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.
2.7 KiB
topic, status, date, deciders, reconstructed, extends
| topic | status | date | deciders | reconstructed | extends |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| the mesh | proposed | 2026-09-18 | jochen | false | 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).
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.