Skip to content

fix(codex): serialize reset-credit reservations - #421

Open
luvs01 wants to merge 20 commits into
Devfrom
codex/fix-race-condition-in-auto-redeem-feature
Open

fix(codex): serialize reset-credit reservations#421
luvs01 wants to merge 20 commits into
Devfrom
codex/fix-race-condition-in-auto-redeem-feature

Conversation

@luvs01

@luvs01 luvs01 commented Sep 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Motivation

  • Prevent a race in the opt-in reset-credit auto-redeemer where multiple sibling OpenCodex processes could mint distinct redeem_request_id values and submit multiple irreversibly consumptive consume() requests for the same credit.
  • Ensure journal reservation and settlement are atomic across processes while preserving the existing crash-replay semantics and default-off opt-in behavior.

Description

  • Serialize the journal reservation (read/find/generate/write) using the existing withConfigMutationLockSync so only one process can mint and persist an idempotency key for a given account+credit identity.
  • Serialize journal settlement (marking an entry settled) with withConfigMutationLockSync to avoid overwriting concurrent state.
  • Add an internal test seam beforeDispatchForTest to allow deterministic synchronization of sibling processes in a regression test.
  • Add a multi-process regression test that spawns several sibling redeemers and asserts all consume calls use one shared idempotency key.

Testing

  • Ran the focused regression tests with bun test tests/codex-reset-credit-auto-redeem.test.ts, which passed (9 tests, 0 failures).
  • Typechecked and ran the privacy scan with bun run typecheck and bun run privacy:scan, both succeeding.
  • Executed a broader bun run test; the full suite produced unrelated environment-sensitive failures in other tests, while the focused reset-credit regtest passed as above.

Codex Task

lidge-jun and others added 20 commits August 25, 2026 10:36
release: promote dev into main for v2.32.1
# Conflicts:
#	package.json
[WRONG BRANCH] merge dev into main for the v2.33.0 release
Promotes the dev integration line onto main. The resulting tree is byte-identical
to origin/dev, including package.json at 2.34.0.

The package.json conflict is resolved to dev's side, NOT to main's stale 2.33.0.
Earlier promotions (lidge-jun#2553, lidge-jun#2507) kept the target's version so the release bump
would land on its own "release: vX.Y.Z" commit. That is no longer legal: this very
delta adds tests/release-version-line.test.ts, which fails when the in-tree version
sits behind the highest release tag. With v2.34.0-preview.20260827 now published,
2.33.0 orders behind it, so a promotion carrying the stale line turns CI red on
every shard that runs the suite.

The consequence for the release step is that scripts/release.ts skips the bump
(release.ts:568, currentVersion === version), so v2.34.0 gets tagged on this merge
commit rather than on a separate release commit. The workflow creates the tag itself
after publishing and validates expected-sha against the checked-out commit, so the
tag still names exactly the audited tree.
[WRONG BRANCH] promote dev onto main for v2.34.0
[WRONG BRANCH] promote dev onto main for v2.35.0
[WRONG BRANCH] promote dev onto main for v2.36.0
[WRONG BRANCH] promote dev to main for the v2.37.0 release
[WRONG BRANCH] promote dev onto main for v2.38.0
[WRONG BRANCH] promote dev onto main for v2.39.0
…rkflow call (lidge-jun#3262)

Both v2.40.0 release dispatches (33615174183 preview, 33615177849 main) died
at startup_failure: a workflow_call cannot grant its callee more than the
calling job holds, and dev-version-bump.yml's job declares contents+pull-
requests write. lidge-jun#3129 wired the call but never dispatched a release, so this
is its first live run. The caller job now declares exactly the callee's two
permissions; no other job in release.yml gains anything.

Co-authored-by: jun <jun@lidge.dev>
(cherry picked from commit 7ce0ba5)
…400-relfix

release: carry the release.yml permissions fix onto main for v2.40.0
@chatgpt-codex-connector

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Sep 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review Status Commit Review trigger
📝 Code Review Completed 2026-09-03T06:18:06.386700Z 79ccab7 PR opened
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Sep 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Important

  • 🔍 Trigger review

This repository does not receive automatic reviews because it has fewer than 10 stars.

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Team

Run ID: 33d7ed77-e30c-48a9-ab46-31138d6b71cb


Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.

@github-actions github-actions Bot added the bug Something isn't working label Sep 3, 2026
@github-actions github-actions Bot changed the title fix(codex): serialize reset-credit reservations [WRONG BRANCH] fix(codex): serialize reset-credit reservations Sep 3, 2026
@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Sep 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

✅ READY

  • all PR quality gates passed.

Hygiene

Deterministic PR hygiene checks passed.

@github-actions
github-actions Bot marked this pull request as draft September 3, 2026 06:19
@luvs01 luvs01 changed the title [WRONG BRANCH] fix(codex): serialize reset-credit reservations fix(codex): serialize reset-credit reservations Sep 3, 2026
@luvs01
luvs01 changed the base branch from main to dev September 3, 2026 06:21
@github-actions
github-actions Bot marked this pull request as ready for review September 3, 2026 06:28
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

aardvark bug Something isn't working codex

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants