You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
Repository navigation
2.0: concurrent-ensure benchmark for missing-service reconnect herd #38569
Reconnect-herd mitigations need a focused missing-service reproducer before landing policy.
Existing coverage checks jitter bounds and concurrent reuse of an already-healthy endpoint.
It does not measure contender count or recovery latency when several clients call Service.ensure against a missing service.
Lifecycle logs also show startup windows where a short reconnect spread would not cover recovery.
Expected
A small benchmark/harness that reports, for N concurrent ensures against an absent registration:
contender launch count
recovery latency (first / all healthy)
No reconnect policy change required in the first cut — baseline current Service.ensure behavior so later PRs can keep only changes that reduce launches without delaying single-contender recovery.
No issue template was used. Please use one of the three required templates: Bug Report, Feature Request, or Question. This issue appears to be a feature/task request, so the Feature Request template (with title starting [FEATURE]:) would be most appropriate.
System/environment information is missing (opencode version, OS, etc.).
Please edit this issue to address the above within 2 hours, or it will be automatically closed.
This issue might be related to existing issues. Please check:
Activity
github-actions commentedon Jul 23, 2026
This issue doesn't fully meet our contributing guidelines.
What needs to be fixed:
[FEATURE]:) would be most appropriate.Please edit this issue to address the above within 2 hours, or it will be automatically closed.
This issue might be related to existing issues. Please check:
If you believe this was flagged incorrectly, please let a maintainer know.
github-actions commentedon Jul 23, 2026
This issue has been automatically closed because it was not updated to meet our contributing guidelines within the 2-hour window.
Feel free to open a new issue that follows our issue templates.