asan aggregator accepts a shard receipt whose PLAN line says sections=0
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
Nobody has claimed this yet.
Assessment
- Difficulty
- 3/5
- Estimated time
- 1-2 days
- Newbie friendliness
- 68/100
- Issue type
- Bug
- Clarity
- Clearly specified
- Activity status
- Active
- Domain
- ci-cd, testing-qa
Research direction
Locate the asan + ubsan (full suite) aggregator and the critic fixture row named "zero-sections rc=0" referenced in the issue. Start by tracing how receipt PLAN lines are validated, then run the aggregation fixture; done means missing or zero sections are rejected and the sections total meets the required floor with exit status 1 for the zero-sections receipt.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Description
Found by a blind critic on PR #1310. The same result on main 7706607: this is pre-existing.
The asan + ubsan (full suite) aggregator checks each receipt for a PLAN line naming the right shard=k/N, a leak tally, and exactly one owner per extra. It never looks at sections=. A receipt with PLAN: shard=2/3 sections=0 ... passes (critic fixture row zero-sections rc=0, both revisions).
The runner is expected to refuse a zero-section shard itself, so this is defence in depth. But the aggregator is the one place that sees all three shards.
Done when:
- the aggregator refuses a receipt whose
sections=is missing or 0, and requires the threesections=values to sum to at least a floor - a fixture receipt with sections=0 makes the aggregation step exit 1
- Dominant language
- C
- Stars
- 3
- Forks
- 7
- Avg merge
- 3h 56m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 102
Getting set up
Starts the project's dev container in your browser, under your own GitHub account.
- Ships a Dockerfile or Docker Compose file
- Has a pull request template
- Read the contributing guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
More from InauguralSystems/EigenScript
-
area:lint-tooling bug
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 88/100
InauguralSystems/EigenScript#1340 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
area:stdlib found-by:code-review kind:silent-wrong
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 88/100
InauguralSystems/EigenScript#1338 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
area:lint-tooling found-by:critic kind:docs-drift
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 76/100
InauguralSystems/EigenScript#1335 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
area:ci found-by:critic kind:gate-defect
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 86/100
InauguralSystems/EigenScript#1311 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
enrolment: decide test_gc_runner_controls.py (exempt vs enrol) and whether floors need a ratchetOpenarea:gates found-by:critic kind:decision
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 65/100
InauguralSystems/EigenScript#1280 · 1 comment ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
All issues in InauguralSystems/EigenScript
Similar issues
-
[Bug]: chunk_span_bounds and _validated_chunk_spans reject Pydantic models ChunkSpan and AudioFileOpen
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 78/100
BasedHardware/omi#19047 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 88/100
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 76/100
obsproject/obs-studio#13936 · 2 comments ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
category:port-update
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 76/100
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
Difficulty 1/5 Under an hour Newbie friendliness 88/100
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day