RaresKeYandStressTestor
7026cf40b5
* docs(specs): restore bootstrap after dev rewrite
* docs(specs): remove runtime inventory snapshot
* docs(specs): reconcile current dev truth
* docs(specs): document scheduled task actions as an owner-attribution source
Owner Attribution covered cookie, bearer-token and internal-loopback
requests. Scheduled task actions are a fourth source and behave
differently: _execute_action passes owner=task.owner off the stored
ScheduledTask row, so no request and no resolved principal are in
flight, and route-level require_user() never runs.
Webhook triggers are the sharp case. They are unauthenticated by
design with the token as the only credential and execute under the
stored task.owner.
Paths cite routes/task/task_routes.py, the canonical location after
the task subpackage move (#6081); routes/task_routes.py on current dev
is the backward-compat shim.
* docs(specs): add chained tasks to the trigger list, refresh dev stamp
Review feedback from RaresKeY on the previous commit.
"Every trigger path" was too broad: success-chained tasks are another
path into _execute_action. Added them with their own citation, and
noted that chaining additionally requires the target task to share
task.owner and rejects cycles, which is stricter than the trigger-side
checks. Softened the lead-in to "these trigger paths".
Line 56 still pointed at routes/task_routes.py for webhook credential
validation. That path is the backward-compat shim on current dev after
the task subpackage move (#6081); repointed to the canonical
routes/task/task_routes.py.
Stamp moved to dev@2a6b09b. Inspection backing that bump was scoped:
every file path cited in this spec was mechanically checked to resolve
on 2a6b09b, and every file:line in the Owner Attribution additions was
read against it. Behavioral claims elsewhere in the file were not
re-audited.
* docs(specs): correct SECURE_COOKIES description to match current behavior
Third of the stale details RaresKeY enumerated. The cookie section
described SECURE_COOKIES as purely opt-in, which stopped being true.
_secure_cookie() (routes/auth_routes.py:89) treats an explicit true or
false as authoritative and derives the Secure attribute from the
request otherwise, including when the variable is unset and when
docker-compose injects it present-but-empty. Either the connection
scheme or the first X-Forwarded-Proto hop being https is enough.
* docs(specs): refresh current dev truth
---------
Co-authored-by: StressTestor <212606152+StressTestor@users.noreply.github.com>
1.5 KiB
DeepSeek Provider Shape
Last updated: dev@2e2bb52 | 2026-08-16
Scope
Canonical provider ID deepseek; official cloud OpenAI-compatible API;
curation/detection in routes/model_routes.py and runtime reasoning handling in
src/llm_core.py.
Shape And Observations
Use the general model-list inventory shape; capability-looking fields remain
unknown until a DeepSeek-native reader maps them. Cloud response history can use
reasoning_content; preserve it structurally for reasoning turns and tool
continuation (#968, #3152). deepseek-chat, reasoning models, distilled local
variants, and future V4 models do not share one capability record.
Cloud endpoint evidence can support tools while a local DeepSeek-R1 deployment may not have a working tool parser. Existing tool-support tests intentionally separate official host from local engine/model-name heuristics.
Current runtime thinking-pattern detection includes DeepSeek V4 identifiers so their structured reasoning channel is handled like the other supported DeepSeek reasoning families. This name-level compatibility rule is not canonical capability evidence and does not make every V4-labelled local deployment tool-capable.
Fallback And Current Gaps
Exact *.deepseek.com selects provider identity; self-hosted checkpoints use
Ollama/vLLM/SGLang/llama.cpp identity. Curated model IDs and pricing/context
tables are compatibility data, not authoritative capability. A rich official
model-card reader is still absent.