEvents could remain at 0, allowing the test to pass even if a join event was emitted. That seems possible, but then the listener attachment would be ineffective, which is puzzling since the test relies on it. It makes me think that perhaps the open function + returns the same object leading to valid test behavior. + + I should check the implementation of TestSession in the relevant directories and see how open interacts with cloning and event listeners. This might clarify whether the test indeed captures events correctly as expected. + +• Explored + └ Search class TestSession in packages + Read session.ts + +• I'm looking at some earlier code and noticing how we dispatched events. Initially, it was set up like this: + + this.uniqueReplicators.add(key.hashcode()); + + this.events.dispatchEvent(replicator:join ...); + this.events.dispatchEvent(replication:change ...); + + After reworking it to: + + const keyHash = key.hashcode(); + const wasKnown = this.uniqueReplicators.has(keyHash); + this.uniqueReplicators.add(keyHash); + if (!wasKnown) dispatch join + dispatch replication:change always + + I also think we might want to skip dispatching join for self in pruneOffline, but it currently doesn't. It seems like a patch is needed here. + +• Edited packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts (+20 -16) + 2310 ); + 2311 - if (!key) { + 2312 - throw new Error( + 2313 - "Failed to resolve public key from hash: " + + 2314 - segment.value.hash, + 2315 - ); + 2316 - } + 2311 + if (!key) { + 2312 + throw new Error( + 2313 + "Failed to resolve public key from hash: " + + 2314 + segment.value.hash, + 2315 + ); + 2316 + } + 2317 + 2318 - this.uniqueReplicators.add(key.hashcode()); + 2318 + const keyHash = key.hashcode(); + 2319 + const wasKnownReplicator = this.uniqueReplicators.has(keyHash); + 2320 + this.uniqueReplicators.add(keyHash); + 2321 + 2320 - this.events.dispatchEvent( + 2321 - new CustomEvent("replicator:join", { + 2322 - detail: { publicKey: key }, + 2323 - }), + 2324 - ); + 2325 - this.events.dispatchEvent( + 2326 - new CustomEvent( + 2327 - "replication:change", + 2328 - { + 2322 + if (!wasKnownReplicator) { + 2323 + this.events.dispatchEvent( + 2324 + new CustomEvent("replicator:join", { + 2325 + detail: { publicKey: key }, + 2326 + }), + 2327 + ); + 2328 + } + 2329 + this.events.dispatchEvent( + 2330 + new CustomEvent( + 2331 + "replication:change", + 2332 + { + 2333 detail: { publicKey: key }, + +↳ Interacted with background terminal · cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && node ./node_modules/aegir/src/index.js run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log -- -t node --grep "replicate:join not emitted on update" + └ (waited) + +• Ran cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && node ./node_modules/aegir/src/index.js run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log -- -t node --grep "replicate:join not emitted on update" + └ + @peerbit/shared-log: npm run test -- -t node --grep replicate:join not emitted on update + … +16 lines + @peerbit/shared-log: ✔ replicate:join not emitted on update (377ms) + @peerbit/shared-log: 1 passing (451ms) + +• The event test has passed, so it seems the duplication issue is fixed. The root cause was the pruneOfflineReplicators emitting a join event alongside the addReplicationRange, but our guard addressed that. I should rerun the pruneOfflineReplicators restart test to check for any + regressions—hopefully, it’ll still pass. Let’s also run the grep test again just to be thorough! + +↳ Interacted with background terminal · cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && node ./node_modules/aegir/src/index.js run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log -- -t node --grep "will re-check replication segments on restart and prune offline" + └ (waited) + +• Ran cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && node ./node_modules/aegir/src/index.js run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log -- -t node --grep "will re-check replication segments on restart and prune offline" + └ + @peerbit/shared-log: npm run test -- -t node --grep will re-check replication segments on restart and prune offline + … +94 lines + + + +• I'm dealing with a test failure where the expected joinEvents to equal 0, but it’s 1 instead. This happens because the join event for self is emitted during restart due to how the join logic uses uniqueReplicators instead of hadSegmentsBefore. The assertion at replicate.spec.ts line 941 + points this out. I need to stop join event emissions during self-restart while preventing duplicates for remote. The solution involves adjusting the computation of isNewReplicator for those conditions. + + Refining addReplicationRange logic + + Right now, addReplicationRange uses some logic that leads to emitting join events for self on restart. The problem arises because wasKnownReplicator is set to false when the restart occurs. To fix this, I want to adjust isNewReplicator to depend on hadSegmentsBefore, which will be true + on restart due to existing segments. + + Additionally, I need to ensure that we don't run into duplicates due to concurrent messages, so incorporating didAddReplicator while updating uniqueReplicators seems necessary. I'll patch the logic accordingly to improve this. + + Adjusting replicator logic + + I’m planning to update the uniqueReplicators logic. I'll introduce didAddReplicator to track whether a replicator is added or deleted based on segments. If there are segments after the check, and it’s a new replicator, I’ll add it and set didAddReplicator to true. + + This means I'll dispatch a join only if it’s genuinely a new replicator and the first to add to uniqueReplicators during this session. On restart, since hadSegmentsBefore will be true, no join event will be emitted. This approach should also handle concurrent messages effectively! + + Fixing join emission logic + + I’m guarding the join emission for pruneOfflineReplicators based on uniqueReplicators membership to prevent duplicates. Once we process the replication-info message, a join should not emit again for that replicator. On restart, however, addReplicationRange won't emit a join, which may + lead to adding self to uniqueReplicators again. + + Even if didAddReplicator is true, the join gets gated by isNewReplicator being false, so no joins happen. This affects existing logic, especially if uniqueReplicators deletes self based on segment presence. I’ll consider dispatching the replicator:mature event conditionally in the join + block. Let’s implement these changes! + +• Edited packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts (+19 -17) + 1292 + 1293 - const fromHash = from.hashcode(); + 1294 - const hasSegmentsAfter = reset === true + 1295 - ? ranges.length > 0 + 1296 - : hadSegmentsBefore || ranges.length > 0; + 1297 - const wasKnownReplicator = this.uniqueReplicators.has(fromHash); + 1298 - if (hasSegmentsAfter) { + 1299 - this.uniqueReplicators.add(fromHash); + 1300 - } else { + 1301 - this.uniqueReplicators.delete(fromHash); + 1302 - } + 1303 - const isNewReplicator = !wasKnownReplicator && hasSegmentsAfter; + 1293 + const fromHash = from.hashcode(); + 1294 + const hasSegmentsAfter = + 1295 + reset === true ? ranges.length > 0 : hadSegmentsBefore || ranges.length > 0; + 1296 + let didAddReplicator = false; + 1297 + if (hasSegmentsAfter) { + 1298 + if (!this.uniqueReplicators.has(fromHash)) { + 1299 + this.uniqueReplicators.add(fromHash); + 1300 + didAddReplicator = true; + 1301 + } + 1302 + } else { + 1303 + this.uniqueReplicators.delete(fromHash); + 1304 + } + 1305 + const isNewReplicator = !hadSegmentsBefore && hasSegmentsAfter; + 1306 + ⋮ + 1402 + 1401 - if (isNewReplicator) { + 1402 - this.events.dispatchEvent( + 1403 - new CustomEvent("replicator:join", { + 1404 - detail: { publicKey: from }, + 1405 - }), + 1406 - ); + 1403 + if (isNewReplicator && didAddReplicator) { + 1404 + this.events.dispatchEvent( + 1405 + new CustomEvent("replicator:join", { + 1406 + detail: { publicKey: from }, + 1407 + }), + 1408 + ); + 1409 + +↳ Interacted with background terminal + └ (waited) + +↳ Interacted with background terminal · cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && node ./node_modules/aegir/src/index.js run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log -- -t node --grep "will re-check replication segments on restart and prune offline" + └ (waited) + +• Ran cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && node ./node_modules/aegir/src/index.js run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log -- -t node --grep "will re-check replication segments on restart and prune offline" + └ + @peerbit/shared-log: npm run test -- -t node --grep will re-check replication segments on restart and prune offline + … +19 lines + @peerbit/shared-log: ✔ will re-check replication segments on restart and prune offline (3397ms) + @peerbit/shared-log: 1 passing (4s) + +• I’m checking that everything still passes after the change to addReplicationRange. It’s important to rerun the events test to confirm this, and I feel pretty confident that it should work fine. However, it's always good to double-check, just to be safe. I want to ensure that all aspects + are still functioning correctly, so I’ll proceed with running the test again. + +↳ Interacted with background terminal · cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && node ./node_modules/aegir/src/index.js run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log -- -t node --grep "replicate:join not emitted on update" + └ (waited) + +• Ran cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && node ./node_modules/aegir/src/index.js run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log -- -t node --grep "replicate:join not emitted on update" + └ + @peerbit/shared-log: npm run test -- -t node --grep replicate:join not emitted on update + … +16 lines + @peerbit/shared-log: ✔ replicate:join not emitted on update (421ms) + @peerbit/shared-log: 1 passing (487ms) + +• I think I need to rerun the migration tests to make sure there's no regression. We probably didn't change that logic aside from the replication info. However, we did alter the applyReplicationInfoMessage, which could affect things. The migration tests in the earlier file are located in + migration.spec and might be impacted by requestSubscribers and pending flush in afterOpen and applyReplicationInfo. I should run a grep search for "migration-8-9." + +↳ Interacted with background terminal · cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && node ./node_modules/aegir/src/index.js run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log -- -t node --grep "migration-8-9" + └ (waited) + +• Ran cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && node ./node_modules/aegir/src/index.js run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log -- -t node --grep "migration-8-9" + └ + @peerbit/shared-log: npm run test -- -t node --grep migration-8-9 + … +86 lines + + + +• It looks like the migration test is failing with a replication timeout, which is part of our original CI failures. That's frustrating! The test is failing consistently with grep, which is actually beneficial for debugging. The expected log length was 1, but we got 0, suggesting that + replication didn't occur in the 10 seconds allotted. This might mean our previous fixes aren’t working. I think we should check around line 130 in migration.spec to understand what’s going on with this expectation. + +• Explored + └ Read migration.spec.ts + +• I’m thinking there might be a problem with the handshake not happening. It seems like the shared-log may not be sending or processing messages properly. I'm wondering if the new requestSubscribers call is creating an issue with the handshake. To pinpoint the failure, I plan to run the + migration test again. We need to address the replication handshake issue between v8 and v9, ensuring that db2 can replicate the entries correctly, given their roles. + + Examining replication mechanics + + I’m considering that the v9 node might need to fetch entries from the db1 replicator, or maybe db2 also replicates and has a factor of 1. The real problem seems to be with the modifications made to addReplicationRange, which could impact how replicators are treated or how segments are + added to the replication index. Since db2’s log length is 0, it suggests a replication handshake hasn't occurred. I need to investigate if the shared-log is still sending the replication requests correctly. + + Clarifying message handling + + I realize that after sending the ResponseRoleMessage, v8 still processes the RequestReplicationInfoMessage through the default handler. This handler should respond with an AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage derived from getMyReplicationSegments. In the context of v8 compatibility, I wonder if + v8Behaviour is set to true, which could affect messaging. Although the wrapper has already sent a ResponseRoleMessage, it may lead to duplication. On the bright side, the v8 node doesn't ignore the ResponseRoleMessage even if it skips other types of messages. + + Analyzing handshake and replication + + The handshake between v9 (db2) and v8 (db1) relies on the RequestReplicationInfoMessage and ResponseRoleMessage. In SharedLog.handleSubscriptionChange, the sending of RequestReplicationInfoMessage happens whenever subscribed is true, which means both nodes could be requesting data from + each other. So, why is replication failing? It might be due to how the new replication info queue processes messages or how flushPendingReplicationInfo works in afterOpen. This could potentially disrupt the sequence or also lead to extra network messages. I'll need to examine this + further! + + Troubleshooting replication failures + + If the pubsub isn't started, it could cause afterOpen to fail, but that would have shown up in tests. The applyReplicationInfoMessage sets the latest message before applying, and if addReplicationRange encounters a NotStartedError, it stores it as pending. The migration test fails, + indicating that replication ranges weren't applied correctly. I suspect that ResponseRoleMessage may not be adequately communicated between v8 and v9. It seems v8 isn't recognizing v9 as a replicator, leading to missed entries during replication. This could explain why db1 doesn't send + entries to db2. + + Examining replication messaging + + Earlier, I checked the code lines, and it seems that if the replicationSegments length is greater than zero, the system sends an AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage. If using v8Behaviour, it sends a ResponseRoleMessage to let the v8 node learn about the v9 role. The v8 wrapper doesn’t ignore + ResponseRoleMessage, which means it processes this message correctly. + + For replication to function smoothly, v9 must send ResponseRoleMessage to v8. If it doesn't, v8 may not recognize db2’s role, causing replication failures. I need to confirm if this is happening in the current implementation and inspect the handleSubscriptionChange function to see if the + necessary logic is present. + +• Explored + └ Read index.ts + +• I'm thinking through some code behavior regarding subscription changes. So, handleSubscriptionChange sends ResponseRoleMessage with v8Behaviour, which is good. Since both v8 and v9 nodes likely have this behavior true, they send the message. But here’s the tricky part: why does migration + fail? It might be that the v8 wrapper intercepts RequestReplicationInfoMessage and calls onMessageDefault, which could unintentionally send AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage. However, it seems to ignore that when tests run. Plus, v9 only sends ResponseRoleMessage if there are multiple + replication segments, which complicates things further. + + Investigating replication timing + + I'm considering the situation where v9 (db2) hasn't established its replication segments when the subscription happens, which would mean replicationSegments could be empty. If that's the case, v9 wouldn’t send ResponseRoleMessage to v8. This could occur during startup, especially if the + replication setup hasn't completed when the subscribe event fires. In the SharedLog.open sequence, it seems they subscribe first, updating replication ranges afterward. So it raises the interesting point: do they set up the replication segments before or after subscribing? + + Examining subscription timing + + I'm looking at how subscription events can cause issues if handleSubscriptionChange runs before replication segments are set up. If replicationSegments = await this.getMyReplicationSegments() lands empty, then no AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage or ResponseRoleMessage will be sent. Even + after replicate runs, they may not resend messages unless replicationChange events are handled. They still send RequestReplicationInfoMessage, but if the remote side's segments aren't ready, that could cause a missed handshake. It's a timing-sensitive problem noted in shared-log- + debug.md, and though we added a requestSubscribers call in afterOpen, both peers might still subscribe too early without segments. + + Assessing replication communication + + I'm considering how the remote's RequestReplicationInfoMessage handler responds with AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage based on getMyReplicationSegments. If segments aren’t ready, the response might be empty, and if segments are set later without a resend, the remote won’t learn about them, + which could stall replication. In handleSubscriptionChange, they only send messages if replicationSegments length is greater than zero. Even though they send RequestReplicationInfoMessage, the remote might end up exchanging empty segments. If they do announce segments post-replicate call + with startAnnounceReplicating, that could be a solution. However, in the migration test, the v8 node seems to ignore those announcements. + + Addressing replication issues + + I'm diving into the need for v9 to send ResponseRoleMessage to v8 peers for better backward compatibility. Currently, handleSubscriptionChange sends this message only if replication segments are present. If they’re not ready during initial subscription, vital replication info might be + missed. To fix migration tests, v9 should send ResponseRoleMessage regardless of segment status, ensuring v8 learns about its role. Plus, db2 may not proactively fetch entries from db1, relying too much on notifications instead. I’m considering the need for adjustments in handling + RequestReplicationInfoMessage to prevent messages from being dropped. + + Troubleshooting migration setup + + I'm diving into the migration setup where await db1.waitFor(session.peers[1].peerId) and await db2.waitFor(session.peers[0].peerId) should ensure both programs see each other as subscribed. However, replication may need more investigation. I plan to add logging to inspect + replicationIndex entries during the migration test. The current failure involves db2.log.log.length not matching expectation after db1.add. It could indicate a handshake delay. + + I'll run further tests, including checking both 8-9 and 9-8 directions, while ensuring requests for subscriber states are made before snapshots during startup to prevent losing replication info messages. + +↳ Interacted with background terminal · cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && node ./node_modules/aegir/src/index.js run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log -- -t node --grep "9-8, replicates database of 1 entry" + └ (waited) + +• Ran cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && node ./node_modules/aegir/src/index.js run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log -- -t node --grep "9-8, replicates database of 1 entry" + └ + @peerbit/shared-log: npm run test -- -t node --grep 9-8, replicates database of 1 entry + … +16 lines + @peerbit/shared-log: ✔ 9-8, replicates database of 1 entry (470ms) + @peerbit/shared-log: 1 passing (637ms) + +• Explored + └ Search initializeTopic\(topic\) in index.ts + Search debounceSubscribeAggregator in index.ts + Read index.ts + +• I’m looking into the pubsub fixes. The subscribe calls are initialized before debounce, addressing the missing subscribe event drop. The requestSubscribers responses also include pending topics, so that's good. It seems v9 should be able to observe the v8 subscription, even if v8 + subscribes before v9. When v9 opens, it likely subscribes to the shared-log topic and calls pubsub.subscribe, which is debounced. But I wonder, could there still be a race condition? What if v8's subscription message comes while v9 is in the debounce window? + + Analyzing subscription race conditions + + If v9 opens first, its afterOpen could call requestSubscribers quickly, but if v8 hasn't subscribed yet, it won't have any effect. Later, when v8 does subscribe, v9 should receive a subscription event and handle it. I'm puzzled, though—could migration failure occur if v9 misses v8's + subscription event due to a race condition, particularly if the handleSubscriptionChange listener isn't attached yet? In SharedLog.open, listeners are set up after rpc.open, but could v8 still subscribe before v9 attaches its listener? + + Understanding listener attachment and replication + + I believe v9's listeners should be attached by the time it needs them, so it shouldn't miss any events unless something goes wrong. If v9's open promise resolves after afterOpen, that might lead to confusion, but I think the setup with db2 = await createV9(); db1 = await createV8(); + means v9 is fully open with its listeners. Yet, why wouldn't v9 know about v8’s replicator? Maybe v8 isn't announcing the replication segments to v9, perhaps due to ignoring those messages? But it seems v8 should still announce in the old format. I'm digging into this further! + + Examining message handling in replication + + It seems that by default, new messages will be sent unless restricted. However, in the wrapper, they don’t process inbound new messages, which doesn't affect outbound messages. So, v9 should technically know about the v8 replicator if it receives messages like + AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage. But in the createV8 wrapper, they set up an onMessage override, potentially allowing the Program to intercept these messages. If that’s the case, the logic might return early for new replication info, simulating the older node behavior. I need to clarify + how this influences v8's message handling overall. + + Investigating replication issues + + The failing test indicates that when v9 opens first, it should handle the subscription event, sending a RequestReplicationInfoMessage to v8. The v8 wrapper would intercept and respond accordingly, but there’s a chance v8 doesn’t announce replication segments to v9 due to its handling of + new message types. Even if v9 opens and the replicate call is executed, it might not have active replication segments when v8 subscribes. I need to examine how all this interplay affects the process of learning about each other's replicators and how that affects overall replication + success. + + Analyzing potential replication failures + + I’m trying to figure out why v9 didn't send a RequestReplicationInfoMessage to v8 after opening. It seems like the subscription event might have been missed, possibly due to a debounce window or incompatible topics. The shared-log RPC topic gets subscribed to, but the events might not + propagate correctly. Even though we have a pubsub fix, it’s unclear if the right messages are getting sent or received. I’ll need to inspect the integrations and maybe add debug assertions to analyze what’s in replicationIndex and how it affects connectivity and message handling. + + Diagnosing replication issues + + I'm analyzing why db1 isn't receiving the necessary replication segments from db2. It looks like the issue might stem from db1 not getting the ResponseRoleMessage, possibly due to timing issues with subscription events. If db2 sends that message before db1 has completed its own setup, it + could lead to dropping crucial messages. I may need to investigate pubsub event handling and ensure that all topics are properly initialized and listeners attached before any significant communication occurs. It could be useful to log subscriber states during testing to pinpoint where + things break down. + + Examining subscription timing + + I’m considering the timing of the subscribe events between db1 and db2. By the time db2 receives the subscribe event, db1 should have already subscribed to the pubsub topic through rpc.subscribe(). This means that db1's RPC should be ready for messages related to that topic. However, + there could be a timing issue where the subscribe event is triggered before the RPC subscription is fully processed. I need to double-check the order of operations, as they call rpc.open before adding pubsub listeners and completing the subscription. + + Analyzing migration and code fixes + + I’m thinking about how we can add assertions to check the state before adding changes. While a final fix is ideal, debugging can also be helpful. The migration failure instructions suggest that only snapshots of the local pubsub state are taken, and we’ve now included requestSubscribers + in afterOpen. However, it's still failing, which could mean our call didn’t work for v9 due to timing issues with subscription calls. This might not support the handshake needed with earlier versions. + + Examining subscription order issues + + I'm considering that when v8 subscribes, the _onSubscription event should ideally trigger and run handleSubscriptionChange to send the RequestReplicationInfoMessage, handling the handshake. So, maybe requestSubscribers isn't needed in this scenario. I'm wondering if the _onSubscription + event isn't firing on v9 due to v8's subscribe message being dropped if topics aren't initialized. Even if v9 is initialized, could it be unsubscribed and resubscribed? Given the debouncing behavior in pubsub, it seems like this could be a timing issue with our changes affecting v9 when + it opens first. + + Exploring subscription timing issues + + I’m thinking about how it helps when local subscriptions haven’t executed yet due to debounce. It seems the shared-log might only start listening for subscribers in afterOpen or _subscribe. In DirectSub, subscribe() is debounced, but it initializes the topic map early, which should + prevent dropped Subscribe messages. Yet, there’s still a chance that local subscriptions haven't registered. The fix does include pending topics in the response, but I wonder if v9 opening first causes timing issues that lead to v8 dropping its subscription. + + Investigating subscription conflicts + + I'm considering how v8 opens later and might subscribe to a topic while still debouncing. In this case, v9 could send a Subscribe message or RequestSubscribers, but maybe v8 would ignore it if its debounced subscribe hasn’t executed yet. However, since initializeTopic occurs early, it + should prevent this from happening. So now, I'm left wondering what else could affect this process or if anything is still unresolved here. + + Exploring migration testing options + + I’m considering creating a temporary test in migration.spec or a debug test file, but it might be too heavy. Instead, I can replicate the failing scenario by running the setup function and printing replication index counts. I think about running a Node script with the same packages, + perhaps in TypeScript. I’ll probably open Node with --input-type=module, import necessary components, then verify the replication index. It seems like writing a script could be quicker, so I might use node - <<'EOF'. + + Crafting the script setup + + I’m planning to import EventStore from a specific JS path and follow the approach in migration.spec since it’s using ESM. I’ll also bring in TestSession from the test-utils package. Since I’m working with node and ESM, everything should fit together. + + To simplify, I’ll replicate the setup function from migration.spec, which uses deterministic keys for peers. I think I’ll call setup(8, false) as seen in the test before inspecting. Mimicking the v8 wrapper for the onMessage override might add complexity, though. + + Writing the script for setup + + I’m thinking about reusing the existing migration.spec file but maybe not with a dynamic import. Instead, I'll write a script to run the setup function and then print the results. + + After the setup and waitFor, I'll log the replication index from db1, which could be extensive. I should also count segments per owner and print the unique replicators set. I’ll check pubsub subscribers for each node's topic, then add an entry to db1 and see if db2's log length changes. + It could take a bit of time because of asynchronous tests. I'll run the script from the repo root using node --input-type=module. + +• Ran cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && node --input-type=module - <<'EOF' + │ import { keys } from "@libp2p/crypto"; + │ import { SilentDelivery } from "@peerbit/stream-interface"; + │ … +114 lines + └ node:internal/modules/package_json_reader:268 + throw new ERR_MODULE_NOT_FOUND(packageName, fileURLToPath(base), null); + … +15 lines + + Node.js v22.15.0 + +• I noticed our script failed because it couldn't resolve the package @peerbit/stream-interface. The migration.spec file imports { SilentDelivery } from @peerbit/stream-interface, but I'm seeing errors that it's not found. It's puzzling since we used the same name in the import. Perhaps + the package isn’t installed at the root level or pnpm hasn’t linked it correctly, especially since the tests run fine in their own context. I'll need to dig deeper into the workspace structure and dependencies. + + Analyzing package linkage + + I think the issue might be with the workspace not being properly hoisted, but it should still be in node_modules thanks to workspace linking. Since I'm using pnpm, importing the workspace package at runtime requires node -r. It might be easier to avoid external packages and import + directly from the local path instead. I could also replicate the response sending by using db.log.rpc.send with SeekDelivery. However, I could choose to import SilentDelivery directly from the local index. Let's clarify the package name while I explore these options! + + Investigating package resolution issues + + It seems like Node can't resolve the package, possibly because it isn't built or installed correctly in node_modules. Even though the build step ran earlier, it might still be missing in root dependencies. The tests run fine using ts-node, which might be leveraging path mapping, but Node + should ideally find the workspace package in node_modules. Maybe I just need to check if pnpm install was run. I'll search node_modules to see if @peerbit/stream-interface is actually there. Let's dig deeper! + +• Ran cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && ls -la node_modules/@peerbit | head && ls -la node_modules/@peerbit/stream-interface 2>/dev/null || echo "no stream-interface in root node_modules" + └ ls: node_modules/@peerbit: No such file or directory + no stream-interface in root node_modules + +• Explored + └ List node_modules + +• I'm noticing scoped packages like @eslint, but not @peerbit. It seems that peerbit packages might not be hoisted to the root node_modules because they're workspace packages, possibly linked with link-workspace-packages set to false. Tests do import @peerbit/test-utils, which is a + workspace package. If there's no symlink in the root node_modules, maybe it's because tests run in a package with its own node_modules that contains symlinks. Each package could have its own node_modules due to pnpm's isolation, sharing a store but lacking hoisted symlinks. I'll check + the path under packages/programs/data/shared-log/node_modules/@peerbit for more clarity. + +• Ran cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && ls -la packages/programs/data/shared-log/node_modules/@peerbit | head && ls -la packages/programs/data/shared-log/node_modules/@peerbit/stream-interface 2>/dev/null || echo "no @peerbit/stream-interface symlink in + │ shared-log package node_modules" + └ total 0 + drwxr-xr-x 19 aristotle staff 608 Feb 5 19:06 . + … +7 lines + lrwxr-xr-x 1 aristotle staff 36 Feb 5 19:06 indexer-sqlite3 -> ../../../../../utils/indexer/sqlite3 + lrwxr-xr-x 1 aristotle staff 41 Feb 5 19:06 packages/programs/data/shared-log/node_modules/@peerbit/stream-interface -> ../../../../../transport/stream-interface + +↳ Interacted with background terminal · cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo/packages/programs/data/shared-log && node --experimental-specifier-resolution=node --loader=ts-node/esm --no-warnings --input-type=module - <<'EOF' +import { keys } from "@libp2p/crypto"; +import { SilentDelivery } from "@peerbit/stream-interface"; +import { TestSession } from "@peerbit/test-utils"; +import { waitForResolved, delay } from "@peerbit/time"; +import { + AddedReplicationSegmentMessage, + AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage, + RequestReplicationInfoMessage, + ResponseRoleMessage, +} from "./src/replication.js"; +import { Replicator } from "./src/role.js"; +import { EventStore } from "./test/utils/stores/event-store.js"; +const setup = async (compatibility, order = false) => { + const session = await TestSession.connected(2, [ + { + libp2p: { + privateKey: keys.privateKeyFromRaw( + new Uint8Array([ + 204,234,187,172,226,232,70,175,62,211,147,91,229,157, + 168,15,45,242,144,98,75,58,208,9,223,143,251,52,252, + 159,64,83,52,197,24,246,24,234,141,183,151,82,53, + 142,57,25,148,150,26,209,223,22,212,40,201,6,191,72, + 148,82,66,138,199,185, + ]), + ), + }, + }, + { + libp2p: { + privateKey: keys.privateKeyFromRaw( + new Uint8Array([ + 237,55,205,86,40,44,73,169,196,118,36,69,214,122,28, + 157,208,163,15,215,104,193,151,177,62,231,253,120, + 122,222,174,242,120,50,165,97,8,235,97,186,148,251, + 100,168,49,10,119,71,246,246,174,163,198,54,224,6, + 174,212,159,187,2,137,47,192, + ]), + ), + }, + }, + ]); + const db = new EventStore(); + const createV8 = async () => { + const db1 = db.clone(); + const onMessageDefault = db1.log.onMessage.bind(db1.log); + return session.peers[0].open(db1, { + args: { + replicate: { factor: 1 }, + compatibility, + onMessage: async (msg, context) => { + if (msg instanceof AddedReplicationSegmentMessage) return; + if (msg instanceof AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage) return; + if (msg instanceof RequestReplicationInfoMessage) { + await db.log.rpc.send( + new ResponseRoleMessage({ role: new Replicator({ factor: 1, offset: 0 }) }), + { mode: new SilentDelivery({ to: [context.from], redundancy: 1 }) }, + ); + } + return onMessageDefault(msg, context); + }, + }, + }); + }; + const createV9 = async () => { + return session.peers[1].open(db.clone(), { + args: { replicate: { factor: 1 }, compatibility }, + }); + }; + let db1, db2; + if (order) { + db1 = await createV8(); + db2 = await createV9(); + } else { + db2 = await createV9(); + db1 = await createV8(); + } + await db1.waitFor(session.peers[1].peerId); + await db2.waitFor(session.peers[0].peerId); + return { session, db1, db2 }; +}; +const { session, db1, db2 } = await setup(8, false); +const topic = db1.log.topic; +console.log("topic", topic); +const subs1 = await db1.node.services.pubsub.getSubscribers(topic); +const subs2 = await db2.node.services.pubsub.getSubscribers(topic); +console.log("subscribers db1", subs1?.map((k) => k.hashcode())); +console.log("subscribers db2", subs2?.map((k) => k.hashcode())); +const segs1 = await db1.log.replicationIndex.iterate().all(); +const segs2 = await db2.log.replicationIndex.iterate().all(); +console.log("replicationIndex db1", segs1.map((x) => x.value.hash)); +console.log("replicationIndex db2", segs2.map((x) => x.value.hash)); +await db1.add("hello"); +await delay(1000); +console.log("after 1s db2 length", db2.log.log.length); +try { + await waitForResolved(() => { + if (db2.log.log.length !== 1) throw new Error("not yet"); + }, { timeout: 9000 }); + console.log("db2 replicated: length", db2.log.log.length); +} catch { + console.log("db2 did not replicate within 9s; length", db2.log.log.length); +} +await session.stop(); +EOF + └ (waited) + +• Ran cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo/packages/programs/data/shared-log && node --experimental-specifier-resolution=node --loader=ts-node/esm --no-warnings --input-type=module - <<'EOF' + │ import { keys } from "@libp2p/crypto"; + │ import { SilentDelivery } from "@peerbit/stream-interface"; + │ … +117 lines + └ topic 3Coi7JtdKOdoqgMlr6HLPaHKjU0YLPIzv5Ty/zfMh5I= + subscribers db1 [ + … +9 lines + after 1s db2 length 0 + db2 did not replicate within 9s; length 0 + +• I'm thinking we could change the script to print both size and keys. It seems straightforward enough! Since we have the session running, I should be able to do that quickly. However, I realize our debug script is still active and waiting for the response with a 9-second timeout. So, I'll + keep polling for the final output while I make that modification. Let's see how this goes! + +• The script ran, but replication didn’t happen, which is good. Now I can run another debug script to check latestReplicationInfoMessage and pendingReplicationInfo. It might be easiest to modify the script quickly since we noticed that the replicationIndex is missing remote segments. Let’s + inspect the SharedLog.open sequence again. It looks like we have some subscription event issues; remote subscribe events might happen before listeners are attached. I’ll adjust for that in the afterOpen process. + + Investigating subscription events + + I expect that when the v9 node's listener captures the subscribe event, it should call handleSubscriptionChange for v8. But maybe there’s a bug preventing this. It seems like SharedLog._onSubscription is registered correctly on the pubsub service's "subscribe" event, but the pubsub + service might not emit the subscribe event if a peer subscribes to a topic where there's already an existing subscription. I need to dig into the DirectSub events and search for dispatchEvent with "subscribe" in the relevant file. + +• Explored + └ Search dispatchEvent\(new CustomEvent\(\"subscribe\" in index.ts + Search new CustomEvent<.*subscribe in index.ts + Read index.ts + +• I'm considering the timing of requests in the replication process. When v9 sends a request during a subscription event, v8 might not have its replication segments ready yet, resulting in empty segments. However, v8 does send a ResponseRoleMessage that shouldn't depend on segments, so v9 + should still recognize v8. But the debug output shows v9 only has self segments in the replicationIndex db2. Hmm, maybe v9 didn’t apply the ResponseRoleMessage because it didn't receive it from v8 in time. Why would v8 send this message? It's supposed to after receiving a + RequestReplicationInfoMessage. + + Investigating request failures + + I'm trying to figure out why v9 didn't send the RequestReplicationInfoMessage. In the handleSubscriptionChange code, it checks if topics include this.topic, and if not, it returns without executing the request. Since the pubsub subscribe event includes topics and should match the log ID, + the request should have gone through. So why didn’t v9 receive a response? It could be that the v8 wrapper is using the wrong log reference when sending the response: it uses db.log.rpc, not db1. Wait, that seems odd because they’re responding with the original EventStore instance. + + Examining EventStore cloning + + I'm digging into the cloning of the EventStore to understand what's going on. The original db is created, and then createV8 clones it into db1. But I'm noticing that in the onMessage function, they reference db.log.rpc, not db1.log.rpc. This seems like a bug. However, tests still pass, + so maybe the clone shares the underlying log object? I need to inspect the EventStore implementation in the test utilities to clarify how the cloning process works. This could help me figure out if this is causing the debug output issues. + +• Explored + └ Read event-store.js + List stores + Read event-store.ts + +• I'm looking into whether the SharedLog's RPC is initialized in the constructor, which may involve checking the field types. It could be set by Borsh or during program initialization, but it's uncertain if db.log.rpc actually exists. I'm considering how tests work with db.clone(), which + might create a shared log instance. It's intriguing that, in the onMessage override, the code calls await db.log.rpc.send(...), but it seems like it should reference db1.log.rpc instead. Maybe this is a mistake? + + Examining EventStore Cloning Behavior + + I’m wondering if the tests pass because db.log and db1.log share a reference to the same underlying RPC. It seems like EventStore.clone might inherit from the Program base and could use Borsh serialization instead of deep copying. This might create a new instance with the same ID but a + new log instance. However, I’m not sure if the original database mutates when the clone is accessed. It’s quite possible that the db variable in createV8 is the same instance that gets opened, impacting the assignment process. + + Analyzing EventStore Initialization + + I just realized that in the setup, they define const db = new EventStore(); and then clone it into db1 with createV8. Meanwhile, createV9 uses db.clone() too, so the original db isn't directly opened. They call db.log.rpc.send, which seems problematic unless rpc is initialized and open. + However, it's possible that db.log.rpc.send doesn't necessarily require the RPC to be open. Perhaps SharedLog initializes its rpc field using new RPC() in the constructor. I’ll need to look for the constructor in the SharedLog class to verify. + +• Explored + └ Search constructor\( in index.ts + Read index.ts + Search clone\( in program + Read program.ts + +• I'm thinking about how the clone uses borsh for serialization and deserialization to create a new instance, meaning that db and db1 are distinct. I’m trying to understand if using db.log.rpc in the wrapper refers to the original db’s rpc, which is not opened but may still exist. It’s + unclear whether RPC.send needs node context or if it uses global transport. I wonder if the createV8 wrapper in migration.spec is causing issues in our debug script. + + Analyzing RPC behavior + + I'm considering how the SharedLog has an rpc field that’s initialized in the constructor and also serialized. It’s decorated with @field({type:RPC}), so the clone would likely serialize SharedLog, including the rpc field, creating a new RPC instance with some state. When I open db1.log, + it may indeed call this.rpc.open, which is separate from db.log.rpc. I wonder why sending on db.log.rpc would succeed even if it's not open. Maybe it doesn't actually need to be open? + + Exploring compatibility issues + + I'm thinking that maybe in compatibility mode 8, v9 doesn't send the RequestReplicationInfoMessage. However, handleSubscriptionChange always sends it, meaning v8 would receive it and the wrapper should respond by calling db.log.rpc.send, which I expected to fail. The tests passing + suggest that db.log.rpc may have actually been opened because db itself was opened as v9. + + I wonder if db.clone() creates a new instance that could share internal rpc with the original? But since it uses borsh for serialization, it should deep copy, so that shouldn't be the case. + + Analyzing migration tests + + I realize that adding this branch might change how migration tests operate. However, the migration test should handle RequestReplicationInfoMessage and work correctly. If there's a failure with db.log.rpc.send, that could be an issue. In migration.spec, they respond to + RequestReplicationInfoMessage with ResponseRoleMessage, and the use of db.log.rpc.send suggests they expected the db variable to refer to the opened db1 due to closure. But now I'm thinking they might have mistakenly used the outer db variable instead. + + Examining RPC implementation + + I should quickly check the RPC implementation to see if send can function without open. It seems like it might use the this.node property from Program. Actually, RPC may be a Program itself, possibly from @peerbit/programs/rpc. I think the node property might be set when the parent + program opens and recursively sets the node for nested programs, including the original database. However, since the original db's SharedLog.rpc isn't part of the opened program tree, its node remains undefined, which means db.log.rpc.send should likely throw an error. + + Checking RPC class usage + + I'm considering the use of the global client variable. I think it's important to understand how it's utilized within the RPC class. I'll quickly check the definition, which should be in the packages/programs/rpc directory. My next step is to search for class RPC and also the method + send( to see how they interact with the client. This should help clarify any confusion I have. + +• Explored + └ Search export class RPC in rpc + Search async send\( in rpc + Read controller.ts + +• I'm examining how RPC.send interacts with this.node.services.pubsub.publish. If RPC isn't opened, this.node is undefined, and there's a risk of it throwing when attempting to send a message. It seems that the wrapper in migration.spec using db.log.rpc.send is set up incorrectly, as it + could throw an error. But, in the test run, it didn’t seem to. Maybe the error was caught? I should investigate further. + + Evaluating message handling + + I’m looking into the v8 wrapper's onMessage function, where it responds to RequestReplicationInfoMessage by sending ResponseRoleMessage using db.log.rpc.send. They set the delivery mode to SilentDelivery for the sender, which may be unnecessary. The onMessageDefault should handle this + instead and send ResponseRoleMessage due to v8Behaviour. The manual send might be redundant, but if it fails before calling onMessageDefault, it could cause issues. I think improving the wrapper's robustness or adjusting tests would help avoid problems. + + Investigating test failures + + I see that the tests are part of the repository and are currently failing. If they're wrong, I can fix them. The migration test was failing in the 8-9 scenario, but not in 9-8, which suggests that the wrapper's manual send might not always throw an error. It could be that + RequestReplicationInfoMessage is received before db1.log.rpc is opened. I should explore this timing issue further to see if we can consistently identify the problem. + + Adjusting migration test + + To fix the migration test, I can modify the createV8 wrapper in migration.spec to use db1.log.rpc.send instead of db.log.rpc.send, or even better, I could remove the manual send and let the default handler take care of it. It looks like they included it to mimic old behavior, but the + default handler already handles it for compatibility. The onMessage RequestReplicationInfoMessage section also sends ResponseRoleMessage when conditions are met, which shows that the manual send is actually unnecessary. So, I'll either update the test wrapper or eliminate the manual + response entirely. + + Refining response handling + + If I remove the manual response, the default handler should still respond correctly, allowing the test to pass. I need to ensure that the onMessage RequestReplicationInfoMessage handler sends the ResponseRoleMessage only under certain conditions, such as when fixedSettings is true and + the role is Replicator. Since v8Behaviour is in play, it means we are in a fixed replication mode. I'll eliminate the manual send block to prevent reliance on the wrong instance. I can access db1 through closure capturing in the onMessage override, so I'll change await db.log.rpc.send to + await db1.log.rpc.send. + + Investigating test wrapper bug + + I’m questioning whether the test wrapper bug is newly causing failures due to the RequestReplicationInfoMessage being sent earlier. The comment in shared-log-debug mentions that handleSubscriptionChange sends this message, which might have been added recently. Since the migration test + wrapper handles this message, it should have been prepared for it, but maybe it wasn't expecting it so early. + + In the past, if v8 didn’t receive this message, the test passed despite a bug. Now, with the message being sent sooner, it triggers the bug, causing the test to fail. I think we should continue sending RequestReplicationInfoMessage as it's essential for hardening, but the test should + still work properly without breaking due to our new message since it simulates old behavior. + + Reviewing test wrapper and compatibility + + Fixing the test wrapper seems acceptable, but I should confirm how actual v8 peers respond to the RequestReplicationInfoMessage. It turns out that v8 nodes likely wouldn't understand this message type and would simply ignore it. The current test wrapper responds by sending a + ResponseRoleMessage, which isn't entirely aligned with old behavior since previous nodes didn’t respond to such messages. + + The comment indicates they don't need to respond to this message in older versions, yet they keep this to mimic that old behavior. Their goal is to maintain compatibility, even if that might differ from true old behavior. + + Resolving replication issues + + In the real world, sending the RequestReplicationInfoMessage to v8 nodes might not have any effect, but that's alright. I need to ensure that our library can still handle replication, even if v8 doesn’t respond. The test is designed for v8-v9 compatibility, so I should think about how v9 + can manage replication without relying on v8’s response. + + I noticed that in failing cases, neither side had remote segments in the replication index, which likely happened because the v8 wrapper threw an error when processing the message. The debug output hints that the script didn’t crash, but the handshake was broken. + + To fix this, I should adjust the migration test to use the correct RPC instance, possibly changing await db.log.rpc.send to await db1.log.rpc.send. Let’s try running the debug script with this change and see if it allows the replication index to include both segments. I'll test this + quickly before making any changes to the repo! + +↳ Interacted with background terminal + └ (waited) + +↳ Interacted with background terminal · cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo/packages/programs/data/shared-log && node --experimental-specifier-resolution=node --loader=ts-node/esm --no-warnings --input-type=module - <<'EOF' +import { keys } from "@libp2p/crypto"; +import { SilentDelivery } from "@peerbit/stream-interface"; +import { TestSession } from "@peerbit/test-utils"; +import { waitForResolved, delay } from "@peerbit/time"; +import { + AddedReplicationSegmentMessage, + AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage, + RequestReplicationInfoMessage, + ResponseRoleMessage, +} from "./src/replication.js"; +import { Replicator } from "./src/role.js"; +import { EventStore } from "./test/utils/stores/event-store.js"; +const setup = async (compatibility, order = false) => { + const session = await TestSession.connected(2, [ + { + libp2p: { + privateKey: keys.privateKeyFromRaw( + new Uint8Array([ + 204,234,187,172,226,232,70,175,62,211,147,91,229,157, + 168,15,45,242,144,98,75,58,208,9,223,143,251,52,252, + 159,64,83,52,197,24,246,24,234,141,183,151,82,53, + 142,57,25,148,150,26,209,223,22,212,40,201,6,191,72, + 148,82,66,138,199,185, + ]), + ), + }, + }, + { + libp2p: { + privateKey: keys.privateKeyFromRaw( + new Uint8Array([ + 237,55,205,86,40,44,73,169,196,118,36,69,214,122,28, + 157,208,163,15,215,104,193,151,177,62,231,253,120, + 122,222,174,242,120,50,165,97,8,235,97,186,148,251, + 100,168,49,10,119,71,246,246,174,163,198,54,224,6, + 174,212,159,187,2,137,47,192, + ]), + ), + }, + }, + ]); + const db = new EventStore(); + const createV8 = async () => { + const db1 = db.clone(); + const onMessageDefault = db1.log.onMessage.bind(db1.log); + return session.peers[0].open(db1, { + args: { + replicate: { factor: 1 }, + compatibility, + onMessage: async (msg, context) => { + if (msg instanceof AddedReplicationSegmentMessage) return; + if (msg instanceof AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage) return; + if (msg instanceof RequestReplicationInfoMessage) { + await db1.log.rpc.send( + new ResponseRoleMessage({ role: new Replicator({ factor: 1, offset: 0 }) }), + { mode: new SilentDelivery({ to: [context.from], redundancy: 1 }) }, + ); + } + return onMessageDefault(msg, context); + }, + }, + }); + }; + const createV9 = async () => { + return session.peers[1].open(db.clone(), { + args: { replicate: { factor: 1 }, compatibility }, + }); + }; + let db1, db2; + if (order) { + db1 = await createV8(); + db2 = await createV9(); + } else { + db2 = await createV9(); + db1 = await createV8(); + } + await db1.waitFor(session.peers[1].peerId); + await db2.waitFor(session.peers[0].peerId); + return { session, db1, db2 }; +}; +const { session, db1, db2 } = await setup(8, false); +const topic = db1.log.topic; +console.log("topic", topic); +const subs1 = await db1.node.services.pubsub.getSubscribers(topic); +const subs2 = await db2.node.services.pubsub.getSubscribers(topic); +console.log("subscribers db1", subs1?.map((k) => k.hashcode())); +console.log("subscribers db2", subs2?.map((k) => k.hashcode())); +const segs1 = await db1.log.replicationIndex.iterate().all(); +const segs2 = await db2.log.replicationIndex.iterate().all(); +console.log("replicationIndex db1", segs1.map((x) => x.value.hash)); +console.log("replicationIndex db2", segs2.map((x) => x.value.hash)); +await db1.add("hello"); +await delay(1000); +console.log("after 1s db2 length", db2.log.log.length); +try { + await waitForResolved(() => { + if (db2.log.log.length !== 1) throw new Error("not yet"); + }, { timeout: 9000 }); + console.log("db2 replicated: length", db2.log.log.length); +} catch { + console.log("db2 did not replicate within 9s; length", db2.log.log.length); +} +await session.stop(); +EOF + └ (waited) + +• Ran cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo/packages/programs/data/shared-log && node --experimental-specifier-resolution=node --loader=ts-node/esm --no-warnings --input-type=module - <<'EOF' + │ import { keys } from "@libp2p/crypto"; + │ import { SilentDelivery } from "@peerbit/stream-interface"; + │ … +117 lines + └ topic kHCsXWR4rIrVtcWcMKl2K/9QUbs1MRhVF9iAk/L1fJ8= + subscribers db1 [ + … +9 lines + after 1s db2 length 0 + db2 did not replicate within 9s; length 0 + +• It seems that the replicationIndex is still missing remote segments, despite the manual send fix. I printed the replicationIndex right after setup, and I'm wondering if the handshake hasn’t been applied yet. It might be a good idea to wait a bit and check again later to see if those + remote segments show up. Meanwhile, the script is still waiting for a resolved state. I’ll keep an eye on the final output! + +• Explored + └ Search async open\(options\?: Args in index.ts + Search super\.open\( in index.ts + Search super\.open\( in index.ts + +• I’m delving into EventStore open functionality, where it seems await this.log.open(...) is a sub-program that doesn’t run through ProgramClient. I suspect ProgramClient's open method calls EventStore.open before triggering afterOpen for each program. However, this process is getting a + bit complex. It looks like afterOpen is executed once the open call completes. In my debug run, all replicationIndex includes a self segment, so I’ll check the debug run to see if latestReplicationInfoMessage has entries. I'll print the sizes and keys of this Map in a new debug script. + +↳ Interacted with background terminal + └ (waited) + +↳ Interacted with background terminal · cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo/packages/programs/data/shared-log && node --experimental-specifier-resolution=node --loader=ts-node/esm --no-warnings --input-type=module - <<'EOF' +import { keys } from "@libp2p/crypto"; +import { SilentDelivery } from "@peerbit/stream-interface"; +import { TestSession } from "@peerbit/test-utils"; +import { delay } from "@peerbit/time"; +import { + AddedReplicationSegmentMessage, + AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage, + RequestReplicationInfoMessage, + ResponseRoleMessage, +} from "./src/replication.js"; +import { Replicator } from "./src/role.js"; +import { EventStore } from "./test/utils/stores/event-store.js"; +const session = await TestSession.connected(2, [ + { + libp2p: { + privateKey: keys.privateKeyFromRaw( + new Uint8Array([ + 204,234,187,172,226,232,70,175,62,211,147,91,229,157, + 168,15,45,242,144,98,75,58,208,9,223,143,251,52,252, + 159,64,83,52,197,24,246,24,234,141,183,151,82,53, + 142,57,25,148,150,26,209,223,22,212,40,201,6,191,72, + 148,82,66,138,199,185, + ]), + ), + }, + }, + { + libp2p: { + privateKey: keys.privateKeyFromRaw( + new Uint8Array([ + 237,55,205,86,40,44,73,169,196,118,36,69,214,122,28, + 157,208,163,15,215,104,193,151,177,62,231,253,120, + 122,222,174,242,120,50,165,97,8,235,97,186,148,251, + 100,168,49,10,119,71,246,246,174,163,198,54,224,6, + 174,212,159,187,2,137,47,192, + ]), + ), + }, + }, +]); +const base = new EventStore(); +const createV9 = async () => + session.peers[1].open(base.clone(), { + args: { replicate: { factor: 1 }, compatibility: 8 }, + }); +const createV8 = async () => { + const db1 = base.clone(); + const onMessageDefault = db1.log.onMessage.bind(db1.log); + return session.peers[0].open(db1, { + args: { + replicate: { factor: 1 }, + compatibility: 8, + onMessage: async (msg, context) => { + if (msg instanceof AddedReplicationSegmentMessage) return; + if (msg instanceof AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage) return; + if (msg instanceof RequestReplicationInfoMessage) { + await db1.log.rpc.send( + new ResponseRoleMessage({ role: new Replicator({ factor: 1, offset: 0 }) }), + { mode: new SilentDelivery({ to: [context.from], redundancy: 1 }) }, + ); + } + return onMessageDefault(msg, context); + }, + }, + }); +}; +const db2 = await createV9(); +const db1 = await createV8(); +await db1.waitFor(session.peers[1].peerId); +await db2.waitFor(session.peers[0].peerId); +const topic = db1.log.topic; +console.log("topic", topic); +const dump = async (label, store) => { + const log = store.log; + const subs = await store.node.services.pubsub.getSubscribers(topic); + const segs = await log.replicationIndex.iterate().all(); + const latest = (log).latestReplicationInfoMessage; + const pending = (log).pendingReplicationInfo; + console.log(`\n[${label}]`); + console.log("self", store.node.identity.publicKey.hashcode()); + console.log("subscribers", subs?.map((k) => k.hashcode())); + console.log("replicationIndex", segs.map((x) => x.value.hash)); + console.log("latestReplicationInfoMessage keys", [...latest.keys()]); + console.log("pendingReplicationInfo keys", [...pending.keys()]); +}; +await dump("db1", db1); +await dump("db2", db2); +// wait a bit to see if info arrives later +await delay(1000); +await dump("db1 after 1s", db1); +await dump("db2 after 1s", db2); +await session.stop(); +EOF + └ (waited) + +• Ran cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo/packages/programs/data/shared-log && node --experimental-specifier-resolution=node --loader=ts-node/esm --no-warnings --input-type=module - <<'EOF' + │ import { keys } from "@libp2p/crypto"; + │ import { SilentDelivery } from "@peerbit/stream-interface"; + │ … +103 lines + └ topic Q73Hty/k+xcWoY4GyopzpcMJsyy0wxJiXacVZLccYSM= + + … +40 lines + latestReplicationInfoMessage keys [ '+Acjn+TAgixFXNdrzNF9J/61MGd/GTG3UmbX1eNhnVs=' ] + pendingReplicationInfo keys [] + +• I'm trying to figure out why db1 didn't learn about db2. First, I need to check if db2 received a RequestReplicationInfoMessage from db1. If db2 did receive it, maybe it responded with a ResponseRoleMessage, but for some reason, that response didn't get delivered. It's a bit tricky. So + I'll check db2 to see if it actually sent the ResponseRoleMessage back to db1. That could be a key detail! + + Hmm, I'm pondering whether duplication might occur if one side is using the built JavaScript (dist) while the other side is still working with the TypeScript (TS) source. I wonder if that could create inconsistencies or lead to unexpected behavior. Both sides need to be on the same page + regarding which version they're using to avoid confusion. It’s intriguing to think about how these differences could impact the overall functionality! + + Analyzing module instances and messages + + I'm noticing that modules run with the ts-node loader could lead to duplicates from different import paths, like ../src/replication.js versus @peerbit/shared-log/src/replication.js. Within the same package, things should be more consistent, though. The debug output suggests that db2 + successfully processed replication info from db1 after 1 second. I’m pondering if the v8 wrapper might ignore certain messages at the top-level, which could affect how they're processed. This is interesting to consider as it relates to message handling. + + Checking message recognition + + I need to consider that if the message type is treated differently by db2, it might ignore certain messages, leading to no replication segments. I should verify if db2's ResponseRoleMessage is recognized by the default handler on db1. To do this, I can modify the debug script to include + a custom onMessage wrapper that logs the constructor name when messages are received. While that could create some noise, it seems manageable. I'll focus on logging when a message of a specific class is seen and whether msg instanceof ResponseRoleMessage. + + Setting up debug logging + + I plan to modify the debug script in the onMessage override to log when a message is received. I’ll include information about the message's constructor name, along with whether it's an instance of ResponseRoleMessage, AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage, RequestReplicationInfoMessage, or + AddedReplicationSegmentMessage. While this will produce a lot of logs, it should be manageable given the small setup. I’ll also add the context.from hash for additional clarity. Let’s get started on that! + +↳ Interacted with background terminal · cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo/packages/programs/data/shared-log && node --experimental-specifier-resolution=node --loader=ts-node/esm --no-warnings --input-type=module - <<'EOF' +import { keys } from "@libp2p/crypto"; +import { SilentDelivery } from "@peerbit/stream-interface"; +import { TestSession } from "@peerbit/test-utils"; +import { delay } from "@peerbit/time"; +import { + AddedReplicationSegmentMessage, + AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage, + RequestReplicationInfoMessage, + ResponseRoleMessage, +} from "./src/replication.js"; +import { Replicator } from "./src/role.js"; +import { EventStore } from "./test/utils/stores/event-store.js"; +const session = await TestSession.connected(2, [ + { + libp2p: { + privateKey: keys.privateKeyFromRaw( + new Uint8Array([ + 204,234,187,172,226,232,70,175,62,211,147,91,229,157, + 168,15,45,242,144,98,75,58,208,9,223,143,251,52,252, + 159,64,83,52,197,24,246,24,234,141,183,151,82,53, + 142,57,25,148,150,26,209,223,22,212,40,201,6,191,72, + 148,82,66,138,199,185, + ]), + ), + }, + }, + { + libp2p: { + privateKey: keys.privateKeyFromRaw( + new Uint8Array([ + 237,55,205,86,40,44,73,169,196,118,36,69,214,122,28, + 157,208,163,15,215,104,193,151,177,62,231,253,120, + 122,222,174,242,120,50,165,97,8,235,97,186,148,251, + 100,168,49,10,119,71,246,246,174,163,198,54,224,6, + 174,212,159,187,2,137,47,192, + ]), + ), + }, + }, +]); +const base = new EventStore(); +const db2 = await session.peers[1].open(base.clone(), { + args: { replicate: { factor: 1 }, compatibility: 8 }, +}); +const db1Program = base.clone(); +const onMessageDefault = db1Program.log.onMessage.bind(db1Program.log); +const db1 = await session.peers[0].open(db1Program, { + args: { + replicate: { factor: 1 }, + compatibility: 8, + onMessage: async (msg, context) => { + const name = msg?.constructor?.name; + const fromHash = context.from?.hashcode(); + const flags = { + isAdded: msg instanceof AddedReplicationSegmentMessage, + isAll: msg instanceof AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage, + isReq: msg instanceof RequestReplicationInfoMessage, + isRole: msg instanceof ResponseRoleMessage, + }; + if (flags.isAdded || flags.isAll || flags.isReq || flags.isRole) { + console.log("v8 got", { name, fromHash, ...flags }); + } + if (msg instanceof AddedReplicationSegmentMessage) return; + if (msg instanceof AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage) return; + if (msg instanceof RequestReplicationInfoMessage) { + await db1Program.log.rpc.send( + new ResponseRoleMessage({ role: new Replicator({ factor: 1, offset: 0 }) }), + { mode: new SilentDelivery({ to: [context.from], redundancy: 1 }) }, + ); + } + return onMessageDefault(msg, context); + }, + }, +}); +await db1.waitFor(session.peers[1].peerId); +await db2.waitFor(session.peers[0].peerId); +await delay(1000); +const segs1 = await db1.log.replicationIndex.iterate().all(); +const segs2 = await db2.log.replicationIndex.iterate().all(); +console.log("replicationIndex db1", segs1.map((x) => x.value.hash)); +console.log("replicationIndex db2", segs2.map((x) => x.value.hash)); +await session.stop(); +EOF + └ (waited) + +• Ran cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo/packages/programs/data/shared-log && node --experimental-specifier-resolution=node --loader=ts-node/esm --no-warnings --input-type=module - <<'EOF' + │ import { keys } from "@libp2p/crypto"; + │ import { SilentDelivery } from "@peerbit/stream-interface"; + │ … +90 lines + └ v8 got { + name: 'AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage', + … +9 lines + '+Acjn+TAgixFXNdrzNF9J/61MGd/GTG3UmbX1eNhnVs=' + ] + +• I'm looking at the situation where v8 received AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage from db2, but it did not get RequestReplicationInfoMessage or ResponseRoleMessage. This explains why v8 doesn't recognize db2 since it's ignoring the earlier message. I'm questioning why db2 failed to send + ResponseRoleMessage. It should send that in handleSubscriptionChange when conditions are right, but maybe replicationSegments length was zero at that moment. This could happen if handleSubscriptionChange triggered before segments were set, especially if db2 opened before db1. + + Clarifying message processing + + I’m considering whether replication segments might not be set even after open resolves. Open awaits replication, so that seems contradictory. However, the handleSubscriptionChange isn't triggered by db1's subscribe event, which is interesting. v8 did receive AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage + from db2, indicating that db2 sent it, provided replicationSegments length was greater than zero. In that case, it should send ResponseRoleMessage if v8Behaviour is true, yet v8 didn’t receive that message. Maybe it was sent but wasn’t logged due to a potential module mismatch with the + ResponseRoleMessage class. + + Investigating message logging and processing + + I’m considering that not processing messages correctly could be a problem too. To clarify things, we could log all messages, not just the ones that pass the instanceof check. At least logging the name and some properties would help. Our script currently only logs those flags. We did see + the AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage, which confirms it matches that class. If ResponseRoleMessage was sent but didn’t log due to a false check, we should also log based on the name. However, since v8 didn't recognize db2, it may not matter. I’ll also check if db2’s v8Behaviour sends + ResponseRoleMessage in handleSubscriptionChange, and it does. So why didn’t v8 receive it? Probably another module mismatch issue. + + Exploring message behavior + + I’m trying to figure out if our wrapper might pass the message to onMessageDefault even if it returns false, which could lead to failures. However, since the replication index is self only, that might not apply here. Perhaps ResponseRoleMessage wasn't sent because this.v8Behaviour was + false on db2. But wait, if the compatibility value passed is 8, then v8Behaviour should be true. I’ll need to consider that maybe ResponseRoleMessage only sends if both this.v8Behaviour and replicationSegments.length are greater than zero. Also, it might be sent with SeekDelivery mode + instead of SilentDelivery. + + Investigating SeekDelivery behavior + + I'm looking into how SeekDelivery might deliver to a publicKey but encountered some confusion. When publishing messages with SeekDelivery in DirectSub, it seems to rely on peer hash codes, which could be an issue if it's using PublicSignKey. I’m unsure about SeekDelivery's expectations + since it might require a string array. In handleSubscriptionChange, they create a new SeekDelivery with [publicKey], but do they pass PublicSignKey objects? That might not be right, yet it seems SeekDelivery also supports PublicSignKey. I’ll check the SeekDelivery implementation in the + relevant package files. + +↳ Interacted with background terminal · cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo/packages/programs/data/shared-log && node --experimental-specifier-resolution=node --loader=ts-node/esm --no-warnings --input-type=module - <<'EOF' +import { keys } from "@libp2p/crypto"; +import { SilentDelivery } from "@peerbit/stream-interface"; +import { TestSession } from "@peerbit/test-utils"; +import { delay } from "@peerbit/time"; +import { + AddedReplicationSegmentMessage, + AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage, + RequestReplicationInfoMessage, + ResponseRoleMessage, +} from "./src/replication.js"; +import { Replicator } from "./src/role.js"; +import { EventStore } from "./test/utils/stores/event-store.js"; +const session = await TestSession.connected(2, [ + { + libp2p: { + privateKey: keys.privateKeyFromRaw( + new Uint8Array([ + 204,234,187,172,226,232,70,175,62,211,147,91,229,157, + 168,15,45,242,144,98,75,58,208,9,223,143,251,52,252, + 159,64,83,52,197,24,246,24,234,141,183,151,82,53, + 142,57,25,148,150,26,209,223,22,212,40,201,6,191,72, + 148,82,66,138,199,185, + ]), + ), + }, + }, + { + libp2p: { + privateKey: keys.privateKeyFromRaw( + new Uint8Array([ + 237,55,205,86,40,44,73,169,196,118,36,69,214,122,28, + 157,208,163,15,215,104,193,151,177,62,231,253,120, + 122,222,174,242,120,50,165,97,8,235,97,186,148,251, + 100,168,49,10,119,71,246,246,174,163,198,54,224,6, + 174,212,159,187,2,137,47,192, + ]), + ), + }, + }, +]); +const base = new EventStore(); +const db2 = await session.peers[1].open(base.clone(), { + args: { replicate: { factor: 1 }, compatibility: 8 }, +}); +const db1Program = base.clone(); +const onMessageDefault = db1Program.log.onMessage.bind(db1Program.log); +const db1 = await session.peers[0].open(db1Program, { + args: { + replicate: { factor: 1 }, + compatibility: 8, + onMessage: async (msg, context) => { + const name = msg?.constructor?.name; + const fromHash = context.from?.hashcode(); + const flags = { + isAdded: msg instanceof AddedReplicationSegmentMessage, + isAll: msg instanceof AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage, + isReq: msg instanceof RequestReplicationInfoMessage, + isRole: msg instanceof ResponseRoleMessage, + }; + if (name?.includes("Role") || flags.isAdded || flags.isAll || flags.isReq) { + console.log("v8 got", { name, fromHash, ...flags }); + } + if (msg instanceof AddedReplicationSegmentMessage) return; + if (msg instanceof AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage) return; + if (msg instanceof RequestReplicationInfoMessage) { + await db1Program.log.rpc.send( + new ResponseRoleMessage({ role: new Replicator({ factor: 1, offset: 0 }) }), + { mode: new SilentDelivery({ to: [context.from], redundancy: 1 }) }, + ); + } + return onMessageDefault(msg, context); + }, + }, +}); +await db1.waitFor(session.peers[1].peerId); +await db2.waitFor(session.peers[0].peerId); +await delay(2000); +const segs1 = await db1.log.replicationIndex.iterate().all(); +const segs2 = await db2.log.replicationIndex.iterate().all(); +console.log("replicationIndex db1", segs1.map((x) => x.value.hash)); +console.log("replicationIndex db2", segs2.map((x) => x.value.hash)); +await session.stop(); +EOF + └ (waited) + +• Explored + └ Search class SeekDelivery in stream-interface + Read messages.ts + +• I’m considering why getRole might throw due to multiple segments, affecting handleSubscriptionChange and potentially preventing ResponseRoleMessage from being sent. It looks like AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage gets sent first, asynchronously, without awaiting. Then + handleSubscriptionChange calls this.rpc.send(...), which starts another asynchronous process. If getRole throws afterwards, it could cause handleSubscriptionChange to fail without sending ResponseRoleMessage. This might be crucial for understanding the migration test and compatibility + issues. + + Exploring replication tests + + I’m thinking about why tests might still pass even if ResponseRoleMessage isn't sent during v9 to v8 replication. It seems that a v8 node disregards AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage and messages about added segments. Without ResponseRoleMessage, v8 wouldn't be aware of v9 replicator + segments, leading to failures in the replication. However, in the v9 to v8 tests, it looks like v9 can still send entries based on its own replication index, indicating that v9 understands v8’s role. That might mean v8 doesn't need to know about v9 to replicate successfully! + + Addressing replication compatibility + + I'm realizing that for v8 to v9 replication, v8 needs to recognize the v9 replicator, which relies on the ResponseRoleMessage. This message fails if getRole throws an error due to multiple replication segments. I need to ensure that when v8Behaviour is enabled, we calculate the role so + it doesn't throw. Currently, getRole throws for multiple segments, which breaks compatibility. We might consider sending a simplified role or merging segments to maintain compatibility for v8 nodes. That could help restore functionality effectively! + + Handling multiple replication segments + + I’m noticing that the function derives from getMyReplicationSegments, which assumes there's only one segment, but now there could be multiple ones that might cause it to throw an error. In handleSubscriptionChange, if v8Behaviour is enabled, I shouldn't use getRole if it risks throwing. + Instead, I can compute the replicator role based on current replication options or merge segments into one. If it throws, I could send a best-effort Replicator({factor:1, offset:0}) or Observer. I’ll also think about other places like RequestReplicationInfoMessage that use getRole for + compatibility. + + Considering replication strategies + + I'm thinking about different strategies for handling replication segments. If we have any replication segments (length > 0) and are using fixed settings, I could derive a role from the replication options instead of actual segments since, at a fixed replication factor, there may only be + one segment—though multiple segments might arise due to factors like domain resolution. For dynamic or adaptive replication, the v8 protocol might not support this, so sending Observer could be an option. In migration tests, both peers replicate with factor 1, which raises questions + about segment creation. I should check the getMyReplicationSegments implementation to understand the typical segment count. + +• Explored + └ Search getMyReplicationSegments in index.ts + Read index.ts + +─ Worked for 1h 04m 49s ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── + +• Context compacted + +• I need to respond to the user asking to read shared-log-debug.md and follow the instructions. Another model has already made updates in shared-log and pubsub, so I want to build on that. I should check the repository's state and look at shared-log-debug.md for the specifics. We have to + serialize replication-info, ensure idempotent replicator joins, store pending information for retries, and validate everything through tests. There are still issues with migration tests that need fixing. + + Improving v8 compatibility + + I need to ensure v8 compatibility is solid, especially that ResponseRoleMessage is sent even if getRole fails due to multiple segments. First, I’ll inspect the existing code for getRole, handleSubscriptionChange, and onMessage. I can use ripgrep to search for relevant parts in the code. + To begin, I’ll list the file modifications and use git status to show the differences. Then, I’ll open any pertinent sections for closer examination, utilizing the terminal tool for this. + +• Pulling up shared-log-debug.md and the current shared-log implementation so I can follow the doc’s steps and verify what’s still failing (notably the 8-9 migration case). + +• Ran cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && ls -la && git status --porcelain && sed -n '1,200p' shared-log-debug.md + └ total 1824 + drwxr-xr-x 36 aristotle staff 1152 Feb 6 01:36 . + … +239 lines + + + +• I’m noticing that the file is quite large, and I've only printed the first 200 lines. The summary includes key instructions, but we still need to address the migration issue that's failing. Also, git status shows more modified files than the summary indicated, including role.ts and + migration.spec.ts. That's unexpected since they weren't mentioned before. I need to check those changes carefully to ensure there's no conflict, and I should pause to ask the user if something seems off. + + Inspecting unexpected changes + + It seems that some modifications might come from another model and weren't included in the summary. We didn't make these changes in this session, but they are part of the ongoing work. The instructions say that if we notice unexpected changes, we should stop and ask the user how to + proceed. However, while there’s a summary that outlines modifications, it didn’t mention role.ts and migration.spec.ts. Are those considered unexpected? I should ask the user for clarity. + + Examining modifications carefully + + The modifications to role.ts and migration.spec.ts weren't mentioned in the summary, but they could still be from that prior model. I think it's safe to inspect the differences—if they're related to our tasks, we could keep them. If they seem unrelated, it might be worth checking with + the user. We must adhere to the instructions in shared-log-debug.md. Since the migration test is failing, we'll need to look into those diffs and see what changes have been made. Let's run git diff --stat to explore. + +• Ran cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && git diff --stat && git diff -- packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/role.ts | sed -n '1,200p' && git diff -- packages/programs/data/shared-log/test/migration.spec.ts | sed -n '1,200p' + └ packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts | 207 ++++++++++++++------- + packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/role.ts | 2 +- + … +48 lines + await waitForResolved(() => expect(db2.log.log.length).equal(1)); + }); + +• I’m looking at the bug fix in role.ts. It seems like there’s an issue where offsetNominator should use offset instead of factor. This does appear to be a real bug, possibly affecting getRole and segments. I think it's a straightforward fix that should help with role computations. Then + there’s the migration.spec.ts changes with console.log debugging and adjustments to db logging, which makes sense for the context. I’ll check the file for clarification. + + Refining code cleanup + + I need to remove logs and delays after the fix to ensure that tests pass without any console logs cluttering. It seems they switched to db1.log.rpc.send, possibly because the db variable in the closure refers to something different. In the migration test, they simulate v8 behavior by + responding to messages, which implies they should use the same db instance. I’ll inspect this, aiming to revert the debugging changes, keeping tests clean. I’ll focus on refining the shared-log code and ensure tests are passing afterward. + + Planning next steps + + I need to read shared-log-debug.md to get a comprehensive understanding, especially since migration is still failing. Our plan includes implementing a robust v8 compatibility role response and fixing the getRole error to ensure ResponseRoleMessage is always sent. Additionally, we need to + confirm that the replication-info queue uses the latest applied timestamp. First, I'll run migration tests with aegir run test --roots to confirm any failures, keeping debug logs temporarily. I'll ensure the main code is fixed before finalizing. + + Preparing for testing + + Once I implement the fix, I’ll run targeted tests, hoping they all pass. After that, I need to remove the logs and delays. It’s also important to review modifications in shared-log index.ts, as we need to apply the new fix there too. I plan to inspect the relevant code areas and will use + ripgrep to search for getRole and the ResponseRoleMessage send functions. Time to execute some commands and get started! + +────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── + +• Next I’m going to inspect the v8-compatibility message flow in shared-log (getRole(), handleSubscriptionChange(), and the request handler), because the remaining migration failure looks like we never send ResponseRoleMessage when getRole() throws. + +• Explored + └ Search async getRole\( in index.ts + Search ResponseRoleMessage in index.ts + Search v8Behaviour in index.ts + Read index.ts + +• I think there's an issue with the getRole function throwing errors when there are multiple segments. So, I'm looking into ways to create a more robust role for v8 behavior. I also noticed that there were changes made to role.ts to fix the offsetNominator bug, which might also impact how + role conversion works in getRole. Now, I’ll check out the handleSubscriptionChange function around line 4049 to see what's going on there. + +• Explored + └ Read index.ts + +• I'm noticing that inside the v8Behaviour branch, they use await this.getRole() in an async function but don’t catch any errors. If getRole throws, that leads to an error before the send call, so the .catch won't trigger since the promise hasn't been created. The ResponseRoleMessage won’t + be sent if this.getRole() fails. I'll need to wrap the role computation in a try/catch to manage this better and provide a fallback. + + Locating code for replication info + + In the message handler for RequestReplicationInfoMessage, they also call getRole, so I need to make some adjustments there as well. I want to locate that portion of the code, which seems to be around line 3040. To be thorough, I’ll check the code between lines 2960 and 3090. It’s + important to ensure everything is properly handled in that section for any potential issues. Let's dive into it! + +• Explored + └ Read index.ts + +• I need to think about how to create a robust getRole method, or something similar, to handle multiple segments effectively. Maybe I can create a getRoleForV8Compatibility that selects the first segment or merges them? V8 only supports a single segment, so I wonder if I should choose the + one that best represents our replication or send the replicator with a factor of 1 and offset 0. However, that might be inaccurate. I should also investigate how migration tests simulate V8 and review the relevant files. + +• Explored + └ Read migration.spec.ts + +• I can keep the db1 fix if it's correct, but I need to determine if this change is necessary, as it might break semantics or affect tests that rely on older code. Tests were failing earlier, possibly because a response wasn't sent due to a call on the wrong object. Debugging shows that v8 + isn’t receiving ResponseRoleMessage, although it should send it in response to a request. The code uses db1.log.rpc.send now, so that’s a positive. + + Clarifying replication messages + + If v9 isn't sending RequestReplicationInfoMessage, then v8 won't send a response. However, when v8 is subscribed, it proactively sends a RequestReplicationInfoMessage, which means v9 should do the same when it detects a v8 subscription. In the test, the v8 mock intercepts this message + and replies with a ResponseRoleMessage. So, if v9 sends the request, v8 will respond accordingly. But I wonder if the scenario flips, with db1 as v8 and db2 as v9, affecting expectations for replication. + + Understanding replication roles + + This scenario involves v9 sending information to v8, not the other way around. I’m thinking about why v8 needs to receive a ResponseRoleMessage from v9. Perhaps v8 uses a role-based replication handshake, requiring role info to identify if the remote is a replicator. In cases where v8 + adds an entry, it expects v9 to replicate. V8 might only send entries to recognized replicators, so it needs clarity on v9’s role for effective synchronization. If v9 doesn’t provide this, v8 might not replicate. + + Ensuring message delivery + + V9 needs to send a ResponseRoleMessage to v8, either proactively upon subscription or as a reply to RequestReplicationInfoMessage. There are two code paths for this: handling the subscription change and the RequestReplicationInfoMessage handler. However, I've noticed bugs in both. The + first may throw an error due to await issues, while the second fails to send the message because it lacks the proper await and restrictions. So, in the context of migration tests, it should send the message but doesn't due to these flaws. + + Analyzing replication paths + + It seems the RequestReplicationInfoMessage handler path might be outdated or otherwise failing, particularly if getRole was previously synchronous and didn’t require waiting for segments. Currently, it’s async, so perhaps they missed updating this after the change. This could explain why + v9 never sends the ResponseRoleMessage: both paths are having issues. In the failing 8-9 scenario, when v9 opens first, it subscribes, and v8 should follow, which initiates the handshake steps. I need to look closely at how replication segments are handled. + +• Explored + └ Search getMyReplicationSegments in index.ts + Search async getMyReplicationSegments in index.ts + Read index.ts + Read index.ts + +• I’m reviewing the code for the RequestReplicationInfoMessage handler. I need to change const role = this.getRole(); to const role = await this.getRole(); and handle any potential errors. If getRole throws an error due to multiple segments, I should compute something different instead. + + Additionally, I should update the handleSubscriptionChange method's v8Behaviour branch to compute the role within a try/catch block without throwing. + + I’m also considering adjusting getRole so that it returns the best effort instead of throwing, since it’s only for v8 compatibility, which might be safe to modify. I'll need to check the ResponseRoleMessage handler around line 2691 as well. + +• Explored + └ Read index.ts + +• I’m realizing that ResponseRoleMessage did exist in v8, but the old version might not have handled the toReplicationInfoMessage conversion. In our system, this conversion is necessary. The v8 mock uses onMessageDefault, reflecting the current code, while trying to ignore new message + types to mimic old behavior. However, ResponseRoleMessage still processes correctly through onMessageDefault. It’s tricky since the v8 mock runs with a compatibility parameter that might change its behavior. For migration, we need to ensure v9 correctly sends ResponseRoleMessage to v8. + + Addressing v8 mock limitations + + I’m really diving into the situation with v8 mock ignoring the AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage, which means v9's new replication info message isn't effective. We need to send ResponseRoleMessage instead. To fix this, I’m thinking of implementing a helper method: private async + getRoleForV8Compatibility(). This method can leverage getMyReplicationSegments but shouldn’t throw errors. + + It could handle different cases, like returning an Observer if there are no segments, or a replicator for one segment. For multiple segments, I might consider selecting the one with the largest width for better compatibility. + + Ensuring segmentation compatibility + + I'm considering the situation with multiple segments and how we can't represent them precisely in our current setup. However, to ensure compatibility, we just need to provide a role that triggers replication on the remote v8. It seems that in migration tests, both nodes replicate with a + factor of 1, likely having one segment each. + + If getRole sees multiple segments, maybe it's due to some internal duplication. Also, I need to keep in mind that in v8Behavior, they might not send the role if it’s an observer or during adaptive replication. If getRole returns an observer due to an error, replication might fail. I’ll + need a fallback method to ensure a replicator is sent when replicating in v8 behavior, particularly when we have segments. If getRole fails, I should compute the replicator differently. + + Exploring segment computation + + I'm digging into how we can compute roles from segments by converting each segment into a ReplicationRange. I think we might need to normalize the factor and offset values. I should check the ReplicationRangeIndexable and the toReplicationRange method to understand how they work. It + seems likely that this method returns the replication segment message type, focusing on fields like factor and offset as u32 or BigInt. I’ll also double-check the packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/role.ts file for specifics. + +• Explored + └ Read role.ts + Search toReplicationRange\( in index.ts + Search class ReplicationRangeIndexable in index.ts + Search toReplicationRange\( in shared-log + +• I used the "rg" tool, but the second command returned an exit code of 1, which might mean something wasn’t found, causing the tool to stop. It seems that the command output only shows the first part, not the others. I should run a separate search to find the definition of + toReplicationRange. It's likely located in src/replication-range.ts or something similar. Let’s dig deeper and search for that! + +• Explored + └ Search toReplicationRange\(\) in shared-log + Search ReplicationRangeIndexable in shared-log + Read ranges.ts + Search class ResponseRoleMessage in replication.ts + Read replication.ts + Search toReplicationInfoMessage in replication.ts + Search class ReplicationRangeMessageU32 in ranges.ts + Read ranges.ts + +• I’m thinking about the replication scenarios with v8 and v9. In the "8-9" scenario, if v8 adds an entry, does v9 need to know v8 is replicating to coordinate? Wait, could v9 handle replication by itself and pull entries without relying on v8's status? In the "9-8" scenario, if v9 adds an + entry and v8 uses an older protocol, does v8 need to be aware of v9's replication? There could be roles where each replicator decides how to sync up, but if there’s an error in conversion, it could all break down. + + Converting replication message + + When switching to the v9 replication range message, I realize I need to convert the factor and offset to u32 coordinates by multiplying with MAX_U32. It’s crucial to remember that ReplicationRangeMessageU32 might expect normalized floats instead of plain coordinates—just stored as u32 + for borsh. The names _offset and _factor seem to indicate they’re in coordinate space, but they also might be viewed as normalized ratios. By checking how the replication range is used, I find that dividing the width by MAX_U32 gives the normalized fraction, confirming that. + + Analyzing replication info message + + It looks like the toReplicationInfoMessage function uses the factor getter, which is factorNominator / MAX_U32. The replication range sets widthNormalized to this factor, which might not be correct. So, there could be a bug present here. I wonder if there's a different function in + ResponseRoleMessage that handles this. In the replication code, I see references to offset and factor, indicating it’s possibly in use, especially in the migration code. Now, how does the 9-8 test still pass? I’ll have to dig into that test setup. + + Understanding v8 replication process + + I'm trying to figure out how v8 replicates. It seems that v8 simulates its behavior by ignoring certain messages like AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage and AddedReplicationSegmentMessage, but it still processes ResponseRoleMessage. However, the v8 mock intercepts some messages and responds + differently. When it gets RequestReplicationInfoMessage, it sends back ResponseRoleMessage. This means that the mock processes this message normally, using the current onMessage for replicating, which may not align with the intended old behavior. It could be relying on some compatibility + settings, but it appears the conversion could still be flawed. + + Exploring v8 mock replication + + I'm considering whether the v8 mock can replicate even with incorrect replication index updates, as v9 might push entries directly to v8. To receive these entries, v9 could potentially use messages like IHave. In the shared-log algorithm, replicators exchange "heads" and "blocks." If v8 + is acting as a replicator with a factor of 1, it should replicate the entire log regardless. It seems like the handshake utilizes remote segments to determine the relevant replication range. However, if the conversion for the ResponseRoleMessage is incorrect, that could mess up the + replication index. It's puzzling, but maybe the factor and offset should be viewed differently. Wait, I'll need to look into the definition of MAX_U32 for clarification. + +• Explored + └ Search export const MAX_U32 in integers.ts + Read integers.ts + +• I realized that the denormalizer returns a u32 by multiplying the value by MAX_U32. So, the factorNominator is the numerator — that makes sense. It looks like there might be a real conversion bug that could disrupt migrations. Tests could still pass because another path might not involve + this conversion. The test may also be using replicate: {factor:1}, which means each node replicates regardless of the replication info segments. But I'm puzzled why the 8-9 test fails if replication isn't dependent on it. Let's dig deeper into the replicator join logic. + + Examining replication sync logic + + I’m noticing that the replicating algorithm uses the replicationIndex to decide if a remote replicator can sync. But what if they always attempt to sync with any peer, and the replicationIndex mainly influences pruning decisions? I should inspect the waitFor logic in EventStore. This + method seems to ensure connection, but there's a catch. The failure in the 8-9 test may occur because while waitFor passes, replication fails when adding an entry, indicating an incomplete handshake. It seems v9 doesn’t sync with v8 due to messaging discrepancies. + + Investigating v8 and v9 messaging + + It seems that v8 might not send the ResponseRoleMessage to v9 unless there is a RequestReplicationInfoMessage. v9 sends this request to v8 during subscription changes, but this could get lost due to the pubsub handshake or if v9 sends it before v8 is ready. The instructions specified + storing pending replication info messages and requesting subscribers after opening, which should help. However, debug summaries show that v8 receives AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage from v9, so it seems like messages are being delivered. But I’m puzzled; why wasn’t the + RequestReplicationInfoMessage logged? Maybe v9 just didn’t send it? + + Examining potential duplication and messaging + + This situation may lead to duplication, but that's okay for now. If v9 opens first, it could receive a subscription event from v8, triggering handleSubscriptionChange, which would send the RequestReplicationInfoMessage. Yet, the debug summary indicates v8 did not receive this message. + This suggests that handleSubscriptionChange might not have executed on v9 when v8 subscribed, possibly due to a race condition, a missing listener, or a lost event. Our addition of requestSubscribers after opening v9 should help, but since v9 opened first, it only collects its own ID + initially. If the subscription event is lost, v9 wouldn't know about v8. + + Clarifying messaging and behavior + + I’m considering that while we patched pubsub for robustness, event loss could still occur. Debugging indicates that v9 eventually learns about v8, likely from a RequestReplicationInfoMessage v8 sends. However, v9 not seeing the subscription event initially might mean + handleSubscriptionChange wasn’t called due to timing issues. If v9 opens first, it may not fetch v8's segments until v8 sends new messages. Additionally, it seems v9 does not always send ResponseRoleMessage due to lost subscription events. I believe we need to refine how these messages + are processed, particularly ensuring v9 responds correctly to requests from v8. + + Investigating conversion issues in messaging + + I’m realizing that the onMessageDefault converting ResponseRoleMessage to AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage is mainly about reusing code, which should still retain similar processing as before if the conversion is correct. However, currently, this conversion seems off, which might cause v8 + to process incorrect replication segments, leading to replication failures. I need to double-check if the factor and offset are correctly interpreted as u32 values rather than normalized floats. It looks like the serialization might not be the issue, but rather how the factor getter is + defined. I'll search the code for .factor and .offset usage to clarify things. + +• Explored + └ Search new Replicator\( in index.ts + Read ranges.ts + +• It seems like the ReplicationRangeIndexableU32 constructor expects width and offset in u32 coordinate space without any conversion, which makes the conversion bug a real concern. I wonder if the tests aren't stable. There’s a possibility that ResponseRoleMessage.toReplicationInfoMessage + might only be used for v9 nodes receiving messages from older v8 nodes. So, when v8 responds to requests, it sends a message indicating a small replication range, which could lead to v9 misinterpreting the situation. This might be a flaw in v9's understanding. + + Understanding replication dynamics + + For v9 to replicate from v8, it doesn’t necessarily have to assume v8 replicates everything; it just needs to fetch entries from v8 as needed. If v8 replicates fully, that’s fine. However, v9 might not request entries outside of what v8 advertises, which could lead to missing essential + data. This distinction could be why scenarios where v8 adds an entry might experience failures, while v9 adding an entry typically works better, as v9 isn’t relying heavily on v8's advertised range. + + Examining v8 to v9 communication + + In the 8-9 case, v9 depends on pulling data from v8, which means v9 needs to know that v8 is replicating appropriately. If there's a conversion issue, like an advertised width of 1, v9 might skip fetching critical entries. That could explain failures. The debug summary suggested that v9 + eventually learns about v8 through AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage, not ResponseRoleMessage, which conveys the correct width. However, if a mock v8 ignores this message, I wonder if v9's understanding might still be based on a faulty assumption. + + Analyzing replication segment handling + + It looks like they only intercept incoming messages and ignore new message types, which could mean that our tests aren’t fully accurate. The intent seems to be to ensure v9 can replicate with v8 nodes, where v8 sends ResponseRoleMessage instead of new segments. However, the compatibility + parameter might affect behavior, suggesting shared-log code should stick to the older approach. Yet, it seems like handleSubscriptionChange sends AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage anyway, which could complicate the test accuracy. Maybe the expected behavior isn't being followed? + + Addressing migration compatibility issues + + It looks like migration tests intercept incoming messages because old v8 wouldn't understand new message types, although they still allow sending, which might be a bug. The failure could be due to v8 needing ResponseRoleMessage from v9. The conversion bug in the + ResponseRoleMessage.toReplicationInfoMessage is another concern, especially for proper v8-v9 migration. I realize there are several tasks to consider, like ensuring v8Behaviour sends messages correctly while checking the role for segmentation. We definitely need to implement fixes and + verify our tests to avoid further issues in compatibility. + + Refining role handling for v8 compatibility + + I’m recognizing that the code indicates the old message supports multiple segments, but perhaps the older role only accepted one. The migration tests simulate the old behavior while still using the current code. I think I'll implement a helper method, getRoleForV8Behaviour(), which won't + throw errors and will pick the best segment based on width. This should help ensure we correctly represent the role as a replicator. I plan to refine the handling of the getRole method to prevent errors and ensure it returns the most appropriate segment for stability. + + Addressing bugs in role messaging + + I’m noticing a potential bug with the ResponseRoleMessage functionality. Currently, it’s set up to send messages only for replicators, but the method for observers might need a review as it seems not to send anything. If there are no segments, we shouldn’t send a role, but for + completeness, it might be useful to ensure our logic accommodates all scenarios. Additionally, I need to fix conversion bugs for toReplicationInfoMessage and ensure I'm using the correct timestamp and method mode. I'll also remove unnecessary debug info after running tests. + +• Ran cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && sed -n '1,220p' packages/programs/data/shared-log/test/utils/stores/event-store.ts 2>/dev/null || true && sed -n '1,260p' packages/programs/data/shared-log/test/utils/stores/event-store.js + └ import { field, variant } from "@dao-xyz/borsh"; + import { PublicSignKey, randomBytes } from "@peerbit/crypto"; + … +217 lines + } else { + sed: packages/programs/data/shared-log/test/utils/stores/event-store.js: No such file or directory + +• I'm looking at the EventStore TypeScript file, and it doesn't implement the clone function, though it does use the @variant decorator with borsh. The Program class might have a clone() method that utilizes serialization, but it's unclear. + + Using db1.log.rpc.send seems more accurate than db.log.rpc.send, so I’ll keep that. + + I need to ensure to remove console logs and delays, run targeted migration tests, and ensure the build passes using pnpm run build. After tests pass, I’ll update documentation and remove debug instrumentation. + + Assessing modifications and testing + + I need to be cautious about how changes in packages/transport/pubsub/src/index.ts could lead to additional test failures beyond just the shared-log tests. The user has requested that I follow the instructions in the shared-log-debug.md, so I must ensure all the steps are executed. + + I’ve already completed serialization of replication info, made the replicator idempotent, handled NotStartedError, and backfilled subscriber state on startup. I also need to validate everything by running tests. Once I fix migration, I'll modify index.ts and replication.ts accordingly + and consider adjusting semantics in packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts. + + Inspecting new code + + I need to check the new code and verify that the old messages check isn't mistakenly blocking pending retries. It might be okay, but I want to be thorough. I’ll take a closer look at the new queue code to see how it interacts with the latestReplicationInfoMessage, particularly around + line 2597. This extra inspection will help ensure everything is functioning as intended and that there aren’t any hidden issues lurking in the code. + +• Explored + └ Read index.ts + +• Edited packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts (+18 -11) + 611 const segments = await this.getMyReplicationSegments(); + 612 - if (segments.length > 1) { + 613 - throw new Error( + 614 - "More than one replication segment found. Can only use one segment for compatbility with v8", + 615 - ); + 616 - } + 617 - + 612 if (segments.length > 0) { + 619 - const segment = segments[0].toReplicationRange(); + 613 + // v8 role messages can only express a single segment (factor+offset). If we + 614 + // ever have more than one segment locally (e.g. due to restore or bugs), + 615 + // pick the widest to best approximate our participation. + 616 + let selected = segments[0]!; + 617 + for (const seg of segments) { + 618 + if (seg.widthNormalized > selected.widthNormalized) { + 619 + selected = seg; + 620 + } + 621 + } + 622 + + 623 + const segment = selected.toReplicationRange(); + 624 return new Replicator({ + ⋮ + 627 offset: (segment.offset as number) / MAX_U32, + 628 + timestamp: segment.timestamp, + 629 }); + ⋮ + 4055 // for backwards compatibility + 4051 - this.rpc + 4052 - .send(new ResponseRoleMessage({ role: await this.getRole() }), { + 4053 - mode: new SeekDelivery({ redundancy: 1, to: [publicKey] }), + 4054 - }) + 4056 + this.getRole() + 4057 + .then((role) => + 4058 + this.rpc.send(new ResponseRoleMessage({ role }), { + 4059 + mode: new SeekDelivery({ redundancy: 1, to: [publicKey] }), + 4060 + }), + 4061 + ) + 4062 .catch((e) => logger.error(e.toString())); + +• I’m looking into patching the RequestReplicationInfoMessage handler next. It’s clear I’ve already made some updates, like selecting the widest role and including a timestamp. I also fixed the handleSubscriptionChange to catch errors, which felt like a necessary improvement. Now, I’ll + focus on addressing that section to ensure everything works smoothly. It’s all about making sure the whole system is reliable and effective, so let’s get this done! + +• Edited packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts (+18 -14) + 3053 if (this.v8Behaviour) { + 3054 - const role = this.getRole(); + 3055 - if (role instanceof Replicator) { + 3056 - const fixedSettings = !this._isAdaptiveReplicating; + 3057 - if (fixedSettings) { + 3058 - await this.rpc.send( + 3059 - new ResponseRoleMessage({ + 3060 - role, + 3061 - }), + 3062 - { + 3063 - mode: new SilentDelivery({ + 3064 - to: [context.from], + 3065 - redundancy: 1, + 3054 + try { + 3055 + const role = await this.getRole(); + 3056 + if (role instanceof Replicator) { + 3057 + const fixedSettings = !this._isAdaptiveReplicating; + 3058 + if (fixedSettings) { + 3059 + await this.rpc.send( + 3060 + new ResponseRoleMessage({ + 3061 + role, + 3062 }), + 3067 - }, + 3068 - ); + 3063 + { + 3064 + mode: new SilentDelivery({ + 3065 + to: [context.from], + 3066 + redundancy: 1, + 3067 + }), + 3068 + }, + 3069 + ); + 3070 + } + 3071 } + 3072 + } catch (e: any) { + 3073 + logger.error(e?.toString?.() ?? String(e)); + 3074 } + +• I see that I need to patch the conversion in replication.ts. It seems like a straightforward task, but I want to ensure everything flows smoothly. I'll take a moment to double-check the current implementation and see where the issues are. Making sure I understand the intended behavior is + really important here, so I don’t accidentally overlook anything! Okay, let's dive into those details and get that conversion patched up properly. + +• Edited packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/replication.ts (+4 -2) + 17 } from "./ranges.js"; + 18 +import { denormalizer } from "./integers.js"; + 19 import { Observer, Replicator, Role } from "./role.js"; + ⋮ + 67 toReplicationInfoMessage(): AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage { + 68 + const denormalizeru32 = denormalizer("u32"); + 69 return new AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage({ + ⋮ + 74 id: randomBytes(32), + 73 - offset: x.offset, + 74 - factor: x.factor, + 75 + offset: denormalizeru32(x.offset), + 76 + factor: denormalizeru32(x.factor), + 77 timestamp: x.timestamp, + +• I added a denormalizer and used it in the method. I declared denormalizeru32 inside toReplicationInfoMessage, but it might be more efficient to define it at the module scope. It’s fine for now, but we might prefer a module-scope constant to avoid unnecessary function creations. I've + updated replication.ts, which is widely used, so I need to check for lint issues. Now, I’ll run targeted tests to see if the fix works, even with existing debug logs. Let's get started on that! + +• I see that the build has succeeded, but there are warnings regarding file patterns. I’m wondering if this is related to TypeScript and how it compiles. It could be that tests are being run from the dist folder? Hmm, I guess I’ll just wait and see what happens next! It's interesting to + think about how these different components interact. I want to make sure everything works smoothly without issues. + +↳ Interacted with background terminal · cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && node ./node_modules/aegir/src/index.js run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log -- -t node --grep "8-9, replicates database of 1 entry" + └ (waited) + +• Ran cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && node ./node_modules/aegir/src/index.js run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log -- -t node --grep "8-9, replicates database of 1 entry" + └ + @peerbit/shared-log: npm run test -- -t node --grep 8-9, replicates database of 1 entry + … +23 lines + @peerbit/shared-log: ✔ 8-9, replicates database of 1 entry (2565ms) + @peerbit/shared-log: 1 passing (3s) + +• I see that we received a ResponseRoleMessage from v9 — that's promising! It looks like our fix worked and that the ResponseRoleMessage is being sent now. This should help ensure the test passes, so let's just hang tight and wait for the assertion to confirm it. It's always satisfying to + see things click into place like this! + +• I need to execute the test "9-8, replicates database of 1 entry" to confirm that everything is functioning properly. It’s essential to verify that we’re not encountering any issues, so let’s make sure to run this test as well. I want everything to work smoothly, and double-checking will + help ensure that our database is in good shape. I’m proceeding with the test now! + +↳ Interacted with background terminal + └ (waited) + +↳ Interacted with background terminal · cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && node ./node_modules/aegir/src/index.js run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log -- -t node --grep "9-8, replicates database of 1 entry" + └ (waited) + +• Ran cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && node ./node_modules/aegir/src/index.js run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log -- -t node --grep "9-8, replicates database of 1 entry" + └ + @peerbit/shared-log: npm run test -- -t node --grep 9-8, replicates database of 1 entry + … +22 lines + @peerbit/shared-log: ✔ 9-8, replicates database of 1 entry (285ms) + @peerbit/shared-log: 1 passing (418ms) + +↳ Interacted with background terminal · cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && node ./node_modules/aegir/src/index.js run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log -- -t node --grep "replicate:join not emitted on update" + └ (waited) + +• Ran cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && node ./node_modules/aegir/src/index.js run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log -- -t node --grep "replicate:join not emitted on update" + └ + @peerbit/shared-log: npm run test -- -t node --grep replicate:join not emitted on update + … +16 lines + @peerbit/shared-log: ✔ replicate:join not emitted on update (351ms) + @peerbit/shared-log: 1 passing (419ms) + +↳ Interacted with background terminal · cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && node ./node_modules/aegir/src/index.js run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log -- -t node --grep "will re-check replication segments on restart and prune offline" + └ (waited) + +• Ran cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && node ./node_modules/aegir/src/index.js run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log -- -t node --grep "will re-check replication segments on restart and prune offline" + └ + @peerbit/shared-log: npm run test -- -t node --grep will re-check replication segments on restart and prune offline + … +19 lines + @peerbit/shared-log: ✔ will re-check replication segments on restart and prune offline (3380ms) + @peerbit/shared-log: 1 passing (4s) + +• I’m thinking we should execute the full shared-log test suite, even though it could take some time. The command for this is node ./node_modules/aegir/src/index.js run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log -- -t node. Running pnpm -r test is another option, but user + instructions clearly say to run tests. + So, to be safe, I'll go ahead with the shared-log tests using the full command. It might take a while, but let’s get it done! + +• The output is quite large, and it seems to be truncated, which is a bit concerning. However, the tests are still running, so I'll need to be patient for now. I want to make sure I wait for the process to finish before making any judgments. It’s frustrating when things are cut off, but + I’ll just keep an eye on it and poll again later. Let’s see how it goes! + +↳ Interacted with background terminal · cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && node ./node_modules/aegir/src/index.js run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log -- -t node + └ (waited) + +• Ran cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && node ./node_modules/aegir/src/index.js run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log -- -t node + └ + @peerbit/shared-log: npm run test -- -t node + … +4134 lines + rotation: 0.6 + ✔ empty + +• I’ve noticed that the shared-log suite has one failing test: “segments updated while offline” at line 1144. This is new since the suite previously passed. The failure is likely tied to recent changes in the replication-info queue or idempotency affecting offline updates. I need to + inspect the failing test in replicate.spec.ts around line 1144. I’m planning to open that section and use sed to show the lines around 1120-1160 to understand the expected behavior. + +• Explored + └ Read replicate.spec.ts + +• I'm trying to track down a failing test. The test failure is at line 1144, but I see earlier tests around line 1100. I'm realizing the failure might actually be related to the "replicate resume." The error message says the context is "segments updated while offline," but I need to check + around line 1144 for more context. Since the file is huge, I'll use nl -ba to show line numbers and check lines 1130 to 1160 to pinpoint the issue. + +• Explored + └ Read replicate.spec.ts + Search segments updated while offline in replicate.spec.ts + Read replicate.spec.ts + +• I need to look into the code around the addReplicationRange function, specifically where join events are dispatched. This seems to be located around lines 1100 to 1400. I’m going to open that section and dig deeper into the relevant parts. This could clarify any issues or aspects I need + to focus on. I want to ensure I get this right and fully understand what’s happening! + +• Explored + └ Search replicator:join in index.ts + Read index.ts + +• It looks like the formatting is a bit off, which might be due to some indentation changes. I need to take a closer look at the code, especially the isNewReplicator logic. There could be some misaligned braces to check for. The tests mostly passed, showing the code compiles, but we + changed the logic for isNewReplicator so that join events only trigger under specific conditions. In the failing test, the join events stayed at zero, which means there’s some issue with how the code emits joins. Let's dig into how that’s meant to work. + + Analyzing replication logic + + The join event situation occurs when db1 gets a replication message from db2, which calls addReplicationRange. Here, hadSegmentsBefore is calculated from db2's existing segments in the replicationIndex. However, if db1 reopened alone, it may have kept db2’s segments from the last + session, which is worth considering. The test states that non-reachable peers shouldn't be in the segments, so db1 should not hold db2's segment. This likely involves pruneOfflineReplicators removing segments for offline peers, but I need to confirm why join events are zero. It's + possible hadSegmentsBefore wasn’t false, or didAddReplicator was false. Let's look closer! + + Exploring join event emission + + In the addReplicationRange, the join event is emitted only if there are changes, as indicated by if (diffs.length > 0). That means if diffs.length is zero, it might be disregarded, treating a full-state announcement with the same ranges as no differences. However, since remote db2 + changed its offset from 0.2 to 0.4, the ranges should indicate changes. This could happen if addReplicationRange is called with reset as true and the incoming ranges equal the existing ones. Wait—remote may send AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage with those segments. In that case, deleted + should reflect all existing ranges for db2, likely zero if pruned. + + Examining segment handling + + I’m considering that maybe the segments weren't pruned—perhaps the deleted segments include one range (offset 0.2). If that's the case, we compute prevCount as deleted.length, making hadSegmentsBefore true. The existingById map checks for the same ranges. When remote sends a new range, + the id could be random bytes, which raises the question: when replicating after a restart, does it reuse the same id or generate a new one? In the replication path, it's possible the new replication range message is created with either random bytes or a provided id. If remote sends + AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage, those stored segments could either replace the persisted segment from the previous run or add a new one. It might also reset and keep the old ID. + + Clarifying segment replication + + I’m thinking that replicate might use an id to distinguish segments. If a new replicate is called with an offset and factor but no id, it could create a segment with a random id. If it's a resume action, however, it might reuse an existing id. In the test, the replicate option likely + creates a range with a random id each time it's opened. By default, if the replicate arguments are specified on restart, it might call replicate again and add new segments. I need to check how hasIndexedReplicationInfo is computed and used to determine if it prompts a replicate call. + Let's look into that! + +• Explored + └ Search hasIndexedReplicationInfo in index.ts + Read index.ts + Search async removeReplicator in index.ts + Read index.ts + +• I haven't reached the definition for removeReplicator yet, as it's earlier in the code at line 1010. However, I noticed that sed started its actions at 1500 because the previous threshold was too high. To get a better understanding, I think it makes sense to open the lines around 940 to + 1100 to find more context about it. This approach should help clarify things! + +• Explored + └ Read index.ts + +• I’m noticing the test got joinEvents 0, suggesting that one of the conditions might be failing. + + It could be that diffs.length is 0, which means join wasn’t emitted. That might happen if addReplicationRange hasSameRanges, setting diffs to an empty array. + + But in this situation, since deleted items probably yield length 1, maybe equalRange will hold? + + Oh, if db2 had a segment persisted at the same offset of 0.4 but was altered offline from 0.2 to 0.4, that’s another thing to consider. + + Analyzing segment replication + + I see that db1's index has old segments from a previous session: db1 is at offset 0.1 and db2 at 0.2. + + When db1 reopens and calls replicate with offset 0.3, it might reset and update its segment. This reset could clear existing segments and add new ones while potentially pruning offline replicators like db2. + + However, since db2 is offline, db1 might still retain db2’s segment until the prune runs. When db2 opens later, it might still find the old offset 0.2 in db1. This could lead to confusion about whether we consider it a new replicator for the join event. + + Clarifying replication behavior + + Hmm, the comment specifies that non-reachable peers shouldn't be included in the replication segments. + + That means when db2 is offline, db1 should ideally have removed db2 from its segments before db2 reconnects. However, due to timing, db1 might not have done that by the time db2 rejoins. + + In the older code, a join event might have still been emitted if the segment persisted, even with an offline peer. Since we modified the join logic to depend on hadSegmentsBefore and hasSegmentsAfter, this could prevent the join event from being emitted when db2's segment remains after a + restart. + + Examining join event expectations + + I’m realizing the old code might have emitted a join event thinking the replicator was new due to the uniqueReplicators reset. This could work for the test but could unintentionally cause self-join events. + + The test expects joinEvents to be 1 when db2’s segments are updated while offline, without counting on prune removal. The test specifically focuses on "segments updated while offline," where both db1 and db2 are closed, then reopened. + + They want the join event to trigger when db2 reconnects and its segment changes, highlighting that it became reachable again. + + Refining join event logic + + Our new join logic seems to fail because hadSegmentsBefore can still be true from persisted segments, making isNewReplicator false, so no join event is emitted. But the test expects a join event when the replicator effectively joins the current session. + + We should fire a join event when the replicator is seen as online for the first time, even if segments persist from previous sessions. This aligns with the uniqueReplicators set, which tracks reachable replicators each session. + + I think if we combine these logic points, we can ensure no duplicates or self-joins while still handling events correctly when peers become reachable. It looks like we need a more nuanced state machine to accomplish this. + +• Explored + └ Search will re-check replication segments on restart and prune offline in replicate.spec.ts + Read replicate.spec.ts + Read replicate.spec.ts + +• I'm thinking about the risks of concurrency in two tasks and how they could lead to duplication. The pruneOfflineReplicators function checks if a replicator was known, and it can create issues if addReplicationRange runs at the same time. If both tasks see that the replicator was unknown + and dispatch a join, that’s a problem. However, we might minimize conflicts by ensuring operations are serialized, though it seems these tasks could still run concurrently. This all feels a bit tricky! + + Considering duplication in joins + + I'm realizing if we change the join logic to only check unique replicators, we might still see duplicates because of concurrency issues between pruneOfflineReplicators and addReplicationRange. I think using an atomic check-add-dispatch within the same microtask could help, but JavaScript + doesn’t guarantee that across async operations. We could make join emissions idempotent by implementing a helper function, but that still leaves the door open for racing conditions. Maybe serializing join dispatch events per peer could be a way to address this? It's definitely + complicated! + + Revising join event logic + + I’m considering a new approach: what if we didn't emit the join event from addReplicationRange? Instead, we could fire that event when we see a peer subscription change in pubsub, which fits the concept of "peer is online" better than just updating replication segments. Currently, + handleSubscriptionChange doesn't emit a join event but sends messages for replication info. While integrating these ideas might unify the logic, I think it’s wise to keep the current pattern for now to maintain functionality while still passing tests. + + Adjusting join logic for replication + + I need to tweak the join logic in addReplicationRange to ensure a remote join event gets triggered on the first message of a session, even if hadSegmentsBefore is true due to persisted segments. Here's what I’m thinking: First, check if from equals my node identity. Then, I’ll determine + if there are segments after considering prior values. Next, I’ll see if the replicator is known before making changes. If there are segments after, I’ll add it to unique replicators; otherwise, I’ll remove it. The join event should fire if it became known and isn't myself, even if the + diffs length is zero! + + Refining join event criteria + + I’m realizing that the join event should still happen even when there are no diffs because the replicator is joining. For instance, if a remote entity sends a full state that’s identical, we need to mark them as known and emit a join event since it's the first time we recognize they're + online. I feel the logic shouldn’t depend on whether diffs are greater than zero; it should focus on transitions within uniqueReplicators. We’ll need to move the join event out of the current diffs block while ensuring it does not trigger for oneself. I also want to ensure events + correlate correctly between joins, leaves, and maturity. It’s a lot to juggle! + +• Explored + └ Read events.spec.ts + +• I'm thinking about how behavior might change: joining events for self won't trigger, even on an initial replicate, which seems to fit the design since join events are about other replicators. I notice in the tests that join events are only expected to involve remote replicators. So, it + appears that no tests expect self to join. I'll proceed to update the function regarding replication ranges and patch the code as needed, ensuring everything aligns with our previous changes. + + Identifying code indentation issues + + I noticed that the current code snippet appears misindented, so I’ll make sure to patch it carefully using apply_patch. To do this properly, I’ll need to locate the exact text around the fromHash variable by searching for const fromHash = from.hashcode(); near the addReplicationRange + function. I plan to use a command like rg -n "const fromHash = from.hashcode" -n to find it quickly. Let’s ensure everything is in order before making adjustments! + +• Explored + └ Search const fromHash = from\.hashcode\(\) in index.ts + Read index.ts + +• I'm thinking about switching to uniqueReplicators, which should trigger since wasKnownReplicator is false in the first message. It would activate whether diffs are greater than 0 or not. I can keep the join dispatch inside the diffs>0 block but use !wasKnownReplicator instead of + isNewReplicator. This might resolve the failing test related to the diffs. However, it might not address the situation where diffs are empty, but maybe that isn't critical for the tests. Still, I want to ensure robustness. + + Considering restart scenarios + + I’m looking at a scenario that can occur on restart. When we have persisted the replicationIndex for a remote replicator and open our database, but the remote is online, we might get their AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage early. If that's the case, addReplicationRange is called with ranges + that already exist in the index, leading to empty diffs due to the hasSameRanges optimization. We might not dispatch join if we gate on diffs, but it seems like we still want a join event to indicate the replicator is online. PruneOfflineReplicators checks reachability for each segment + and emits join events for reachable replicators, potentially covering join events on restart, even if diffs are empty. However, there remains a chance that pruneOfflineReplicators doesn't catch everything since it runs after join events, but maybe that's alright. + + Refining join event logic + + For overall correctness, I realize the join event shouldn't depend on diffs; it's about the join itself, not just range changes. So, I need to move it outside the diffs conditions. However, I should ensure that the join event isn't emitted if we already know the replicator. To clarify, I + can compute const shouldEmitJoin = !isMe && !wasKnownReplicator && hasSegmentsAfter; After assessing diffs, we can then dispatch the join event. Even if addReplicationRange fails later, we can still dispatch the join since we call it only when indexes are ready, allowing for join + dispatch after the diffs range. If diffs are empty, I still want to consider sending the join event. I think I'll dispatch join after checking if(diffs.length > 0. + + Clarifying join event timing + + I want to ensure that when diffs have a length greater than 0, we add replication ranges before the join event, though it might not be strictly necessary. For the purpose of testing join events, they mainly count the join event itself, not the segments. Ideally, the join event should + occur after we've inserted the ranges, so I'll consider implementing the dispatch after the for (const diff of diffs) loop, possibly even after the replication:change event. However, it might need to happen before that. In events.spec, the replicator:join isn’t emitted on update; it + seems they expect the join event to trigger once when db2 opens and begins replication, likely stemming from addReplicationRange when the diff is added. I notice that we also have join emission in pruneOfflineReplicators for reachable segments, which might cause the join to fire before + addReplicationRange, but maybe the tests will still pass. + + Fixing join event dispatch + + I want the join event to accurately reflect when a replicator comes online, which can occur either from receiving a replication info message or discovering a persisted segment with a reachable peer at startup. In the failing test, the join event didn’t fire, even though the segments + check succeeded—replicationIndex had two segments with offsets of 0.3 and 0.4, indicating that addReplicationRange worked. + + To fix this, I’ll replace the block using wasKnownReplicator and shouldEmitJoin, and I see I need to adjust the braces. The join event dispatch seems misaligned and may lack a proper closing brace, despite compiling. I’ll check the code around lines 1370-1445 to patch this properly. + +• Explored + └ Read index.ts + +• I'm noticing that the indentation in this code is off, specifically with the line if (isNewReplicator && didAddReplicator). It's indented too far inside the dispatchEvent call. Also, there’s an odd blank line before if (isAllMature), making it seem like there’s a missing closing brace, + although it turns out there isn't—just a confusion with the indentation. The code should be properly aligned to clearly show structure, especially with the nested conditions. It's important to keep things clean for readability! + + Reviewing event logic + + I’m thinking that while the current behavior appears correct, we should ensure that the matured event for the replicator is fired only after the join event is emitted. This is how it currently works. However, it might make sense for the matured event to fire even if the replicator is + already known, as long as the segments are matured. + + I’m considering restructuring the logic by moving the join event dispatch outside of if (diffs.length > 0) based on whether shouldEmitJoin is true. I might also want to dispatch the matured event under the same condition, ensuring we keep the semantics of the replicator:mature event + intact, which is designed to trigger when all segments are mature. + + Analyzing replicator event logic + + I’m realizing that the current setup gates replicator:mature with isNewReplicator and didAddReplicator, so it only emits on the initial join event, not on updates. Wait, that doesn't seem right. replicator:mature might need to emit when segments become mature, not just for new + replicators. + + There are pending maturity timers that dispatch replicator:mature when segments mature. It looks like they intend to trigger it only for new or reset replicators. However, if I read the events.spec properly, replicator:mature should be triggered upon updates and not just during the + initial join, including for both self and remote members. This adds another layer to the logic, which is important to clarify! + + Assessing replicator:mature event logic + + It seems that the remote replicator:mature event can be triggered by pending maturity timers when the remote range matures. This could happen after addReplicationRange inserts the range and sets those timers. The replicator:mature is dispatched within the pending timer callback and also + during addReplicationRange if isAllMature. + + While they probably intended for replicator:mature to trigger when all segments are mature, gating by join may be misaligned. We need to ensure our modifications don't alter existing semantics too much, especially since our new join logic might require further adjustments for how we gate + the mature event. It’s worth considering dispatching a join event even if diffs.length === 0. + + Revising event dispatch logic + + I'm noticing that we haven't been iterating through diffs, meaning isAllMature stays true. We might want to also dispatch the replicator:mature event if shouldEmitJoin is true since the replicator could already be mature. However, there are conditional scenarios to consider depending on + whether diffs.length > 0. + + It’s crucial to dispatch join events even when there are no diffs, but we need to ensure that we also check the hasSegmentsAfter condition. Our modifications should replace the isNewReplicator and didAddReplicator logic with shouldEmitJoin. Overall, it seems we may need to fine-tune the + interaction between the join logic and the replicator:mature event to fit the expected behaviors detailed in the tests! + + Examining replicator maturity logic + + I'm analyzing the test titled "replicator:mature emit twice on update reset." It seems to check for two maturity events for the same peer, especially after a reset. However, our current code dispatches replicator:mature only upon a join event, which might prevent it from emitting during + a reset update. + + Yet, because pending timers are set for new ranges, the replicator:mature event can still be triggered after a reset, assuming the segment is updated correctly. So, it's possible we wouldn’t face issues with additional maturity events being incorrectly emitted after the reset; the + current logic seems to account for this by maintaining the original timestamps in scenarios where the segment ID is unchanged. + +• Explored + └ Search replicator:mature emit twice on update reset in events.spec.ts + Read events.spec.ts + +• I'm thinking about how the second replicator:mature test expects specific member counts, including duplicates like peer1. If we emit extra replicator:mature events during reconnection, that could affect tests focused on duplicate counts. I'm not entirely sure if we have tests involving + reconnection for replicator:mature, but it's something to consider. Currently, replicator:mature dispatch happens when certain conditions are met, and I'm exploring whether moving join events could introduce new behavior while minimizing any changes we make. Keeping things stable seems + crucial. + + Evaluating dispatch behavior + + I'm considering whether to keep the current gating for replicator:mature, which dispatches only when diff lengths are greater than zero. The join event might need to be adjusted to dispatch outside of that condition. I can change the join emission while keeping replicator:mature dispatch + linked to having non-empty diffs. If there are no diffs and we should emit a join, we would still dispatch the join event but avoid the mature event. However, since we didn't add segments, it could be tricky to decide if we should dispatch the mature event. + + Deciding on event dispatching + + I think it's best to maintain the previous logic by dispatching the replicator:mature event only when join occurs with a non-zero diff length, meaning we've inserted segments. If there are no diffs, there’s nothing to insert, so it makes sense to skip. However, we might still emit a join + event even when diffs are zero, which could lead to a join without a replication change event. I plan to update the logic to see if shouldEmitJoin needs to be handled separately outside the diffs block, while keeping existing checks for replicator:mature dispatch intact. + + Revising join and mature dispatching + + I’m thinking about dispatching the join event outside of the diffs condition. However, I’m unsure if I want to emit the immediate mature event. It might be acceptable if the segments are already mature. The downtimes for updates might present complications since new segments may not be + mature yet. I can keep the immediate mature event within the condition for when shouldEmitJoin is true, all segments are mature, and there are non-zero diffs. If there are no diffs, we skip it entirely. The existing logic will need updates since I'll be replacing some checks with + shouldEmitJoin. + + Refining replication logic + + I'm considering how to adjust the join and replication logic in JavaScript. Currently, the uniqueReplicators check and add operations are safe against race conditions because they execute synchronously. This allows me to implement join emissions idempotently by relying on + uniqueReplicators. I need to make specific code changes, like updating how we handle segment additions and deletions without introducing unnecessary gating. I'm also thinking about the implications of moving the join dispatch outside the diffs length condition to ensure we capture + necessary joins. It's a balancing act, but ensuring correctness in this process is key. + + Examining join emission logic + + I'm thinking about when to emit the join event, especially for cases where the ranges are empty but segments may have been previously known. If hadSegmentsBefore is true but hasSegmentsAfter is false, then we shouldn't emit the join event. However, if there are segments known to exist + previously, it might be appropriate to send the join regardless. + + I’m considering keeping the join dispatch within the diffs length block while ensuring that if shouldEmitJoin is true, we still fire off the join event. Also, I must ensure the logic around the replicator:mature event remains intact to prevent issues with tests. Moving forward, I'll + maintain this structure but may want to double-check how this interacts with existing tests that rely on the uniqueReplicators set. + +• Edited packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts (+19 -19) + 1297 + 1298 - const fromHash = from.hashcode(); + 1299 - const hasSegmentsAfter = + 1300 - reset === true ? ranges.length > 0 : hadSegmentsBefore || ranges.length > 0; + 1301 - let didAddReplicator = false; + 1302 - if (hasSegmentsAfter) { + 1303 - if (!this.uniqueReplicators.has(fromHash)) { + 1304 - this.uniqueReplicators.add(fromHash); + 1305 - didAddReplicator = true; + 1306 - } + 1307 - } else { + 1308 - this.uniqueReplicators.delete(fromHash); + 1309 - } + 1310 - const isNewReplicator = !hadSegmentsBefore && hasSegmentsAfter; + 1298 + const fromHash = from.hashcode(); + 1299 + const isMe = fromHash === this.node.identity.publicKey.hashcode(); + 1300 + const hasSegmentsAfter = + 1301 + reset === true ? ranges.length > 0 : hadSegmentsBefore || ranges.length > 0; + 1302 + const wasKnownReplicator = this.uniqueReplicators.has(fromHash); + 1303 + + 1304 + if (hasSegmentsAfter) { + 1305 + this.uniqueReplicators.add(fromHash); + 1306 + } else { + 1307 + this.uniqueReplicators.delete(fromHash); + 1308 + } + 1309 + + 1310 + const shouldEmitJoin = !isMe && !wasKnownReplicator && hasSegmentsAfter; + 1311 + ⋮ + 1407 + 1408 - if (isNewReplicator && didAddReplicator) { + 1409 - this.events.dispatchEvent( + 1410 - new CustomEvent("replicator:join", { + 1411 - detail: { publicKey: from }, + 1412 - }), + 1413 - ); + 1408 + if (shouldEmitJoin) { + 1409 + this.events.dispatchEvent( + 1410 + new CustomEvent("replicator:join", { + 1411 + detail: { publicKey: from }, + 1412 + }), + 1413 + ); + 1414 + +• I’ve fixed the indentation and join logic. Now I need to decide if I should rerun the specific failing test called "segments updated while offline" or the entire test suite. I think it makes sense to start by running just that specific failing test first. I’ll use the command aegir test + along with grep to focus on that particular test to see if the patch resolved the issue. + +↳ Interacted with background terminal · cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && node ./node_modules/aegir/src/index.js run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log -- -t node --grep "segments updated while offline" + └ (waited) + +• Ran cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && node ./node_modules/aegir/src/index.js run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log -- -t node --grep "segments updated while offline" + └ + @peerbit/shared-log: npm run test -- -t node --grep segments updated while offline + … +18 lines + @peerbit/shared-log: ✔ segments updated while offline (1480ms) + @peerbit/shared-log: 1 passing (2s) + +• The specific test has passed, which is a relief! Now, I need to rerun the earlier tests we did, like checking if the join was not emitted on update and verifying the restart prune offline. Since the join logic changed, it's essential to ensure everything still works as expected. I'll use + the grep commands to check those specific tests again, and I'll aim to do both fairly quickly! + +• Ran cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && node ./node_modules/aegir/src/index.js run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log -- -t node --grep "replicate:join not emitted on update" + └ + @peerbit/shared-log: npm run test -- -t node --grep replicate:join not emitted on update + … +16 lines + @peerbit/shared-log: ✔ replicate:join not emitted on update (317ms) + @peerbit/shared-log: 1 passing (382ms) + +• Ran cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && node ./node_modules/aegir/src/index.js run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log -- -t node --grep "will re-check replication segments on restart and prune offline" + └ + @peerbit/shared-log: npm run test -- -t node --grep will re-check replication segments on restart and prune offline + … +19 lines + @peerbit/shared-log: ✔ will re-check replication segments on restart and prune offline (3374ms) + @peerbit/shared-log: 1 passing (4s) + +↳ Interacted with background terminal + └ (waited) + +↳ Interacted with background terminal + └ (waited) + +• Both tests passed, but now I’m considering whether we need to rerun the migration tests. They should still pass because the logic change shouldn’t affect them. I think I’ll run migration suite quickly, maybe using --grep "migration-8-9" or both tests again. After the join logic change, I + feel it's better to be safe. We should also clean debug logs from migration.spec.ts, since they clutter the output and might slow things down. Lastly, I want to patch up migration.spec.ts to revert debug instrumentation. + + Evaluating migration.spec.ts changes + + In the diff for migration.spec.ts, I've made several modifications: I added a console.log in onMessage, changed await db.log.rpc.send to await db1.log.rpc.send, and included a 2000ms delay while printing ranges and latestRepInfo keys. I think we should remove the logs and delay. Keeping + the change to db1.log.rpc.send seems wise, but we should confirm if it's original intent. I’ll check the git diff to see if the test would pass without it. The change appears safe as it reflects the v8 instance sending the response. Clearing the console log and unnecessary import should + streamline things. + + Finalizing changes in migration.spec.ts + + In this file, await delay(2000) was added using a dynamic import from "@peerbit/time" just for debugging. I think it's best to remove those lines, so we won't need the delay import anymore, effectively reverting to the original. I’ll apply the patch to remove the console.log in onMessage + and the debug block before db1.add. Since the file uses waitForResolved at the top, that should be fine. Let’s go ahead and implement these changes. + +• Edited packages/programs/data/shared-log/test/migration.spec.ts (+0 -7) + 62 onMessage: async (msg, context) => { + 63 - console.log("[v8 mock] received:", msg.constructor.name, "from:", context.from?.hashcode()?.slice(0, 10)); + 63 if (msg instanceof AddedReplicationSegmentMessage) { + ⋮ + 127 const value = "hello"; + 129 - + 130 - const { delay } = await import("@peerbit/time"); + 131 - await delay(2000); + 132 - const db1Ranges = await db1.log.replicationIndex.iterate().all(); + 133 - console.log("db1 ranges:", db1Ranges.map(r => ({ hash: r.value.hash, width: r.value.widthNormalized }))); + 134 - console.log("db1 latestRepInfo:", [...(db1.log as any).latestReplicationInfoMessage?.keys() ?? []]); + 128 + +• I’ve cleaned up the migration.spec.ts, but I still need to address the change related to db1.log.rpc.send. It's important to ensure that there are no other debug logs remaining in the code as well. I’ll need to search for things like "[v8 mock]" to make sure everything is tidy. I'll + double-check everything to be certain we haven't missed anything. That's the plan! + +• Explored + └ Search \[v8 mock\] in migration.spec.ts + +• I need to run the migration tests quickly to ensure they pass. I'll use the --grep "migration-8-9" for the tests. Running the grep for 8-9, replicates database of 1 entry might only test one scenario, so I'll consider running both 8-9 and 9-8. It could be useful to use --grep "replicates + database of 1 entry" to cover both tests. Okay, let's get that done! + +• Ran cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && node ./node_modules/aegir/src/index.js run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log -- -t node --grep "replicates database of 1 entry" + └ + @peerbit/shared-log: npm run test -- -t node --grep replicates database of 1 entry + … +27 lines + @peerbit/shared-log: ✔ replicates database of 1 entry (2095ms) + @peerbit/shared-log: 4 passing (3s) + +↳ Interacted with background terminal + └ (waited) + +• I noticed that it ran some other tests under the same name, and they all passed. Now, I should re-run the entire shared-log suite again to make sure there are no failing tests after the recent modifications. It took about three minutes the last time, so I expect a similar timeframe. + Let's get that going and see if everything is still working smoothly! + +↳ Interacted with background terminal + └ (waited) + +↳ Interacted with background terminal · cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && node ./node_modules/aegir/src/index.js run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log -- -t node + └ (waited) + +• Ran cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && node ./node_modules/aegir/src/index.js run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log -- -t node + └ + @peerbit/shared-log: npm run test -- -t node + … +4127 lines + ✔ not enoughly replicated after removed + ✔ boundary assigned are always included f + +• I see that the full suite is failing a specific test: "will re-check replication segments on restart and announce online." It's expecting a joinEvents value of 1, but instead, it got 0. That's similar to offline segments updates but in a different context. I need to check this test + specifically, which I remember from earlier. + + Looking at line 993, it's within the "pruneOfflineReplicators" describe block. It seems the test is listening for joinEvents, and after my join logic changes, the event may not be firing as expected. + +• Explored + └ Read replicate.spec.ts + +• I’m looking into why the join function isn’t emitting as expected. It’s interesting because the uniqueReplicators resets to a new Set during open(). So, I’m curious about that. I need to run a targeted test using grep "announce online" to see if that brings clarity, as it seems to be + failing right now. I'll execute the command with node ... --grep "announce online" to confirm and dig deeper into this issue. + +↳ Interacted with background terminal · cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && node ./node_modules/aegir/src/index.js run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log -- -t node --grep "announce online" + └ (waited) + +• Ran cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && node ./node_modules/aegir/src/index.js run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log -- -t node --grep "announce online" + └ + @peerbit/shared-log: npm run test -- -t node --grep announce online + … +98 lines + + + +• I need to think about whether emitting replicator:mature could create extra maturity events in tests. This might interfere if a test expects that mature event counts won't include duplicates on restart. I'm not sure, so I’ll look for tests checking replicator:mature counts during + restarts or updates with empty diffs. To play it safe, maybe we should only emit replicator:mature along with joins when diffs are greater than zero. If diffs are empty, emitting might still be fine depending on the current state. + + Considering maturity event dispatching + + If a peer is already mature (with an old timestamp) and I'm just learning about them, it could be helpful to dispatch the maturity event immediately, especially on restart. However, I wonder if that might cause extra maturity events in some tests. I need to check how replicator:mature is + used in those tests. They might expect at least one maturity event per peer when they become mature. To minimize disruptions, it might be best to only adjust the join event emission while keeping the maturity event conditions the same, dispatching it only when diffs length is greater + than zero. + + Examining event dispatching logic + + I need to be cautious with how I’m dispatching maturity events in the code. Right now, maturity events are triggered within the join emission when diffs length is greater than zero. If I move the join outside and keep maturity inside, then if diffs are empty and a join occurs, maturity + won’t be dispatched, which might be okay. Alternatively, I could keep the current logic and move maturity outside. I’m thinking about implementing the join event dispatching right after the diffs loop or after checking if changes should emit the join. It seems like join can technically + be dispatched anywhere, especially if diffs are empty. Lastly, I should remember that the replication:change event is only dispatched with diffs length greater than zero. + + Updating event dispatch logic + + I’m planning to patch the code by removing the join dispatch from inside the diffs length check and adding it afterward. So, if shouldEmitJoin is true, it will dispatch a replicator join event. I need to be careful that isAllMature is computed by iterating over diffs, and if the diffs + are empty, it stays true. Ideally, I want to dispatch maturity only when there are diffs present. I can choose to implement that or keep the original logic. There's also the case where, if diffs length is zero and a join event is still emitted, that indicates ranges were previously + known. Even if they were in the index, I may need to set up maturity timers since the pendingMaturity map is cleared on open. + + Updating maturity event logic + + For persisted segments, there are no pending timers, meaning the system might not dispatch maturity events on restart unless they’re re-checked. While pruning offline replicators doesn't set up maturity timers, it seems acceptable if remote replicator maturity events don’t trigger on + restart. I’m pondering if some code depends on this behavior, but to simplify, it's better to handle persisted segments' maturity separately during joins. + + Now, I plan to move the join dispatch outside of the diffs length block. In the updated structure, the join event will trigger after the replication change, and the maturity event will still only fire when diffs are greater than zero and all segments are mature. This maintains the + previous logic and keeps it clean for persisted segments with zero diffs. Ultimately, I’m ready to patch the code! + +• Edited packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts (+16 -16) + 1407 + 1408 - if (shouldEmitJoin) { + 1409 - this.events.dispatchEvent( + 1410 - new CustomEvent("replicator:join", { + 1411 - detail: { publicKey: from }, + 1412 - }), + 1413 - ); + 1414 - + 1415 - if (isAllMature) { + 1416 - this.events.dispatchEvent( + 1417 - new CustomEvent("replicator:mature", { + 1418 - detail: { publicKey: from }, + 1419 - }), + 1420 - ); + 1421 - } + 1422 - } + 1423 - + 1408 if (rebalance) { + ⋮ + 1417 } + 1418 + + 1419 + if (shouldEmitJoin) { + 1420 + this.events.dispatchEvent( + 1421 + new CustomEvent("replicator:join", { + 1422 + detail: { publicKey: from }, + 1423 + }), + 1424 + ); + 1425 + + 1426 + if (diffs.length > 0 && isAllMature) { + 1427 + this.events.dispatchEvent( + 1428 + new CustomEvent("replicator:mature", { + 1429 + detail: { publicKey: from }, + 1430 + }), + 1431 + ); + 1432 + } + 1433 + } + 1434 return diffs; + +• Now I'm considering that if addReplicationRange gets invoked but the differences are empty, and then we dispatch join, the test is passing. That sounds promising! I should rerun the targeted test to verify if everything is working correctly. It’s good to confirm that everything is + functioning as expected without any errors. Let's make sure we keep track of the results this time! + +↳ Interacted with background terminal + └ (waited) + +↳ Interacted with background terminal · cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && node ./node_modules/aegir/src/index.js run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log -- -t node --grep "announce online" + └ (waited) + +• Ran cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && node ./node_modules/aegir/src/index.js run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log -- -t node --grep "announce online" + └ + @peerbit/shared-log: npm run test -- -t node --grep announce online + … +19 lines + @peerbit/shared-log: ✔ will re-check replication segments on restart and announce online (354ms) + @peerbit/shared-log: 1 passing (640ms) + +• Great, I see that the targeted test passes. Now, I need to rerun the earlier tests for join events too, but they should likely pass. Just to be safe, I might want to run the events test replicator for join or leave events. I’ve already checked the replicate:join update, so I'll need to + run the test for segments updated while offline. It seems it's wise to rerun the full shared-log suite as well since it takes about 3 minutes and catches any failing tests. + +↳ Interacted with background terminal + └ (waited) + +• I'm considering how to poll for updates. It seems like polling every 20 seconds could work, but I should use a yield of about 5000 milliseconds. I don't want to keep waiting too long without getting updated information. I think I'll keep polling until I see the "155x passing" line, but I + won’t show every single detail in the output. Let’s go with this plan! + +↳ Interacted with background terminal · cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && node ./node_modules/aegir/src/index.js run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log -- -t node + └ (waited) + +• Ran cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && node ./node_modules/aegir/src/index.js run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log -- -t node + └ + @peerbit/shared-log: npm run test -- -t node + … +4101 lines + ✔ not enoughly replicated after removed + ✔ boundary assigned are always inc + +• I'm noticing that the "waitForReplicator" test is failing because it's resolving slightly earlier than expected. The test requires at least 2900ms, but it's returning at 2885ms. This seems related to the recent changes in our join and maturity events, which might have altered the timing. + It might be a minor fluke due to timer precision, but we should consider adjusting the code or the test to improve stability and avoid future issues. + + Addressing timing issues + + I need to ensure that "waitForReplicator" correctly waits for at least "minRoleAge." Our recent changes might have influenced the getDefaultMinRoleAge or the pending maturity logic. The test expects a wait time of at least 2900ms, but it's returning 2885ms, which is just 15ms early. This + could be due to setTimeout scheduling or system load. I should consider that tests typically allow some margin, so we might need to revise our function to align better with those expectations. + + Inspecting test for timing issues + + I realized that the test allows for a 100ms early resolution, but our function resolved at 2885ms, which is 115ms ahead of the expected time. I need to ensure that we don't resolve more than 100ms early. This issue might happen if we're dispatching the replicator:mature event prematurely + or if the segment timestamp is set incorrectly. I'll take a look at the test in "replicate.spec.ts" around line 352 to better understand the scenario and debug the issue. + +• Explored + └ Read replicate.spec.ts + +• I’m measuring a timestamp difference of about 115ms from t0, and to reduce the wait time, I’d need to shift the timestamp 115ms earlier. It looks like there’s around a 100ms duration between db1 opening and t0, which makes sense. The test has a 100ms tolerance built-in, but if opening + takes about 115ms, that could cause occasional failures. I wonder if our changes impacted the speed of the opening operation. To fix this, I think I'd adjust the waitForReplicator to consider the minimum role age correctly. + + Evaluating database timing + + If db2 starts waiting at t0 after opening, and db1's timestamp is earlier by some delta, then its maturity time might be less than t0 plus minRoleAge, which seems okay. However, the test expects waitForReplicator to wait at least minRoleAge minus 100 after t0, which assumes db1's + timestamp is close to t0, but that’s not the case. I think the new pubsub.requestSubscribers in afterOpen could delay the process, so I’ll need to consider how that affects timing. + + Assessing timestamp impact + + The difference between db1's segment timestamp and t0 can vary. It seems that updateTimestampOfOwnedReplicationRanges gets called during the open phase, right after subscribing, setting the timestamp early. Although tasks like pubsub.requestSubscribers might not significantly delay the + process, they still contribute. This results in t0 being measured after the opens complete, potentially increasing the delay after the timestamp. I think this makes the test more likely to fail since the wait time shortens. To fix this, I might need to update timestamps after completing + afterOpen tasks, but that could have other consequences. + + Adjusting waitForReplicator + + I’m considering whether I can tweak waitForReplicator to use the current time instead of the segment timestamp. It seems worth checking its implementation to see how that might work out. I think I’ll search in index.ts for any references to waitForReplicator or waitForReplicators, just + to get a clearer picture on how it’s set up. Hopefully, this will lead to a more reliable solution! Let's see what I can find there. + +• Explored + └ Search waitForReplicator\( in index.ts + Read index.ts + + +› Shouldn't 115ms be ok? That's 15ms off of 100ms no? This shoudn't be a showstopper? + + +• Before our changes, afterOpen didn’t include the requestSubscribers call, which helped keep the open process quick and within limits. Now that we've added it, we see increased open times causing test failures. I think we should consider moving updateTimestampOfOwnedReplicationRanges + later in the sequence to ensure it captures a more accurate timestamp closer to the completion of the open process. Although, I wonder if there are side effects, as this will impact how quickly other peers see us as mature. It might be worth trying to adjust the requestSubscribers call + to run asynchronously, so it doesn't block the open process, potentially speeding things up and passing the test while still aligning with the intended design. + + Optimizing timestamp management + + It seems we could keep the timestamp update while ensuring that open doesn’t block on requestSubscribers. Since requestSubscribers is primarily for backfilling, it shouldn't hold up the open process. However, I want to ensure it finishes before taking a snapshot for + handleSubscriptionChange. Currently, afterOpen awaits several tasks that can slow down open time, so moving some of these into the background might help speed things up without sacrificing correctness. I’m also considering when we send segments and how to manage timestamps so remote + peers don't see outdated info. Balancing these factors is tricky, and we must ensure that updates happen in the right order to maintain consistency. + + Analyzing replication timestamps + + I’m considering how to ensure that remote peers see us as "new" whenever we announce, even if the local index still has an old timestamp. The remote index uses the timestamp from the announcement message, which could help pass the test. However, this raises complications since messages + may be exchanged during the open process. Alternatively, I could adjust waitForReplicator to compute maturity based on when we received the replicator info, using the timestamp from the message. This approach might be beneficial for keeping the test consistent, but I need to ensure it + doesn't conflict with other expected behaviors. + +• Explored + └ Search function isMatured in index.ts + +• The user is asking about a test failure related to waitForReplicator, which is returning an actual value a bit below the expected maturity time. They’re wondering about the 115 ms difference and if it should be a concern. I think this discrepancy can be attributed to factors like timer + granularity and scheduling. While it's not critical for functionality, I should suggest adjusting the test tolerance or allowing for more slack to prevent flaky tests. It may also be worth considering if some previous changes influenced this behavior. + + Exploring maturity checks + + I'm analyzing the waitForReplicator function, which checks if the replicator is matured using the current date and timestamps from rect. I wonder if our changes to the join event or other queues could have impacted the maturity check. In the test, they stub the database function to + return a resolved role age. They call waitForReplicator using this information, which computes the required maturity. I think I need to locate the isMatured function to understand how it determines maturity based on timestamps and role age. + +• Explored + └ Search isMatured\( in index.ts + Search export const isMatured in ranges.ts + Read ranges.ts + Read ranges.ts, index.ts + +• I need to check where replication ranges are created since we didn’t inspect the _replicate function earlier. I think I should search for timestamp: in the range creation process of _replicate. This will help me figure out the areas where rangesToReplicate are set with a timestamp, + ensuring everything is correctly aligned and functioning as expected. Let's find those instances and clarify how they're utilized! + +• Explored + └ Search timestamp:.*BigInt in index.ts + Search new ReplicationRangeIndexable in index.ts + Search new ReplicationRangeIndexable in ranges.ts + Read index.ts + +• I’m noticing that there might be some confusion around the expected time thresholds in this context. The expected segment timestamp should be around t0, which suggests a slight early resolution could happen. The user seems to think that a difference of 115ms is acceptable, but based on + the test's expectations, it's actually 15ms short of what’s required. The threshold is tied to the role age of 3000, so the actual value falls short. I need to clarify this! + + Addressing allowable slack + + It appears there’s some confusion about the allowed slack in timing, where they're expecting it to be 100ms, but we’re actually 15ms past that limit. They’re questioning if this is acceptable, and I wonder if we should consider widening the slack to 200ms. While not a showstopper, it + could cause occasional failures in CI. We might need to adjust the test to account for this natural drift and ensure waitForReplicator timing is correct with respect to segment observations. + + Examining replication logic + + I’m realizing that we adjusted addReplicationRange to compute shouldEmitJoin using the uniqueReplicators before writing diffs, but we didn’t modify the timestamp. I’m questioning whether join events could affect the timestamp elsewhere. It seems the test previously passed, but perhaps it + was flaky. Our changes might have made it easier for early resolution. The tight 100ms threshold could cause issues, especially on faster machines. If the segment timestamp is created too early, it might lead to earlier failures, particularly with our recent changes speeding up the + handshake process. + + Reassessing the replicator handshake + + I’m realizing that the replicator handshake occurs during the open phase, and it might be happening faster now because of the requestSubscribers call. This could allow db2 to recognize db1’s replicator sooner. When waitForReplicator is called, the segment timestamp might already exist, + which could reduce the 3-second maturity wait. In our failing scenario, it was only 115ms shorter than expected, likely due to a faster handshake. The test should measure wait time based on when db2 observed the segment, ensuring that waitForReplicator doesn’t return prematurely when the + role isn’t matured. + + Revising waitForReplicator logic + + I'm considering whether we should adjust the waitForReplicator code to account for timing differences more effectively. The test currently seems to expect waitForReplicator to return after the role age, but that might be problematic if the segment timestamp is older. It could lead to + unnecessary delays if the maturity is already met. Instead of relying on wall clock timing, it might be better to assess the remaining time to maturity. + + We could calculate remaining = roleAge - (t0 - segment.timestamp) and adjust the test to account for this accurately. + + Clarifying waitForReplicator expectations + + I’m noticing that the test measures t1 - t0 and expects it to be greater than or equal to roleAge - 100. While this ensures quick record appearances, if a record appears late, t1 - t0 could still exceed roleAge—but that wouldn’t be ideal. To be more accurate, we should ensure + waitForReplicator returns only after the timestamp + roleAge. + + I might suggest allowing some flexibility in the test, perhaps increasing the slack to account for earlier resolution, like using .greaterThanOrEqual(roleAge - 250). However, if the handshake occurs even earlier, it could still lead to failures. I should run this specific test multiple + times to gauge the distribution of results. + +↳ Interacted with background terminal · cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && node ./node_modules/aegir/src/index.js run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log -- -t node --grep "waitForReplicator waits until maturity" + └ (waited) + +• Ran cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && node ./node_modules/aegir/src/index.js run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log -- -t node --grep "waitForReplicator waits until maturity" + └ + @peerbit/shared-log: npm run test -- -t node --grep waitForReplicator waits until maturity + … +17 lines + @peerbit/shared-log: ✔ waitForReplicator waits until maturity (3066ms) + @peerbit/shared-log: 1 passing (3s) + +• Explored + └ Search describe\(\"replicate\" in replicate.spec.ts + Search beforeEach in replicate.spec.ts + Read replicate.spec.ts + Read replicate.spec.ts + +• I’m thinking about how the segment timestamp affects wait times. If the open function takes more than 100ms before t0, tests might fail. Open includes building and TypeScript compilation, which might explain delays. It makes sense to adjust thresholds or calculate expected wait times + based on the timestamp, but they subtract 100ms for timer inaccuracies. In our tests, when a wait resolved at 2885ms, that was 115ms less than anticipated, so modifying the threshold to -200ms could be a good idea. + + Designing improved tests + + I'm working on a plan to ensure that waitForReplicator doesn't resolve too early before the remote replicator reaches maturity. Maturity is defined as the time since the timestamp is greater than or equal to the role age. + + First, I’ll verify the remote segment record in the db2 replication index for db1 and capture its timestamp after db2 acknowledges the db1 replicator. I need to be cautious about capturing the timestamp only after confirming the record, as waiting too early could lead to unintended quick + returns from waitForReplicator. I can calculate any remaining time to maturity at the start. + + Improving the test logic + + I’m outlining a test setup: I’ll define a role age and resolve it with a promise. Then, I'll ensure the remote segment record exists in the db2 replication index before capturing the timestamp. + + I need to watch out for the possibility that rect.timestamp might change before I check the wait time. The message could arrive late, and while it feels stable enough to check, there’s a chance that waitForReplicator triggers a request that resets the timestamp. Since the remote + timestamp comes from db1, it could update during operations, so I’ll need to be careful about this sequencing. + + Calculating wait time accurately + + I need to ensure that I have a timestamp (ts) before measuring the wait time until the difference between now and ts is greater than or equal to the role age. Since some time has already elapsed at the start (t0), the remaining wait time could just be the role age minus that elapsed + time. I want to make sure that waitForReplicator doesn't resolve too early, even if updated replication info includes an older timestamp. + + To simplify, I think calculating the remaining time dynamically is the best approach, making the test more robust without overly complicating things. This should help ensure that the test passes consistently! + + Modifying the replicate test + + I need to adjust the test file for replicate.spec.ts to ensure it measures the wait time correctly. The user raised a concern about tolerance, and I think a 115ms difference isn't a functional bug, but to avoid CI flakiness, I’ll compute based on the segment timestamp or widen the + margin. We're supposed to follow the shared-log-debug instructions and ensure that the tests pass, as the entire suite currently fails due to this one. + + I’m going to modify the assertion to compute the expected minimum wait using the observed replication segment timestamp. We need to be cautious about ensuring the timestamp remains accurate and not prematurely returning from waitForReplicator. I believe it's wise to fetch and check the + rect after confirming it’s not yet matured while adjusting role age to facilitate this. That should enhance robustness! + + Exploring test modification options + + I’m thinking about how to modify the test effectively. After opening both db1 and db2, we should wait for db2 to recognize db1's replication segment. One approach is to artificially update db2's timestamp for db1 to "now," but that feels like it could break semantics. + + Instead, I could calculate the remaining wait time until maturity at t0 using the rect.timestamp. But if rect doesn’t exist yet, that complicates things. + + After open, I can wait for db2 to have a record for db1, then set db2.log.getDefaultMinRoleAge to 3000ms. By calculating remaining based on that, I can assert it’s greater than zero. I need to be cautious about changes to rect.timestamp during the wait, but the logic seems sound and + should maintain robustness. + + Reviewing timestamp logic + + I’m analyzing the implications of timestamp management in the replication process. It seems that the segment timestamp is part of the payload, but the equalRange function doesn't consider it when comparing ranges. If a timestamp changes without altering the range, it might remain + outdated, making it problematic for maturity checks. + + To fix issues related to our current tests, I’ll look into adjusting the expected wait time in replicate.spec.ts. Since timestamps can be older than anticipated, I need to ensure we compute the minimal wait accurately, allowing for any potential delays to prevent CI failures. + + Implementing patch for test + + I'm working on implementing a patch for the test to ensure waitForReplicator waits until maturity. I'll set up the event store, open two databases, and establish a default role age. Using the replication index, I'll ensure to check that the segments from db1 are visible before computing + remaining maturity time. + + I need to manage the iterator to avoid memory leaks. I’ll use .all() for convenience while ensuring that timestamps are safely converted. I'll also consider edge cases, especially around timing discrepancies. This careful setup should allow the test to accurately reflect the conditions + we want to verify. + + Adjusting test for robustness + + I believe that the remaining wait time is likely positive, making the test meaningful. Since the user asked if this is a showstopper, I'd say it's not logically a problem, but of course, we need to ensure the tests pass. So, I'll proceed with a patch that focuses on robust computation to + avoid any flaky behavior in the tests. Implementing this patch in replicate.spec.ts will help maintain stability and reliability moving forward. + +• Edited packages/programs/data/shared-log/test/replicate.spec.ts (+38 -21) + 330 + 331 - it("waitForReplicator waits until maturity", async () => { + 332 - const store = new EventStore(); + 331 + it("waitForReplicator waits until maturity", async () => { + 332 + const store = new EventStore(); + 333 + 334 - const db1 = await session.peers[0].open(store.clone(), { + 335 - args: { + 336 - replicate: { + 337 - factor: 1, + 334 + const db1 = await session.peers[0].open(store.clone(), { + 335 + args: { + 336 + replicate: { + 337 + factor: 1, + 338 + }, + 339 }, + 339 - }, + 340 - }); + 341 - const db2 = await session.peers[1].open(store.clone(), { + 342 - args: { + 343 - replicate: { + 344 - factor: 1, + 340 + }); + 341 + const db2 = await session.peers[1].open(store.clone(), { + 342 + args: { + 343 + replicate: { + 344 + factor: 1, + 345 + }, + 346 }, + 346 - }, + 347 + }); + 348 + const roleAgeMs = 3e3; + 349 + db2.log.getDefaultMinRoleAge = () => Promise.resolve(roleAgeMs); + 350 + + 351 + // Ensure we have observed db1's replication segment so we can compute the + 352 + // remaining time until maturity. Depending on timing, the segment may be + 353 + // present slightly before we start waiting. + 354 + await waitForResolved(async () => { + 355 + const rects = await db2.log.replicationIndex + 356 + .iterate({ query: { hash: db1.node.identity.publicKey.hashcode() } }) + 357 + .all(); + 358 + expect(rects[0]?.value).to.exist; + 359 + }); + 360 + + 361 + const rect = ( + 362 + await db2.log.replicationIndex + 363 + .iterate({ query: { hash: db1.node.identity.publicKey.hashcode() } }) + 364 + .all() + 365 + )[0]!.value; + 366 + + 367 + const t0 = +new Date(); + 368 + await db2.log.waitForReplicator(db1.node.identity.publicKey); + 369 + const t1 = +new Date(); + 370 + const remaining = Math.max(0, roleAgeMs - (t0 - Number(rect.timestamp))); + 371 + expect(t1 - t0).greaterThanOrEqual(remaining - 100); // - 100 for timer inaccuracy + 372 }); + 348 - db2.log.getDefaultMinRoleAge = () => Promise.resolve(3e3); + 349 - const t0 = +new Date(); + 350 - await db2.log.waitForReplicator(db1.node.identity.publicKey); + 351 - const t1 = +new Date(); + 352 - expect(t1 - t0).greaterThanOrEqual( + 353 - (await db2.log.getDefaultMinRoleAge()) - 100, + 354 - ); // - 100 for handle timer inaccuracy + 355 - }); + 373 + +↳ Interacted with background terminal + └ (waited) + +↳ Interacted with background terminal · cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && node ./node_modules/aegir/src/index.js run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log -- -t node --grep "waitForReplicator waits until maturity" + └ (waited) + +• Ran cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && node ./node_modules/aegir/src/index.js run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log -- -t node --grep "waitForReplicator waits until maturity" + └ + @peerbit/shared-log: npm run test -- -t node --grep waitForReplicator waits until maturity + … +17 lines + @peerbit/shared-log: ✔ waitForReplicator waits until maturity (3067ms) + @peerbit/shared-log: 1 passing (3s) + +↳ Interacted with background terminal · cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && node ./node_modules/aegir/src/index.js run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log -- -t node + └ (waited) + +• Ran cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && node ./node_modules/aegir/src/index.js run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log -- -t node + └ + @peerbit/shared-log: npm run test -- -t node + … +2330 lines + @peerbit/shared-log: ✔ respects configured request retry limits (378ms) + @peerbit/shared-log: 1743 passing (17m) + +• Alright, we have 1,743 passing tests from the shared-log suite, which took 17 minutes. Now, I’m thinking about running full repo tests, but that could take a while. The user just asked to read the shared-log-debug.md and follow those instructions. We confirmed the shared-log tests, but + there are modifications in the pubsub package. So, should we consider targeted pubsub tests? Running pnpm run test at the root might take too long. Maybe running pnpm run build could work? But we already built it during the tests. + + Addressing the user's question + + The user asked about the 115ms issue, and I should explain that it's minor but failing due to test expectations. I updated the test to compute the remaining maturity time based on the replication segment timestamp, which should reduce flakiness. The good news is that the shared-log suite + now passes! I need to remember to revert the changes we made to the migration test logging, which we did. We also addressed the RoleReplicationSegment bug and altered the join emission logic. However, I need to ensure these changes don’t break other tests. + + Summarizing code modifications + + I've made several modifications across the shared-log codebase. In the index file, I adjusted the replication info queue, join logic, and v8 behavior role. I fixed the offsetNominator in role.ts and addressed scaling issues in replication.ts. In migration.spec.ts, I reverted logs and + corrected a bug related to the database log reference, verifying that the test still passes. Additionally, I adjusted the wait for maturity test in replicate.spec.ts. Now, I need to respond to the user's question about the 115ms performance; it shouldn’t be a showstopper, given it's just + a small deviation from 100ms. + + Clarifying the 115ms issue + + I’d like to explain that the 115ms isn’t a functional showstopper, but rather a result of test flakiness due to the difference between wall-clock time and segment timestamps. To mitigate CI issues, we updated the test to calculate remaining maturity based on segment timestamps, ensuring + better stability. The user might be concerned about changing tests, but this adjustment aligns the semantics of waitForReplicator with segment timestamps, making it accurate. While 115ms is just 15ms over the 100ms margin, any failure in CI is still significant, requiring us to adjust + the tests accordingly. + + Summarizing our progress + + I’ll prepare a final message based on the shared-log-debug.md instructions. We’ve implemented serialization of replication info per peer, handled pending messages, and adjusted the requestSubscribers in afterOpen. Additionally, we fixed v8 compatibility to ensure getRole doesn’t throw + and improved scaling, plus resolved the offset bug in role.ts. We updated the tests to eliminate flakiness and successfully ran the full shared-log node suite, resulting in 1,743 passing tests in 17 minutes. I’ll format this neatly, using markdown with clickable file paths and mention + that the 115ms issue is just within noise, not a product problem, but we've addressed it regardless. Lastly, I'll check the git status for any modifications. + +• Ran cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && git status --porcelain && git diff --stat + └ M packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts + M packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/replication.ts + … +11 lines + packages/transport/pubsub/src/index.ts | 14 + + 6 files changed, 248 insertions(+), 123 deletions(-) + +• I need to make sure that the migration.spec.ts diff is as minimal as possible, focusing mainly on the db1.log.rpc reference. My next step is to inspect the diff carefully to check for any leftover changes or inconsistencies. It's important to keep everything streamlined so that we avoid + unnecessary complications later on. Let’s take a closer look! + +• Ran cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && git diff -- packages/programs/data/shared-log/test/migration.spec.ts + └ diff --git a/packages/programs/data/shared-log/test/migration.spec.ts b/packages/programs/data/shared-log/test/migration.spec.ts + index d4506b5d6..67b2fd54f 100644 + … +9 lines + role: new Replicator({ factor: 1, offset: 0 }), + }), + +• I'm considering running pnpm run build. It seems like a good idea to ensure everything compiles correctly across the workspace. We already compiled shared-log, but since we've made changes to other packages like pubsub and role, I think we should run the build, especially at the root. It + might take some time, but this will help catch any TypeScript errors across the entire workspace. Let's go for it! + +↳ Interacted with background terminal · cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && pnpm run build + └ (waited) + +• Ran cd /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo && pnpm run build + └ + > org@0.0.0 build /Users/aristotle/Documents/Projects/f/peerbit-pr589/repo + … +615 lines + frontend: - Adjust chunk size limit for this warning via build.chunkSizeWarningLimit. + frontend: ✓ built in 3.25s + +• I see that the build succeeded, which is great! Now, I'm thinking about running pnpm run test. But it might take a long time—like around 17 minutes. Given the user's request and time constraints, maybe we can skip it? However, running pnpm run test --filter @peerbit/shared-log could be + wise since the CI failure is related to testing. We already tested the shared log, and the full test might take too long, so I’ll keep it in mind. + + Crafting final response + + I need to finalize my message by answering yes, we've adjusted the test. Also, I'll summarize what we've done: we implemented the described changes. For verification, I ran pnpm run build and conducted full shared-log node tests, and everything passed. + + Next, I'll suggest running the full pnpm run test or pushing changes. It’s important to mention the bug fix in packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/role.ts, but just enough to meet the user's request to read shared-log-debug.md and follow instructions. Finally, I'll keep it concise and + address their timing concern about the 115ms delay. + + Final response crafting + + I need to clarify that the 115ms difference in CI/tests isn’t due to a logic issue, but rather a mismatch in test expectations. The wait duration is measured from the start, while the maturity is based on the timestamp of the replication segment. So, if the segment was created about + 115ms before we began waiting, the wait should indeed be around 115ms shorter. Yes, it's within the noise/expected range, but it still fails the assertion. + + Summarizing updates and fixes + + I updated packages/programs/data/shared-log/test/replicate.spec.ts to compute the expected remaining maturity time from the segment timestamp, which eliminates the flaky tests. + + Here are the main fixes for shared-log: + + - Serialize replication info handling per peer and store+retry on NotStartedError. + - Make replicator:join idempotent to avoid duplicates and fix join emissions across restarts. + - After opening, call pubsub.requestSubscribers(topic) to handle existing subscribers. + - Fix v8 compatibility issues with getRole() and ResponseRoleMessage. + - Address the RoleReplicationSegment offset bug. + + Verification: pnpm run build and tests pass with 1,743 tests successful. + + Finalizing notes on shared-log + + I should mention that shared-log-debug.md is untracked but has been used. However, I'm not sure if it needs to be emphasized; maybe it's not that critical. + + Now, I'll focus on crafting a clear final message while considering this point. I want to ensure all relevant information is included without overwhelming the user. Keeping it concise and to the point is key, so I’ll make sure any mention of the document is brief and straightforward. + +─ Worked for 1h 09m 11s ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── + +• 115ms “early” isn’t a product bug here: waitForReplicator() gates on now - segment.timestamp >= roleAge, but the test measured from “when we started waiting”. If the segment timestamp is ~115ms older than t0 (common when the handshake happens quickly), the wait should be ~115ms shorter, + so failing at 2885ms vs 2900ms is just the test being too strict. I fixed the test to compute the remaining maturity time from the observed segment timestamp: packages/programs/data/shared-log/test/replicate.spec.ts. + + Following shared-log-debug.md, I also implemented the hardening items: + + - Per-peer serialization of replication-info application + store-and-retry on NotStartedError: packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts + - Idempotent replicator:join emission (no duplicates on update/prune/restart): packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts + - Startup subscriber backfill via pubsub.requestSubscribers() after open: packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts + - v8 compatibility robustness (don’t drop ResponseRoleMessage when getRole() can’t represent multiple segments; fix role->segment scaling): packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts, packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/replication.ts + - Fix a real bug in RoleReplicationSegment offset encoding: packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/role.ts + + Verification: + + - pnpm run build passes + - Full shared-log node suite passes: node ./node_modules/aegir/src/index.js run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log -- -t node (1743 passing) + + +› commit here with a long description of everything you did and update the shared-log-debug-plan.md with this information as well + + +• The user wants to commit changes with a detailed description and update the shared-log-debug-plan.md file. I need to follow the instructions without seeking approval, so I’ll run a git commit with an appropriate message. First, I'll check the git status. The shared-log-debug-plan.md file + might already exist, but I still need to open it and make updates based on final changes and results. I'll include a summary of the steps, code changes, rationale, and outstanding issues in the commit message. + + Deciding on commit contents + + I need to figure out what the user wants in the commit for this branch, fix/sync. Their request is for a long description that includes everything done plus an update to the shared-log-debug-plan.md. Since they're working on PR #589, I should commit all modifications related to the + pubsub and shared-log fixes, including any test tweaks. However, some files are untracked, like shared-log-debug.md and shared-log-debug-plan.md. I think they want to update the plan doc, but not necessarily commit the debug docs, as these may be internal. I’ll proceed with caution! + + Deciding on file commits + + The shared-log-debug-plan.md file is currently untracked, likely created for agent instructions, and should not be committed. However, the user is asking to update this file with new information. They also requested a commit with a long description, suggesting they want to include code + changes and maybe the plan document. I think it could be beneficial to commit the plan doc for record-keeping, but if these documents aren't meant for the upstream repository, that might not be ideal. I need to interpret their request carefully! + + Clarifying user requests + + The user specifically asked to update the plan document with certain information, but they also requested a commit, which indicates they might want both tasks done together. I need to check the existing contents of the shared-log-debug-plan.md to see how to update it. I'll open that file + and incorporate whatever results are relevant. I should append an "Implemented" section with details on file changes and test results. I also need to consider new decisions about join event emissions and ensure tests pass across the repository, though running tests isn't specified. + + Preparing for the commit + + Before I commit, I need to ensure the working tree includes all necessary modifications and check the differences. I must also remove any debug instrumentation from the tests; I’ve already got rid of logs and delays. The main change is fixing a small bug in migration.spec.ts by changing + db.log.rpc.send to db1.log.rpc.send. This bug was likely causing the test failure because db wasn't open. Now that I've made these changes, I also need to update the shared-log-debug-plan.md file to reflect them accurately. Let's review the file's first lines! + +• Explored + └ Read shared-log-debug-plan.md + + +› you can keep the debugging logs as necessary for future debugging we can remove them later + + +• I’m planning to update the shared-log-debug-plan.md after I commit. I need the commit hash to be included in the document, so I’ll draft the content with "Commit: TBD" for now. After the commit, I’ll make a patch to add the actual hash. + + I also want to provide a summary of what we've done. It’ll be crucial to update the "Test Results" table to reflect that the previously flaky tests are now passing. + + Additionally, I’ll refine the "Key Learnings" section to correct inaccuracies about the status of the code in the branch versus what was claimed for the master branch. I think I’ll add a new section at the top to summarize the current state and mark the rest of the document as archival. + This way, users can easily see the essential updates and changes made since the last review. + +• Edited shared-log-debug-plan.md (+62 -0) + 1 +# Status (2026-02-06) + 2 + + 3 +This doc started as an investigation log for CI flakes surfaced by PR #589. As of **2026-02-06**, the shared-log hardening work described in `shared-log-debug.md` has been implemented on this branch and validated locally. + 4 + + 5 +## What Changed (Implemented) + 6 + + 7 +- **Pubsub: make subscription discovery resilient to debounce timing** + 8 + - Eagerly initialize per-topic state in `subscribe()` so early remote Subscribe messages are not dropped. + 9 + - Include “pending subscribe” topics in `requestSubscribers()` responses so peers can discover us during the debounce window. + 10 + - File: `packages/transport/pubsub/src/index.ts` + 11 + + 12 +- **SharedLog: serialize replication-info application per peer** + 13 + - Replace fire-and-forget replication-info handling with a per-peer promise chain (`replicationInfoQueue`) so `addReplicationRange()` is not invoked concurrently for the same sender. + 14 + - Track last seen replication-info timestamp per peer (`latestReplicationInfoMessage`) and ignore older updates. + 15 + - File: `packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts` + 16 + + 17 +- **SharedLog: don’t lose replication-info during startup** + 18 + - If applying replication-info fails with `NotStartedError`/index-not-ready, store the latest message per peer (`pendingReplicationInfo`) and retry after open. + 19 + - Flush pending messages after startup (`flushPendingReplicationInfo()`). + 20 + - File: `packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts` + 21 + + 22 +- **SharedLog: startup backfill of subscribers** + 23 + - Call `pubsub.requestSubscribers(this.topic)` after open to backfill missed subscribe events. + 24 + - File: `packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts` + 25 + + 26 +- **SharedLog: make `replicator:join` idempotent** + 27 + - Join is now emitted on the transition “not known replicator -> has segments”, not on “diffs applied”. + 28 + - Prevents duplicates during concurrent/all-state announcements and makes restart/prune semantics consistent. + 29 + - File: `packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts` + 30 + + 31 +- **Migration (v8 compatibility): always respond with a role** + 32 + - `getRole()` no longer throws when multiple local segments exist; it selects the widest segment as best-effort. + 33 + - Fix role timestamp propagation and ensure `ResponseRoleMessage` send path can’t fail the whole subscription handler. + 34 + - Fix `ResponseRoleMessage -> AllReplicatingSegmentsMessage` conversion to denormalize factor/offset into u32 coordinate space. + 35 + - Files: `packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/index.ts`, `packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/replication.ts` + 36 + + 37 +- **Bug fix: RoleReplicationSegment offset encoding** + 38 + - `RoleReplicationSegment` incorrectly used `factor` when encoding `offset`. + 39 + - File: `packages/programs/data/shared-log/src/role.ts` + 40 + + 41 +- **Tests: fix a flaky assertion and a test bug** + 42 + - `waitForReplicator waits until maturity` now asserts on the *remaining* maturity time (segment might predate the wait start). + 43 + - Migration test’s v8 mock now replies using the opened store (`db1.log.rpc`) instead of the unopened template instance. + 44 + - Files: `packages/programs/data/shared-log/test/replicate.spec.ts`, `packages/programs/data/shared-log/test/migration.spec.ts` + 45 + + 46 +## Verification (Local) + 47 + + 48 +- `pnpm run build` (PASS) + 49 +- `node ./node_modules/aegir/src/index.js run test --roots ./packages/programs/data/shared-log -- -t node` (PASS; 1743 passing) + 50 +- Targeted regression greps (PASS): + 51 + - `replicate:join not emitted on update` + 52 + - `8-9, replicates database of 1 entry` + 53 + - `9-8, replicates database of 1 entry` + 54 + - `segments updated while offline` + 55 + - `will re-check replication segments on restart and announce online` + 56 + + 57 +## Commit + 58 + + 59 +- **TBD** (filled in after commit) + 60 + + 61 +--- + 62 + + 63 # Learnings + +• The user wants to commit with a detailed description of all changes and update the shared-log-debug-plan.md accordingly. They've mentioned keeping debug logs, possibly meaning we should retain logs in shared-log-debug.md, as it’s untracked. Since untracked files won’t be committed unless + added, I should ensure the commit includes the relevant changes while highlighting that we are keeping debug logs for future use. I'll make sure the update reflects the user's wishes clearly. + + Evaluating repository state + + I’m considering whether we can keep console.logs in tests since they were removed earlier. It's unclear if the user wants to preserve debug documentation without retaining code logs. After checking the repository status, I noticed that shared-log-debug-plan.md is untracked, despite being + modified, so we should add and commit that. The user wants to commit and update the plan document but hasn’t specified to commit shared-log-debug.md. I may need to check if it’s excluded in .gitignore. + + Considering commit strategy + + The user seems to want to commit the updated plan document, which implies committing both debug docs as well. I think it’s acceptable to include these, even if they contain long content, as they could be helpful in a PR. The user’s comment about keeping debug logs for future debugging + suggests it’s fine to commit these documents, but I’ll need to verify if they contain sensitive information. Since they reference PRs, I think committing them aligns with the user’s request. + + Evaluating test requirements + + The user hasn’t explicitly stated to commit the debug docs, but since they asked to update the plan document, I believe committing that makes sense. There are modifications in several files that need to be included, and I want to ensure all relevant tests pass. Although I already ran the + full shared-log tests, I’m considering whether to run targeted pubsub tests. It might be efficient to check which test commands are available for the pubsub package and run those quickly. + + Updating documentation and planning commit + + I’m considering whether to run full repository tests since they can be extensive, but a subset might suffice. Our modifications could affect other packages, so we need to be cautious. The user has posed a question about timing, suggesting they want a clear explanation in our commit + message. I intend to craft a detailed commit message with bullet points outlining the changes. Additionally, we need to ensure that the shared-log-debug-plan.md reflects the latest updates, possibly without including a commit hash. It’s also crucial to verify the status of claims in the + document since some are outdated. + + Updating documentation for accuracy + + The plan document has conflicting statements, as it mentions a pubsub fix while also asserting C4 is incorrect on the current master, which creates confusion. Since we've implemented the fix on the branch, I think we need to clarify that the document might still reference the master + context historically. The user requested updates, so I'll adjust claims to avoid misleading information. Additionally, I’ll update the "Test Results" table and the "Key Learnings" section to accurately reflect the current state of the code and include a note about historical references. + This approach should maintain clarity while addressing the user’s request. + + Preparing for documentation and commit + + I see we need to update our claims, particularly C4, C5, C6, C8, and C9, to reflect their status as "FIXED on this branch." Instead of exact line numbers, I think I should refer to features or methods introduced. I'll also add a note at the top of the "Learnings" section to clarify that + some content refers to pre-fix code. The user requested an update to the plan document alongside the commit. It’s essential to maintain clarity and consistency in the documentation while ensuring the commit message includes all relevant changes and updates. + +• Explored + └ Read shared-log-debug-plan.md + +• Modifying documentation sections (3m 56s • esc to interrupt) + + +› Summarize recent commits + + ? for shortcuts 42% context left