- Dev mode assumed no persistence of services although proxy state is persisted which caused proxies to be killed on startup as their services were no longer registered. Fixed.
- Didn't snapshot the ProxyID which meant that proxies were adopted OK from snapshot but failed to restart if they died since there was no proxyID in the ENV on restart
- Dev mode with no persistence just kills all proxies on shutdown since it can't recover them later
- Naming things
This turns out to have a lot more subtelty than we accounted for. The test suite is especially prone to races now we can only poll the child and many extra levels of indirectoin are needed to correctly run daemon process without it becoming a Zombie.
I ran this test suite in a loop with parallel enabled to verify for races (-race doesn't find any as they are logical inter-process ones not actual data races). I made it through ~50 runs before hitting an error due to timing which is much better than before. I want to go back and see if we can do better though. Just getting this up.
- Includes some bug fixes for previous `api` work and `agent` that weren't tested
- Needed somewhat pervasive changes to support hash based blocking - some TODOs left in our watch toolchain that will explicitly fail on hash-based watches.
- Integration into `connect` is partially done here but still WIP
This has an explcit unit test already which somehow passes at least some of the time. I suspect it passes because under some conditions the actual KV delete fails and returns non-zero as well as printing the warning which is what is being checked for in the test.
For some reason despite working for quite some time like this, I now have a branch in which this test fails consistently. It may be a timing/env issue where another process running an agent causes the delete to be successful so the command returns a 0 by chance. Either way this is clearly wrong and fixing it stops the test being flaky in my branch.
Calling twice appears to have no adverse effects, however serves to
confuse as to what the semantics of such code may be! This seems like it
was probably introduced while resolving conflicts during the merge of
the fix for #2404.
