Hacktoberfest 2026: le issue che i maintainer hanno segnato per ottobre, aperte e adatte ai principianti. Sfoglia le issue Hacktoberfest

`worker.rejected` carries `count: 1` on an isolated refusal, which the catalogs say it must never do

Aperta
#677 0 commenti 0 reazioni 1 assegnatario Vedi su GitHub

I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 1 giorno

@V3RON ci sta già lavorando.

Dal 17/10/2026.

  • #682 di @V3RON — aperta

Valutazione

Questa issue non è ancora stata valutata.

Descrizione

bug:ready

What is wrong

worker.rejected carries count: 1 on an isolated refusal, which the catalogs say it must never do

Where this came from

Confirmed in the bug bounty sweep tracked on #648 (finding 3). The reproduction was reproduced independently by the orchestrating session, the proposed fix confirmed green against the surrounding suite, and the finding re-confirmed against current main.

Spec

Area: src/gateway/service.ts (uplink rejection coalescing)

Severity: low, audit trail only. No state damage and no protocol change
needed — but count's presence is the documented signal that a flood happened,
so count: 1 tells an operator "one refusal was absorbed by an earlier window"
when there was no flood at all. Any consumer treating count !== undefined as
"there was a flood" — the documented reading — is wrong.

Kind: defect — the emitted payload is one the contract's own documentation
says must be omitted.

Problem

GatewayService#recordRejection coalesces refusals per (reason, claimed id)
into one-second windows. When a window ages out, the next matching refusal
reports that window's total as count.

A window that absorbed exactly one refusal has total 1, and that 1 is passed
straight to registry.rejected, which omits count only when it is undefined.
So two lone refusals an apart — the "overwhelmingly common case of an
isolated refusal" that the code's own comment names — make the second event carry
count: 1.

A misconfigured or revoked worker redialling on its 1 s → 30 s backoff therefore
carries count: 1 on nearly every refusal it ever emits. The backoff puts each
dial outside the previous window by design, so this is the normal path for the
exact scenario the event exists to describe (ADR 0005 §22: "a worker whose
credentials were mistyped or revoked").

The comment sitting four lines above the bug states the opposite of the code:

// src/gateway/service.ts:188-192
// ... so a lone refusal keeps the exact
// pre-P-2 payload shape (no `count` field at all) rather than gaining a
// redundant `count: 1`.

A refusal whose predecessor window held one lone refusal is a lone refusal, and
it does not keep that shape.

Root cause

src/gateway/service.ts:201 — this.#registry.rejected(reason, workerId, label, previousTotal), with previousTotal read at :193 — hands the previous
window's raw count onward without the "above one" rule the comment above it
states. WorkerRegistry#rejected (src/gateway/worker-registry.ts:339) then
omits only count === undefined, so a 1 reaches the bus.

Three independent sources bind the value, all agreeing:

docs/EVENTS.md:108          `count`, present only above one, is how many identical
                            refusals a coalescing window absorbed
docs/internal/EVENTS.md:165 `count`, present only above one, is how many identical
                            (reason, claimed id) refusals the *previous* coalescing
                            window absorbed — GatewayService computes it before
                            calling into the registry
src/gateway/worker-registry.ts:324  Omitted (not zero or one) outside a flood, so the
                            payload is unchanged from before this fix in the
                            overwhelmingly common case of an isolated refusal.

Why the existing P-2 test never caught it: its third assertion uses a different
claimed id (wrk_other), whose previous total is genuinely undefined. The
same-id-after-aging-out path is unexercised.

Evidence
Test file:  src/gateway/zz-orchestrator-rejection-count.test.ts
            (written independently by the orchestrator from the reported root
             cause — the finder's own scratch file was lost when its session
             ended, so this is a fresh reproduction, not a re-run)
Test title: worker.rejected payload across aged-out windows > carries no count
            when the previous window absorbed a single refusal
Command:    pnpm exec vitest run --project unit \
              src/gateway/zz-orchestrator-rejection-count.test.ts
AssertionError: expected { reason: 'unauthenticated', …(2) } to not have
property "count"
- Expected: undefined
+ Received: 1

 ❯ src/gateway/zz-orchestrator-rejection-count.test.ts:49:40
     47|     await expect(dial()).rejects.toMatchObject({ code: "rejected" });
     48|     expect(rejected()).toHaveLength(2);
     49|     expect(rejected()[1]?.payload).not.toHaveProperty("count");

Honesty checks:

  • The reproduction asserts the first refusal carries no count too, so the
    harness itself cannot be silently mis-wired — that assertion is load-bearing.
  • Broke it a second way (previousTotal ?? 0, so a count is never omitted): still
    fails at :49, so it keys on the omission rule and not on the literal 1.
  • Broke it a third way (count: 1 on every emission): fails earlier at the first
    assertion.
  • With the fix: this test passes and the entire src/gateway module is green —
    23 files, 695 tests
    , including the P-2 test's count: 2 assertion at
    service.test.ts:1818, which pins that a genuine two-dial window still reports
    its tally. Source reverted to HEAD afterwards; only the scratch test remains.
Proposed fix

src/gateway/service.ts:201 — apply the documented bound at the point the count
is handed over, where the coalescing fact lives:

this.#registry.rejected(reason, workerId, label, previousTotal === 1 ? undefined : previousTotal);

previousTotal can only be undefined, 1, or more, so === 1 is exhaustive and
0 is unreachable. No protocol bump: nothing on the wire changes shape, only the
presence of a field already optional and already documented as absent here. No
comment or doc change is needed either — the comment at service.ts:188-192
already describes this behaviour; the fix is what makes it true.

Alternatives rejected
  • Drop a count of one inside WorkerRegistry#rejected — both catalogs state
    GatewayService computes the count before calling into the registry, so the
    registry would be deciding a coalescing fact that is not its own (architecture
    rule: one place enforces a rule).
  • Reset #recentRejections entries once a window ages out — an aged-out window's
    total is exactly the information the next event is supposed to carry; this
    would lose the flood tally the mechanism exists for.
  • Widen the docs to allow count: 1 — the field's whole purpose is that its
    presence marks a flood, and two EVENTS.md cuts, the EventMap, and the
    registry's own doc comment all currently promise otherwise.
Risk
  • count: 2 must still be reported for a genuine two-dial window —
    service.test.ts:1818 pins it and stays green.
  • A reviewer should confirm no consumer keys on count === 1. None exists in this
    repo: the console touches this event's payload only to decide worker
    attribution (event-list.ts, deliberately ignoring the claimed workerId), and
    never reads count; the gateway relays envelopes verbatim.
  • Worth a look in the same PR: MAX_TRACKED_REJECTION_WINDOWS eviction drops the
    oldest window, so an evicted key's next refusal behaves as never-seen and emits
    no count. That is correct in itself, and unchanged by this fix.

Written by an agent.

Written by an agent.

Lingua principale
TypeScript
Stelle
20
Fork
2
Merge medio
7h 26m
PR unite (30g)
253

Preparare l'ambiente

Questo progetto non fornisce container di sviluppo, Dockerfile né guida per i contributori, quindi l'ambiente è a tuo carico: parti dal suo README e consulta la nostra guida al primo contributo per i passaggi generali.

Come iniziare

  1. Leggi tutta la issue e poi la guida ai contributi del progetto.
  2. Commenta sulla issue per dire che te ne occupi tu — evita che due persone facciano lo stesso lavoro.
  3. Fai un fork del repository e lavora su un branch.
  4. Apri una pull request che faccia riferimento al numero della issue.

Altre issue di callstackincubator/simlock

Tutte le issue di callstackincubator/simlock

Issue simili

Altre issue su TypeScript

Ricevi le nuove issue nella tua casella

Un breve riepilogo di issue GitHub adatte ai principianti.