fix(logs): bound JSON and error response inspection

[luvs01]

Summary

This PR owns the combined work from #177, #106. The existing main proposal already includes the bounded non-JSON prefix and pull-driven forwarding targeted by #106. This consolidation also carries its error/cancel cases; current-dev adaptation is still pending.

Remaining implementation and validation

• Keep one pull-driven delivery path for JSON and non-JSON errors; bound retained inspection bytes without truncating client delivery.
• Finalize logging exactly once on EOF, error and cancellation, preserving status and current log provenance.
• Preserve existing SSE frame/output-item safeguards; reconcile inspection detachment with tee cancellation and terminal ownership.
• Validate large JSON/error bodies, slow readers and cancellation against current dev before upstream submission.

Personal work priority

Combined task: 79.3/100 under the shared personal-value rubric (impact 40%, exposure 20%, evidence 15%, total affordability 10%, applicability 15%). Raw components: [17, 13, 14, 9, 8]. This is a single scope assessment, not the sum or maximum of the source PR scores. Individual source proposals are not separate execution tasks.

Review state

This is a tracking consolidation, not a claim of a completed code merge or current-dev test pass. The existing main-branch code remains at f00eaae5c3447355de736cc7850133010266bb00. Source PRs and their review histories remain reachable from the references above; the unresolved requirements are carried by this checklist. Old proposal test results do not establish review readiness for the combined work.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard.
To continue using code reviews, add credits to your account and enable them for code reviews in your settings.

[coderabbitai]

Important

• 🔍 Trigger review

This repository does not receive automatic reviews because it has fewer than 10 stars.

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Team

Run ID: 00c933a0-e92f-454a-bdac-01023d222c65

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[github-actions]

✅ Deterministic PR hygiene checks passed.

[github-actions]

✅ READY

• all PR quality gates passed.

Hygiene

✅ Deterministic PR hygiene checks passed.

[luvs01]

Implemented the consolidated #177 / #106 scope and opened the upstream draft PR: lidge-jun#4775

Current implementation head: 7adf8c6de8dc2df0a472ebde9fc2a1775dd1229f, including upstream dev at b3035fe292168bc598b5d67e77203e2b65404578.

The lifetime SSE cutoff was replaced with bounded inspection read-ahead so terminal/usage/continuation ownership is not detached. JSON/non-JSON logging now uses bounded diagnostic retention and pull-driven raw delivery; the hard-cancel/partial-terminal race is also covered. Registered integration tests and owning/public documentation are included.

Exact-head Bun 1.4.2 typecheck and targeted regressions passed on Ubuntu, Windows and macOS in https://github.com/luvs01/opencodex/actions/runs/35048973972 . Linux additionally passed related relay/log suites, test layout, structure, privacy and documentation build. The upstream PR body records the exact command/result scope.

This source PR and its code are left unchanged. Upstream lidge-jun#4775 remains draft: the complete repository test run on the earlier implementation is still in progress, current-head full-suite success is not claimed, and upstream required CI needs maintainer execution approval. Review was requested; no merge or readiness attestation was made.

[luvs01]

Closing this tracking PR. The bounded JSON and error response inspection work was reimplemented against current upstream dev and is being carried forward there, so keeping a second copy of the same change open here only splits review and rebase effort. Nothing in this branch is lost: the implementation, its regression coverage and the documentation all moved with it, and the remaining verification is happening on the branch that is actually up for review.