fix(runtime): every spawn hands the child its desired subscriptions (archreview 03/S16)
This commit is contained in:
@@ -504,3 +504,20 @@ Deviation from the plan's literal step text (cosmetic, recorded for the reviewer
|
||||
step 1 says `_desiredByDriver` *replaces* `_lastComposition` at `:347-349` while T3 step 2 says T3
|
||||
deletes `_lastComposition`. Keeping T2 compilable means the two fields coexist for one commit;
|
||||
`_lastComposition` and its assignment are deleted in T3 as T3's own step text specifies.
|
||||
|
||||
### T3 — `SpawnChild` always sends the desired set; `_lastComposition` deleted
|
||||
|
||||
The falsification for this production slice is **T5**, written and observed red afterwards (below) —
|
||||
T3 lands the fix first because the plan sequences it that way and the ordering guard needs the whole
|
||||
25-suite regression before any new test is trusted on top of it.
|
||||
|
||||
**HIGH-RISK regression gate (every child's spawn-time state changes, deploy path included):** the
|
||||
FULL `Runtime.Tests` project, not just the `DriverHostActor` filter —
|
||||
**639 passed, 3 skipped, 0 failed, 55 s**. The 3 skips are pre-existing (`DeploymentArtifact*` parity
|
||||
tests, skipped on the base commit too).
|
||||
|
||||
`_lastComposition` is gone: `grep -c _lastComposition DriverHostActor.cs` → **0**. Its xmldoc had also
|
||||
drifted (it claimed the field was set at the end of `PushDesiredSubscriptions`; the assignment was in
|
||||
`ApplyDesiredSubscriptions`) — deleted with the field rather than corrected. The stale
|
||||
"dropped-driver fallback" comment on the old `SendAuthoredOnly` local function was rewritten as the
|
||||
`SendDesiredSubscriptions` remarks naming the three real consumers.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"id": "T3",
|
||||
"subject": "SpawnChild always sends the desired set; delete the write-only _lastComposition (03/S16)",
|
||||
"status": "pending",
|
||||
"status": "done",
|
||||
"blockedBy": [
|
||||
"T2"
|
||||
]
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user