Repository navigation
Exercise reference memory through SQL and live context - #73
Merged
Merged
Conversation
aryanorastar
marked this pull request as ready for review
October 23, 2026 09:03
aryanorastar
marked this pull request as draft
October 23, 2026 12:49
aryanorastar
marked this pull request as ready for review
October 23, 2026 12:57
This was referenced Oct 23, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Customer failure being prevented
Before a memory pilot, separate passing storage and context-reader tests do not prove that saved SQL pointers actually reach only the right customer's live posts. A disconnected reader, stale context or forgetting that does nothing could escape that coverage.
Test-only change
Evidence
c2953f27e7f3afc48b1ed5f6be5e00f823153e86(run 39546418506). The database job's log confirms all eight SQL/live-reader rehearsal groups ran against its real PostgreSQL 16 service, not PGlite.v26.7.0: full suite 839/839, offline 8/8, and all eight SQL/reader scenario groups pass again. The real baseline passes; five independent in-memory faults are all rejected. No repository runtime file is mutated, external service called or production database touched. Local PGlite0.5.10remains serialized; hosted PostgreSQL supplies the separate real-server integration evidence.Reproduce safely
On an installed checkout of this head:
npm test,EVAL_NO_MODEL=1 node scripts/customer-eval.js, thennode scripts/verify-support-db.jswith the verifier's dedicated local test database, ornode scripts/verify-support-db.js --pglite /absolute/path/to/@electric-sql/pglite. The database guard rejects non-test targets. Expected: 839 tests, eight offline checks, the verifier's existing SQL checks and the eight named joined-reader groups pass. Never use production credentials or a production database. The separate sensitivity probe is private verification tooling, not a dependency of this PR.Release boundary
The affected test-only flow is verified and independently reviewed; ready for maintainer review, not merged or deployed. Memory/context/fix-inbox remain off. C1–C4, enabled generated answers, full bot restart/pilot, processor/backup/security/notice approval and actual memory enablement remain separate open gates. No new paid comparison or protected input read. Existing comparison holds and earlier release decisions are unchanged. Canonical current product/release status remains in documentation PR #69; this branch is based on main and its older release checkpoints are historical. No delivery-score increase.