feat(release): ship a Linux .deb that updates itself - #13575

💭 Inspecting updates I need to check the scoped changed files for DesktopUpdates and the harness. This seems straightforward, but I want to ensure I'm thorough in my inspection. I should look into the specifics of what's changed there, checking for any potential issues or improvements. That way, I can have a clearer understanding before moving forward. Let’s dive into those files and see what’s going on!

1. browse_code — apps/desktop/src/updates/DesktopUpdates.ts

2. browse_code — apps/desktop/src/updates/updatesTestHarness.ts

💭 Examining file read issues I see that the issue with the harness where readFileString overrides might be causing the appUpdateYml read to fail, and it could affect previous no-op operations as well. It's fine, I just need to be aware of the changes in service conventions related to acquiring dependencies. So far, I haven’t found any significant issues. Now I need to ensure that the final structured response aligns with the tool schema and includes all required fields. Let's make sure everything is clear!

3. browse_code — apps/desktop/src/updates/DesktopUpdates.ts

4. browse_code — apps/desktop/src/updates/updatesTestHarness.ts

5. browse_code — apps/desktop/src/updates/DesktopUpdates.ts

6. browse_code — In apps/desktop/src/updates/DesktopUpdates.ts and updatesTestHarness.ts changes for deb marker, identify any newly introduced violations of Effect service conventions (service injection, imports, runtime boundaries, error handling). Only changes associated with deb support; brief answer.

7. browse_code — Does the deb marker test use a test layer for external service rather than mocking core logic? Answer briefly.

8. browse_code — Confirm no changed scoped TypeScript lines use bare effect named imports or runPromise new usage. One sentence.

9. browse_code — Is any service instance passed as a parameter in newly changed DesktopUpdates.ts lines? Answer yes/no.

10. browse_code — Summarize conclusion in two words.