Feng Ruohang
0c61128d23
(cherry picked from commit cf381a7151ef25fc95ace5fedcd767fa19410de2) Signed-off-by: Feng Ruohang <rh@vonng.com>
1.5 KiB
You are the independent Opus reviewer for SILO R6. Read AGENTS.md first. Review only; do not edit files. We need real independent technical scrutiny, not a ceremonial approval.
Source commit: 9ebe81c1b3. Plan file: docs/investigations/r6/plan-v1.md. Plan SHA256: bcd023e2b00ad3dc709baa738bb02551d47aeebb49879b0f76f2789f4c4dff8b. Read that exact file in full and inspect the referenced current source and tests. PR184 raw patch and fresh baseline probes are in /Users/vonng/tmp/silo-r6-20260915-aa3f/ (read pr184.diff, review_probe_test.go, baseline.log if available). Its code direction is useful but its claims are not accepted evidence. Focus on every exit of replicateDeleteToTarget and replicateDelete, persisted queueMRFHeal with MethodNotAllowed ObjectInfo, preserving statuses, resync accounting and actual wire behavior on retries.
Critically verify whether the minimal proposed code could restore an already removed marker, whether retry budgets and multi-target status remain safe within the explicit bounded scope. Explain any disagreement with precise code evidence and a concrete minimal correction. Return a verdict GO, GO_WITH_NONBLOCKING_NOTES, or REVISE, explicitly for plan v1 hash bcd023e2b00ad3dc709baa738bb02551d47aeebb49879b0f76f2789f4c4dff8b. List blocking findings separately from nonblocking suggestions. If there are no blockers, explicitly state that consensus on this plan is technically acceptable, while implementation still requires tests. Do not claim to have run anything.