tegwick
211f8fc4b2
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 182330@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 242866cf-789d-4e24-ac5e-0a1d7b47a701
1.4 KiB
Here's a review of the proposed frontend decision:
-
Operation and Visible State: The proposed approach risks a race condition where the system might attempt to re-process the original pending upload (P) after a crash, even though a new revision (c) and operation (Q) have been recorded. The user's chosen revision (c) and the new operation (Q) should be committed atomically with the marking of P as non-retryable.
-
Information and Policy Boundaries: The scenario implies a local decision to mark P as non-retryable, but this doesn't guarantee the remote receiver will honor it. The lack of documented receiver version/ancestry enforcement means the frontend cannot assume the remote will reject a late-arriving P.
-
Recovery Action and Rejected Alternative: The minimal correction is to commit the new revision (c), the new operation (Q), and the non-retryable status of P within a single, recoverable transaction. This prevents P from being re-activated after a crash. The alternative of marking P non-retryable in a separate, later transaction is rejected due to the risk of re-transmission.
-
Missing Contract: There is no explicit contract for how the remote receiver handles conflicting or superseded operations. The frontend needs to account for the possibility that a late-arriving P might still be accepted by the server, potentially overwriting the user's chosen revision (c) or creating further divergence.