V34 Gate 3: Distributed Execution Runtime Contracts#79
Conversation
Close the distributed execution runtime contract gate by adding package-owned receipt types, fixtures, source-safety validation, and focused Jest coverage for pipeline runs, PTRR agents, ThricifiedGenerations, tools, ledger operations, wallet operations, proof generation, object-storage writes, and repair jobs. Generate the source-safe V34 distributed execution runtime receipts artifact, wire freshness checks and gate-quality workflow coverage, update V34 spec family parity, and refresh earlier Gate 2 artifact digests after the spec evidence changed. Validation run locally: pnpm run check:v34-gate1; pnpm run check:v34-gate2; pnpm run check:v34-gate3; pnpm run check:v34-distributed-execution-runtime-receipts; pnpm --filter @bitcode/pipeline-hosts typecheck; pnpm --filter @bitcode/pipeline-hosts test; pnpm --filter @bitcode/btd test -- --runTestsByPath __tests__/deployment-host-capability-catalog.test.ts; pnpm --filter @bitcode/protocol test; node scripts/check-bitcode-spec-family.mjs --version V34 --mode draft --current-target V33; node scripts/check-bitcode-canonical-inputs.mjs --current-target V33; node scripts/check-bitcode-canon-posture-drift.mjs --active-canon V33 --draft-target V34; node scripts/check-v33-gate10-promotion-readiness.mjs --promotion-mode --skip-branch-check; git diff --check.
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.
|
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 47bb54f88b
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| /\braw\s+source\b/iu, | ||
| ]; | ||
|
|
||
| const ROOT_PATTERN = /^(?:sha256|receipt|root):[a-z0-9._:-]{8,}$/iu; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
assertRoot only accepts prefixes sha256:, receipt:, or root:, but buildDistributedExecutionRuntimeReceipt generates receiptRoot values with the distributed-execution-runtime-receipt: prefix. That means a child receipt cannot set parentReceiptRoot to an actual parent receiptRoot created by this same module, so real parent/child linkage fails at runtime (parentReceiptRoot must be a source-safe root). Please include the module’s own receipt-root prefix in root validation (or normalize parent roots) so chained receipts are representable.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
1 participant
Summary
Validation