jschoubben
9fd7e6c458
One push leaves the mesh consistent (the 057 decision, proposed for acceptance); the shared runtime waits for its broker (058). Fixes on mesh-control fix/one-push-is-enough and mesh-tools fix/the-runtime-waits-for-its-broker; the built-store-cross-node bed enforces both.
53 lines
2.7 KiB
Markdown
53 lines
2.7 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
topic: the mesh
|
|
status: proposed
|
|
date: 2026-09-18
|
|
deciders: jochen
|
|
reconstructed: false
|
|
extends: 0010-delivery.md
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 83. One push leaves the mesh consistent
|
|
|
|
## Context
|
|
|
|
A provision is minted while composing the *consumer's* node; the provider's grant list is a pure
|
|
read of secrets already issued from it. So assigning a cross-node consumer and pushing its node
|
|
produced a consumer that retried forever against a provider that had never heard of it, until the
|
|
provider's node was pushed a second time — an action with no signal to take, documented nowhere,
|
|
and invisible whenever consumer and provider share a machine
|
|
([issue 057](../04-ISSUES/057-a-cross-node-consumer-is-provisioned-only-when-the-provider-is-pushed-again/00-report.md)).
|
|
|
|
Two remedies were on the table: **cascade** — a push also delivers to the machines its compose
|
|
changed — or **report** — a push says "now push the provider" and leaves the act to the operator.
|
|
|
|
## Decision
|
|
|
|
A push finishes what it starts: after composing and sending the named node, the controller
|
|
recomputes what every machine should be, and any machine whose declaration changed *because of
|
|
this push* is sent its declaration too — by name, in the push's own output, converging over a
|
|
bounded number of rounds (a cascaded send may itself mint).
|
|
|
|
"Changed because of this push" is a comparison, not a guess: the digest of what each machine
|
|
should be is captured before the named compose and recomputed after. Machines that were already
|
|
behind for unrelated reasons are not swept in — that remains `push --behind`, the explicit
|
|
whole-mesh reconcile.
|
|
|
|
Reporting alone was rejected because it converts a derived fact the controller already holds into
|
|
an operator obligation, and an obligation enforced by nothing is issue 057 restated. The
|
|
declaration is computed from the whole mesh; delivering a mesh that is knowingly inconsistent and
|
|
merely saying so would make "push succeeded" mean less than it says.
|
|
|
|
## Consequences
|
|
|
|
- One push is sufficient for a cross-node consumer: the provider's grants arrive from the same
|
|
act that minted the provision. The undocumented rule "push the provider node too" ceases to
|
|
exist rather than becoming documentation.
|
|
- A named push may deliver to machines the operator did not name. This is bounded to machines
|
|
whose declarations this push changed, and every one is named in the output — never silent.
|
|
- The blast radius question from the issue is answered by the comparison: nothing is recomposed
|
|
into delivery except what the named compose provably changed.
|
|
- How this is checked: the built-store-cross-node bed registers a cross-node consumer, pushes
|
|
only the consumer's node, and asserts the provider minted its vhost — the workaround push is
|
|
removed, so a regression fails the bed.
|