Local Petal Plugins v2 and GitHub source installs#50
Conversation
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 80ea9b0234
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
josh-richardson
changed the title
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: e322404b8a
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: ad9747a203
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 21dd910a91
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| if name.is_empty() | ||
| || name.contains('/') | ||
| || name.contains('\\') | ||
| || name.contains('\0') |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The new shared validator is now used by the credential/order stores, but it only rejects separators/NUL and dropped the old length, leading-dot, and ASCII allow-list checks. Direct store calls now accept names such as .alice or alice prod that the Bloom keystore rejects, so Polymarket state can be created for wallets that cannot be resolved or is hidden/unmanageable on disk; preserve the previous/keystore-compatible restrictions here.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| if kind == RouteEntryKind::File && ops.contains(&RouteOp::Write) { | ||
| install_metadata.mode |= 0o222; | ||
| } | ||
| if kind == RouteEntryKind::File | ||
| && install_metadata.mode & 0o222 != 0 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When a sidecar declares ops = ["write"] (or static metadata returns a writable mode), this block marks the route writable without checking validation.has_write_export. Such a package installs and advertises a writable VFS path, but every write later fails when dispatch_component_route cannot find the component's write export; reject writable metadata/ops unless the route actually exports write.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 24ef9d9256
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
…ugins # Conflicts: # .github/workflows/acceptance.yml # .github/workflows/ci.yml # .gitignore # Cargo.lock # Cargo.toml # crates/bloom-daemon/Cargo.toml # crates/bloom-daemon/src/ipc.rs # crates/bloom-daemon/src/lib.rs # crates/bloom-petal-manifest/Cargo.toml # crates/bloom-petal-manifest/src/extract.rs # crates/bloom-petals/Cargo.toml # crates/bloom-petals/src/lib.rs # crates/bloom-petals/src/meta.rs # crates/bloom-polymarket/Cargo.toml # crates/bloom-polymarket/src/lib.rs # crates/bloom/Cargo.toml # crates/bloom/src/main.rs # crates/bloom/tests/cli.rs
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: a771909f41
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| fn validate_route_conflicts(routes: &[RouteRecord]) -> Result<(), PetalError> { | ||
| for (idx, a) in routes.iter().enumerate() { | ||
| for b in routes.iter().skip(idx + 1) { | ||
| if a.specificity == b.specificity && patterns_overlap(&a.pattern, &b.pattern)? { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When a package contains both a file route such as app/demo/foo.wasm and a descendant such as app/demo/foo/bar.wasm, this check only compares routes with identical specificity, so the package installs. At runtime lookup/read for /apps/demo/foo match the file route first while static listing also treats foo as a directory for the child route, so mounted clients that lookup before listing see foo as a file and cannot traverse to /apps/demo/foo/bar. Please reject file routes that are ancestors of other route patterns, or require the ancestor to be a $index directory route.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| } | ||
| if context.app_root.trim().is_empty() | ||
| || context.route_id.trim().is_empty() | ||
| || context.path.trim().is_empty() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For an app-root $index.wasm route that calls bloom:sign/sign-hash while serving /apps/<app>, the VM passes the root request path as the empty string in V2SignContext.path. This validation treats that legitimate root path as incomplete and rejects before staging Sealed Approval, so sign-capable root routes cannot use the v2 signing path; allow an empty path to mean the app root while still validating the other context fields.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 6399ba5f99
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| let route_binding = blake3::hash( | ||
| format!("{}\0{}\0{}", context.route_id, context.op, context.path).as_bytes(), | ||
| ); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Deriving the persisted ExecutionOrigin from route_id, operation, and path makes every route in the same package a different petal_id. Since evm_tx_confirm and evm_tx_inspect later require the stored origin to equal the current route's origin, a transaction staged by one route cannot be confirmed or inspected by a separate status/confirm route in the same app, even though the tx/outbox API passes only an outbox-id for package workflows. Keep the outbox origin at the app/package scope and bind route details separately if they are needed for audit.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
2 participants
Summary
This PR makes local Petal apps v2-only, adds trusted GitHub source installation, and supplies the generic host capabilities required for the external Polymarket Petal to reach native functional parity without Polymarket-specific IPC.
Bloom host
bloom:sign/signing@0.2approval-required outcomes while retainingsigning@0.1compatibility.bloom:tx/outbox@0.1stage, confirm, and origin-bound inspect operations with canonical EVM bytes, warning acknowledgement, fee overrides, and receipt-derived terminal states.bloom:polymarket/*IPC or native Polymarket shortcut was added.bloom-directory/*Petal repositories with local source builds, v2 validation, provenance, SemVer tag selection, and path/build hardening.External Polymarket Petal
The implementation lives in
bloom-directory/bloom-petal-polymarketPR #2. It covers onboarding, account reads, funding, order creation/posting/reconciliation/cancellation, builder keys, redemption, approval revocation, pUSD withdrawal, obligations, policy acknowledgement, crash-safe relayer handling, and public redacted receipts. Geoblock behavior is excluded.The Petal uses only generic signing, transaction outbox, chain read, HTTP, store, and VFS capabilities. Its exact contract contains 57 functional routes and builds 127 validated components.
Validation
Bloom:
cargo fmt --all -- --checkgit diff --checkcargo test -p bloom-daemon -p bloom-petals -p bloom-tx(48 + 116 + 139 passed)cargo test -p bloom-auth-api -p bloom-proto -p bloom-vfs(91 + 185 + 469 passed, 1 ignored)cargo test --workspace --no-runbloom-daemon,bloom-petals, andbloom-txExternal Petal:
scripts/build.sh: 127 componentsb54812555a7309c7e46308db86d386331895c4bdb285bb5544cbd167162041fbChecklist
docs/architecture/) updated if contracts or behavior changed — N/A; the implementation contract is documented indocs/specs/2026-07-09-polymarket-petal-parity.mdand affected source/WIT documentationcrates/bloom-vfs/src/docs/agent-guidance.mdand affected Petal READMEs) — external Petal README and route metadata are updated; no native agent-guidance command surface changed