Skip to content

spec: session-2.md — wholesale-replace vs field-merge on the default session; thin intermediate emissions#123

Open
JarbasAl wants to merge 1 commit into
devfrom
spec/session-2
Open

spec: session-2.md — wholesale-replace vs field-merge on the default session; thin intermediate emissions#123
JarbasAl wants to merge 1 commit into
devfrom
spec/session-2

Conversation

@JarbasAl

@JarbasAl JarbasAl commented Jul 4, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Refines OVOS-SESSION-2 to Version 2.

  • §5.1: the two write paths onto the default session are now unambiguous — a committed Match.updated_session (PIPELINE-1 §4.2) is a complete snapshot the orchestrator MUST adopt wholesale (deletion by omission); inbound client Messages merge field-by-field and cannot delete by omission, only overwrite.
  • §3.2 thin intermediate emissions: full session REQUIRED on dispatch Messages and terminal lifecycle events clients adopt from; intermediate/status emissions MAY carry only {"session_id": ...} — fat sessions on every no-payload status event multiply bridge/layer-2 traffic for Messages nobody merges from. The §3.3 convergence point always carries the full object.
  • §2.5: flip side of client authority — a boundary component injecting policy fields MUST re-apply them on every inbound Message (BRIDGE-1 §4.1 gate invariant); connect-time-only policy is not conformant.
  • Citation fixes: SESSION-1 registry claims →§2.2; restart-loss →§5.2; companion-spec count six; intro CONTEXT-1/CONVERSE-1 attribution untangled.
  • CHANGELOG entry + Version bump to 2.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

…rmediate emissions, gate invariant

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

coderabbitai Bot commented Jul 4, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Warning

Review limit reached

@JarbasAl, you've reached your PR review limit, so we couldn't start this review.

Next review available in: 52 minutes

Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available.
You're only billed for reviews past your plan's rate limits ($0.25/file).

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews.

How do review limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window.

Please refer docs for additional details.

Review details
⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 169e53a7-7c29-4469-b73a-458b3c68c9a7

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 9003dcd and 7527489.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)
  • CHANGELOG.md
  • session-2.md
✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests
  • Commit unit tests in branch spec/session-2

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.

@JarbasAl
JarbasAl marked this pull request as ready for review July 16, 2026 07:21
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