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>
1.9 KiB
vLLM Provider Shape
Last updated: dev@e57f60b | 2026-07-20
Scope
Canonical placeholder provider ID vllm; OpenAI Chat and Responses serving;
generic identity-only inventory normalization. There is no dedicated vLLM
reader or model-card detector on current dev.
Catalog Shape
Current GET /v1/models returns object: list, data[] model cards with
id, object, owned_by: vllm, root, parent, max_model_len, and
permission[]. The generic reader retains only identity/raw data and does not
inspect owned_by, root, parent, max_model_len, or permission. The card
does not prove chat template, tools,
reasoning parser, vision assets, embeddings, transcription, or rerank.
LoRA cards can use a different id, root path, and parent. Keep each served ID
endpoint scoped and do not merge it globally with the base checkpoint.
Runtime Capability
vLLM's supported API surface is broad, but actual behavior depends on the
loaded model task, chat template, multimodal assets, tool-call parser,
reasoning parser, structured-output configuration, and launch flags. Current
Odysseus reasoning regressions cover structured reasoning, legacy
reasoning_content, and compatible fields (#602). These response channels are
transport evidence, not a claim that every vLLM model reasons.
Fallback And Safety
Current reader detection identifies port 8000 as vLLM, or accepts an explicit
endpoint kind, then dispatches to the generic identity-only reader. It does not
infer vLLM from the model-card payload. Do not consume /server_info
environment/config dumps for normal discovery because they can be large and
operationally sensitive.
Current Gaps
- A small safe native capability endpoint is not part of the canonical probe.
- Deployment parser/template flags are not persisted with endpoint capability.
- No dedicated reader maps vLLM model-card fields today.