🐛 fix(updater): terminate sidecar processes before update to avoid file access errors

[Minh141120]

This pull request introduces a minor change to the src-tauri/src/core/setup.rs file. The change ensures that the clean_up() function is called when a kill event is received but no active sidecar process is found to kill.

---

Important

Calls clean_up() in setup.rs when a kill event is received but no active sidecar process is found, ensuring termination of lingering sidecar processes.

• Behavior:
  • Calls clean_up() in setup.rs when a kill event is received but no active sidecar process is found.
  • Ensures termination of lingering sidecar processes to prevent file access errors during updates.

^{This description was created by for d60ded6. You can customize this summary. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed everything up to d60ded6 in 1 minute and 50 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 12 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 1 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. src-tauri/src/core/setup.rs:292

• Draft comment:
  The added call to clean_up() is placed after the if/else block, so it always runs—even when a sidecar process is found and killed. If this behavior is intentional (to ensure all stray processes are terminated), please add a clarifying comment. Also, consider adding a trailing semicolon for consistency.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% Looking at the clean_up() function (L439-462), it's a general cleanup that kills both llama-server and cortex-server processes. The function is called at the start of setup_sidecar() (L214) and after handling the kill event. Running it in both success and failure cases of killing the sidecar makes sense as a safety measure. The missing semicolon is a valid style point. The comment asks for clarification about intentional behavior, which violates our rules about not asking authors to explain their intentions. The semicolon suggestion is minor. While the semicolon suggestion is valid, the main thrust of the comment is asking for clarification, which we should avoid. The behavior seems reasonable given the code context. Delete the comment. The missing semicolon is too minor to warrant a comment, and asking for clarification about intentions violates our rules.

Workflow ID: wflow_EN4lusU0gDZHSVfg

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}