Skip to content

T13: rewrite openclaw_capture acceptance procedure for two-lane capture - #569

Merged
philcunliffe merged 1 commit into
integration/openclaw-two-lane-capturefrom
task/openclaw-two-lane-capture/T13
Aug 1, 2026
Merged

T13: rewrite openclaw_capture acceptance procedure for two-lane capture#569
philcunliffe merged 1 commit into
integration/openclaw-two-lane-capturefrom
task/openclaw-two-lane-capture/T13

Conversation

@philcunliffe

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Implements task T13 of openclaw-two-lane-capture.

Rewrites docs/ACCEPTANCE.md's openclaw_capture section:

  • Drops the steering-plugin link/enable setup and the
    before_model_resolve/hooks.allowConversationAccess version-gate
    language (the plugin is deleted; Lane A depends on no OpenClaw hook
    API).
  • Adds a setup step running hyp attach --client openclaw followed by
    the restart instruction it prints.
  • Adds a sweep step: detach to strip the live route, confirm the row is
    absent, confirm it lands within one sweep interval past the quiesce
    window.
  • Adds a zero-duplicate assertion: a turn both lanes observe resolves to
    exactly one row for its part_id, proven against the daemon's own
    scheduler rather than a manual hyp backfill.
  • Re-confirms LLP 0167#verify-results items 1, 3, and 4 against the
    current tree's attach/detach behavior.
  • Drops the retired deferred-provider-family warning-ledger step (LLP
    0171 retires R13) and the shadow-provider-id failure mode (Lane A
    overrides the existing anthropic/openai entries rather than
    registering new ids).
  • States in the section's own Requires that the sweep/dedupe steps need
    PR OpenClaw backfill reads message fields one level too high, projecting 0 rows #552 merged, and the client_attach status-row re-confirmation needs
    PR hyp status: a probe-less client is unattachable, not unattached #553 merged.

This is a doc; the test is a human's successful run against a real
OpenClaw install, which this change cannot perform. It is specified
against what T2 (detach), T4 (attach), and T5 (manifest) actually
implement in this tree.

Test plan

Task-Id: T13

Drops the steering-plugin link/enable setup and the
before_model_resolve/hooks.allowConversationAccess version-gate language
(the plugin is deleted; Lane A depends on no OpenClaw hook API). Adds a
setup step running `hyp attach --client openclaw` followed by the restart
instruction it prints, a sweep step (detach to strip the live route,
confirm the row is absent, confirm it lands within one sweep interval past
the quiesce window), and a zero-duplicate assertion (a turn both lanes
observe resolves to exactly one row for its part_id, proven against the
daemon's own scheduler rather than a manual `hyp backfill`). Re-confirms
LLP 0167#verify-results items 1, 3, and 4 against the current tree's
attach/detach behavior instead of assuming them. Drops the retired
deferred-provider-family warning-ledger step (LLP 0171 retires R13; no
ledger) and the shadow-provider-id failure mode (Lane A overrides the
existing anthropic/openai entries, it does not register new ids).

States in the section's own Requires that the sweep/dedupe steps need PR
#552 merged (the LLP 0158 reader still parses OpenClaw v3 flat), and the
client_attach status-row re-confirmation needs PR #553 merged (a
now-probed openclaw otherwise falls back to pre-#553 status behavior).

This is a doc; the test is a human's successful run against a real
OpenClaw install, which this change cannot perform. It is specified
against what T2 (detach), T4 (attach), and T5 (manifest) actually
implement in this tree, read directly from
hypaware-core/plugins-workspace/openclaw/src/attach.js,
src/core/config/client_detach_disk.js, and
hypaware-core/plugins-workspace/openclaw/hypaware.plugin.json.

Task-Id: T13
@philcunliffe
philcunliffe merged commit 9e8fd2e into integration/openclaw-two-lane-capture Aug 1, 2026
7 of 9 checks passed
@philcunliffe
philcunliffe deleted the task/openclaw-two-lane-capture/T13 branch August 1, 2026 00:38
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant