iomgaa
92785eb3e1
design 0003 的否决方案一节承诺过「显式命名的、明确不提供恢复的内存实现」，那个实现一直 没写，migrations/dissect.md 还专门登记着「不要照那句话去找一个不存在的类」。 **名字取 VolatileRunStore 不取「不提供恢复」**：一个真的读不回自己写过的东西的存储过不了 自家的契约套件（套件第一条要的就是「写进去的意图读得回来」），而这一层的准入标准就是那套 套件。一个过不了自家准入标准的实现不该存在。它不提供的是跨进程恢复，Volatile 说的正是这 件事。 桶里存编码后的载荷、读的时候才解码，两个方向的别名都堵上：调用方写完再改自己手里那个 dict 改不到日志，读回来的日志被就地改动也污染不了存储本身。落盘那个实现每次重新解析文件，天然 如此，这个实现靠同一条路径对齐它。**写入只编码不解码**——落盘那边写的时候只做 json.dumps， 一条字段类型不对的记录写得进去、读的时候才炸，两边现在一致。 两张平行的表（记录类→标签、标签→解码器）合成一张三元组再派生视图。加上易失实现要用的第三 张视图之后，三张表之间那个谁也不检查的一致性要求就不可能被违反了。
690 lines
27 KiB
Python
690 lines
27 KiB
Python
"""两份存储实现的行为：逐行追加进文件的那个，以及只留在进程内存里的那个。
|
|
|
|
**行为契约本身在契约套件里**，那套套件不针对任何具体实现，写的是「不管你怎么实现，都必须满足
|
|
这些行为」。这里只写套件覆盖不到的部分：文件长什么样、坏行怎么算、`fsync` 在哪几处、那条契约
|
|
测试明说「这一层验不了」的原子性（它点名要在这里用可注入的故障点补上），以及易失那个实现独有
|
|
的几条——它的独占判据、它靠存载荷换来的两个方向的别名免疫。
|
|
|
|
还有几条跨着两个实现跑：坏记录在哪一步炸、写入失败留不留痕。那种「两个实现必须一样」的事只在
|
|
这里守得住——契约套件对每个实现分别跑，两边各自全绿并不代表它们一致。
|
|
"""
|
|
|
|
import asyncio
|
|
import json
|
|
import os
|
|
from pathlib import Path
|
|
|
|
import pytest
|
|
|
|
from polyloop.serialization import DecodeError
|
|
from polyloop.stores import RECORD_KEY, JsonlRunStore, VolatileRunStore
|
|
from polyloop.stores import _jsonl as jsonl_module
|
|
from polyloop.types import (
|
|
ActionOutcome,
|
|
ActionStatus,
|
|
Intent,
|
|
IntentKind,
|
|
ModelCallResult,
|
|
ModelReply,
|
|
ReplayPolicy,
|
|
RunFinished,
|
|
RunResult,
|
|
RunStarted,
|
|
StepCompleted,
|
|
StepRecord,
|
|
StopReason,
|
|
)
|
|
|
|
pytestmark = pytest.mark.unit
|
|
|
|
|
|
def _started(run_id: str = "r1") -> RunStarted:
|
|
return RunStarted(run_id=run_id, parameter_snapshot={"model": "m-1"})
|
|
|
|
|
|
def _intent(run_id: str = "r1", *, call_index: int = 0) -> Intent:
|
|
return Intent(
|
|
run_id=run_id,
|
|
kind=IntentKind.MODEL_CALL,
|
|
call_index=call_index,
|
|
result_id=f"m{call_index}",
|
|
replay_policy=ReplayPolicy.NEVER,
|
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
def _step(run_id: str = "r1", *, step_idx: int = 0) -> StepCompleted:
|
|
return StepCompleted(
|
|
run_id=run_id,
|
|
result_id=f"a{step_idx}",
|
|
action_outcome=ActionOutcome(
|
|
status=ActionStatus.EXECUTED,
|
|
observation="输出",
|
|
observation_is_synthetic=False,
|
|
env_reported_completion=False,
|
|
observation_truncated_chars=0,
|
|
),
|
|
step=StepRecord(
|
|
step_idx=step_idx,
|
|
raw_output="说的话",
|
|
content_chars=3,
|
|
thinking_chars=0,
|
|
action="做点事",
|
|
parse_ok=True,
|
|
parse_error=None,
|
|
observation="输出",
|
|
observation_is_synthetic=False,
|
|
observation_truncated_chars=0,
|
|
prompt_chars=10,
|
|
call_id="c1",
|
|
step_wall_ms=1,
|
|
),
|
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
def _log_file(store_dir: Path, run_id: str = "r1") -> Path:
|
|
return store_dir / f"{run_id}.jsonl"
|
|
|
|
|
|
# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
# 文件长什么样
|
|
# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
async def test_one_run_one_file_named_after_the_run_id(tmp_path: Path) -> None:
|
|
"""按运行标识去目录里找文件是最自然的用法，所以文件名就是标识。"""
|
|
store = JsonlRunStore(directory=tmp_path)
|
|
|
|
await store.write_run_started(_started("my-run.1"))
|
|
|
|
assert (tmp_path / "my-run.1.jsonl").exists()
|
|
|
|
|
|
async def test_each_record_is_one_line_tagged_with_its_type(tmp_path: Path) -> None:
|
|
"""一行一条记录，行首带一个类型标签。
|
|
|
|
`serialization` 编出来的载荷只有记录类自己的字段——标签是存储这一层加的，因为「哪一行是
|
|
哪种记录」本来就是文件布局的事。
|
|
"""
|
|
store = JsonlRunStore(directory=tmp_path)
|
|
|
|
await store.write_run_started(_started())
|
|
await store.write_intent(_intent())
|
|
await store.write_step_completed(_step())
|
|
|
|
lines = _log_file(tmp_path).read_text(encoding="utf-8").splitlines()
|
|
assert [json.loads(line)[RECORD_KEY] for line in lines] == [
|
|
"run_started",
|
|
"intent",
|
|
"step_completed",
|
|
]
|
|
|
|
|
|
async def test_a_record_never_contains_a_raw_newline(tmp_path: Path) -> None:
|
|
"""一条记录占一行，靠的是 JSON 把换行转义掉。
|
|
|
|
转义要是失效了，一条带换行的观察会被拆成两行，其中一行必然解不开——而读那边会把它当成
|
|
撕裂的尾行丢掉，于是一条完整写下去的记录静默消失了。
|
|
"""
|
|
store = JsonlRunStore(directory=tmp_path)
|
|
record = _step()
|
|
multiline = StepCompleted(
|
|
run_id=record.run_id,
|
|
result_id=record.result_id,
|
|
action_outcome=record.action_outcome,
|
|
step=StepRecord(
|
|
**{
|
|
**{
|
|
field: getattr(record.step, field)
|
|
for field in (
|
|
"step_idx",
|
|
"raw_output",
|
|
"content_chars",
|
|
"thinking_chars",
|
|
"action",
|
|
"parse_ok",
|
|
"parse_error",
|
|
"observation_is_synthetic",
|
|
"observation_truncated_chars",
|
|
"prompt_chars",
|
|
"call_id",
|
|
"step_wall_ms",
|
|
)
|
|
},
|
|
"observation": "第一行\n第二行\n第三行",
|
|
}
|
|
),
|
|
)
|
|
|
|
await store.write_step_completed(multiline)
|
|
|
|
assert len(_log_file(tmp_path).read_text(encoding="utf-8").splitlines()) == 1
|
|
(readback,) = (await store.read_log("r1")).steps
|
|
assert readback.step.observation == "第一行\n第二行\n第三行"
|
|
|
|
|
|
async def test_two_runs_go_to_two_files(tmp_path: Path) -> None:
|
|
"""两次并发运行写同一个文件的话，前缀持久性就从「同一文件的追加序」退化成两条交错的序。"""
|
|
store = JsonlRunStore(directory=tmp_path)
|
|
|
|
await store.write_intent(_intent("run-a"))
|
|
await store.write_intent(_intent("run-b"))
|
|
|
|
assert (await store.read_log("run-a")).intents == (_intent("run-a"),)
|
|
assert (await store.read_log("run-b")).intents == (_intent("run-b"),)
|
|
|
|
|
|
@pytest.mark.parametrize("run_id", ["../escape", "a/b", ".hidden", "", "有中文", "a b"])
|
|
async def test_a_run_id_that_is_not_a_safe_file_name_is_refused(
|
|
tmp_path: Path, run_id: str
|
|
) -> None:
|
|
"""运行标识是调用方给的不透明字符串，里面出现 `../` 的话写文件会跑到目录外面去。
|
|
|
|
不转义也不哈希：那样文件名就不再等于运行标识，而按标识去目录里找文件是最自然的用法。
|
|
"""
|
|
store = JsonlRunStore(directory=tmp_path)
|
|
|
|
with pytest.raises(ValueError, match="文件名"):
|
|
await store.read_log(run_id)
|
|
|
|
|
|
# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
# 坏行
|
|
# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
async def test_a_torn_last_line_is_dropped(tmp_path: Path) -> None:
|
|
"""进程被杀在一次写中途，末尾留下半行。那次写从来没被确认过，所以它就是「没发生」。"""
|
|
store = JsonlRunStore(directory=tmp_path)
|
|
await store.write_run_started(_started())
|
|
await store.write_intent(_intent())
|
|
with _log_file(tmp_path).open("a", encoding="utf-8") as handle:
|
|
handle.write('{"record": "step_completed", "run_id": "r1", "resu')
|
|
|
|
log = await store.read_log("r1")
|
|
|
|
assert log.started == _started()
|
|
assert log.intents == (_intent(),)
|
|
assert log.steps == ()
|
|
|
|
|
|
async def test_a_bad_line_in_the_middle_is_corruption_not_a_torn_tail(tmp_path: Path) -> None:
|
|
"""追加写只在末尾产生撕裂。中间读不了说明别的东西动过这个文件。
|
|
|
|
跳过那一行接着读会拼出一份少了几条记录、看起来却完整的日志，而恢复会照它做判断。
|
|
"""
|
|
store = JsonlRunStore(directory=tmp_path)
|
|
await store.write_run_started(_started())
|
|
await store.write_intent(_intent())
|
|
path = _log_file(tmp_path)
|
|
lines = path.read_text(encoding="utf-8").splitlines()
|
|
path.write_text(f"{lines[0]}\n半行不完整\n{lines[1]}\n", encoding="utf-8")
|
|
|
|
with pytest.raises(DecodeError, match="被别的东西动过"):
|
|
await store.read_log("r1")
|
|
|
|
|
|
async def test_a_blank_line_is_not_a_torn_tail(tmp_path: Path) -> None:
|
|
"""空行不携带记录，也不是撕裂的证据。"""
|
|
store = JsonlRunStore(directory=tmp_path)
|
|
await store.write_run_started(_started())
|
|
path = _log_file(tmp_path)
|
|
path.write_text(path.read_text(encoding="utf-8") + "\n\n", encoding="utf-8")
|
|
|
|
assert (await store.read_log("r1")).started == _started()
|
|
|
|
|
|
async def test_an_unknown_record_type_is_refused_not_skipped(tmp_path: Path) -> None:
|
|
"""一行完整的 JSON 带着认不得的标签，说明这份文件不是本库写的，不是被杀在写一半。"""
|
|
store = JsonlRunStore(directory=tmp_path)
|
|
await store.write_run_started(_started())
|
|
with _log_file(tmp_path).open("a", encoding="utf-8") as handle:
|
|
handle.write('{"record": "something_else", "run_id": "r1"}\n')
|
|
|
|
with pytest.raises(DecodeError, match="认不得"):
|
|
await store.read_log("r1")
|
|
|
|
|
|
# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
# 原子写：契约套件明说它验不了的那一半
|
|
# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
async def test_a_write_that_dies_halfway_leaves_nothing_readable(tmp_path: Path) -> None:
|
|
"""崩在一次写中途，那条记录**整条不可见**，不是半条可见。
|
|
|
|
这是 `polyloop.testing.RunStoreContract` 里那条跳过点名要在这一层补的：契约套件跑在
|
|
一个进程里、面对一个已经装配好的实现，没有位置插入那次崩溃。这里靠替换掉那个内部的
|
|
「把这些字节写进去」来造它。
|
|
|
|
不成立的话，恢复会读到一条残缺的步记录——而那一步的历史文本就永远丢了。
|
|
"""
|
|
store = JsonlRunStore(directory=tmp_path)
|
|
await store.write_run_started(_started())
|
|
|
|
def _die_halfway(descriptor: int, payload: bytes) -> None:
|
|
os.write(descriptor, payload[: len(payload) // 2])
|
|
raise OSError("磁盘满了")
|
|
|
|
store._write_all = _die_halfway # noqa: SLF001 — 那个可注入的故障点
|
|
with pytest.raises(OSError, match="磁盘满了"):
|
|
await store.write_step_completed(_step())
|
|
|
|
log = await store.read_log("r1")
|
|
|
|
assert log.started == _started()
|
|
assert log.steps == ()
|
|
|
|
|
|
async def test_the_records_written_before_a_dead_write_survive(tmp_path: Path) -> None:
|
|
"""崩在第 k 次写中途，前 k-1 次照样读得回来。
|
|
|
|
这是前缀持久性在「读得回来」这一层的影子。真正的前缀持久性是掉电之后的性质，这一层验
|
|
不了——它靠形态满足（同一个文件的追加写），只能靠评审看。
|
|
"""
|
|
store = JsonlRunStore(directory=tmp_path)
|
|
await store.write_run_started(_started())
|
|
await store.write_intent(_intent(call_index=0))
|
|
await store.write_step_completed(_step(step_idx=0))
|
|
|
|
def _die(descriptor: int, payload: bytes) -> None:
|
|
raise OSError("盘掉了")
|
|
|
|
store._write_all = _die # noqa: SLF001 — 那个可注入的故障点
|
|
with pytest.raises(OSError):
|
|
await store.write_intent(_intent(call_index=1))
|
|
|
|
log = await store.read_log("r1")
|
|
|
|
assert log.intents == (_intent(call_index=0),)
|
|
assert len(log.steps) == 1
|
|
|
|
|
|
# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
# 并发与耐久
|
|
# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
async def test_starting_the_same_run_twice_fails_instead_of_interleaving(tmp_path: Path) -> None:
|
|
"""独占创建把「先读后写」那个窗口关掉。
|
|
|
|
两个进程同时跑同一个运行标识，交错的记录序会让恢复读到同一步的两条意图、判成日志被并发
|
|
写过，于是这次运行从此续不了——而两边的模型调用都已经花过钱了。
|
|
"""
|
|
store = JsonlRunStore(directory=tmp_path)
|
|
await store.write_run_started(_started())
|
|
|
|
with pytest.raises(FileExistsError):
|
|
await store.write_run_started(_started())
|
|
|
|
|
|
async def test_writes_do_not_block_the_event_loop(tmp_path: Path) -> None:
|
|
"""写入与 `fsync` 走线程，不压在事件循环上。
|
|
|
|
`fsync` 在忙盘上可以到几十毫秒，直接在循环里做会把同一个循环上所有并发运行一起卡住。
|
|
"""
|
|
store = JsonlRunStore(directory=tmp_path)
|
|
ticks = 0
|
|
|
|
async def _tick() -> None:
|
|
nonlocal ticks
|
|
while True:
|
|
ticks += 1
|
|
await asyncio.sleep(0)
|
|
|
|
ticker = asyncio.ensure_future(_tick())
|
|
await store.write_run_started(_started())
|
|
ticker.cancel()
|
|
|
|
assert ticks > 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
async def test_an_unwritten_run_reads_back_empty(tmp_path: Path) -> None:
|
|
"""驱动入口靠这条判断「这个标识是不是已经有日志了」。"""
|
|
store = JsonlRunStore(directory=tmp_path)
|
|
|
|
log = await store.read_log("never-written")
|
|
|
|
assert log.started is None
|
|
assert log.intents == ()
|
|
assert log.finished is None
|
|
|
|
|
|
async def test_the_directory_is_created_on_first_write(tmp_path: Path) -> None:
|
|
"""构造廉价：目录在第一次真的要写的时候才建，不在构造时。"""
|
|
nested = tmp_path / "a" / "b"
|
|
store = JsonlRunStore(directory=nested)
|
|
assert not nested.exists()
|
|
|
|
await store.write_run_started(_started())
|
|
|
|
assert nested.exists()
|
|
|
|
|
|
async def test_a_whole_log_round_trips(tmp_path: Path) -> None:
|
|
"""五种记录写进去、读回来逐字段相等。"""
|
|
store = JsonlRunStore(directory=tmp_path)
|
|
result = RunResult(
|
|
run_id="r1", stop_reason=StopReason.TASK_COMPLETED, final_answer="42", steps=()
|
|
)
|
|
records = [
|
|
_started(),
|
|
_intent(),
|
|
ModelCallResult(
|
|
run_id="r1",
|
|
result_id="m0",
|
|
reply=ModelReply(call_id="c1", content="hi", thinking=""),
|
|
failure=None,
|
|
),
|
|
_step(),
|
|
RunFinished(run_id="r1", result=result),
|
|
]
|
|
await store.write_run_started(records[0]) # type: ignore[arg-type]
|
|
await store.write_intent(records[1]) # type: ignore[arg-type]
|
|
await store.write_model_call_result(records[2]) # type: ignore[arg-type]
|
|
await store.write_step_completed(records[3]) # type: ignore[arg-type]
|
|
await store.write_run_finished(records[4]) # type: ignore[arg-type]
|
|
|
|
log = await store.read_log("r1")
|
|
|
|
assert log.started == records[0]
|
|
assert log.intents == (records[1],)
|
|
assert log.model_results == (records[2],)
|
|
assert log.steps == (records[3],)
|
|
assert log.finished == records[4]
|
|
|
|
|
|
def test_the_directory_does_not_enter_the_parameter_snapshot(tmp_path: Path) -> None:
|
|
"""目录不进快照：目录不一样就根本读不到这份日志，也走不到比对那一步。
|
|
|
|
记进去只会在换一台机器、挂载点变了的时候报出一次假的漂移，而那次续跑其实完全正常。
|
|
"""
|
|
assert JsonlRunStore(directory=tmp_path).parameters() == {"kind": "jsonl"}
|
|
|
|
|
|
async def test_a_torn_tail_that_happens_to_parse_is_still_dropped(tmp_path: Path) -> None:
|
|
"""短写正好写完整个 JSON、只差最后那个换行——这条记录照样不算数。
|
|
|
|
判据是「有没有被换行终结」，不是「能不能解析」。照后者判会漏掉一个很具体的场景：那次写
|
|
从来没有被确认过（调用方那个 await 还没返回），而它会被当成一条有效的动作意图读回来，
|
|
恢复据此判成「状态未知」并可能重放——可那个动作一定没执行过，因为调用方是在写意图返回
|
|
之后才去执行的。
|
|
"""
|
|
store = JsonlRunStore(directory=tmp_path)
|
|
await store.write_run_started(_started())
|
|
intact = json.dumps(
|
|
{
|
|
"record": "intent",
|
|
**{
|
|
"run_id": "r1",
|
|
"kind": "action",
|
|
"call_index": 0,
|
|
"result_id": "a0",
|
|
"replay_policy": "never",
|
|
},
|
|
},
|
|
ensure_ascii=False,
|
|
)
|
|
with _log_file(tmp_path).open("a", encoding="utf-8") as handle:
|
|
handle.write(intact) # 完整 JSON，但没有换行
|
|
|
|
log = await store.read_log("r1")
|
|
|
|
assert log.started == _started()
|
|
assert log.intents == ()
|
|
|
|
|
|
async def test_a_complete_bad_line_is_corruption_even_at_the_end(tmp_path: Path) -> None:
|
|
"""被换行终结的坏行是损坏，哪怕它在文件末尾。
|
|
|
|
当成撕裂尾行吞掉的话，一份被外部追加过一行垃圾的日志会读成「少了一条记录但看起来完整」，
|
|
而恢复会照它做判断。
|
|
"""
|
|
store = JsonlRunStore(directory=tmp_path)
|
|
await store.write_run_started(_started())
|
|
with _log_file(tmp_path).open("a", encoding="utf-8") as handle:
|
|
handle.write("{}\n") # 合法 JSON、完整终结，但没有类型标签
|
|
|
|
with pytest.raises(DecodeError, match="标签"):
|
|
await store.read_log("r1")
|
|
|
|
|
|
async def test_creating_the_log_file_syncs_the_directory_entry(
|
|
tmp_path: Path, monkeypatch: pytest.MonkeyPatch
|
|
) -> None:
|
|
"""新建文件要把目录项也刷下去，往已有文件追加则不必。
|
|
|
|
`os.fsync(fd)` 刷的是文件内容，刷不到「这个目录里多了一个文件」这条目录项。掉电之后内容
|
|
可能在、而文件根本不存在——那时 read_log 走「文件不存在」返回空日志，驱动入口判成一次全新
|
|
的运行，于是一次已经花过钱的运行静默没了留痕。
|
|
|
|
这条持久性没有别的进程内可观测形态，所以只能盯着那次调用本身。
|
|
"""
|
|
synced: list[Path] = []
|
|
monkeypatch.setattr(jsonl_module, "_fsync_directory", synced.append)
|
|
store = JsonlRunStore(directory=tmp_path)
|
|
|
|
await store.write_run_started(_started())
|
|
assert synced == [tmp_path]
|
|
|
|
await store.write_intent(_intent())
|
|
assert synced == [tmp_path] # 追加不改目录项
|
|
|
|
|
|
async def test_concurrent_writes_to_one_run_do_not_interleave(tmp_path: Path) -> None:
|
|
"""同一个运行标识上的写被串起来，一条记录不会被另一条切开。
|
|
|
|
一条记录可能由不止一次 os.write 写完（os.write 允许短写），而 O_APPEND 只保证每一次
|
|
os.write 的追加位置原子。两个协程同时写同一个文件时，一次短写会让两条记录交错成一段谁也
|
|
解不开的字节。
|
|
"""
|
|
store = JsonlRunStore(directory=tmp_path)
|
|
real = store._write_all # noqa: SLF001
|
|
|
|
def _short_write(descriptor: int, payload: bytes) -> None:
|
|
"""每次只写一半，逼出「一条记录两次 write」那个窗口。"""
|
|
real(descriptor, payload[: len(payload) // 2])
|
|
real(descriptor, payload[len(payload) // 2 :])
|
|
|
|
store._write_all = _short_write # noqa: SLF001
|
|
await asyncio.gather(*(store.write_intent(_intent(call_index=index)) for index in range(6)))
|
|
|
|
log = await store.read_log("r1")
|
|
|
|
assert len(log.intents) == 6
|
|
|
|
|
|
# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
# 易失存储：只在进程内存里
|
|
# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
async def test_a_volatile_store_reads_back_what_it_wrote() -> None:
|
|
"""写进去的读得回来，五种记录都算数。
|
|
|
|
「不提供恢复」说的是跨进程那一层。进程内读不回来的话它连自家的准入标准都过不了——契约
|
|
套件第一条要的就是「写进去的意图读得回来」。
|
|
"""
|
|
store = VolatileRunStore()
|
|
result = RunResult(
|
|
run_id="r1", stop_reason=StopReason.TASK_COMPLETED, final_answer="42", steps=()
|
|
)
|
|
model_result = ModelCallResult(
|
|
run_id="r1",
|
|
result_id="m0",
|
|
reply=ModelReply(call_id="c1", content="hi", thinking=""),
|
|
failure=None,
|
|
)
|
|
finished = RunFinished(run_id="r1", result=result)
|
|
|
|
await store.write_run_started(_started())
|
|
await store.write_intent(_intent())
|
|
await store.write_model_call_result(model_result)
|
|
await store.write_step_completed(_step())
|
|
await store.write_run_finished(finished)
|
|
|
|
log = await store.read_log("r1")
|
|
|
|
assert log.started == _started()
|
|
assert log.intents == (_intent(),)
|
|
assert log.model_results == (model_result,)
|
|
assert log.steps == (_step(),)
|
|
assert log.finished == finished
|
|
|
|
|
|
async def test_a_volatile_store_keeps_two_runs_apart() -> None:
|
|
"""按运行标识分桶，两次运行互相看不见对方的记录。
|
|
|
|
端口不许持有「当前运行」的隐式状态：那种实现会在并发下把 A 的意图写进 B 的日志，而这种
|
|
错在单线程测试里永远不出现。
|
|
"""
|
|
store = VolatileRunStore()
|
|
|
|
await store.write_intent(_intent("run-a", call_index=0))
|
|
await store.write_intent(_intent("run-b", call_index=1))
|
|
|
|
assert (await store.read_log("run-a")).intents == (_intent("run-a", call_index=0),)
|
|
assert (await store.read_log("run-b")).intents == (_intent("run-b", call_index=1),)
|
|
|
|
|
|
async def test_a_volatile_store_refuses_to_start_the_same_run_twice() -> None:
|
|
"""独占和逐行追加那个实现对齐：这个标识已经有日志了就直接失败。
|
|
|
|
重开一个已经开过的标识，交错的记录序会让恢复读到同一步的两条意图、判成日志被并发写过，
|
|
于是这次运行从此续不了——而两边的模型调用都已经花过钱了。
|
|
"""
|
|
store = VolatileRunStore()
|
|
await store.write_run_started(_started())
|
|
|
|
with pytest.raises(FileExistsError):
|
|
await store.write_run_started(_started())
|
|
|
|
|
|
async def test_a_volatile_store_refuses_to_start_a_run_that_already_has_records() -> None:
|
|
"""判据是「这个标识有没有日志」，不是「有没有一条运行开始记录」。
|
|
|
|
逐行追加那边任何一次写都会把文件建出来，于是独占创建会拦下这一种；两处判据不一样的话，
|
|
同一段代码在两个实现上一个通过一个失败。
|
|
"""
|
|
store = VolatileRunStore()
|
|
await store.write_intent(_intent())
|
|
|
|
with pytest.raises(FileExistsError):
|
|
await store.write_run_started(_started())
|
|
|
|
|
|
async def test_an_unwritten_run_reads_back_empty_from_a_volatile_store() -> None:
|
|
"""驱动入口靠这条判断「这个标识是不是已经有日志了」。
|
|
|
|
抛异常的话那个判断就得写成捕获异常，而用捕获异常做流程控制会把真正的存储故障一起吞掉。
|
|
"""
|
|
store = VolatileRunStore()
|
|
|
|
log = await store.read_log("never-written")
|
|
|
|
assert log.started is None
|
|
assert log.intents == ()
|
|
assert log.finished is None
|
|
|
|
|
|
async def test_mutating_the_snapshot_after_writing_does_not_change_the_log() -> None:
|
|
"""写进去之后调用方改自己手上那个映射，读回来的还是写进去时那份。
|
|
|
|
参数快照是一个 `Mapping`，存对象引用就有别名 bug：续跑时拿它和当前装配比对，而它已经跟着
|
|
调用方后来的改动变了，于是一次真的参数漂移被判成没漂移。逐行追加那个实现因为要序列化成
|
|
JSON 文本，天然免疫这件事；这个实现靠桶里存载荷换到同样的免疫。
|
|
"""
|
|
store = VolatileRunStore()
|
|
snapshot = {"model": "m-1"}
|
|
await store.write_run_started(RunStarted(run_id="r1", parameter_snapshot=snapshot))
|
|
|
|
snapshot["model"] = "m-2"
|
|
|
|
log = await store.read_log("r1")
|
|
assert log.started is not None
|
|
assert log.started.parameter_snapshot == {"model": "m-1"}
|
|
|
|
|
|
async def test_a_bad_field_type_lands_in_both_stores_and_fails_on_read_the_same_way(
|
|
tmp_path: Path,
|
|
) -> None:
|
|
"""字段类型不对的记录两个实现都收得下，都要到 `read_log` 才抛同一个 `DecodeError`。
|
|
|
|
落盘那个实现写入时只做 `json.dumps`，而一个本该是整数的字符串是合法 JSON——它写得进去。
|
|
易失那个实现要是在写入时就解一遍、当场拒绝，同一段下游代码在它上面写就红、换成落盘存储
|
|
要到读才红，而两个实现的准入标准是同一套契约套件、套件里没有一条覆盖得到这处分歧。
|
|
|
|
这两个实现在「什么时候炸」上必须一致，所以这条测试对两个都跑，而且比对异常文本本身。
|
|
"""
|
|
bad = Intent(
|
|
run_id="r1",
|
|
kind=IntentKind.MODEL_CALL,
|
|
call_index="zero", # type: ignore[arg-type]
|
|
result_id="m0",
|
|
replay_policy=ReplayPolicy.NEVER,
|
|
)
|
|
jsonl = JsonlRunStore(directory=tmp_path)
|
|
volatile = VolatileRunStore()
|
|
|
|
await jsonl.write_intent(bad)
|
|
await volatile.write_intent(bad)
|
|
|
|
with pytest.raises(DecodeError) as jsonl_error:
|
|
await jsonl.read_log("r1")
|
|
with pytest.raises(DecodeError) as volatile_error:
|
|
await volatile.read_log("r1")
|
|
assert str(volatile_error.value) == str(jsonl_error.value)
|
|
|
|
|
|
async def test_a_record_class_this_layer_does_not_know_leaves_no_trace_in_either_store(
|
|
tmp_path: Path,
|
|
) -> None:
|
|
"""这一层不认得的记录类两个实现都在写入时拒绝，而且什么都不留下。
|
|
|
|
「不留痕迹」这一半要紧的地方在易失那边：失败的那次写要是先建了桶，这个标识就再也开不了
|
|
新运行，`write_run_started` 的独占会撞上那个空桶。落盘那边对应的是「不留下一个空文件」。
|
|
"""
|
|
# 步记录是别的记录的字段，不是一条日志行——它编得出来，但存储这一层不收它。
|
|
not_a_record = _step().step
|
|
jsonl = JsonlRunStore(directory=tmp_path)
|
|
volatile = VolatileRunStore()
|
|
|
|
with pytest.raises(KeyError):
|
|
await jsonl.write_intent(not_a_record) # type: ignore[arg-type]
|
|
with pytest.raises(KeyError):
|
|
await volatile.write_intent(not_a_record) # type: ignore[arg-type]
|
|
|
|
assert list(tmp_path.iterdir()) == []
|
|
assert (await volatile.read_log("r1")).started is None
|
|
await volatile.write_run_started(_started())
|
|
assert (await volatile.read_log("r1")).started == _started()
|
|
|
|
|
|
async def test_mutating_a_record_read_back_from_a_volatile_store_does_not_change_the_log() -> None:
|
|
"""读回来之后改它，再读一次还是原来的值。
|
|
|
|
桶里存的是载荷，每次读现解出一批新对象。把桶里那份直接交出去的话，一次普通读取就足以
|
|
篡改日志——`RunStarted` 带的参数快照是个 dict，改它一下，续跑的参数漂移判断读到的就是
|
|
改过的那份，于是一次真的漂移被判成没漂移。
|
|
"""
|
|
store = VolatileRunStore()
|
|
await store.write_run_started(RunStarted(run_id="r1", parameter_snapshot={"model": "m-1"}))
|
|
|
|
first = await store.read_log("r1")
|
|
assert first.started is not None
|
|
first.started.parameter_snapshot["model"] = "m-2" # type: ignore[index]
|
|
|
|
second = await store.read_log("r1")
|
|
assert second.started is not None
|
|
assert second.started.parameter_snapshot == {"model": "m-1"}
|
|
|
|
|
|
def test_the_volatile_store_reports_only_its_kind() -> None:
|
|
"""快照里只有形态，没有实例状态。
|
|
|
|
把「现在攒了几次运行」这类状态写进去的话，同一个存储对象在两次比对之间会给出不同的答案，
|
|
于是一次装配完全没变的续跑被判成参数漂移。
|
|
"""
|
|
store = VolatileRunStore()
|
|
|
|
assert store.parameters() == {"kind": "volatile"}
|