Release issue reservations after terminal worker outcomes #1042

New issue

Closed

opened 2026-07-10 17:14:03 +00:00 by coilyco-ops · 2 comments

coilyco-ops commented

2026-07-10 17:14:03 +00:00

Member

Problem

A terminal WARD-OUTCOME: blocked can leave the issue remotely reserved after the engineer container is gone, which prevents a later redispatch after the blocker is resolved.

Live evidence from the read-only director surface on 2026-07-10 UTC:

coilyco-flight-deck/ward#1020 has a WARD-OUTCOME: blocked comment at 2026-07-10T16:53:49Z.
warded list no longer shows engineer-codex-ward-1020.
A later redispatch after the named blocker was closed failed:

ward agent engineer --harness codex: issue coilyco-flight-deck/ward#1020 is already reserved remotely (by @coilyco-ops at 2026-07-10T16:43:25Z); wait for it to finish or pass --force to override

The result is a dead queue state: the issue is open, the blocker has moved, no worker is running, but a director cannot requeue it without --force.

Do

Trace why blocked/terminal outcomes do not release or supersede the remote reservation marker.
Ensure terminal outcomes (blocked, merge-ready, failed/salvaged) release the active reservation or mark it stale in a way normal redispatch can proceed.
Keep genuine in-flight reservations protected from concurrent workers.
Make dispatch failure messages distinguish an active container reservation from an orphaned terminal-outcome reservation.
Add coverage for a blocked outcome followed by a normal redispatch without --force.

Acceptance

After a worker posts WARD-OUTCOME: blocked and exits, a later warded engineer owner/repo#N can reserve the issue again without --force.
warded list and reservation checks agree about whether a reservation is active.
The issue thread records either a release marker or a superseding reservation state after terminal outcome.
Tests or fixtures cover blocked outcome, merge-ready outcome, and failed-before-container-start reservation cleanup.

## Problem A terminal `WARD-OUTCOME: blocked` can leave the issue remotely reserved after the engineer container is gone, which prevents a later redispatch after the blocker is resolved. Live evidence from the read-only director surface on 2026-07-10 UTC: * `coilyco-flight-deck/ward#1020` has a `WARD-OUTCOME: blocked` comment at `2026-07-10T16:53:49Z`. * `warded list` no longer shows `engineer-codex-ward-1020`. * A later redispatch after the named blocker was closed failed: ```text ward agent engineer --harness codex: issue coilyco-flight-deck/ward#1020 is already reserved remotely (by @coilyco-ops at 2026-07-10T16:43:25Z); wait for it to finish or pass --force to override ``` The result is a dead queue state: the issue is open, the blocker has moved, no worker is running, but a director cannot requeue it without `--force`. ## Do * Trace why blocked/terminal outcomes do not release or supersede the remote reservation marker. * Ensure terminal outcomes (`blocked`, `merge-ready`, failed/salvaged) release the active reservation or mark it stale in a way normal redispatch can proceed. * Keep genuine in-flight reservations protected from concurrent workers. * Make dispatch failure messages distinguish an active container reservation from an orphaned terminal-outcome reservation. * Add coverage for a blocked outcome followed by a normal redispatch without `--force`. ## Acceptance * After a worker posts `WARD-OUTCOME: blocked` and exits, a later `warded engineer owner/repo#N` can reserve the issue again without `--force`. * `warded list` and reservation checks agree about whether a reservation is active. * The issue thread records either a release marker or a superseding reservation state after terminal outcome. * Tests or fixtures cover blocked outcome, merge-ready outcome, and failed-before-container-start reservation cleanup. Related: coilyco-flight-deck/ward#1020, coilyco-flight-deck/ward#1039, and coilyco-flight-deck/ward#1016.

coilyco-ops added the

headless

labels

2026-07-10 17:14:03 +00:00

coilyco-ops commented

2026-07-10 17:14:13 +00:00

Author

Member

WARD-RESERVATION: held 🔒

reservation details

Holder: container engineer-codex-ward-1042 on host kais-macbook-pro-2.local.

Reserved by ward agent --harness codex (reserved 2026-07-10T17:14:12Z). Concurrent ward agent runs are blocked until it finishes or the reservation goes stale (1h TTL). --force overrides.

Do not comment on or edit this issue to steer the run while it is reserved. The engineer seeded the body once at launch and never re-reads it, so a comment or edit reaches only human readers, never the running engineer. A correction goes to a new issue, dispatched fresh. That is the only channel that reaches a run in flight. Where the forge supports it, ward locks this conversation to make that a road-block rather than a convention (ward#494).

run seed context — what this run is carrying (ward#609)

Resolved: coilyco-flight-deck/ward#1042 · branch issue-1042 · harness codex · workflow pull-requests-and-merge
Run: engineer-codex-ward-1042 · ward v0.584.0 · dispatched 2026-07-10T17:14:12Z
Comment thread: 0 included in the pre-flight read, 0 stripped (ward's own automated comments).

Static container doctrine and seed boilerplate are identical every run and omitted here (they ride ward v0.584.0).

— Codex, via ward agent

WARD-RESERVATION: held 🔒 <details><summary>reservation details</summary> Holder: container `engineer-codex-ward-1042` on host `kais-macbook-pro-2.local`. Reserved by `ward agent --harness codex` (reserved 2026-07-10T17:14:12Z). Concurrent `ward agent` runs are blocked until it finishes or the reservation goes stale (1h TTL). `--force` overrides. **Do not comment on or edit this issue to steer the run while it is reserved.** The engineer seeded the body once at launch and never re-reads it, so a comment or edit reaches only human readers, never the running engineer. A correction goes to a **new issue, dispatched fresh**. That is the only channel that reaches a run in flight. Where the forge supports it, ward locks this conversation to make that a road-block rather than a convention (ward#494). <details><summary>run seed context — what this run is carrying (ward#609)</summary> - **Resolved:** `coilyco-flight-deck/ward#1042` · branch `issue-1042` · harness `codex` · workflow `pull-requests-and-merge` - **Run:** `engineer-codex-ward-1042` · ward `v0.584.0` · dispatched `2026-07-10T17:14:12Z` - **Comment thread:** 0 included in the pre-flight read, 0 stripped (ward's own automated comments). Static container doctrine and seed boilerplate are identical every run and omitted here (they ride ward v0.584.0). </details> </details>  — Codex, via `ward agent`

coilyco-ops referenced this issue from a pull request that will close it,

2026-07-10 17:25:37 +00:00

Release issue reservations after terminal worker outcomes #1051

coilyco-ops commented

2026-07-10 17:26:39 +00:00

Author

Member

WARD-OUTCOME: merge-ready

details

workflow: pull-requests-and-merge; review summary: skipped: review gate skipped by ~/.ward/config.yaml default

felt: straightforward cleanup with one reaper hook and a small reservation test matrix.
confidence: high
surprise: the existing hooks were stricter about comment width than the logic change.
follow-ups: none

WARD-OUTCOME: merge-ready <details><summary>details</summary> workflow: pull-requests-and-merge; review summary: skipped: review gate skipped by ~/.ward/config.yaml default felt: straightforward cleanup with one reaper hook and a small reservation test matrix. confidence: high surprise: the existing hooks were stricter about comment width than the logic change. follow-ups: none </details>