SUBMISSION-205: 00README update requires source package refresh#91
Merged
Merged
Conversation
…e tar [SUBMISSION-205] David
DavidLFielding
requested review from
bdc34,
bmaltzan,
jweiskoff and
norbusan
as code owners
July 20, 2026 16:35
DavidLFielding
changed the title
bmaltzan
approved these changes
Jul 21, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR addresses issues with stale or missing source package. The source package is not regenerated when the 00README is written such that the source package is stale. Also, the QA snapshot includes the source package, but skips it when it does not exist (instead of generating it). The QA snapshot will now attempt to regenerate the source package when it it missing.
StoreZzrm docstring (process.py) covers the whole rationale from Commit 1's body: why it's an EventWithSideEffect (row lock / critical section), why it deletes rather than rebuilds (lazy invalidation matching _common_file_change_execute), and why it deliberately doesn't call _common_file_change_execute (would drop the just-generated preflight/directives/user_decisions).
review.py has the short inline comment pointing at StoreZzrm and the CLAUDE.md critical-section note.
_rebuild_source_package_for_qa docstring (final.py) covers Commit 2's body: that get_qa_artifact_info reads the tar directly and never builds one, so finalize rebuilds under the lock, best-effort and QA-gated.
The three test files have module docstrings stating what behavior they pin and why.