johno/beads
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

bd sync: 2025-11-05 14:31:39

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Steve Yegge
2025-11-05 14:31:39 -08:00
parent 92b10b0806
commit 0d07346a11
1 changed files with 1 additions and 1 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

2
.beads/beads.jsonl
View File

@@ -222,6 +222,6 @@
{"id":"bd-u8j","content_hash":"91f39bbd4f2394592407c77917682b2c7c3a0b6415a3572eb75a49b0486a17fe","title":"Clarify exclusive lock protocol compatibility with multi-repo","description":"The contributor-workflow-analysis.md proposes per-repo file locking (Decision #7) using flock on JSONL files. However, VC (a downstream library consumer) uses an exclusive lock protocol (vc-195, requires Beads v0.17.3+) that allows bd daemon and VC executor to coexist.\n\nNeed to clarify:\n- Does the proposed per-repo file locking work with VC's existing exclusive lock protocol?\n- Do library consumers like VC need to adapt their locking logic?\n- Can multiple repos be locked atomically for cross-repo operations?\n\nContext: contributor-workflow-analysis.md lines 662-681","acceptance_criteria":"- Documentation explicitly states compatibility or incompatibility with existing lock protocols\n- If incompatible, migration path is documented for library consumers\n- If compatible, example showing coexistence is provided","status":"closed","priority":2,"issue_type":"task","created_at":"2025-11-03T20:24:08.257493-08:00","updated_at":"2025-11-05T14:19:11.205328-08:00","closed_at":"2025-11-05T14:15:01.506885-08:00","source_repo":"."}
{"id":"bd-wta","content_hash":"eee40bbe4e00af632ad46e1461a25e4b0e5508bea115422aea0772381eec0d84","title":"Add performance benchmarks for multi-repo hydration","description":"The contributor-workflow-analysis.md asserts sub-second queries (line 702) and describes smart caching via file mtime tracking (Decision #4, lines 584-618), but doesn't provide concrete performance benchmarks.\n\nVC's requirement (from VC feedback section):\n- Executor polls GetReadyWork() every 5-10 seconds\n- Queries must be sub-second (ideally \u003c100ms)\n- Smart caching must avoid re-parsing JSONLs on every query\n\nSuggested performance targets to validate:\n- File stat overhead: \u003c1ms per repo\n- Hydration (when needed): \u003c500ms for typical JSONL (\u003c25k)\n- Query (from cache): \u003c10ms\n- Total GetReadyWork(): \u003c100ms (VC's requirement)\n\nAlso test at scale:\n- N=1 repo (baseline)\n- N=3 repos (typical)\n- N=10 repos (edge case)\n\nThese benchmarks are critical for library consumers like VC that run automated polling loops.","acceptance_criteria":"- Performance benchmark suite created for multi-repo hydration\n- Benchmarks cover file stat, hydration, and query times\n- Tests at N=1, N=3, N=10 repo scales\n- Results documented in contributor-workflow-analysis.md\n- Performance targets met or issues filed for optimization","status":"closed","priority":2,"issue_type":"task","created_at":"2025-11-03T20:24:39.331528-08:00","updated_at":"2025-11-05T14:19:11.205631-08:00","closed_at":"2025-11-05T14:17:15.079226-08:00","source_repo":"."}
{"id":"bd-x47","content_hash":"e363d887fa6693c1c748d78ea9cdaaa97606889d910f318fbd29584576da57e9","title":"Add guidance for self-hosting projects","description":"The contributor-workflow-analysis.md is optimized for OSS contributors making PRs to upstream projects. However, it doesn't address projects like VC that use beads for their own development (self-hosting).\n\nSelf-hosting projects differ from OSS contributors:\n- No upstream/downstream distinction (they ARE the project)\n- May run automated executors (not just humans)\n- In bootstrap/early phase (stability matters)\n- Single team/owner (not multiple contributors with permissions)\n\nGuidance needed on:\n- When self-hosting projects should stay single-repo (default, recommended)\n- When they should adopt multi-repo (team planning, multi-phase dev)\n- How automated executors should handle multi-repo (if at all)\n- Special considerations for projects in bootstrap phase\n\nExamples of self-hosting projects: VC (building itself with beads), internal tools, pet projects","acceptance_criteria":"- Section added: 'For Projects Using Beads for Self-Hosting'\n- Clear guidance on when to stay single-repo vs adopt multi-repo\n- Recommendations for automated executor behavior with multi-repo\n- Bootstrap phase considerations documented","status":"closed","priority":2,"issue_type":"task","created_at":"2025-11-03T20:24:27.805341-08:00","updated_at":"2025-11-05T14:19:11.205917-08:00","closed_at":"2025-11-05T14:16:34.69662-08:00","source_repo":"."}
{"id":"bd-zbq2","content_hash":"73e221064a99e2041fee2ce6f5fcc02aefa4550bbee5ac7a7e3637ff8e25090e","title":"bd export should verify JSONL line count matches database count","description":"After export completes, bd should verify that the JSONL file line count matches the number of issues exported. This would catch silent failures where the export appears to succeed but doesn't actually write all issues.\n\nReal-world scenario from VC project:\n- Ran direct SQL DELETE to remove 240 issues \n- Ran 'bd export -o .beads/issues.jsonl'\n- No error shown, appeared to succeed\n- But JSONL file was not updated (still had old line count)\n- Later session found all 240 issues still in JSONL\n- Had to repeat the cleanup\n\nIf export had verified line count, it would have immediately shown:\n Error: Export verification failed\n Expected: 276 issues\n JSONL file: 516 lines\n Mismatch indicates export failed to write all issues\n\nThis is especially important because:\n1. JSONL is source of truth in git\n2. Silent export failures cause data inconsistency\n3. Users assume export succeeded if no error shown\n4. The verification is cheap (just count lines)\n\nImplementation:\n- After writing JSONL, count lines in file\n- Compare to len(exportedIDs)\n- If mismatch, remove temp file and return error\n- Show clear error message with both counts","design":"In cmd/bd/export.go, after atomic rename (line ~301):\n\n1. Count lines in final JSONL file:\n - Read file and count newlines\n - Or reuse countIssuesInJSONL() helper (already exists)\n\n2. Compare to len(exportedIDs)\n\n3. If mismatch:\n - Log error with both counts\n - Optionally: remove the bad JSONL file (or leave for debugging?)\n - Return error (exit 1)\n\n4. Consider adding --skip-verify flag for edge cases\n\nEdge cases:\n- Partial line writes (corrupted file)\n- File system issues\n- Race conditions (another process modifying JSONL during export)\n\nThe countIssuesInJSONL() function already exists at line 20, can reuse it.","acceptance_criteria":"1. bd export verifies JSONL line count after write\n2. Clear error shown if mismatch detected\n3. Test case that simulates partial write failure\n4. Does not affect export performance significantly (line counting is fast)","status":"open","priority":2,"issue_type":"feature","created_at":"2025-11-05T14:24:56.278249-08:00","updated_at":"2025-11-05T14:24:56.278249-08:00","source_repo":"."}
{"id":"bd-zbq2","content_hash":"3fec118fa6f489216810cbd5ba95a80799acc6d8dbeb12a3188695d649cb12c9","title":"bd export should verify JSONL line count matches database count","description":"After export completes, bd should verify that the JSONL file line count matches the number of issues exported. This would catch silent failures where the export appears to succeed but doesn't actually write all issues.\n\nReal-world scenario from VC project:\n- Ran direct SQL DELETE to remove 240 issues \n- Ran 'bd export -o .beads/issues.jsonl'\n- No error shown, appeared to succeed\n- But JSONL file was not updated (still had old line count)\n- Later session found all 240 issues still in JSONL\n- Had to repeat the cleanup\n\nIf export had verified line count, it would have immediately shown:\n Error: Export verification failed\n Expected: 276 issues\n JSONL file: 516 lines\n Mismatch indicates export failed to write all issues\n\nThis is especially important because:\n1. JSONL is source of truth in git\n2. Silent export failures cause data inconsistency\n3. Users assume export succeeded if no error shown\n4. The verification is cheap (just count lines)\n\nImplementation:\n- After writing JSONL, count lines in file\n- Compare to len(exportedIDs)\n- If mismatch, remove temp file and return error\n- Show clear error message with both counts","design":"In cmd/bd/export.go, after atomic rename (line ~301):\n\n1. Count lines in final JSONL file:\n - Read file and count newlines\n - Or reuse countIssuesInJSONL() helper (already exists)\n\n2. Compare to len(exportedIDs)\n\n3. If mismatch:\n - Log error with both counts\n - Optionally: remove the bad JSONL file (or leave for debugging?)\n - Return error (exit 1)\n\n4. Consider adding --skip-verify flag for edge cases\n\nEdge cases:\n- Partial line writes (corrupted file)\n- File system issues\n- Race conditions (another process modifying JSONL during export)\n\nThe countIssuesInJSONL() function already exists at line 20, can reuse it.","acceptance_criteria":"1. bd export verifies JSONL line count after write\n2. Clear error shown if mismatch detected\n3. Test case that simulates partial write failure\n4. Does not affect export performance significantly (line counting is fast)","status":"closed","priority":2,"issue_type":"feature","created_at":"2025-11-05T14:24:56.278249-08:00","updated_at":"2025-11-05T14:31:24.494885-08:00","closed_at":"2025-11-05T14:31:24.494885-08:00","source_repo":"."}
{"id":"bd-zkl","content_hash":"27227f7f9b8b03d312d483686711551bcf227c263f935d94d1a8f2c377969d2e","title":"Add tests for daemon vs non-daemon parity in list filters","description":"After bd-o43 RPC integration, we need tests to verify daemon mode behaves identically to direct mode for all new filter flags.\n\nTest coverage needed:\n- Pattern matching: --title-contains, --desc-contains, --notes-contains\n- Date ranges: all 6 date filter flags (created/updated/closed after/before)\n- Empty/null checks: --empty-description, --no-assignee, --no-labels\n- Priority ranges: --priority-min, --priority-max\n- Status normalization: --status all vs no status flag\n- Date parsing: YYYY-MM-DD, RFC3339, and error cases\n- Backward compat: deprecated --label flag still works\n\nOracle review findings (bd-o43):\n- Date parsing should support multiple formats\n- Status 'all' should be treated as unset\n- NoLabels field was missing from RPC protocol\n- Error messages should be clear and actionable\n\nTest approach:\n- Create RPC integration tests in internal/rpc/server_issues_epics_test.go\n- Compare daemon client.List() vs direct store.SearchIssues() for same filters\n- Verify error messages match between modes\n- Test with real daemon instance, not just unit tests","status":"closed","priority":1,"issue_type":"task","created_at":"2025-11-05T00:43:53.369457-08:00","updated_at":"2025-11-05T00:55:31.318526-08:00","closed_at":"2025-11-05T00:55:31.318526-08:00","source_repo":".","dependencies":[{"issue_id":"bd-zkl","depends_on_id":"bd-o43","type":"discovered-from","created_at":"2025-11-05T00:43:53.371274-08:00","created_by":"daemon"}]}
{"id":"bd-zwpw","content_hash":"f08173f44c8454bf15b265aa9d3242004e7ee2bc25867b02676746154a9cc6fe","title":"Test dependency child","description":"","status":"closed","priority":2,"issue_type":"task","created_at":"2025-11-05T11:23:05.998311-08:00","updated_at":"2025-11-05T11:23:30.389454-08:00","closed_at":"2025-11-05T11:23:30.389454-08:00","source_repo":".","dependencies":[{"issue_id":"bd-zwpw","depends_on_id":"bd-k0j9","type":"blocks","created_at":"2025-11-05T11:23:05.998981-08:00","created_by":"daemon"}]}