tegwick
3690af12a5
Assistant: codex Assistant-Model: gpt-6-astra Assistant-Session: 01a0cffe-206f-7323-89d3-b20ca4cf4bf9
9 lines
No EOL
1.3 KiB
Markdown
9 lines
No EOL
1.3 KiB
Markdown
Here's a recommendation for the frontend architecture based on the scenario:
|
|
|
|
* **Outcome/State:** The system should transition to a state where revision `c` is the active local content, with pending operation `Q` awaiting remote acceptance. The late receipt for `P` should update its own operation history, marking `P` as remotely accepted, but it should not alter the active content or the status of `Q`.
|
|
|
|
* **Preserved Information:** Both divergent revisions `a` and `b` should be preserved with their identities and provenance until `c` is fully committed and resolved. The original pending operation `P` and its identity must also be retained, along with the new pending operation `Q`.
|
|
|
|
* **Recovery Action and Rejected Alternative:** Upon process restart, the system must recover `c` as the active content and `Q` as the pending operation. The late receipt for `P` should not trigger a re-application of `P` or a rollback to `a`, as this would erase the user's explicit resolution into `c`.
|
|
|
|
* **Missing Contract or Clarification:** The architecture needs a clear contract for the receiver's ancestry and precondition behavior. Specifically, it must define how the receiver handles an in-flight operation (`P`) when a superseding operation (`Q` derived from `c`) is subsequently sent, and how it would respond to `P` if `b` was already accepted. |