Threading a status reader and a patch callback made both call sites long
enough to read as the same code again; handing over the store is one line at
each and says the same thing.
master moved the RPC surface onto the fetch transport, so the two agentPreset
methods arrived there with nothing driving them. Adds the round trip, plus the
two `recompose` edges that had none: an agent that never composed a preset, so
there is nothing to restore, and a restore that fails because the composition
it reaches for is gone — the roster is a live directory.
Marks the deliberate non-Error rejections in the store specs, which is the
branch they exist to cover.
The shared picker's id fallback on both trust levels, the chip refusing an
unrelated settings namespace, a refused `settings.describe`, and a blank
draft that names no source. Drops the picker's `title`, which this layer's
one caller never passes.
The chip renders name and description on two lines with its own icon and
alignment, so it is not the same control as the settings row — the shared
picker carries the row, and the chip keeps its shape.
The settings row and the composer seat differ in where they sit, what they
call the current value, and when they refuse a pick — not in how the picker
behaves. Extracting it also stops the row from reading like the permission
row it has nothing to do with.
Session create and the preset switch can be handed the same two failures, and
a client branching on the code needs them worded identically from either.
Both session upserts write the same eight header columns and differ only in
what they append; the agent_preset column made the pair long enough for the
duplication gate to flag it.
Session create and the preset switch can be handed the same two failures, and
a client branching on the code needs them worded identically from either.
The row and the management section opened `load` the same way — refuse a
concurrent read, mark the store loading, read, fold both refusal shapes into
the store's error. What differs between them starts after that.
The chip and the settings row both spread the same three fields, and
`exactOptionalPropertyTypes` makes the absent-vs-undefined dance verbose
enough that the duplication gate flagged it.
The regression for `PresetTree.write` lived two layers up, so this layer's own
assertion could not fail: it checked the file after an ordinary teardown, and
the Loader's unload listener returns early when the whole tree is being
disposed, so the override never ran. Moves the self-disposing-row test down to
the layer that adds the override, in a temp root so a committed fixture cannot
be damaged by the run that proves the bug.
