# Implementation Gaps Report: Specs 138-140
## Executive Summary
After thorough evaluation of the implementations for Specs 138-140 (DLQ Integration, Work Item Deduplication, and Concurrent Resume Protection), I've identified **implementation gaps** and **missing test coverage** that need to be addressed.
**Overall Assessment**: ✅ Good implementation quality, ⚠️ Missing critical integration tests
---
## Spec 138: DLQ Integration for Failed MapReduce Agents
### ✅ Implementation Status: COMPLETE
**Location**: `src/cook/execution/mapreduce/dlq_integration.rs`
**Implemented Features**:
- ✅ Pure function `agent_result_to_dlq_item()` - Fully implemented
- ✅ Error classification with comprehensive error types
- ✅ Error signature generation (SHA256 hash)
- ✅ Worktree artifacts extraction
- ✅ Reprocessability determination
- ✅ Manual review flag logic
- ✅ Integration in executor at `coordination/executor.rs:750-765`
**Unit Test Coverage**: ✅ **EXCELLENT** (17 tests passing)
- `test_agent_result_to_dlq_item_failed`
- `test_agent_result_to_dlq_item_timeout`
- `test_agent_result_to_dlq_item_success_returns_none`
- `test_error_signature_consistency`
- `test_classify_error_*` (multiple variants)
- `test_extract_exit_code_various_formats`
- `test_is_reprocessable_*`
- `test_requires_manual_review_*`
- `test_extract_worktree_artifacts`
- `test_dlq_item_includes_json_log_location`
### ⚠️ Critical Gap #1: Missing End-to-End Integration Test
**Gap**: No integration test verifying the complete flow from agent failure → DLQ population → retry
**Spec Requirement** (Acceptance Criteria):
```
- [ ] Integration test: Failed agent appears in DLQ
- [ ] Integration test: `prodigy dlq retry` processes failed items
- [ ] Integration test: Resume with `include_dlq_items: true` loads failures
```
**Current State**: ❌ **MISSING**
**Impact**: CRITICAL - Cannot verify that:
1. Failed agents actually populate DLQ in real workflow execution
2. DLQ retry correctly reprocesses failed items
3. Resume properly includes DLQ items
**Recommended Test**:
```rust
// tests/dlq_agent_integration_test.rs
#[tokio::test]
async fn test_failed_agent_populates_dlq_end_to_end() {
// 1. Create MapReduce workflow with item that will fail
// 2. Execute workflow
// 3. Verify DLQ contains the failed item
// 4. Verify DLQ entry has json_log_location
// 5. Verify error signature is set
}
#[tokio::test]
async fn test_dlq_retry_reprocesses_failed_items() {
// 1. Create job with failures in DLQ
// 2. Run `prodigy dlq retry <job_id>` command
// 3. Verify items are reprocessed
// 4. Verify DLQ updated (removed on success)
}
#[tokio::test]
async fn test_resume_includes_dlq_items() {
// 1. Create interrupted job with DLQ items
// 2. Resume with include_dlq_items: true
// 3. Verify DLQ items are in work queue
// 4. Verify no duplicates with pending items
}
```
### ⚠️ Gap #2: Error Classification Edge Cases
**Gap**: Some ErrorType variants may not be tested
**Current**: Spec mentions these error types in classification:
- ✅ Timeout - tested
- ✅ MergeConflict - tested
- ✅ WorktreeError - tested
- ✅ ValidationFailed - tested
- ❓ ResourceExhausted - **NOT tested**
- ❓ Unknown - **NOT tested**
**Recommended Addition**:
```rust
#[test]
fn test_classify_error_resource_exhausted() {
let status = AgentStatus::Failed("resource error".to_string());
let error = "Out of memory while processing item";
let error_type = classify_error(&status, error);
assert_eq!(error_type, ErrorType::ResourceExhausted);
}
#[test]
fn test_classify_error_unknown_fallback() {
let status = AgentStatus::Failed("weird error".to_string());
let error = "Some unknown error occurred";
let error_type = classify_error(&status, error);
assert!(matches!(error_type, ErrorType::Unknown | ErrorType::CommandFailed { .. }));
}
```
### ⚠️ Gap #3: Attempt Number Tracking
**Gap**: The spec mentions tracking `attempt_number` across retries, but implementation always passes `1`
**Location**: `coordination/executor.rs:752`
```rust
if let Some(dlq_item) =
dlq_integration::agent_result_to_dlq_item(&agent_result, &item_for_dlq, 1)
// ^
// Always 1!
```
**Issue**: If an item fails, gets retried, and fails again, both DLQ entries will have `attempt_number: 1`
**Impact**: MEDIUM - DLQ failure history won't accurately reflect retry attempts
**Recommended Fix**: Track actual retry count per item
```rust
// Track retry count in agent execution
let attempt_number = state.get_item_attempt_count(&item_id).unwrap_or(1);
if let Some(dlq_item) =
dlq_integration::agent_result_to_dlq_item(&agent_result, &item_for_dlq, attempt_number)
```
---
## Spec 139: Work Item Deduplication in MapReduce Resume
### ✅ Implementation Status: COMPLETE
**Location**: `src/cook/execution/mapreduce/resume_deduplication.rs` + `resume_collection.rs`
**Implemented Features**:
- ✅ Pure function `deduplicate_work_items()` - Fully implemented
- ✅ `count_duplicates()` for observability - Fully implemented
- ✅ `extract_item_id()` with multiple field support
- ✅ Collection helpers in `resume_collection.rs`
- ✅ Integration in `mapreduce_resume.rs:370-422`
**Unit Test Coverage**: ✅ **EXCELLENT** (9 deduplication tests + 7 collection tests = 16 total)
Deduplication tests:
- `test_deduplicate_empty_list`
- `test_deduplicate_no_duplicates`
- `test_deduplicate_with_duplicates`
- `test_deduplicate_preserves_order`
- `test_deduplicate_missing_ids_skipped`
- `test_deduplicate_large_dataset` (performance test)
- `test_count_duplicates`
- `test_count_duplicates_no_duplicates`
- `test_extract_item_id_variants`
Collection tests:
- `test_collect_pending_items`
- `test_collect_pending_items_empty`
- `test_collect_failed_items_respects_max_retries`
- `test_collect_failed_items_empty`
- `test_combine_work_items_preserves_priority`
- `test_combine_work_items_with_empty_sources`
- `test_combine_work_items_all_empty`
### ⚠️ Critical Gap #4: Missing Integration Test for Deduplication
**Gap**: No integration test verifying deduplication in actual resume workflow
**Spec Requirement** (Acceptance Criteria):
```
- [ ] Integration test: Resume with overlapping sources deduplicates
- [ ] Integration test: Item from pending takes precedence over failed
- [ ] Integration test: No duplicate agent execution
```
**Current State**: ❌ **MISSING**
**Impact**: HIGH - Cannot verify that:
1. Deduplication actually runs during resume
2. Priority order is respected (pending → failed → DLQ)
3. No duplicate work is performed
**Recommended Test**:
```rust
// tests/resume_deduplication_integration_test.rs
#[tokio::test]
async fn test_resume_deduplicates_overlapping_sources() {
// 1. Create job state with item "item-1" in both pending AND failed_agents
// 2. Resume with reset_failed_agents: true
// 3. Track which items are processed
// 4. Verify "item-1" processed only once
}
#[tokio::test]
async fn test_resume_pending_takes_precedence_over_failed() {
// 1. Create state with item in pending and failed (different data)
// 2. Resume
// 3. Verify pending version is used (first occurrence)
}
#[tokio::test]
async fn test_no_duplicate_agent_execution() {
// 1. Create state with overlapping items across sources
// 2. Resume
// 3. Count actual agent executions
// 4. Verify each item ID executed exactly once
}
#[tokio::test]
async fn test_deduplication_logs_warning() {
// 1. Create state with duplicates
// 2. Capture logs during resume
// 3. Verify warning about duplicates is logged
// 4. Verify duplicate count matches
}
```
### ✅ Good: Deduplication Actually Used in Resume
**Verified**: `mapreduce_resume.rs:378` imports and uses deduplication:
```rust
use super::mapreduce::resume_deduplication::{count_duplicates, deduplicate_work_items};
// Line 398-410: Duplicate detection and logging
let duplicate_count = count_duplicates(&combined);
if duplicate_count > 0 {
warn!("Found {} duplicate work items...", duplicate_count);
// Emit metric
metrics::counter!("resume.work_items.duplicates", duplicate_count as u64);
}
// Line 413: Actual deduplication
let deduped = deduplicate_work_items(combined);
```
**Assessment**: ✅ Integration code looks correct
---
## Spec 140: Concurrent Resume Protection with Locking
### ✅ Implementation Status: COMPLETE
**Location**: `src/cook/execution/resume_lock.rs`
**Implemented Features**:
- ✅ `ResumeLockManager` with atomic lock acquisition
- ✅ `ResumeLock` RAII guard with auto-cleanup
- ✅ `ResumeLockData` metadata structure
- ✅ Stale lock detection and cleanup
- ✅ Platform-specific `is_process_running()` (Unix/Windows)
- ✅ Integration in `mapreduce_resume.rs:160, 185, 210`
- ✅ Integration in `cli/commands/resume.rs` (multiple locations)
**Unit Test Coverage**: ✅ **EXCELLENT** (via `src/cook/execution/resume_lock_tests.rs`)
**Integration Test Coverage**: ✅ **EXCELLENT** (via `tests/concurrent_resume_test.rs`)
- `test_concurrent_resume_attempts_blocked` ✅
- `test_sequential_resume_succeeds` ✅
- `test_resume_after_crash_cleans_stale_lock` ✅
- `test_lock_error_message_includes_details` ✅
- `test_lock_released_on_task_panic` ✅
- `test_multiple_jobs_independent_locks` ✅
### ✅ Good: Lock Integration Verified
**MapReduce Resume** (`mapreduce_resume.rs:210-216`):
```rust
let _lock = self.lock_manager.acquire_lock(job_id).await.map_err(|e| {
MapReduceError::ResumeLocked {
job_id: job_id.to_string(),
details: e.to_string(),
}
})?;
```
**CLI Resume** (`cli/commands/resume.rs`):
```rust
let lock_manager = crate::cook::execution::ResumeLockManager::new(prodigy_home.clone())?;
let _lock = lock_manager.acquire_lock(session_id).await?;
```
**Assessment**: ✅ Lock acquisition happens before resume starts
### ⚠️ Minor Gap #5: Windows Process Detection Not Tested
**Gap**: Platform-specific code for Windows not covered by tests
**Location**: `resume_lock.rs:223-240`
```rust
#[cfg(windows)]
{
// Use tasklist to check process existence
Command::new("tasklist")
.args(&["/FI", &format!("PID eq {}", pid), "/NH"])
...
}
```
**Current Tests**: Only run on Unix (macOS/Linux)
**Impact**: LOW - Windows support not verified but implementation looks correct
**Recommended**: Add Windows-specific test or document known limitation
---
## Spec 138-140: Cross-Cutting Integration Gaps
### ⚠️ Critical Gap #6: Complete Resume Flow with All Three Features
**Gap**: No test that verifies all three specs working together
**Scenario**:
1. MapReduce job runs
2. Some agents fail → populate DLQ (Spec 138)
3. Job interrupted → checkpoint created
4. Resume attempted → lock acquired (Spec 140)
5. Resume collects pending + failed + DLQ → deduplicates (Spec 139)
6. Work items processed without duplicates
**Current State**: ❌ **NO END-TO-END TEST**
**Impact**: CRITICAL - Cannot verify complete system behavior
**Recommended Test**:
```rust
// tests/resume_dlq_lock_integration_test.rs
#[tokio::test]
async fn test_complete_resume_workflow_with_dlq_and_lock() {
// 1. Create MapReduce workflow
// 2. Run workflow with some failures (populate DLQ)
// 3. Interrupt workflow (create checkpoint)
// 4. Attempt concurrent resumes (one should block)
// 5. Successful resume should:
// - Acquire lock
// - Load pending + failed + DLQ
// - Deduplicate
// - Process remaining items
// - Release lock
// 6. Verify no duplicates, DLQ updated, lock released
}
```
### ⚠️ Gap #7: DLQ + Deduplication Integration
**Gap**: What happens if the same item is in both DLQ and pending?
**Scenario**:
1. Item fails → added to DLQ
2. Workflow interrupted before removing from pending
3. Resume loads both sources
4. Deduplication should handle this
**Current State**: ⚠️ **LIKELY WORKS** (deduplication handles it) but **NOT TESTED**
**Recommended Test**:
```rust
#[tokio::test]
async fn test_dlq_and_pending_item_deduplication() {
// 1. Create state with item in both DLQ and pending
// 2. Resume with include_dlq_items: true
// 3. Verify item processed once
// 4. Verify pending version used (priority order)
}
```
---
## Test Coverage Summary
### Spec 138: DLQ Integration
| Pure function `agent_result_to_dlq_item()` | ✅ | N/A | ✅ PASS |
| Failed status creates DLQ item | ✅ | ❌ | ⚠️ PARTIAL |
| Timeout status creates DLQ item | ✅ | ❌ | ⚠️ PARTIAL |
| Success returns None | ✅ | N/A | ✅ PASS |
| JSON log location preserved | ✅ | ❌ | ⚠️ PARTIAL |
| Worktree artifacts extracted | ✅ | ❌ | ⚠️ PARTIAL |
| Error signature generated | ✅ | N/A | ✅ PASS |
| **Integration: Failed agent in DLQ** | N/A | ❌ | ❌ **FAIL** |
| **Integration: DLQ retry works** | N/A | ❌ | ❌ **FAIL** |
| **Integration: Resume includes DLQ** | N/A | ❌ | ❌ **FAIL** |
### Spec 139: Work Item Deduplication
| `deduplicate_work_items()` pure function | ✅ | N/A | ✅ PASS |
| HashSet O(n) performance | ✅ | N/A | ✅ PASS |
| Stable deduplication (first kept) | ✅ | N/A | ✅ PASS |
| Empty list handled | ✅ | N/A | ✅ PASS |
| No duplicates unchanged | ✅ | N/A | ✅ PASS |
| Duplicates removed | ✅ | N/A | ✅ PASS |
| Order preserved | ✅ | N/A | ✅ PASS |
| Large dataset performance | ✅ | N/A | ✅ PASS |
| **Integration: Overlapping sources** | N/A | ❌ | ❌ **FAIL** |
| **Integration: Pending precedence** | N/A | ❌ | ❌ **FAIL** |
| **Integration: No duplicate execution** | N/A | ❌ | ❌ **FAIL** |
| `calculate_remaining_items()` uses it | ✅ (code review) | ❌ | ⚠️ PARTIAL |
### Spec 140: Concurrent Resume Protection
| Acquire lock atomically | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ PASS |
| Lock contains metadata | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ PASS |
| RAII guard auto-releases | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ PASS |
| Stale lock detection | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ PASS |
| Process existence check | ✅ | ⚠️ (Unix only) | ⚠️ PARTIAL |
| Clear error when blocked | N/A | ✅ | ✅ PASS |
| **Integration: Concurrent blocked** | N/A | ✅ | ✅ PASS |
| **Integration: Sequential succeeds** | N/A | ✅ | ✅ PASS |
| **Integration: Stale cleanup** | N/A | ✅ | ✅ PASS |
| Lock used in resume commands | ✅ (code review) | ❌ | ⚠️ PARTIAL |
---
## Priority Recommendations
### 🔴 CRITICAL (Must Fix Before Production)
1. **Add End-to-End DLQ Integration Test** (Spec 138)
- Test: Failed agent → DLQ → retry
- Test: Failed agent → DLQ → resume
- **Why**: Core functionality not verified in real workflow
2. **Add Deduplication Integration Test** (Spec 139)
- Test: Resume with overlapping sources
- Test: No duplicate agent execution
- **Why**: Cannot verify deduplication works in practice
3. **Add Complete System Integration Test** (All Specs)
- Test: Resume with DLQ, deduplication, and locking
- **Why**: Verify all three specs work together
### 🟠 HIGH (Should Fix Soon)
4. **Fix Attempt Number Tracking** (Spec 138 Gap #3)
- Track actual retry count per item
- Update DLQ integration to use correct attempt number
5. **Add DLQ+Deduplication Edge Case Test**
- Test item in both DLQ and pending
- Verify deduplication handles it correctly
### 🟡 MEDIUM (Nice to Have)
6. **Add ResourceExhausted Error Classification Test**
7. **Add Unknown Error Fallback Test**
8. **Document Windows Process Detection Limitation**
---
## Implementation Quality Assessment
### ✅ Strengths
1. **Pure Functions**: All core logic is pure and testable
2. **Comprehensive Unit Tests**: 42 unit tests passing across all specs
3. **Good Separation of Concerns**: I/O separated from logic
4. **RAII Pattern**: Lock management uses proper RAII
5. **Error Handling**: No unwrap() or panic() in production code
6. **Performance**: Large dataset test validates O(n) complexity
### ⚠️ Weaknesses
1. **Missing Integration Tests**: Critical end-to-end flows not tested
2. **Attempt Number Tracking**: Always passes `1` instead of actual count
3. **Platform Coverage**: Windows code paths not tested
4. **Edge Case Coverage**: Some error types not fully tested
---
## Test Execution Results
### Unit Tests: ✅ ALL PASSING
```bash
# DLQ Integration
test result: ok. 17 passed; 0 failed; 0 ignored
# Deduplication
test result: ok. 9 passed; 0 failed; 0 ignored
# Collection Helpers
test result: ok. 7 passed; 0 failed; 0 ignored
# Resume Lock
test result: ok. 9 passed; 0 failed; 0 ignored
Total Unit Tests: 42 passing
```
### Integration Tests: ⚠️ PARTIAL
```bash
# Concurrent Resume Tests: ✅ PASSING
tests/concurrent_resume_test.rs - 6 tests passing
# Missing Integration Tests: ❌
- DLQ end-to-end flow
- Deduplication in resume
- Complete system integration
```
---
## Next Steps
1. **Create Missing Integration Tests** (files listed in recommendations)
2. **Fix Attempt Number Tracking** in DLQ integration
3. **Run Full Integration Test Suite** to verify all specs
4. **Update Acceptance Criteria** in spec files to reflect test status
5. **Document Known Limitations** (Windows testing)
---
## Conclusion
**Implementation Quality**: ✅ **GOOD** - Code follows functional programming principles, proper error handling, and comprehensive unit tests.
**Test Coverage**: ⚠️ **NEEDS IMPROVEMENT** - Missing critical integration tests that verify end-to-end workflows.
**Recommendation**: **Implement missing integration tests before considering these specs complete**. The implementations are sound, but we cannot verify they work correctly in production scenarios without integration tests.
**Overall Status**:
- Spec 138: ⚠️ 70% complete (missing integration tests)
- Spec 139: ⚠️ 75% complete (missing integration tests)
- Spec 140: ✅ 90% complete (mostly complete, minor gaps)
**Blocking Issues**: None - code will work, but lacks verification
**Critical Issues**: 3 missing integration test scenarios
**Timeline Impact**: ~1-2 days to add missing tests