[PR #7067] [MERGED] fix(capture): report an out-of-range record ordinal as a selection fault #7619

Closed
opened 2026-11-03 13:39:09 +00:00 by bsakaguchi · 0 comments
Owner

📋 Pull Request Information

Original PR: https://github.com/morluto/rea/pull/7067
Author: @Adolanium
Created: 10/25/2026
Status: ✅ Merged
Merged: 10/25/2026
Merged by: @morluto

Base: main ← Head: fix/web-capture-ordinal-out-of-range


📝 Commits (1)

  • 9513da7 fix(capture): report an out-of-range record ordinal as a selection fault

📊 Changes

2 files changed (+40 additions, -6 deletions)

View changed files

📝 src/application/WebNetworkCaptureService.test.ts (+25 -0)
📝 src/application/WebNetworkCaptureService.ts (+15 -6)

📄 Description

Summary

Fixes #7068.

inspect_web_network_capture reports a record_ordinals entry past the end of a valid capture as an invalid_format issue on record_ordinals, with no bounds. The request is well formed; the caller selected an ordinal the capture does not have. The issue is now out_of_range on that entry, with the valid bounds, as #6979 did for script_index.

Problem and expected behavior

WebNetworkCaptureService.#projectCapture returned { path: ["record_ordinals"], reason: "invalid_format" } when safeValue.records[ordinal] was missing. docs/web-network-captures.md describes out-of-range selections as input errors, and AnalysisInputIssue defines out_of_range with minimum / maximum so a client can correct the request. With invalid_format, a client is told the request is malformed and gets no range.

Expected: { path: ["record_ordinals", i], reason: "out_of_range", minimum: 0, maximum: total_records - 1 } for the first out-of-range entry i, and invalid_value when the capture has no records.

Change and scope

  • src/application/WebNetworkCaptureService.ts: the out-of-range branch reports the entry's index in the path and the bounds from total_records, which the service already checks equals records.length. The message is unchanged.

Not included: the duplicate-ordinal and protobuf-without-ordinals checks keep their current issues.

Follow the contribution scope.
Unresolved scope, authority, side effects, or required verification block
integration. Link the required maintainer scope decision for new providers or
capabilities involving target execution, injection, mutation, or protection
recovery; ordinary fixes within existing boundaries may state "not applicable".
Draft PRs may leave the scope decision pending and the readiness and merge checklists
unchecked. Maintainers can help resolve open questions.

Contribution scope: not applicable. This is a fix inside the existing web network capture inspection.

Contract and boundary impact

  • Semantic owner and earliest changed stage: WebNetworkCaptureService.#projectCapture, where the selected ordinals are resolved.
  • Contribution scope fit and linked maintainer decision: not applicable.
  • CLI and MCP/tool-catalog contract: the error code stays invalid_request; the issue reason, path and bounds change as described.
  • Provider, bridge, target-format, or platform compatibility: none.
  • Evidence, artifact, provenance, or reconstruction contract: none.
  • Target selection, authority, upstream behavior, and cleanup details (if applicable): the selection fault is reported against the selected entry.
  • Generated metadata (docs/public/product-catalog.json), package, or installation impact (CI generates and validates ignored catalogs and skills/; edit authored instructions in .agents/skills/reverse-engineer-anything/ and never commit build outputs): none.

Expected effects (check known effects; use documentation-only on its own).
Unchecked items do not establish absence; leave uncertainties visible.

  • Read existing files or captured data.
  • Launch or attach to a process.
  • Inject instrumentation or run scripts/code.
  • Change process memory, registers, files, or configuration.
  • Contact network services.
  • Recover protected code or work around protections.
  • Documentation or usability only; no target interaction.
  • Not sure yet; investigation or maintainer guidance needed.

Evidence and regression coverage

  • Tests added or updated: src/application/WebNetworkCaptureService.test.ts, "reports an ordinal past the capture's records as an out-of-range selection": with record_ordinals: [0, 5] on the fixture capture, the projected error is invalid_request with details.issues [{ path: ["record_ordinals", 1], reason: "out_of_range", minimum: 0, maximum: total_records - 1 }]. The existing "rejects invalid caller selection" cases still pass.
  • Base reproduction or other evidence: with WebNetworkCaptureService.ts from upstream/main 8e6a95788 and the new test, the test fails.
  • User-visible CLI/MCP output (if applicable): the invalid_request details for an out-of-range record_ordinals entry (CLI --record).
  • Remaining proof gaps: the empty-capture branch (invalid_value) has no dedicated test.

For evidence-bearing changes:

  • Observed, derived, and inferred claims remain distinguishable.
  • Artifact identity, source provenance, and failed attempts remain preserved.
  • Unsupported, incomplete, unavailable, or uncertain outcomes remain visible.

Validation performed

On Linux (WSL Ubuntu, Node 24.22.1) at 9513da7ba (on upstream/main 8e6a95788), after npm ci and npm run build:cached:

  • npx tsc -p . --noEmit passed.
  • npx oxfmt --check on the changed files: clean. node scripts/ci/static-check-report.mjs lint: 0 errors.
  • npx vitest run src/application/WebNetworkCaptureService.test.ts tests/acceptance/tools/harBoundaryFacts.test.ts and the HAR boundary tests: 51 passed, in two runs.
  • The negative check above failed the new test.

Compatibility, safety, and release

  • Breaking changes or migration steps: none; the error code is unchanged.
  • Real Hopper/Ghidra, browser, or OS coverage: Linux only.
  • Package or release metadata impact: none.
  • Security, privacy, process, or containment review: none.

Author readiness

Human owner: @Adolanium

  • I reviewed the final diff and relevant existing code, understand the change and its edge cases, and take responsibility for the complete PR, including AI-assisted work.
  • I checked the evidence above, confirmed it supports the current change, and recorded meaningful validation gaps.
  • I declare this PR ready for initial maintainer review.

Before merge

  • This PR addresses a concrete problem or an agreed enhancement.
  • Material scope and authority questions are resolved, and any required maintainer scope decision covers the final diff.
  • The PR has one focused outcome and the title follows type(scope): outcome.
  • Related issue is linked, or the reason for not linking one is stated above.
  • Tests cover changed observable behavior and meaningful failure paths.
  • Owning docs, contracts, and generated metadata are updated where needed.
  • User-visible CLI/MCP changes include representative output.
  • I checked the final diff for secrets, unrelated cleanup, and unsupported claims.

🔄 This issue represents a GitHub Pull Request. It cannot be merged through Gitea due to API limitations.

## 📋 Pull Request Information **Original PR:** https://github.com/morluto/rea/pull/7067 **Author:** [@Adolanium](https://github.com/Adolanium) **Created:** 10/25/2026 **Status:** ✅ Merged **Merged:** 10/25/2026 **Merged by:** [@morluto](https://github.com/morluto) **Base:** `main` ← **Head:** `fix/web-capture-ordinal-out-of-range` --- ### 📝 Commits (1) - [`9513da7`](https://github.com/morluto/rea/commit/9513da7badf2df306fa7f38527c7645ef4dece3e) fix(capture): report an out-of-range record ordinal as a selection fault ### 📊 Changes **2 files changed** (+40 additions, -6 deletions) <details> <summary>View changed files</summary> 📝 `src/application/WebNetworkCaptureService.test.ts` (+25 -0) 📝 `src/application/WebNetworkCaptureService.ts` (+15 -6) </details> ### 📄 Description ## Summary Fixes #7068. `inspect_web_network_capture` reports a `record_ordinals` entry past the end of a valid capture as an `invalid_format` issue on `record_ordinals`, with no bounds. The request is well formed; the caller selected an ordinal the capture does not have. The issue is now `out_of_range` on that entry, with the valid bounds, as #6979 did for `script_index`. ## Problem and expected behavior `WebNetworkCaptureService.#projectCapture` returned `{ path: ["record_ordinals"], reason: "invalid_format" }` when `safeValue.records[ordinal]` was missing. `docs/web-network-captures.md` describes out-of-range selections as input errors, and `AnalysisInputIssue` defines `out_of_range` with `minimum` / `maximum` so a client can correct the request. With `invalid_format`, a client is told the request is malformed and gets no range. Expected: `{ path: ["record_ordinals", i], reason: "out_of_range", minimum: 0, maximum: total_records - 1 }` for the first out-of-range entry `i`, and `invalid_value` when the capture has no records. ## Change and scope - `src/application/WebNetworkCaptureService.ts`: the out-of-range branch reports the entry's index in the path and the bounds from `total_records`, which the service already checks equals `records.length`. The message is unchanged. Not included: the duplicate-ordinal and protobuf-without-ordinals checks keep their current issues. Follow the [contribution scope](https://github.com/morluto/rea/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#contribution-scope). Unresolved scope, authority, side effects, or required verification block integration. Link the required maintainer scope decision for new providers or capabilities involving target execution, injection, mutation, or protection recovery; ordinary fixes within existing boundaries may state "not applicable". Draft PRs may leave the scope decision pending and the readiness and merge checklists unchecked. Maintainers can help resolve open questions. Contribution scope: not applicable. This is a fix inside the existing web network capture inspection. ## Contract and boundary impact - Semantic owner and earliest changed stage: `WebNetworkCaptureService.#projectCapture`, where the selected ordinals are resolved. - Contribution scope fit and linked maintainer decision: not applicable. - CLI and MCP/tool-catalog contract: the error code stays `invalid_request`; the issue reason, path and bounds change as described. - Provider, bridge, target-format, or platform compatibility: none. - Evidence, artifact, provenance, or reconstruction contract: none. - Target selection, authority, upstream behavior, and cleanup details (if applicable): the selection fault is reported against the selected entry. - Generated metadata (`docs/public/product-catalog.json`), package, or installation impact (CI generates and validates ignored catalogs and `skills/`; edit authored instructions in `.agents/skills/reverse-engineer-anything/` and never commit build outputs): none. Expected effects (check known effects; use documentation-only on its own). Unchecked items do not establish absence; leave uncertainties visible. - [x] Read existing files or captured data. - [ ] Launch or attach to a process. - [ ] Inject instrumentation or run scripts/code. - [ ] Change process memory, registers, files, or configuration. - [ ] Contact network services. - [ ] Recover protected code or work around protections. - [ ] Documentation or usability only; no target interaction. - [ ] Not sure yet; investigation or maintainer guidance needed. ## Evidence and regression coverage - Tests added or updated: `src/application/WebNetworkCaptureService.test.ts`, "reports an ordinal past the capture's records as an out-of-range selection": with `record_ordinals: [0, 5]` on the fixture capture, the projected error is `invalid_request` with `details.issues` `[{ path: ["record_ordinals", 1], reason: "out_of_range", minimum: 0, maximum: total_records - 1 }]`. The existing "rejects invalid caller selection" cases still pass. - Base reproduction or other evidence: with `WebNetworkCaptureService.ts` from upstream/main 8e6a95788 and the new test, the test fails. - User-visible CLI/MCP output (if applicable): the `invalid_request` details for an out-of-range `record_ordinals` entry (CLI `--record`). - Remaining proof gaps: the empty-capture branch (`invalid_value`) has no dedicated test. For evidence-bearing changes: - [x] Observed, derived, and inferred claims remain distinguishable. - [x] Artifact identity, source provenance, and failed attempts remain preserved. - [x] Unsupported, incomplete, unavailable, or uncertain outcomes remain visible. ## Validation performed On Linux (WSL Ubuntu, Node 24.22.1) at 9513da7ba (on upstream/main 8e6a95788), after `npm ci` and `npm run build:cached`: - `npx tsc -p . --noEmit` passed. - `npx oxfmt --check` on the changed files: clean. `node scripts/ci/static-check-report.mjs lint`: 0 errors. - `npx vitest run src/application/WebNetworkCaptureService.test.ts tests/acceptance/tools/harBoundaryFacts.test.ts` and the HAR boundary tests: 51 passed, in two runs. - The negative check above failed the new test. ## Compatibility, safety, and release - Breaking changes or migration steps: none; the error code is unchanged. - Real Hopper/Ghidra, browser, or OS coverage: Linux only. - Package or release metadata impact: none. - Security, privacy, process, or containment review: none. ## Author readiness <!-- The human owner completes these declarations before requesting review. The PR author is the owner by default. A different owner must explicitly accept ownership on this PR. AI agents must leave these declarations to a human to dictate to them or there could be catastrophic consequences for many users of REA. Draft PRs may leave them unchecked. These declarations record initial readiness when opening the PR for review; later pushes do not require a new human sign-off. Keep the description and validation evidence current as the work changes. See CONTRIBUTING.md#pull-request-ownership-and-readiness. --> Human owner: @Adolanium - [x] I reviewed the final diff and relevant existing code, understand the change and its edge cases, and take responsibility for the complete PR, including AI-assisted work. - [x] I checked the evidence above, confirmed it supports the current change, and recorded meaningful validation gaps. - [x] I declare this PR ready for initial maintainer review. ## Before merge <!-- Draft PRs may leave pending items unchecked. Resolve material scope and authority questions before integration. --> - [ ] This PR addresses a concrete problem or an agreed enhancement. - [ ] Material scope and authority questions are resolved, and any required maintainer scope decision covers the final diff. - [ ] The PR has one focused outcome and the title follows `type(scope): outcome`. - [ ] Related issue is linked, or the reason for not linking one is stated above. - [ ] Tests cover changed observable behavior and meaningful failure paths. - [ ] Owning docs, contracts, and generated metadata are updated where needed. - [ ] User-visible CLI/MCP changes include representative output. - [ ] I checked the final diff for secrets, unrelated cleanup, and unsupported claims. --- <sub>🔄 This issue represents a GitHub Pull Request. It cannot be merged through Gitea due to API limitations.</sub>
bsakaguchi 2026-11-03 13:39:09 +00:00
Sign in to join this conversation.
No milestone
No project
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference
morluto/rea#7619
No description provided.