driver-memory bulkUpdate: strict touchedIds.has vs loose findIndex == — a mixed id-type batch false-refuses with UNIQUE_VIOLATION #13911

Closed
#13917
Closed
driver-memory bulkUpdate: strict touchedIds.has vs loose findIndex == — a mixed id-type batch false-refuses with UNIQUE_VIOLATION#13911
#13917
Assignees
zhuangjianguo
Labels
bugSomething isn't workingdomain:enginepm:dispatchedpriority:p2Medium: important, M3

Description

@zhuangjianguo
zhuangjianguo
opened on Aug 31, 2026

Introduced by #13875 (issue #13435), which landed at 4642f4c64c. Found in PM review before the merge, but the PR was already in the merge queue and landed anyway — disabling auto-merge does not dequeue an already-enqueued PR.

The defect

In InMemoryDriver.bulkUpdate (packages/drivers/driver-memory/src/memory-driver.ts, lines ~910–917 on main), two lookups over the same ids disagree:

consttouchedIds=newSet(updates.map((u)=>u.id));// ids from the CALLERconstsettled=table.filter((r)=>!touchedIds.has(r.id));// STRICT Set.has
...
constindex=table.findIndex((r)=>r.id==u.id);// LOOSE ==

IDataDriver.bulkUpdate declares id: string | number, so a caller may legitimately pass an id whose JS type differs from the stored row's. When that happens:

  • touchedIds.has(r.id) is false (strict), so the row stays in settled carrying its pre-image;
  • findIndex still resolves it (loose ==), so the row is updated and its post-image enters pending.

The row is therefore represented twice in the projected row set passed to assertUnique — once with the value it is vacating, once with the value it is taking. exceptId only excludes the row currently being checked, so it does not help a sibling row in the same batch.

Failure scenario

  • Table: {id: 1, doc_no: 'D-0001'}, {id: 2, doc_no: 'D-0002'} — numeric ids.
  • Call: bulkUpdate('doc', [{id: '1', data: {doc_no: 'D-0900'}}, {id: 2, data: {doc_no: 'D-0001'}}]) — first id a string.
  • Row 1 vacates D-0001; row 2 takes it. This must succeed.
  • Actual: row 1's stale pre-image sits in settled still holding D-0001, so row 2's check sees a collision and throws a false UNIQUE_VIOLATION / 409.

Why the sibling door does not have it

updateMany (#13197) performs the same check-then-mutate discipline without the gap, because both its comparisons agree by construction:

consttargetIds=newSet(targetRecords.map((r)=>r.id));// ids from TABLE ROWSconstsettled=table.filter((r)=>!targetIds.has(r.id));constindex=table.findIndex(r=>r.id===record.id);// STRICT ===

Its ids originate from the table itself, so strict membership is correct there. #13875 generalized the discipline (check everything before writing anything) to per-row patches, but not that internal consistency.

Regression, not pre-existing

The pre-#13875 shape was Promise.all(updates.map(u => this.update(object, u.id, u.data, options))). It had no settled set at all — each update() did its own loose lookup against the live table — so it could not false-refuse this way. The false-refusal path is new.

Direction

Derive settled from the same resolution the write uses: resolve each update to its table index first (as #13875's own bulkDelete already does), then build the touched set from the resolved rows' own ids (table[index].id) rather than from caller input.

⛔ Not by tightening findIndex to ===. That would silently narrow which ids resolve at all — a behaviour change well beyond this defect — and update() itself (line ~525) uses ==, so this door must keep matching its sibling's resolution semantics.

Also to check

  • Whether bulkDelete in the same PR has the analogous gap. It resolves indices with the same loose findIndex into a Set<number> of indices; reason it through rather than assuming symmetry either way.
  • Whether assertNoUniqueViolation's exceptId filtering is strict or loose, which interacts with the same question.

A regression test using mixed id types, plus a positive control with consistent id types, is required — the existing suite uses string ids throughout, which is why this passed 36/36.

Refs: #13875 (introduced it) · #13435 (the card it closed) · #13197 (the sibling door that does it right)

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

bugSomething isn't workingdomain:enginepm:dispatchedpriority:p2Medium: important, M3

Type

No type

Projects

No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions

    , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { // Add copy buttons to all 
     blocks
(function() {
function addCopyButtons() {
document.querySelectorAll('pre code').forEach(function(codeBlock) {
if (codeBlock.parentElement.hasAttribute('data-copy-added')) return;
codeBlock.parentElement.setAttribute('data-copy-added', 'true');
var btn = document.createElement('button');
btn.textContent = 'Copy';
btn.style.cssText = 'position:absolute;top:4px;right:4px;padding:2px 8px;font-size:11px;background:#4ecdc4;border:none;border-radius:4px;color:#1a1a2e;cursor:pointer;opacity:0.7;transition:opacity 0.2s;';
btn.onmouseover = function() { this.style.opacity = '1'; };
btn.onmouseout = function() { this.style.opacity = '0.7'; };
btn.onclick = function() {
navigator.clipboard.writeText(codeBlock.textContent).then(function() {
btn.textContent = 'Copied!';
setTimeout(function() { btn.textContent = 'Copy'; }, 1500);
});
};
codeBlock.parentElement.style.position = 'relative';
codeBlock.parentElement.appendChild(btn);
});
}
addCopyButtons();
// Re-run on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(addCopyButtons);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "github.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "github\\.com" + '

    Skip to content
    driver-memory bulkUpdate: strict touchedIds.has vs loose findIndex == — a mixed id-type batch false-refuses with UNIQUE_VIOLATION #13911
    Closed
    #13917
    Closed
    driver-memory bulkUpdate: strict touchedIds.has vs loose findIndex == — a mixed id-type batch false-refuses with UNIQUE_VIOLATION#13911
    #13917
    Assignees
    zhuangjianguo
    Labels
    bugSomething isn't workingdomain:enginepm:dispatchedpriority:p2Medium: important, M3
    Description
    @zhuangjianguo
    zhuangjianguo
    opened on Aug 31, 2026
    Introduced by #13875 (issue #13435), which landed at 4642f4c64c. Found in PM review before the merge, but the PR was already in the merge queue and landed anyway — disabling auto-merge does not dequeue an already-enqueued PR.
    The defect
    In InMemoryDriver.bulkUpdate (packages/drivers/driver-memory/src/memory-driver.ts, lines ~910–917 on main), two lookups over the same ids disagree:
    consttouchedIds=newSet(updates.map((u)=>u.id));// ids from the CALLERconstsettled=table.filter((r)=>!touchedIds.has(r.id));// STRICT Set.has
...
constindex=table.findIndex((r)=>r.id==u.id);// LOOSE ==
    IDataDriver.bulkUpdate declares id: string | number, so a caller may legitimately pass an id whose JS type differs from the stored row's. When that happens:
    • touchedIds.has(r.id) is false (strict), so the row stays in settled carrying its pre-image;
    • findIndex still resolves it (loose ==), so the row is updated and its post-image enters pending.
    The row is therefore represented twice in the projected row set passed to assertUnique — once with the value it is vacating, once with the value it is taking. exceptId only excludes the row currently being checked, so it does not help a sibling row in the same batch.
    Failure scenario
    • Table: {id: 1, doc_no: 'D-0001'}, {id: 2, doc_no: 'D-0002'} — numeric ids.
    • Call: bulkUpdate('doc', [{id: '1', data: {doc_no: 'D-0900'}}, {id: 2, data: {doc_no: 'D-0001'}}]) — first id a string.
    • Row 1 vacates D-0001; row 2 takes it. This must succeed.
    • Actual: row 1's stale pre-image sits in settled still holding D-0001, so row 2's check sees a collision and throws a false UNIQUE_VIOLATION / 409.
    Why the sibling door does not have it
    updateMany (#13197) performs the same check-then-mutate discipline without the gap, because both its comparisons agree by construction:
    consttargetIds=newSet(targetRecords.map((r)=>r.id));// ids from TABLE ROWSconstsettled=table.filter((r)=>!targetIds.has(r.id));constindex=table.findIndex(r=>r.id===record.id);// STRICT ===
    Its ids originate from the table itself, so strict membership is correct there. #13875 generalized the discipline (check everything before writing anything) to per-row patches, but not that internal consistency.
    Regression, not pre-existing
    The pre-#13875 shape was Promise.all(updates.map(u => this.update(object, u.id, u.data, options))). It had no settled set at all — each update() did its own loose lookup against the live table — so it could not false-refuse this way. The false-refusal path is new.
    Direction
    Derive settled from the same resolution the write uses: resolve each update to its table index first (as #13875's own bulkDelete already does), then build the touched set from the resolved rows' own ids (table[index].id) rather than from caller input.
    ⛔ Not by tightening findIndex to ===. That would silently narrow which ids resolve at all — a behaviour change well beyond this defect — and update() itself (line ~525) uses ==, so this door must keep matching its sibling's resolution semantics.
    Also to check
    • Whether bulkDelete in the same PR has the analogous gap. It resolves indices with the same loose findIndex into a Set<number> of indices; reason it through rather than assuming symmetry either way.
    • Whether assertNoUniqueViolation's exceptId filtering is strict or loose, which interacts with the same question.
    A regression test using mixed id types, plus a positive control with consistent id types, is required — the existing suite uses string ids throughout, which is why this passed 36/36.
    Refs: #13875 (introduced it) · #13435 (the card it closed) · #13197 (the sibling door that does it right)
    Metadata
    Metadata
    Assignees
    Labels
    bugSomething isn't workingdomain:enginepm:dispatchedpriority:p2Medium: important, M3
    Type
    No type
    Projects
    No projects
      Milestone
      No milestone
      Relationships
      None yet
      Development
      No branches or pull requests
      Issue actions
      
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Force GitHub README to respect dark mode
(function() {
var style = document.createElement('style');
style.textContent = '
.markdown-body {
color-scheme: dark light;
}
.markdown-body pre { background: #161b22 !important; }
.markdown-body code { background: rgba(110, 118, 129, 0.4) !important; }
.markdown-body table th, .markdown-body table td { border-color: #30363d !important; }
.markdown-body img { background: #0d1117; }
.markdown-body blockquote { border-left-color: #8b949e; }
.markdown-body hr { border-color: #30363d; }
';
document.head.appendChild(style);
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:GitHub Dark Mode README Fix]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

      Skip to content
      driver-memory bulkUpdate: strict touchedIds.has vs loose findIndex == — a mixed id-type batch false-refuses with UNIQUE_VIOLATION #13911
      Closed
      #13917
      Closed
      driver-memory bulkUpdate: strict touchedIds.has vs loose findIndex == — a mixed id-type batch false-refuses with UNIQUE_VIOLATION#13911
      #13917
      Assignees
      zhuangjianguo
      Labels
      bugSomething isn't workingdomain:enginepm:dispatchedpriority:p2Medium: important, M3
      Description
      @zhuangjianguo
      zhuangjianguo
      opened on Aug 31, 2026
      Introduced by #13875 (issue #13435), which landed at 4642f4c64c. Found in PM review before the merge, but the PR was already in the merge queue and landed anyway — disabling auto-merge does not dequeue an already-enqueued PR.
      The defect
      In InMemoryDriver.bulkUpdate (packages/drivers/driver-memory/src/memory-driver.ts, lines ~910–917 on main), two lookups over the same ids disagree:
      consttouchedIds=newSet(updates.map((u)=>u.id));// ids from the CALLERconstsettled=table.filter((r)=>!touchedIds.has(r.id));// STRICT Set.has
...
constindex=table.findIndex((r)=>r.id==u.id);// LOOSE ==
      IDataDriver.bulkUpdate declares id: string | number, so a caller may legitimately pass an id whose JS type differs from the stored row's. When that happens:
      • touchedIds.has(r.id) is false (strict), so the row stays in settled carrying its pre-image;
      • findIndex still resolves it (loose ==), so the row is updated and its post-image enters pending.
      The row is therefore represented twice in the projected row set passed to assertUnique — once with the value it is vacating, once with the value it is taking. exceptId only excludes the row currently being checked, so it does not help a sibling row in the same batch.
      Failure scenario
      • Table: {id: 1, doc_no: 'D-0001'}, {id: 2, doc_no: 'D-0002'} — numeric ids.
      • Call: bulkUpdate('doc', [{id: '1', data: {doc_no: 'D-0900'}}, {id: 2, data: {doc_no: 'D-0001'}}]) — first id a string.
      • Row 1 vacates D-0001; row 2 takes it. This must succeed.
      • Actual: row 1's stale pre-image sits in settled still holding D-0001, so row 2's check sees a collision and throws a false UNIQUE_VIOLATION / 409.
      Why the sibling door does not have it
      updateMany (#13197) performs the same check-then-mutate discipline without the gap, because both its comparisons agree by construction:
      consttargetIds=newSet(targetRecords.map((r)=>r.id));// ids from TABLE ROWSconstsettled=table.filter((r)=>!targetIds.has(r.id));constindex=table.findIndex(r=>r.id===record.id);// STRICT ===
      Its ids originate from the table itself, so strict membership is correct there. #13875 generalized the discipline (check everything before writing anything) to per-row patches, but not that internal consistency.
      Regression, not pre-existing
      The pre-#13875 shape was Promise.all(updates.map(u => this.update(object, u.id, u.data, options))). It had no settled set at all — each update() did its own loose lookup against the live table — so it could not false-refuse this way. The false-refusal path is new.
      Direction
      Derive settled from the same resolution the write uses: resolve each update to its table index first (as #13875's own bulkDelete already does), then build the touched set from the resolved rows' own ids (table[index].id) rather than from caller input.
      ⛔ Not by tightening findIndex to ===. That would silently narrow which ids resolve at all — a behaviour change well beyond this defect — and update() itself (line ~525) uses ==, so this door must keep matching its sibling's resolution semantics.
      Also to check
      • Whether bulkDelete in the same PR has the analogous gap. It resolves indices with the same loose findIndex into a Set<number> of indices; reason it through rather than assuming symmetry either way.
      • Whether assertNoUniqueViolation's exceptId filtering is strict or loose, which interacts with the same question.
      A regression test using mixed id types, plus a positive control with consistent id types, is required — the existing suite uses string ids throughout, which is why this passed 36/36.
      Refs: #13875 (introduced it) · #13435 (the card it closed) · #13197 (the sibling door that does it right)
      Metadata
      Metadata
      Assignees
      Labels
      bugSomething isn't workingdomain:enginepm:dispatchedpriority:p2Medium: important, M3
      Type
      No type
      Projects
      No projects
        Milestone
        No milestone
        Relationships
        None yet
        Development
        No branches or pull requests
        Issue actions
        
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Highlight search terms from Google/DuckDuckGo/Bing referrer
(function() {
var ref = document.referrer;
var terms = [];
if (ref.includes('google.com') || ref.includes('duckduckgo.com') || ref.includes('bing.com')) {
var url = new URL(ref);
var q = url.searchParams.get('q') || url.searchParams.get('p');
if (q) {
terms = q.split(/\s+/).filter(function(t) { return t.length > 2; });
}
}
if (terms.length === 0) return;
var style = document.createElement('style');
style.textContent = '.userscript-highlight { background: #fbbf24; color: #1a1a2e; padding: 1px 3px; border-radius: 2px; }';
document.head.appendChild(style);
function highlight(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 3) { // text node
var text = node.textContent;
var found = false;
terms.forEach(function(term) {
var regex = new RegExp('(' + term.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\]\\]/g, '\\') + ')', 'gi');
if (regex.test(text)) {
found = true;
var frag = document.createDocumentFragment();
var parts = text.split(regex);
parts.forEach(function(part, i) {
if (i % 2 === 0) {
frag.appendChild(document.createTextNode(part));
} else {
var span = document.createElement('span');
span.className = 'userscript-highlight';
span.textContent = part;
frag.appendChild(span);
}
});
node.parentNode.replaceChild(frag, node);
}
});
} else if (node.nodeType === 1 && node.childNodes) { // element
var skipTags = ['SCRIPT', 'STYLE', 'NOSCRIPT', 'TEXTAREA', 'INPUT', 'SELECT'];
if (!skipTags.includes(node.tagName)) {
Array.from(node.childNodes).forEach(highlight);
}
}
}
highlight(document.body);
// Re-highlight on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
mutations.forEach(function(m) {
m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 1 || node.nodeType === 3) highlight(node);
});
});
});
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Highlight Search Terms]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

        Skip to content
        driver-memory bulkUpdate: strict touchedIds.has vs loose findIndex == — a mixed id-type batch false-refuses with UNIQUE_VIOLATION #13911
        Closed
        #13917
        Closed
        driver-memory bulkUpdate: strict touchedIds.has vs loose findIndex == — a mixed id-type batch false-refuses with UNIQUE_VIOLATION#13911
        #13917
        Assignees
        zhuangjianguo
        Labels
        bugSomething isn't workingdomain:enginepm:dispatchedpriority:p2Medium: important, M3
        Description
        @zhuangjianguo
        zhuangjianguo
        opened on Aug 31, 2026
        Introduced by #13875 (issue #13435), which landed at 4642f4c64c. Found in PM review before the merge, but the PR was already in the merge queue and landed anyway — disabling auto-merge does not dequeue an already-enqueued PR.
        The defect
        In InMemoryDriver.bulkUpdate (packages/drivers/driver-memory/src/memory-driver.ts, lines ~910–917 on main), two lookups over the same ids disagree:
        consttouchedIds=newSet(updates.map((u)=>u.id));// ids from the CALLERconstsettled=table.filter((r)=>!touchedIds.has(r.id));// STRICT Set.has
...
constindex=table.findIndex((r)=>r.id==u.id);// LOOSE ==
        IDataDriver.bulkUpdate declares id: string | number, so a caller may legitimately pass an id whose JS type differs from the stored row's. When that happens:
        • touchedIds.has(r.id) is false (strict), so the row stays in settled carrying its pre-image;
        • findIndex still resolves it (loose ==), so the row is updated and its post-image enters pending.
        The row is therefore represented twice in the projected row set passed to assertUnique — once with the value it is vacating, once with the value it is taking. exceptId only excludes the row currently being checked, so it does not help a sibling row in the same batch.
        Failure scenario
        • Table: {id: 1, doc_no: 'D-0001'}, {id: 2, doc_no: 'D-0002'} — numeric ids.
        • Call: bulkUpdate('doc', [{id: '1', data: {doc_no: 'D-0900'}}, {id: 2, data: {doc_no: 'D-0001'}}]) — first id a string.
        • Row 1 vacates D-0001; row 2 takes it. This must succeed.
        • Actual: row 1's stale pre-image sits in settled still holding D-0001, so row 2's check sees a collision and throws a false UNIQUE_VIOLATION / 409.
        Why the sibling door does not have it
        updateMany (#13197) performs the same check-then-mutate discipline without the gap, because both its comparisons agree by construction:
        consttargetIds=newSet(targetRecords.map((r)=>r.id));// ids from TABLE ROWSconstsettled=table.filter((r)=>!targetIds.has(r.id));constindex=table.findIndex(r=>r.id===record.id);// STRICT ===
        Its ids originate from the table itself, so strict membership is correct there. #13875 generalized the discipline (check everything before writing anything) to per-row patches, but not that internal consistency.
        Regression, not pre-existing
        The pre-#13875 shape was Promise.all(updates.map(u => this.update(object, u.id, u.data, options))). It had no settled set at all — each update() did its own loose lookup against the live table — so it could not false-refuse this way. The false-refusal path is new.
        Direction
        Derive settled from the same resolution the write uses: resolve each update to its table index first (as #13875's own bulkDelete already does), then build the touched set from the resolved rows' own ids (table[index].id) rather than from caller input.
        ⛔ Not by tightening findIndex to ===. That would silently narrow which ids resolve at all — a behaviour change well beyond this defect — and update() itself (line ~525) uses ==, so this door must keep matching its sibling's resolution semantics.
        Also to check
        • Whether bulkDelete in the same PR has the analogous gap. It resolves indices with the same loose findIndex into a Set<number> of indices; reason it through rather than assuming symmetry either way.
        • Whether assertNoUniqueViolation's exceptId filtering is strict or loose, which interacts with the same question.
        A regression test using mixed id types, plus a positive control with consistent id types, is required — the existing suite uses string ids throughout, which is why this passed 36/36.
        Refs: #13875 (introduced it) · #13435 (the card it closed) · #13197 (the sibling door that does it right)
        Metadata
        Metadata
        Assignees
        Labels
        bugSomething isn't workingdomain:enginepm:dispatchedpriority:p2Medium: important, M3
        Type
        No type
        Projects
        No projects
          Milestone
          No milestone
          Relationships
          None yet
          Development
          No branches or pull requests
          Issue actions
          
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Strip utm_, fbclid, gclid, etc. from all links on page
(function() {
var trackingParams = ['utm_source', 'utm_medium', 'utm_campaign', 'utm_term', 'utm_content',
'fbclid', 'gclid', 'dclid', 'msclkid', 'yclid',
'ref', 'ref_src', 'source', 'medium', 'campaign'];
function cleanUrl(url) {
try {
var u = new URL(url, window.location.origin);
var changed = false;
trackingParams.forEach(function(p) {
if (u.searchParams.has(p)) {
u.searchParams.delete(p);
changed = true;
}
});
return changed ? u.toString() : url;
} catch (e) {
return url;
}
}
function cleanLinks() {
document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {
var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);
if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;
});
}
cleanLinks();
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
mutations.forEach(function(m) {
m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 1) {
if (node.tagName === 'A') cleanLinks();
node.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {
var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);
if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;
});
}
});
});
});
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Remove Tracking Parameters from Links]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "youtube.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "youtube\\.com" + '

          Skip to content
          driver-memory bulkUpdate: strict touchedIds.has vs loose findIndex == — a mixed id-type batch false-refuses with UNIQUE_VIOLATION #13911
          Closed
          #13917
          Closed
          driver-memory bulkUpdate: strict touchedIds.has vs loose findIndex == — a mixed id-type batch false-refuses with UNIQUE_VIOLATION#13911
          #13917
          Assignees
          zhuangjianguo
          Labels
          bugSomething isn't workingdomain:enginepm:dispatchedpriority:p2Medium: important, M3
          Description
          @zhuangjianguo
          zhuangjianguo
          opened on Aug 31, 2026
          Introduced by #13875 (issue #13435), which landed at 4642f4c64c. Found in PM review before the merge, but the PR was already in the merge queue and landed anyway — disabling auto-merge does not dequeue an already-enqueued PR.
          The defect
          In InMemoryDriver.bulkUpdate (packages/drivers/driver-memory/src/memory-driver.ts, lines ~910–917 on main), two lookups over the same ids disagree:
          consttouchedIds=newSet(updates.map((u)=>u.id));// ids from the CALLERconstsettled=table.filter((r)=>!touchedIds.has(r.id));// STRICT Set.has
...
constindex=table.findIndex((r)=>r.id==u.id);// LOOSE ==
          IDataDriver.bulkUpdate declares id: string | number, so a caller may legitimately pass an id whose JS type differs from the stored row's. When that happens:
          • touchedIds.has(r.id) is false (strict), so the row stays in settled carrying its pre-image;
          • findIndex still resolves it (loose ==), so the row is updated and its post-image enters pending.
          The row is therefore represented twice in the projected row set passed to assertUnique — once with the value it is vacating, once with the value it is taking. exceptId only excludes the row currently being checked, so it does not help a sibling row in the same batch.
          Failure scenario
          • Table: {id: 1, doc_no: 'D-0001'}, {id: 2, doc_no: 'D-0002'} — numeric ids.
          • Call: bulkUpdate('doc', [{id: '1', data: {doc_no: 'D-0900'}}, {id: 2, data: {doc_no: 'D-0001'}}]) — first id a string.
          • Row 1 vacates D-0001; row 2 takes it. This must succeed.
          • Actual: row 1's stale pre-image sits in settled still holding D-0001, so row 2's check sees a collision and throws a false UNIQUE_VIOLATION / 409.
          Why the sibling door does not have it
          updateMany (#13197) performs the same check-then-mutate discipline without the gap, because both its comparisons agree by construction:
          consttargetIds=newSet(targetRecords.map((r)=>r.id));// ids from TABLE ROWSconstsettled=table.filter((r)=>!targetIds.has(r.id));constindex=table.findIndex(r=>r.id===record.id);// STRICT ===
          Its ids originate from the table itself, so strict membership is correct there. #13875 generalized the discipline (check everything before writing anything) to per-row patches, but not that internal consistency.
          Regression, not pre-existing
          The pre-#13875 shape was Promise.all(updates.map(u => this.update(object, u.id, u.data, options))). It had no settled set at all — each update() did its own loose lookup against the live table — so it could not false-refuse this way. The false-refusal path is new.
          Direction
          Derive settled from the same resolution the write uses: resolve each update to its table index first (as #13875's own bulkDelete already does), then build the touched set from the resolved rows' own ids (table[index].id) rather than from caller input.
          ⛔ Not by tightening findIndex to ===. That would silently narrow which ids resolve at all — a behaviour change well beyond this defect — and update() itself (line ~525) uses ==, so this door must keep matching its sibling's resolution semantics.
          Also to check
          • Whether bulkDelete in the same PR has the analogous gap. It resolves indices with the same loose findIndex into a Set<number> of indices; reason it through rather than assuming symmetry either way.
          • Whether assertNoUniqueViolation's exceptId filtering is strict or loose, which interacts with the same question.
          A regression test using mixed id types, plus a positive control with consistent id types, is required — the existing suite uses string ids throughout, which is why this passed 36/36.
          Refs: #13875 (introduced it) · #13435 (the card it closed) · #13197 (the sibling door that does it right)
          Metadata
          Metadata
          Assignees
          Labels
          bugSomething isn't workingdomain:enginepm:dispatchedpriority:p2Medium: important, M3
          Type
          No type
          Projects
          No projects
            Milestone
            No milestone
            Relationships
            None yet
            Development
            No branches or pull requests
            Issue actions
            
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Auto-enable theater mode on YouTube
(function() {
function tryTheater() {
var btn = document.querySelector('button[aria-label="Theater mode"], ytd-player #player button[title="Theater mode"]');
if (btn && !btn.classList.contains('activated')) {
btn.click();
}
}
// Try immediately
tryTheater();
// Try after navigation (SPA)
var lastUrl = location.href;
setInterval(function() {
if (location.href !== lastUrl) {
lastUrl = location.href;
setTimeout(tryTheater, 500);
}
}, 1000);
// Also try on player load
var observer = new MutationObserver(tryTheater);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:YouTube Theater Mode Default]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

            Skip to content
            driver-memory bulkUpdate: strict touchedIds.has vs loose findIndex == — a mixed id-type batch false-refuses with UNIQUE_VIOLATION #13911
            Closed
            #13917
            Closed
            driver-memory bulkUpdate: strict touchedIds.has vs loose findIndex == — a mixed id-type batch false-refuses with UNIQUE_VIOLATION#13911
            #13917
            Assignees
            zhuangjianguo
            Labels
            bugSomething isn't workingdomain:enginepm:dispatchedpriority:p2Medium: important, M3
            Description
            @zhuangjianguo
            zhuangjianguo
            opened on Aug 31, 2026
            Introduced by #13875 (issue #13435), which landed at 4642f4c64c. Found in PM review before the merge, but the PR was already in the merge queue and landed anyway — disabling auto-merge does not dequeue an already-enqueued PR.
            The defect
            In InMemoryDriver.bulkUpdate (packages/drivers/driver-memory/src/memory-driver.ts, lines ~910–917 on main), two lookups over the same ids disagree:
            consttouchedIds=newSet(updates.map((u)=>u.id));// ids from the CALLERconstsettled=table.filter((r)=>!touchedIds.has(r.id));// STRICT Set.has
...
constindex=table.findIndex((r)=>r.id==u.id);// LOOSE ==
            IDataDriver.bulkUpdate declares id: string | number, so a caller may legitimately pass an id whose JS type differs from the stored row's. When that happens:
            • touchedIds.has(r.id) is false (strict), so the row stays in settled carrying its pre-image;
            • findIndex still resolves it (loose ==), so the row is updated and its post-image enters pending.
            The row is therefore represented twice in the projected row set passed to assertUnique — once with the value it is vacating, once with the value it is taking. exceptId only excludes the row currently being checked, so it does not help a sibling row in the same batch.
            Failure scenario
            • Table: {id: 1, doc_no: 'D-0001'}, {id: 2, doc_no: 'D-0002'} — numeric ids.
            • Call: bulkUpdate('doc', [{id: '1', data: {doc_no: 'D-0900'}}, {id: 2, data: {doc_no: 'D-0001'}}]) — first id a string.
            • Row 1 vacates D-0001; row 2 takes it. This must succeed.
            • Actual: row 1's stale pre-image sits in settled still holding D-0001, so row 2's check sees a collision and throws a false UNIQUE_VIOLATION / 409.
            Why the sibling door does not have it
            updateMany (#13197) performs the same check-then-mutate discipline without the gap, because both its comparisons agree by construction:
            consttargetIds=newSet(targetRecords.map((r)=>r.id));// ids from TABLE ROWSconstsettled=table.filter((r)=>!targetIds.has(r.id));constindex=table.findIndex(r=>r.id===record.id);// STRICT ===
            Its ids originate from the table itself, so strict membership is correct there. #13875 generalized the discipline (check everything before writing anything) to per-row patches, but not that internal consistency.
            Regression, not pre-existing
            The pre-#13875 shape was Promise.all(updates.map(u => this.update(object, u.id, u.data, options))). It had no settled set at all — each update() did its own loose lookup against the live table — so it could not false-refuse this way. The false-refusal path is new.
            Direction
            Derive settled from the same resolution the write uses: resolve each update to its table index first (as #13875's own bulkDelete already does), then build the touched set from the resolved rows' own ids (table[index].id) rather than from caller input.
            ⛔ Not by tightening findIndex to ===. That would silently narrow which ids resolve at all — a behaviour change well beyond this defect — and update() itself (line ~525) uses ==, so this door must keep matching its sibling's resolution semantics.
            Also to check
            • Whether bulkDelete in the same PR has the analogous gap. It resolves indices with the same loose findIndex into a Set<number> of indices; reason it through rather than assuming symmetry either way.
            • Whether assertNoUniqueViolation's exceptId filtering is strict or loose, which interacts with the same question.
            A regression test using mixed id types, plus a positive control with consistent id types, is required — the existing suite uses string ids throughout, which is why this passed 36/36.
            Refs: #13875 (introduced it) · #13435 (the card it closed) · #13197 (the sibling door that does it right)
            Metadata
            Metadata
            Assignees
            Labels
            bugSomething isn't workingdomain:enginepm:dispatchedpriority:p2Medium: important, M3
            Type
            No type
            Projects
            No projects
              Milestone
              No milestone
              Relationships
              None yet
              Development
              No branches or pull requests
              Issue actions
              
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Remove or un-stick sticky/fixed headers that block content
(function() {
function unstick() {
document.querySelectorAll('header, nav, [role="banner"], .header, .navbar, .sticky, .fixed-top, [style*="position: fixed"], [style*="position:sticky"]').forEach(function(el) {
if (el.style.position === 'fixed' || el.style.position === 'sticky' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'fixed' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'sticky') {
el.style.position = 'static';
el.style.top = 'auto';
el.style.zIndex = 'auto';
}
});
}
unstick();
var observer = new MutationObserver(unstick);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true, attributes: true, attributeFilter: ['style', 'class'] });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Kill Sticky Headers]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

              Skip to content
              driver-memory bulkUpdate: strict touchedIds.has vs loose findIndex == — a mixed id-type batch false-refuses with UNIQUE_VIOLATION #13911
              Closed
              #13917
              Closed
              driver-memory bulkUpdate: strict touchedIds.has vs loose findIndex == — a mixed id-type batch false-refuses with UNIQUE_VIOLATION#13911
              #13917
              Assignees
              zhuangjianguo
              Labels
              bugSomething isn't workingdomain:enginepm:dispatchedpriority:p2Medium: important, M3
              Description
              @zhuangjianguo
              zhuangjianguo
              opened on Aug 31, 2026
              Introduced by #13875 (issue #13435), which landed at 4642f4c64c. Found in PM review before the merge, but the PR was already in the merge queue and landed anyway — disabling auto-merge does not dequeue an already-enqueued PR.
              The defect
              In InMemoryDriver.bulkUpdate (packages/drivers/driver-memory/src/memory-driver.ts, lines ~910–917 on main), two lookups over the same ids disagree:
              consttouchedIds=newSet(updates.map((u)=>u.id));// ids from the CALLERconstsettled=table.filter((r)=>!touchedIds.has(r.id));// STRICT Set.has
...
constindex=table.findIndex((r)=>r.id==u.id);// LOOSE ==
              IDataDriver.bulkUpdate declares id: string | number, so a caller may legitimately pass an id whose JS type differs from the stored row's. When that happens:
              • touchedIds.has(r.id) is false (strict), so the row stays in settled carrying its pre-image;
              • findIndex still resolves it (loose ==), so the row is updated and its post-image enters pending.
              The row is therefore represented twice in the projected row set passed to assertUnique — once with the value it is vacating, once with the value it is taking. exceptId only excludes the row currently being checked, so it does not help a sibling row in the same batch.
              Failure scenario
              • Table: {id: 1, doc_no: 'D-0001'}, {id: 2, doc_no: 'D-0002'} — numeric ids.
              • Call: bulkUpdate('doc', [{id: '1', data: {doc_no: 'D-0900'}}, {id: 2, data: {doc_no: 'D-0001'}}]) — first id a string.
              • Row 1 vacates D-0001; row 2 takes it. This must succeed.
              • Actual: row 1's stale pre-image sits in settled still holding D-0001, so row 2's check sees a collision and throws a false UNIQUE_VIOLATION / 409.
              Why the sibling door does not have it
              updateMany (#13197) performs the same check-then-mutate discipline without the gap, because both its comparisons agree by construction:
              consttargetIds=newSet(targetRecords.map((r)=>r.id));// ids from TABLE ROWSconstsettled=table.filter((r)=>!targetIds.has(r.id));constindex=table.findIndex(r=>r.id===record.id);// STRICT ===
              Its ids originate from the table itself, so strict membership is correct there. #13875 generalized the discipline (check everything before writing anything) to per-row patches, but not that internal consistency.
              Regression, not pre-existing
              The pre-#13875 shape was Promise.all(updates.map(u => this.update(object, u.id, u.data, options))). It had no settled set at all — each update() did its own loose lookup against the live table — so it could not false-refuse this way. The false-refusal path is new.
              Direction
              Derive settled from the same resolution the write uses: resolve each update to its table index first (as #13875's own bulkDelete already does), then build the touched set from the resolved rows' own ids (table[index].id) rather than from caller input.
              ⛔ Not by tightening findIndex to ===. That would silently narrow which ids resolve at all — a behaviour change well beyond this defect — and update() itself (line ~525) uses ==, so this door must keep matching its sibling's resolution semantics.
              Also to check
              • Whether bulkDelete in the same PR has the analogous gap. It resolves indices with the same loose findIndex into a Set<number> of indices; reason it through rather than assuming symmetry either way.
              • Whether assertNoUniqueViolation's exceptId filtering is strict or loose, which interacts with the same question.
              A regression test using mixed id types, plus a positive control with consistent id types, is required — the existing suite uses string ids throughout, which is why this passed 36/36.
              Refs: #13875 (introduced it) · #13435 (the card it closed) · #13197 (the sibling door that does it right)
              Metadata
              Metadata
              Assignees
              Labels
              bugSomething isn't workingdomain:enginepm:dispatchedpriority:p2Medium: important, M3
              Type
              No type
              Projects
              No projects
                Milestone
                No milestone
                Relationships
                None yet
                Development
                No branches or pull requests
                Issue actions
                
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Universal Dark Mode - works on any site
(function() {
var enabled = true;
function applyDarkMode() {
if (!enabled) return;
// Create style element if it doesn't exist
var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');
if (!style) {
style = document.createElement('style');
style.id = 'universal-dark-mode-style';
document.head.appendChild(style);
}
// Dark mode CSS - inverts colors but preserves images/video
style.textContent = '
/* Invert everything except media */
html {
filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;
background: #1a1a2e !important;
}
/* Restore images, videos, iframes, canvas */
img, video, iframe, canvas, svg, picture, [style*="background-image"] {
filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;
}
/* Preserve specific elements that should not be inverted */
.no-dark-mode, .no-dark-mode *,
[data-theme="light"], [data-theme="light"],
.ace_editor, .ace_editor *,
.CodeMirror, .CodeMirror *,
.monaco-editor, .monaco-editor *,
.markdown-body pre, .markdown-body pre *,
.highlight, .highlight *,
pre code, pre code * {
filter: none !important;
}
/* Fix common UI elements */
.modal, .popup, .dropdown-menu, .tooltip, .popover {
filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;
background: #2d2d44 !important;
border-color: #444 !important;
}
/* Scrollbars */
::-webkit-scrollbar { background: #1a1a2e !important; }
::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb { background: #444 !important; }
::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb:hover { background: #555 !important; }
/* Selection */
::selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }
::-moz-selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }
';
}
function removeDarkMode() {
var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');
if (style) style.remove();
}
// Toggle with Alt+Shift+D
document.addEventListener('keydown', function(e) {
if (e.altKey && e.shiftKey && e.key === 'D') {
e.preventDefault();
enabled = !enabled;
if (enabled) {
applyDarkMode();
console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Enabled');
} else {
removeDarkMode();
console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Disabled');
}
}
});
// Apply on load
applyDarkMode();
// Re-apply on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
if (enabled && !document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style')) {
applyDarkMode();
}
});
observer.observe(document.head, { childList: true });
console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Loaded - Press Alt+Shift+D to toggle');
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Universal Dark Mode]', __e); }
})();
})();

                Skip to content
                driver-memory bulkUpdate: strict touchedIds.has vs loose findIndex == — a mixed id-type batch false-refuses with UNIQUE_VIOLATION #13911
                Closed
                #13917
                Closed
                driver-memory bulkUpdate: strict touchedIds.has vs loose findIndex == — a mixed id-type batch false-refuses with UNIQUE_VIOLATION#13911
                #13917
                Assignees
                zhuangjianguo
                Labels
                bugSomething isn't workingdomain:enginepm:dispatchedpriority:p2Medium: important, M3
                Description
                @zhuangjianguo
                zhuangjianguo
                opened on Aug 31, 2026
                Introduced by #13875 (issue #13435), which landed at 4642f4c64c. Found in PM review before the merge, but the PR was already in the merge queue and landed anyway — disabling auto-merge does not dequeue an already-enqueued PR.
                The defect
                In InMemoryDriver.bulkUpdate (packages/drivers/driver-memory/src/memory-driver.ts, lines ~910–917 on main), two lookups over the same ids disagree:
                consttouchedIds=newSet(updates.map((u)=>u.id));// ids from the CALLERconstsettled=table.filter((r)=>!touchedIds.has(r.id));// STRICT Set.has
...
constindex=table.findIndex((r)=>r.id==u.id);// LOOSE ==
                IDataDriver.bulkUpdate declares id: string | number, so a caller may legitimately pass an id whose JS type differs from the stored row's. When that happens:
                • touchedIds.has(r.id) is false (strict), so the row stays in settled carrying its pre-image;
                • findIndex still resolves it (loose ==), so the row is updated and its post-image enters pending.
                The row is therefore represented twice in the projected row set passed to assertUnique — once with the value it is vacating, once with the value it is taking. exceptId only excludes the row currently being checked, so it does not help a sibling row in the same batch.
                Failure scenario
                • Table: {id: 1, doc_no: 'D-0001'}, {id: 2, doc_no: 'D-0002'} — numeric ids.
                • Call: bulkUpdate('doc', [{id: '1', data: {doc_no: 'D-0900'}}, {id: 2, data: {doc_no: 'D-0001'}}]) — first id a string.
                • Row 1 vacates D-0001; row 2 takes it. This must succeed.
                • Actual: row 1's stale pre-image sits in settled still holding D-0001, so row 2's check sees a collision and throws a false UNIQUE_VIOLATION / 409.
                Why the sibling door does not have it
                updateMany (#13197) performs the same check-then-mutate discipline without the gap, because both its comparisons agree by construction:
                consttargetIds=newSet(targetRecords.map((r)=>r.id));// ids from TABLE ROWSconstsettled=table.filter((r)=>!targetIds.has(r.id));constindex=table.findIndex(r=>r.id===record.id);// STRICT ===
                Its ids originate from the table itself, so strict membership is correct there. #13875 generalized the discipline (check everything before writing anything) to per-row patches, but not that internal consistency.
                Regression, not pre-existing
                The pre-#13875 shape was Promise.all(updates.map(u => this.update(object, u.id, u.data, options))). It had no settled set at all — each update() did its own loose lookup against the live table — so it could not false-refuse this way. The false-refusal path is new.
                Direction
                Derive settled from the same resolution the write uses: resolve each update to its table index first (as #13875's own bulkDelete already does), then build the touched set from the resolved rows' own ids (table[index].id) rather than from caller input.
                ⛔ Not by tightening findIndex to ===. That would silently narrow which ids resolve at all — a behaviour change well beyond this defect — and update() itself (line ~525) uses ==, so this door must keep matching its sibling's resolution semantics.
                Also to check
                • Whether bulkDelete in the same PR has the analogous gap. It resolves indices with the same loose findIndex into a Set<number> of indices; reason it through rather than assuming symmetry either way.
                • Whether assertNoUniqueViolation's exceptId filtering is strict or loose, which interacts with the same question.
                A regression test using mixed id types, plus a positive control with consistent id types, is required — the existing suite uses string ids throughout, which is why this passed 36/36.
                Refs: #13875 (introduced it) · #13435 (the card it closed) · #13197 (the sibling door that does it right)
                Metadata
                Metadata
                Assignees
                Labels
                bugSomething isn't workingdomain:enginepm:dispatchedpriority:p2Medium: important, M3
                Type
                No type
                Projects
                No projects
                  Milestone
                  No milestone
                  Relationships
                  None yet
                  Development
                  No branches or pull requests
                  Issue actions