Found by reading the code, not a failing test: no path anywhere
transitioned a queue ticket from PROPOSED back to QUEUED after a
proposal was declined. A stranded PROPOSED ticket is invisible to the
matcher (ListQueuedCandidates only ever reads state='QUEUED'), still
counts as that player's one active ticket (blocking a fresh
queue_create), and is renewable forever by an ordinary heartbeat --
a player proposed a match with someone who then declines had no way
back into matchmaking without realising, on their own, that they
needed to manually cancel first. This affects every participant, not
just the decliner: an uninvolved player who never even responded was
left stuck by someone else's decision.
ProposalDeclineRequeueSQL requeues every participant's ticket,
including the decliner's own -- nothing yet enforces the decline
cooldown task 8.17 documents as a separate, not-yet-built feature, so
leaving anyone behind at PROPOSED today isn't "cooldown behaviour",
it's just broken. Once that cooldown exists it can exempt the
decliner from this immediate requeue; today nothing does.
Covered by a real PostgreSQL integration test: after one player
declines, both the decliner's and an uninvolved participant's tickets
land back at QUEUED with a refreshed expiry, and -- the actual
end-to-end regression -- both are visible again to
ListQueuedCandidates, the same query the matcher itself uses. Clean
across 5 runs, plus the full integration and unit suites.
ProposalParticipantExpireSQL marked every PENDING participant on a
proposal TIMED_OUT unconditionally -- it took a proposal_id and 'now'
but never actually compared 'now' against the proposal's expires_at,
unlike its sibling ProposalExpireSQL (which does gate on
'expires_at <= $2'). Both GetProposal and RespondToProposal run this
statement on every call as a recovery step, so the very first
RespondToProposal for any proposal timed out every participant
(including the one about to respond) before checking their response,
then rejected the real accept/decline with ErrConflict. Add the same
expiry gate via an EXISTS against proposals.expires_at, matching
ProposalExpireSQL's own condition, and update the SQL-fragment test to
assert the gate is present. Verified end to end against a real
PostgreSQL instance: TestPostgreSQLProposalClaimAndResponseAreAtomic
now passes a two-participant accept/accept sequence that previously
failed on the first response.
Josh Creek