neuron-technologies/el-retired
Archived
3
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 4 Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases 5 Wiki Activity

promote stage → main: chain-of-custody repair #169

Merged
will.anderson merged 3 commits from stage into main 2026-08-17 16:06:04 +00:00
Conversation 0 Commits 3 Files Changed 3
+144 -1

3 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
will.anderson 4aadd9300e Merge pull request 'promote dev → stage: chain-of-custody repair' (#168) from dev into stage
El SDK Release / build-and-release (pull_request) Failing after 23s
Details
El SDK CI - stage / build-and-test (push) Failing after 12m50s
Details
2026-08-17 16:05:31 +00:00
will.anderson 44e2e17973 Merge pull request 'repair a broken chain link: rerun cycle 18 rather than reconstruct it' (#167) from experiment/async-future-replication into dev
El SDK CI - stage / build-and-test (pull_request) Failing after 27s
Details
El SDK CI - dev / build-and-test (push) Failing after 14m1s
Details
2026-08-17 16:05:02 +00:00
bigmerge 511db25230 rerun cycle 18 rather than reconstruct it
El SDK CI - dev / build-and-test (pull_request) Failing after 14m31s
Details 
The async/future measurements were produced by a C stub in /tmp, and that
artifact was destroyed when the session worktrees were removed. The log then
asserted results with nothing behind them -- a claim inside an evidence record,
which is exactly what turns a chain of custody into a pile.

Rerun, not reconstructed. Rebuilding the missing file would have been a
fabrication with a fresh timestamp; rerunning produces new evidence with its own.

  lang/tests/integration/fixtures/future.c   the future, as a tagged heap object
  lang/tests/integration/async_future.sh     the harness, 6/6

  ok  unbound: synchronous, correct result
  ok  unbound: el_await on a non-future passes through, no crash
  ok  bound: does not crash
  ok  bound: the awaited result is correct
  ok  bound: the caller continues BEFORE the body finishes
  ok  bound: wrap returns in <10ms while the body takes 50ms

LABELLED AS A REPLICATION. The outcomes were already known when this harness was
written, so its expectations are NOT predictions committed in advance. Its
evidentiary value is that a third party can reproduce it, not that it was called
ahead of time. Recording it as anything stronger would corrupt the record it is
meant to repair.

The fixture also carries the P5 defect and its fix in a comment: the first
el_await dereferenced ->magic off an unvalidated slot and SIGSEGV'd on the
unbound path, sixty seconds after the same defect was diagnosed elsewhere in the
runtime.
 2026-08-17 11:03:59 -05:00