docs(pegboard): note runner config upsert split write risk

[NathanFlurry]

Description

Please include a summary of the changes and the related issue. Please also include relevant motivation and context.

Type of change

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
• This change requires a documentation update

How Has This Been Tested?

Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes.

Checklist:

• My code follows the style guidelines of this project
• I have performed a self-review of my code
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• My changes generate no new warnings
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes

[NathanFlurry]

• fix(pegboard): isolate runner config dc lookup failures #4625 : 2 dependent PRs (#4626 , #4630 )
• docs(pegboard): note runner config upsert split write risk #4624 👈 (View in Graphite)
• fix(pegboard): unpack global runner config keys correctly #4623
• fix(pegboard-gateway): enforce tunnel message state #4622
• fix(pegboard-runner): clear terminal tunnel routes #4621
• fix(pegboard): skip protocol version keys in runner pool backfill #4620
• fix(pegboard): create missing normal runner configs #4619
• fix(epoxy): reuse cached optimistic value #4618
• main

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

[claude]

PR Review: docs(pegboard): note runner config upsert split write risk

This is a small but valuable documentation PR that adds a TODO comment flagging a known data consistency risk in engine/packages/pegboard/src/ops/runner_config/upsert.rs.

Summary

The comment correctly identifies a split-write atomicity gap: the pegboard_runner_config_upsert function performs two non-transactional writes — an Epoxy propose and a local UDB write — and a crash or error between them can leave state diverged.

Feedback

Comment style: The comment is accurate and concise. However, per the project's comment style guidelines, it should be written as complete sentences and avoid dashes (em dashes are explicitly disallowed per CLAUDE.md):

Write comments as normal, complete sentences. Avoid fragmented structures with parentheticals and dashes. Do not use em dashes.

Consider rephrasing to:

// TODO: This write is non-transactional. The Epoxy propose and the local UDB write
// can diverge if the process crashes or errors between them.

Tracking the follow-up: Since this is flagged as a TODO, linking to a GitHub issue (e.g., // TODO(#NNNN): ...) would make it easier to prioritize and avoid the risk being forgotten.

No code or logic concerns. The change is documentation-only and introduces no regressions.

---

Overall this is a good habit — surfacing non-obvious consistency risks inline is useful for future maintainers. Minor style nit on the comment phrasing.

[github-actions]

Preview packages published to npm

Install with:

npm install rivetkit@pr-4624

All packages published as 0.0.0-pr.4624.bcf7119 with tag pr-4624.

Engine binary is shipped via @rivetkit/engine-cli on linux-x64-musl, linux-arm64-musl, darwin-x64, and darwin-arm64. Windows users should use the release installer or set RIVET_ENGINE_BINARY.

Docker images:

docker pull rivetdev/engine:slim-bcf7119
docker pull rivetdev/engine:full-bcf7119

Individual packages

npm install rivetkit@pr-4624
npm install @rivetkit/react@pr-4624
npm install @rivetkit/rivetkit-native@pr-4624
npm install @rivetkit/sqlite-wasm@pr-4624
npm install @rivetkit/workflow-engine@pr-4624

[MasterPtato]

Merge activity

• Apr 13, 8:40 PM UTC: A user started a stack merge that includes this pull request via Graphite.
• Apr 13, 8:55 PM UTC: Graphite rebased this pull request as part of a merge.
• Apr 13, 8:56 PM UTC: @MasterPtato merged this pull request with Graphite.