Files
amethyst/geode
Claude 677c0ee207 refactor: deletion sync as a post-settle residual pass (both directions, O(residual))
Replace the per-need-event fetch (which pulled the whole need set just to read
metadata — an O(db) regression on large syncs) with a second reconcile pass over
the residual, per the "settle, then diff, then explain what didn't converge" idea.

Pass 1 is the plain content sync again (drain needs, publish haves) — zero
deletion overhead. Pass 2+ re-reconciles; the leftover diff is exactly the
deletion mismatches, and only that (tiny) set is fetched:
- residual need (relay has it, we still lack it after --down) = we deleted it →
  publish our covering deletion up so the relay drops it;
- residual have (we have it, relay still lacks it after --up) = the relay deleted
  it → pull the relay's covering kind-5 down and apply locally (vanish is NOT
  auto-applied on pull — account-wide blast radius).
Loops until a round resolves nothing (converges + self-verifies).

So `amy sync` makes the relay honor our deletions; `--up` makes us honor the
relay's; `--up --down` converges both ways. Cost is one cheap reconcile + the
residual regardless of database size — the large-DB bottleneck is gone by
construction, not by heuristics.

quartz: deletionsCovering is now source-agnostic (takes a query lambda) so the
same coverage rule runs against the local store (up) or the relay (down); the
IEventStore overload is the local convenience.

Tests: DeletionSyncTest gains the down-direction end-to-end (relay deleted →
local removes) alongside the up-direction and the per-form unit cases.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01JgL1WTV4Hkp2uuXcUHCHGt
2026-07-08 14:25:37 +00:00
..