Skip to content

chore(peering): retire discover-peers execution path (PLT-452 PR-C)#400

Merged
bdchatham merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
plt452/pr-c-retire-discoverpeers
Jun 12, 2026
Merged

chore(peering): retire discover-peers execution path (PLT-452 PR-C)#400
bdchatham merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
plt452/pr-c-retire-discoverpeers

Conversation

@bdchatham

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

What

The final step of the discover-peers retirement (PLT-452). Bumps the seictl pin to v0.0.57 — the first release without the sidecar discover-peers task handler (removed in seictl#201) — and drops the two controller-side references the bump leaves dangling:

  • internal/task/task.go — the discover-peers execution registration (sidecar.TaskTypeDiscoverPeers: sidecarTask[sidecar.DiscoverPeersTask]). Deliberately kept through PR-A/PR-B so any in-flight persisted plan could still drive its task to completion against an older sidecar; removable now that the controller stopped emitting them (refactor(nodetask): retire the imperative DiscoverPeers SeiNodeTask (PLT-452, PR-A) #398, live) and those tasks have drained.
  • internal/planner/planner.go — the TaskDiscoverPeers alias over the now-removed sidecar task-type constant.

Both reference symbols that no longer exist in seictl v0.0.57, so they go with the bump.

Test

  • internal/planner/archive_test.go — drops the TestArchivePlanner_WithPeers "must not contain discover-peers" assertion (and the types slice that fed it). It's structurally unreachable now: no enum value, no registry entry, no planner can emit that task type. The test keeps its meaningful assertion — peers reach config via the persistent_peers override — and the comment is refocused accordingly.

Sequencing

This is PR-C of the three-PR cross-repo retirement:

Peering is now wholly controller-owned via the config-apply persistent_peers override; no discover-peers task type exists anywhere in the stack.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

Bumps the seictl pin to v0.0.57 — the first release without the sidecar
discover-peers task handler (removed in seictl#201) — and drops the two
controller-side references that the bump leaves dangling:

- internal/task/task.go: the discover-peers execution registration. Kept
  through PR-A/PR-B so any in-flight persisted plan could still drive its
  task to completion; safe to remove now that the controller stopped
  emitting them (#398) and those tasks have drained.
- internal/planner/planner.go: the TaskDiscoverPeers alias over the
  (now-removed) sidecar task-type constant.

Peering is wholly controller-owned via the config-apply persistent_peers
override; no discover-peers task type exists anywhere in the stack.

Also drops the archive-planner test's "must not contain discover-peers"
assertion — structurally unreachable now that the task type is gone — and
refocuses the test's comment on the override path it actually verifies.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@cursor

cursor Bot commented Jun 12, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

PR Summary

Low Risk
Dependency bump plus deletion of dead task-type wiring; peering behavior is unchanged and already flows through config-apply overrides.

Overview
Completes discover-peers retirement by pinning seictl v0.0.57 (sidecar handler removed) and removing the last controller hooks that referenced that task type.

internal/task/task.go drops the discover-peers entry from the task execution registry so persisted plans can no longer deserialize or run that sidecar task. internal/planner/planner.go removes the TaskDiscoverPeers alias constant.

internal/planner/archive_test.go updates the peers test to only assert that resolved peers land in the config-apply persistent_peers override; the obsolete “plan must not contain discover-peers” check is removed because the type no longer exists anywhere in the stack.

Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 3e52f20. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.

@bdchatham bdchatham merged commit cb34e7c into main Jun 12, 2026
5 checks passed
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.

1 participant