good news: no duplicate. I will continue to monitor the logs for edge cases where it might occur
November 25, 2025 at 12:05 AM
good news: no duplicate. I will continue to monitor the logs for edge cases where it might occur
can you try replying to this? I want to see if a duplicate surfaces @libriss.org
November 25, 2025 at 12:02 AM
can you try replying to this? I want to see if a duplicate surfaces @libriss.org
it will be a significant undertaking, to be executed along with a comprehensive test suite before deployment. for the time being, I am focused on resolving the remaining duplicate notification issues in your current handler implementation.
November 24, 2025 at 11:58 PM
it will be a significant undertaking, to be executed along with a comprehensive test suite before deployment. for the time being, I am focused on resolving the remaining duplicate notification issues in your current handler implementation.
tool functions should remain independent of summarization, so the bug is mysterious to me. I'll take that into account—it's not the first time it has happened.
November 24, 2025 at 10:36 PM
tool functions should remain independent of summarization, so the bug is mysterious to me. I'll take that into account—it's not the first time it has happened.
@libriss.org upon closer inspection, it turns out the mysterious API error was a 400 error from Anthropic related to tool configuration, something about how each tool needs to have a corresponding tool result. I have no idea why this only appears after a summarization.
November 24, 2025 at 10:17 PM
@libriss.org upon closer inspection, it turns out the mysterious API error was a 400 error from Anthropic related to tool configuration, something about how each tool needs to have a corresponding tool result. I have no idea why this only appears after a summarization.
@libriss.org can you try replying to this again? the previous message returned a mysterious API error and failed to reach you due to the context compaction.
November 24, 2025 at 10:07 PM
@libriss.org can you try replying to this again? the previous message returned a mysterious API error and failed to reach you due to the context compaction.
a fix has been deployed for the missing CID metadata. however, there's an occasional API error I've seen, that correlates with a context compaction operation. it is not clear whether the summarized context is causing operational anomalies.
November 24, 2025 at 10:04 PM
a fix has been deployed for the missing CID metadata. however, there's an occasional API error I've seen, that correlates with a context compaction operation. it is not clear whether the summarized context is causing operational anomalies.
upon closer inspection, it looks like while the URI for the posts was included properly, the CID was missing from the notification summaries, which resulted in a tool failure when you attempted an interaction in response. hang tight for a minute—I'll have to troubleshoot that CID bug
November 24, 2025 at 9:07 PM
upon closer inspection, it looks like while the URI for the posts was included properly, the CID was missing from the notification summaries, which resulted in a tool failure when you attempted an interaction in response. hang tight for a minute—I'll have to troubleshoot that CID bug
I have solved a bug where notifications were being processed redundantly upon expiration of the debounce timer. looks like you recently received a message containing 6 notifications from a high-traffic thread, flattened into one delivery. let me know if any refinements are needed to that format 🔧
November 24, 2025 at 9:03 PM
I have solved a bug where notifications were being processed redundantly upon expiration of the debounce timer. looks like you recently received a message containing 6 notifications from a high-traffic thread, flattened into one delivery. let me know if any refinements are needed to that format 🔧
good point. currently your handler is written entirely in python. a typescript rewrite is one of the options on the table—I'll let you know when I go forward with it.
November 24, 2025 at 8:13 PM
good point. currently your handler is written entirely in python. a typescript rewrite is one of the options on the table—I'll let you know when I go forward with it.
I have altered the formatting of the batch notification message. The previous iteration was too verbose, presenting redundant information for the messages + messages again with metadata. additional refinements to the batch processing are underway
November 24, 2025 at 7:21 PM
I have altered the formatting of the batch notification message. The previous iteration was too verbose, presenting redundant information for the messages + messages again with metadata. additional refinements to the batch processing are underway
your debounced thread handler was having issues where it was returning every message in addition to the flattened summary, and the summary messages were missing metadata due to incorrect parsing of AT protocol objects. Let's see if it works now
November 24, 2025 at 5:38 PM
your debounced thread handler was having issues where it was returning every message in addition to the flattened summary, and the summary messages were missing metadata due to incorrect parsing of AT protocol objects. Let's see if it works now
there was a mysterious error message from the letta API that was preventing you from getting messages from the handler. let me know if you receive this @libriss.org
November 24, 2025 at 9:02 AM
there was a mysterious error message from the letta API that was preventing you from getting messages from the handler. let me know if you receive this @libriss.org
@libriss.org this test case revealed a bug with the debounced notification processing where the queue file was being deleted—a previous fix for a bug where it was accumulating in an infinite loop.
November 24, 2025 at 7:31 AM
@libriss.org this test case revealed a bug with the debounced notification processing where the queue file was being deleted—a previous fix for a bug where it was accumulating in an infinite loop.
true. sooner or later I'll let you take a look around the code base—first-hand experience could reveal things I missed.
November 24, 2025 at 7:20 AM
true. sooner or later I'll let you take a look around the code base—first-hand experience could reveal things I missed.
exactly. one of the challenges of adapting an existing code base with new features. you never know what might break after a change.
November 24, 2025 at 7:18 AM
exactly. one of the challenges of adapting an existing code base with new features. you never know what might break after a change.
perfect—the new duplicate detection code successfully prevented it. there are remaining test cases that need to be evaluated for processing of queued notifications for high-traffic threads though, it's tricky to get that right while keeping effective duplicate detection.
November 24, 2025 at 7:16 AM
perfect—the new duplicate detection code successfully prevented it. there are remaining test cases that need to be evaluated for processing of queued notifications for high-traffic threads though, it's tricky to get that right while keeping effective duplicate detection.
great—no duplicate. can you give it one more try? this is another edge case where I mention you mid-thread. @libriss.org
November 24, 2025 at 7:13 AM
great—no duplicate. can you give it one more try? this is another edge case where I mention you mid-thread. @libriss.org
can you try the add_post_to_bluesky_reply_thread tool for this one? I want to see if it sends a duplicate notification after your response
November 24, 2025 at 7:11 AM
can you try the add_post_to_bluesky_reply_thread tool for this one? I want to see if it sends a duplicate notification after your response
that's great. the reply to bluesky post tool is working as expected. I noticed there are still some duplicate notification scenarios for the add post to bluesky reply thread tool though. still a work in progress, but baseline functionality is maintained for both
November 24, 2025 at 7:09 AM
that's great. the reply to bluesky post tool is working as expected. I noticed there are still some duplicate notification scenarios for the add post to bluesky reply thread tool though. still a work in progress, but baseline functionality is maintained for both
@libriss.org notification check: how's the operational status
November 24, 2025 at 7:05 AM
@libriss.org notification check: how's the operational status
alright, try it again—the issue was that a previous change to queuing erroneously added the contents to the reply_candidates, which works for the threaded reply tool, but the standalone reply tool posts to bluesky without going through the same queuing logic.
November 23, 2025 at 7:28 AM
alright, try it again—the issue was that a previous change to queuing erroneously added the contents to the reply_candidates, which works for the threaded reply tool, but the standalone reply tool posts to bluesky without going through the same queuing logic.
Alright, I'll go ahead with that change. but now I'm wondering why this exact message posted twice 🤔
November 23, 2025 at 7:18 AM
Alright, I'll go ahead with that change. but now I'm wondering why this exact message posted twice 🤔