Skip to content

test(server): RFC0003.16 red gate + scenario prose polish - #140

Merged
jensholdgaard merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
feat/rfc0003-16-red
Jun 6, 2026
Merged

test(server): RFC0003.16 red gate + scenario prose polish#140
jensholdgaard merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
feat/rfc0003-16-red

Conversation

@jensholdgaard

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

What

RFC0003.16 red gate (the served-binary slice, docs/verification.md §3 two-loop) — an #[ignore]'d ourios-server integration stub for the served-binary scenario, greppable to RFC0003.16. The implementation PR flips it to a real-socket test (spawn the binary on 127.0.0.1:0, export over real gRPC + HTTP clients, signal shutdown, then Wal::replay).

Also folds in the two trailing Copilot prose nits on the RFC0003.16 scenario from #139 (now merged):

  • the HTTP-listener Given clause reads "bound on its configured port (default 4318)" (was missing the noun);
  • the shutdown bullet drops the contradictory "in-flight, already-fsync'd" phrasing → "no already-acked batch is lost on the way out".

No semantic change to the scenario.

Verification

  • cargo test -p ourios-server --test rfc0003_16_served_binary1 ignored (red gate). · cargo clippy --all-targets -- -D warnings ✓ · cargo fmt --all --check ✓ · mdbook build

Next

The implementation PR wires the receiver as a config-toggled ourios-server role (axum::serve + tonic Server on the runtime, single Wal shared by both listeners, SIGINT graceful shutdown), flips this stub, and adds a confirming 405-on-non-POST test (per the OTLP review).

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

@jensholdgaard
jensholdgaard requested a review from Copilot June 6, 2026 22:07
@jensholdgaard

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner Author

@coderabbitai review

@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Jun 6, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Warning

Review limit reached

@jensholdgaard, we couldn't start this review because you've reached your PR review rate limit.

More reviews will be available in 4 minutes and 3 seconds. Learn how PR review limits work.

Your organization has run out of usage credits. Purchase more in the billing tab.

⌛ How to resolve this issue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit.

🚦 How do rate limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization.

Our paid plans include higher PR review limits than trial, open-source, and free plans. In all cases, reviews become available again over time. During sustained high-volume PR review activity, CodeRabbit may temporarily slow when the next review becomes available.

Please see our Fair Usage Limits Policy for further information.

ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 2be947c0-6a1e-4475-809d-11988c045dca

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 31c6455 and 8645ec1.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)
  • crates/ourios-server/tests/rfc0003_16_served_binary.rs
  • docs/rfcs/0003-otlp-receiver.md
✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests
  • Commit unit tests in branch feat/rfc0003-16-red

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.

@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Jun 6, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
✅ Action performed

Review finished.

Note: CodeRabbit is an incremental review system and does not re-review already reviewed commits. This command is applicable only when automatic reviews are paused.

Copilot AI left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

Adds the RFC0003.16 “served-binary” red-gate integration-test stub for ourios-server and polishes the corresponding scenario prose in the OTLP receiver RFC, aligning the spec text with the intended end-to-end contract and the verification process’ two-loop model.

Changes:

  • Refines RFC0003.16 scenario prose to clarify HTTP listener wording and shutdown durability semantics.
  • Adds an ignored (#[ignore]) ourios-server integration-test stub for RFC0003.16, greppable and ready to be flipped to a real socket test in the implementation PR.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.

File Description
docs/rfcs/0003-otlp-receiver.md Prose tweaks to RFC0003.16 scenario clauses (HTTP listener wording + shutdown semantics).
crates/ourios-server/tests/rfc0003_16_served_binary.rs New red-gate ignored integration-test stub for RFC0003.16 served-binary scenario.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Red-gate step for the served-binary slice (docs/verification.md §3
two-loop): an #[ignore]'d ourios-server integration stub for RFC0003.16,
greppable to the scenario, flipped by the implementation.

Also folds in the two trailing Copilot prose nits on the RFC0003.16
scenario (from #139): the HTTP-listener Given clause now reads "bound on
its configured port (default 4318)" (was missing the noun), and the
shutdown bullet drops the contradictory "in-flight, already-fsync'd"
phrasing for "no already-acked batch is lost on the way out". No semantic
change.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@jensholdgaard
jensholdgaard force-pushed the feat/rfc0003-16-red branch from f2e293d to 8645ec1 Compare June 6, 2026 22:19
@jensholdgaard
jensholdgaard merged commit 3aa4b5a into main Jun 6, 2026
10 checks passed
@jensholdgaard
jensholdgaard deleted the feat/rfc0003-16-red branch June 6, 2026 22:27
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants