Ok if you receive the intentional restart, than with a timeout, that needs to hold. If socket says connection lostX thats normal but we already now the reason. So the state machine needs to supress the socket message until a given timeout of say 60s then transition to service unavailable because then the intentional restart apparently did not work. So i think the state model is unclear. Do some research against my claim.

Summary: Input sent to tmux target codex-autopilot:0.0


Also cfd: using the webconsole sometimes pasts commands 2 or 3 times.


Also in a more advanced model and if we have a concept the backend may even send the expected downtime boundary with some margin that the frontend can use as timeout. So the service unavailable would show after timeout or if non scheduled fail of runtime. But what is this command execution failure thing anyway ? What is the purpose and why does that show up at all?


That was my mistake then, I expected you to know how to setup a state machine for this after you did research on sockets but I see now that the broader concept is not explained there but only library relevant details. Let me know how I can avoid that in the future. I understand requirements need to be clear but I need to know when I need to explain technology concepts or point you at the right place.


Summary event and request in the restart toast should get their own line because otherwise the line break is weird.


Ok close and commit, lets try and get my approval for this one via telegram. After that run all remaining chunks autonmously including closure.


Including closure and comit to be soecifix


Cannot see you working in the panel


Also QA should be run before offering close and commit in general. So sopping after the dev stage without qa does not really make sense. Greate a cfd so we can inspect and set this canonically with few exceptions. So basically now I just agreed to commit before QA was run? If so create the cfd. If QA was run completely its fine. No need for cfd.


Activation is still a gap: the only available backlog-to-active mover is explicitly guarded as legacy shell, while `executor-transition` does not allow Backlog -> Active. Since the current package already contains backlog chunks and the user authorized autonomous continuation, I’m going to use the guarded activation facade as a compatibility path, and I’ll keep that exact lifecycle activation gap visible rather than hiding it. - If not done so put this in an explicit cfd. This is important.


Add to the acceptance criteria, for that chunks case front end state machine needs to be tested in all applicable modes. Then full loggic backend to frontend end to end have to be tested with confirmed and intensed browser output end to end in one final clean path. This goes also for all remaining chunks.


Also since we are working with supervisor and restart schemantics, there is probably research or knowledge regarding robust state machines for restart semantics in live systems and backend frontend mechanisms. Do some research to make sure we are running best practices and do not reinvent the wheel in an overcomplicated fashion.


If you find discapencies or aras of improvement, make sure they are available as cfds ornotherwise


Yes design check is fine. Unless we are making our life very hard now. In that case we should fix it first.


Ok now the toast is duplicate: Service Servcie: Runtime.api.xxxxx We only want Service: rutimeapi.xxxx Summary: Whatever it is


Yes at the end all we want in the easiest and most robust way, that we get one line with Service: .... and so on


Who is working now as a role? Or is it inline codex ?


No work is shown at all currently. This cannot due to some uncaught codex command but must be a gap in the state machine.


I don't understand this, we need clear work transitions from one worker to the next especially if orchestrator is started. Esch transition requires validation and therefore state changes are simply logged and displayed. Why donwe keep having gaps ?


Sometimes old propt / answer notes are fetched. I had more current notes without reloading. Now they are from one hour ago.


Ok no need to frx everything none related, just document issues clearly in the cfd and continue with the chunk if apripriate.


It seems if runtime fails or runtime tests fail the work status indication gets lost and not dispalyed anyomre in the health oanel


The inprovement in the toast regarding display also of course need to be done for summary and the next line there which i forgot.


So event, request, whatever item you have


Service failure detected Service: frontend. Summary Summary: safe_local_dev_resurrection_smoke. Event Event: service.failure_unplanned. Request Request: service-resurrection-mpcf9plc. See here A lot of duplication. We need one line Summary: xyz Event: xyz and so on. Same logic for all types of toasts.


No no no. This is a dispay issue. Very easy to fix. Do it now.


Service failure detected Service: frontend. Summary Summary: safe_local_dev_resurrection_smoke. Event Event: service.failure_unplanned. Request Request: service-resurrection-mpcfdmss. This is unacceptable. Do i need to explain the problem again?


Ok if that is fixed continue. Also check all toasts


Ok I had several mixed messages


Maybe that was my local instance but i had mixed toasts again.


So do the full test again


There it is. Live updates disconnected mixed with something else mixed with a red service failure.


The backend app should not react to frontends in the sense that we might have multiple subscribers. So for its running state needs to be autonomous from any browser reaction or state. Same goes for the frontend server.


Ok I still see the failed state


Should this not display service resurrection finally?


Ok that I don't understand. Recovery is a very clear case. Highly distingushable. This needs to reset the failure of course.


If this is still present, we need to fix it and run the full test suite again


Do we actually differenciate the cases properly ? I mean socket alive should only clear socket degraded related issues. Not clear faults related to backend. Therefore a backand health query is needed. Likewise backend cannot infernanything about sockets. And the front end server is its own thing. Not sure but could it be that we are mixing apples and oranges ?


Yes yes that should not happen. Also we need canonical paths to set a specific state. For instance the backend is restored when the graphql health check passes. Not when sockets connect. That only determines socket state. Runtime could be both, not sure what the primary communcarion means of runtime is.


No those failure "devices" need their own failure status that is independed of the others. Then for planned server restart we need to determine a canonical path to claim resurrction. Sockets is mostly one service layer on top that can impact itsself or runtime. But thats it. Sockets do not habe anything to do with backend or frontend server health status. Unless our protocol sends a socket message for that which is fine. It may receive that planned state but not claim resurrection on its own.


Yes sockets maybe used as a speedup process but resurrection must ne verified by the respective technology


For some of these occrences a very narrow service worker would help that just stores very important state. Something for cfd? If we can do it without thats fine too


Also connection restore toast sticks now without clearing. It is not something we need to see indefinitely


Hm for me the recovery toast stays again. Not for you ? Did you test that ?


Yes you need to. It stays. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't


Ok so the problem is exactly what? Again we should just render state so the data was fetched to late for recovery?


Ok what time differences are we talking about? What was the about or average refresh polling time before. And why does the browser poll? We are taking about roles right ? Do we not send them as updates via graphql to avoid polling ? Or use graphql to trigger fetch requests?


Ok so we use sockets to trigger a refetch correct? Sockets sends invalidation, browser refetches via graphql for work updates? What time did this exceed? This should be under 5 seconds if executed correctly. Did you check properly?


Ok so something else needs to be wrong. This cannot happen. Makes no sense. Eesearch how long socket invaldiation and graphql refetch take in such a scenario


This is the correct design.


The problem is somewhere in the path. Once the socket message is emitted this takes under .5 seconds worst case to arrive. The refetch also does not take long. Under 1 second for sure. What happen in the time in between ?


Measure how long the grapql validation takes to arrive. This of course needs to be wired to an agnular signal / state which immediately triggers the refetch.


Ok if you are correct we can either tweak the journal or we can allow longer refresh time. What was your idea ?


Ok I see but that also sounds erroneous in the journal correct?


Ok so the real problem is at the backend. We need to look at the journal, see if there are errors etc. This is the root cause probably.


If you patch the journal you must also run all journal tests to ensure its not causing other problems.


If managable we should patch it now. If it causes big problems likely move it to a very important cfd. However altering the frontend mechanism and parching that due to erroneuos backend behaviour is not the way


Yes if you deem the front end polling is useful resilience then yes unnless it causes constant polling in any case and other trouble.


In the QA and testing chunk lets manifast that when attepting to solve problems we always want to look for the root cause, not patch symptoms. We may decide to add patches and resilience only if the root cause has neen clearly identified and improved if possible and if it does not cause uncotrolled side effects


Yes and root cause analysis is required in any case as a paradigm.


Continue. No stopping till all chunks are processed


Ok check why no work is registered.


You just edited file this should have caused a hook to run


Run node runtime should have caused a hook and work contract


Ok map the calls we usually use.


Do not register work manually now. We need to see the gaps and fix them.


Ok do test calls on temp files if necessary and check if the hooks are invoked and which are not.


Oknl then lets check if those hooks should work because they maybe misconfigured. Do research if necessary


In what file are you going to put the report?


Ok it doesnt show up yet. Make sure it is written and not forgottwn in case your context is compacted.


Ok monwork is registered. We just called validate. Can you check why?


Also test and node have been called. No work registered.


Yes and also cli validate and those function calls can trigger those hooks or register work


In fact the direct way is that all those work calls courntrigger or require work contracts directly regardless from where they called.


It is not only validate. This applies to most of the runtime and runtime module funtions i assume


That basically also resolves at last a lot of the hook problem. Anyway we should still investigate if can narrow the unregistered calls that bypass the hook for more coverage.


Ok again. Patch this for all runtime and submodules it applies to that potentially are used for work.


Regarding the freshness gate chunk, the easiest way would probably to have a data structure of all modules or processes or daemons that we build and mark the work untouched or dirty and preflight checks that and dirty needs to be built before testing. I don't know if that is too simple but that would be my starting point to keep it inexpensive and quick.


Side note, regarding the freshnees chunk, the problem with my dirty/prestine log for rebuilds is probably knowing this deterministcly since file edits might go jnnoticed unless they can be reliably caught by hooks with the files touched. So then the other approach could make sense.


Make sure the chunks in the backlog can be continued autonomously, on autopilot until the last chunk in the backlog and stop before commiting this, I believe 285 is the last one. Dont stop unless you hit an unforseen stop condition. Make sure this is in the chunks so the information in case your context gets compacted.


Can you print a summary for the last package and a yaml summary here ?


Use the Orchestrator role. Repository/runtime state is authoritative. Chat memory is not authoritative. Task: Create and complete a focused CFD hardening package for Runtime-owned activation, role visibility, work-contract coverage, and real simulated workflow E2E proof. Mode: Autonomous execution is allowed unless a defined stop condition is reached. Primary goal: Fix the most important remaining workflow trust gaps before deeper parallel validation work. This package should produce a real end-to-end simulated run proving that the Runtime can activate a backlog chunk, show role/work state correctly in the Runtime Action Panel, validate/QA/close it, and archive/commit through canonical Runtime-owned paths. Most important CFDs to address: - cfd-0032: Runtime-owned Backlog -> Active activation path is missing. - cfd-0029: Codex/autonomous continuation and hosted activity visibility gaps. - cfd-0034: entrypoint/work-contract coverage and task/work visibility gaps. - cfd-0024: Runtime API autonomous killed-process resurrection proof remains, only if safe and local. Context: Recent packages established: - QA required-evidence resolver and QA evidence enforcement. - Connection/recovery state model and deterministic/adversarial tests. - Work-registration entrypoint coverage reporting. - Runtime work stack / single_parent_foreground_child projection. - Freshness-gated Runtime test preflight. - Hosted Codex activity diagnostic visibility. - Summary/QA gate consistency. - Pre-parallelism readiness. - No true parallel roles yet. Core rules: - Repository/runtime state is authoritative. - Runtime/GraphQL snapshot remains canonical UI truth. - Socket.IO remains invalidation-only. - Work registration remains the single work truth. - Do not introduce parallel roles. - Use single owning role plus foreground child/task projection. - Do not use shell lifecycle helpers for normal workflow. - Activation, lifecycle transition, archive, and close/commit must be Runtime-owned. - Browser...


Run


Ok this ran without exception with checks from start to finish end to end?


Ok do one pass again, i am gonna watch this one.


My panel is dark now


Well clearly work is done now and i do not see it.


Yes this needs to be visible always independent of aessions or anything.


Do not close any windows or time out work. If work regardless of the chunk or session is done it needs to be shown. No reason to mute anything at some point.


As long as the codex session shows "working" this needs to work.


And then of course restart as soon as i prompt something like this and the cosole here shows "working"


You may however hide work cards in live view when they are not active with say a grace period of 15s so we don't have 10 non working processes in the panel visually. Just a view thing.


Yes and of course if they are activated again the should also show up again.


Check the backend and restart


Run checks and if ok close and commit. Then proceed autonomously with the remaining chunks.


Ok find out why that happend and run the test again including single commands like validate.


Backend is still considered down. Can you check? i am getting the toast quite often


Ok and why do these request take so long? They should be around a second not more. Find out where the performance issue comes from.


Ok we need to limit the data on the backend and the data that is pulled. Firat we do not need to store all heath sbapshots and request forever. Secondly we need to make sure that data rates do not explode. But Most importantly the frontend does not need excessive data to work and still see data that is a bit in the past.


Yes we may not lock services so that the graphql backend is locked. This is not an option.


Yes data wise we should be in the "a few kb" range especially when gzipped. You may create a chunk on the fly and donresearch and design the requirements and tests so we can fix this in placs.


Ok while you are doung that no work is indicated.


Ok as a not, the only other option I see is wwiting a node / typescript cli wrapper that basically executes all your commands and passes them through but this is the only allows command. This wrapper then checks work registration.


Yes and no work shown


Continue


Ok now prompt and answer messages are truncated. We don't need to go that far. The messages we show should be the full text in the frontend.


Also the number of messages is down to 6. that is a bit too much since it is just text. We can allow up to 50 or so. Same for the events


Now works seems to be indicates twice for example for the orchestrator without being able to tell if it is the same work or somthibg different but that would be parallel then. So i assume it is a doble indication.


We might need to display the parant child relation ship with an outer card as the parent and the inner cards being the child or the children. Same if we have unregistered parallel works. For those we only see some hashes and no useful information which is ok if we don't have any other information available that would be more verbose.


Can we also enforce that cli command run is used for everything in the repo canonically, also in ai settings / files so we don't get unwanted normal commands and it does not depend on chat memory ?


Yes put the guard as a cfd as well


As you are editing files no work is show