| Filename | Latest commit message | Latest commit date |
|---|---|---|
d14f583d92
The repository tracks the latest stable Rust, pinned at the root. A
`rust-version` key states a *floor* -- the oldest toolchain a crate supports --
which is a different promise, and one this repository does not make. It also
said 1.97 while the pin was 1.98.0 and nothing verified it, so it was a claim in
the wrong direction and unchecked in both.
So it goes, everywhere:
59 rust-version = "1.97" (workspace and package declarations)
417 rust-version.workspace = true (members inheriting them)
476 files, 476 deletions, 0 insertions
The 417 are why this is not the sixty-file change it looks like from a grep for
the value. A member inheriting a key that no longer exists does not fall back to
a default -- its manifest stops resolving. Removing the declarations without the
inherits would have broken every workspace that has members.
Deliberately untouched: `joule-code-rs/vendor/wtransport/Cargo.toml`. That is a
vendored third-party crate declaring a floor about itself, not about us, and our
pin is above it. Editing vendored source to satisfy our own policy would make
the copy diverge from upstream for no benefit.
Verified rather than assumed:
- all 493 `Cargo.toml` files in the tree parse (`tomllib`)
- `cargo metadata --no-deps --locked` resolves on `joule-code-rs`, `wai-rs`,
`openpay`, `mesh-rs`, `sandbox-rs` and `jcp-rs` -- the check that actually
exercises workspace inheritance, which a TOML parse does not
- no `Cargo.lock` changed; `rust-version` is not lockfile state
`wai/wai-verify/Cargo.toml` already carried a comment saying it omits
`rust-version` on purpose, so this makes the rest of the tree agree with the one
crate that had already decided.
What this gives up, stated plainly: cargo can no longer greet an older
toolchain with "requires rustc 1.97" and will instead fail wherever the code
first needs something newer. That is the cost of not maintaining a floor, and
it is the right cost when the floor was fiction.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <[email protected]>
|
||
| .. | ||
| src | ||
| Cargo.toml | ||
| README.md | ||
jouleclaw-sandbox-tier
Scope: In-process closure isolation for cascade Tier
wrappers. TierIsolation::run_with(grants, label, body) runs a
Rust closure under capability grants + emits a sandbox
attestation alongside the cascade Answer.
Relation to jouleclaw-sandbox-protocol
These two crates coexist because they operate at different layers:
| Crate | Layer | Surface |
|---|---|---|
jouleclaw-sandbox-protocol |
Subprocess lifecycle | async SandboxRuntime: create / start / exec(argv, stdin) / kill / destroy. Implementations: Docker, K8s, gVisor, Firecracker, OpenSandbox. |
jouleclaw-sandbox-tier (this crate) |
In-process closure wrap | sync TierIsolation: run_with<F: FnOnce() -> T>(grants, label, body). Implementations: PassthroughRuntime reference. |
The wave-56 trait was originally named SandboxRuntime —
renamed to TierIsolation to avoid the conceptual collision
with the protocol crate's trait of the same name.
When to use which
jouleclaw-sandbox-protocol— you have a binary or argv-shaped workload that must run in a real container / microVM. Backends marshall the args across the process boundary.jouleclaw-sandbox-tier(this crate) — you have a cascadeTierimpl that runs in-process Rust code; you want to record what device-class grants it ran under + emit a typed [SandboxAttestation] for the receipt.
Neither replaces the other. A production stack typically uses
both: the cascade walks tiers (some TierIsolation-wrapped),
and tools the agent invokes that need subprocess execution go
through jouleclaw-sandbox-protocol.
What ships
TierIsolationtrait +Sandboxed<T: Tier, R: TierIsolation>wrapperPassthroughRuntimereference implSandboxGrants{ device_classes, joule_budget_uj, timeout }SandboxAttestation{ receipt_id, tier, used_devices, joules_uj, outcome, content_hash }- All tests pass.