Files
fips/testing/chaos/scenarios
Johnathan Corgan 9f8b266e5d Describe the code in comments as it is, not as plan steps or missing commits
The decrypt worker's module doc and its fallback-path comment framed the
code as a step in an architectural plan this repository does not carry,
and named a "DataShard end-state" that exists nowhere in the tree. State
the property directly instead: each worker owns its session state, and a
worker that also owned the rx_loop side could restore the EndpointData
fast path. The reworded comments are rewrapped to the surrounding width.

The metrics registry docs described off-thread reads as a later step,
but the control read handle already serves show_metrics from the
registry off the rx_loop task. Put both the module doc and the Padded
doc in the present tense, with the single writer the code has.

Three source comments cited commits by hash (an abandoned republish
design, the change that made sessions shard-owned, and the fix that
moved encrypt dispatch off round-robin). None of those hashes resolves
in this repository, so a reader cannot follow them. Say what the commit
did instead. The one hash cited in the routing tests is on every branch
and stays.

The bloom-storm scenario README pointed readers at a reproduction harness
and results file outside this repository, told them to check out a commit
and a branch that are not here, and named the regressing commit, which is
not here either. Describe the harness and the regressed build without those
references and anchor the confirmation procedure on the fix commit, which
every branch contains.

The off-loop snapshot dispatch test's name carried a stage label from an
outside plan. Rename it to say what it checks: show_acl,
show_stats_peers and show_stats_history_all_peers are served off-loop
through snapshot_dispatch and render byte-identically to their on-loop
forms. Nothing refers to the old name.
2026-10-01 22:40:40 +00:00
..