[digit50]

Motivation & Context

closes #9473

RunnerImpl.run_until_convergence discards pending state in the finally of every superstep that did not commit, but the State object is shared by every run on a Workflow. If a stream is dropped mid superstep and a new run starts before the old generator is finalized, the late discard() removes the new run's staged writes. The new run still ends IDLE with its outputs, so the write is lost silently.

Description & Review Guide

• What are the major changes? The runner records a token for the superstep it is running and the finally only calls discard() when the finishing superstep still owns that token. Cancelling the iteration and event tasks is unchanged. This mirrors how owns_run in Workflow._run_core keeps a stale finalizer from clearing a successor's run lock and runtime storage.
• What is the impact of these changes? A failed or cancelled superstep still discards its own pending writes. A superstep from a dropped run that is finalized after a newer superstep has started no longer touches the newer run's writes. A new run also discards any pending writes left by a dropped run before it commits its own run kwargs, so a half-finished superstep is never committed into the successor run's state.
• What do you want reviewers to focus on? Whether scoping by superstep (rather than by run) is the right granularity for the token.

I added test_workflow_partial_stream_does_not_discard_successor_state_writes next to test_workflow_partial_stream_does_not_clobber_successor_active_run. It drops stream A while its executor has staged a write and is blocked, starts run B, which stages b_key, lets A's deferred finalizer run, then releases B. It checks that B finishes IDLE with its output and that b_key is committed. Without the change the last assertion fails with assert None == 'from-run-B'.

Related Issue

Fixes #9473

Contribution Checklist

• The code builds clean without any errors or warnings
• All unit tests pass, and I have added new tests where possible
• The PR follows the Contribution Guidelines
• This PR links to an agreed issue with no competing open PR, or the Related Issue section documents a trivial-change or repository-automation exception.
• This is not a breaking change. If it is a breaking change, add the breaking change label (or add "[BREAKING]" to the title prefix, before or after any language prefix).

[Copilot]

🟡 Changes recommended

Ownership transfers too late to protect successor entry-checkpoint snapshots from stale cleanup.

1 open issue

• Transfer checkpoint ownership before successor preparation · New

What changed in this PR

Addresses #9473 by guarding shared workflow state against cleanup from a dropped stream.

Changes:

• Adds a superstep ownership token to guard pending-state discard.
• Adds regression coverage for preserving a successor run’s state writes.

File	Description
python/​packages/​core/​tests/​workflow/​test_workflow.py	Tests successor state preservation after deferred stream cleanup.
python/​packages/​core/​agent_framework/​_workflows/​_runner.py	Restricts discard to the owning superstep.

_{Review effort: Balanced}

[digit50]

You are right: the successor's entry checkpoint stages executor snapshots before its first superstep takes ownership, so the dropped run's finalizer could discard them while a save hook was suspended, and the entry checkpoint then held the previous run's snapshot. The new commit has checkpoint preparation take ownership of pending writes before it calls the executors' save hooks, so a stale finalizer no longer matches and leaves them alone. The test test_workflow_partial_stream_does_not_discard_successor_entry_checkpoint_snapshots drops a stream mid-superstep, suspends the second executor's on_checkpoint_save during the next run's entry checkpoint while the stale finalizer runs, and asserts the entry checkpoint stores the new writer snapshot.

[digit50]

digit50 please read the following Contributor License Agreement(CLA). If you agree with the CLA, please reply with the following information.

@microsoft-github-policy-service agree [company="{your company}"]

Options:

• (default - no company specified) I have sole ownership of intellectual property rights to my Submissions and I am not making Submissions in the course of work for my employer.

@microsoft-github-policy-service agree

• (when company given) I am making Submissions in the course of work for my employer (or my employer has intellectual property rights in my Submissions by contract or applicable law). I have permission from my employer to make Submissions and enter into this Agreement on behalf of my employer. By signing below, the defined term “You” includes me and my employer.

@microsoft-github-policy-service agree company="Microsoft"

Contributor License Agreement

Contribution License Agreement

This Contribution License Agreement (“Agreement”) is agreed to by the party signing below (“You”),
and conveys certain license rights to Microsoft Corporation and its affiliates (“Microsoft”) for Your
contributions to Microsoft open source projects. This Agreement is effective as of the latest signature
date below.

1. Definitions.
   “Code” means the computer software code, whether in human-readable or machine-executable form,
   that is delivered by You to Microsoft under this Agreement.
   “Project” means any of the projects owned or managed by Microsoft and offered under a license
   approved by the Open Source Initiative (www.opensource.org).
   “Submit” is the act of uploading, submitting, transmitting, or distributing code or other content to any
   Project, including but not limited to communication on electronic mailing lists, source code control
   systems, and issue tracking systems that are managed by, or on behalf of, the Project for the purpose of
   discussing and improving that Project, but excluding communication that is conspicuously marked or
   otherwise designated in writing by You as “Not a Submission.”
   “Submission” means the Code and any other copyrightable material Submitted by You, including any
   associated comments and documentation.
2. Your Submission. You must agree to the terms of this Agreement before making a Submission to any
   Project. This Agreement covers any and all Submissions that You, now or in the future (except as
   described in Section 4 below), Submit to any Project.
3. Originality of Work. You represent that each of Your Submissions is entirely Your original work.
   Should You wish to Submit materials that are not Your original work, You may Submit them separately
   to the Project if You (a) retain all copyright and license information that was in the materials as You
   received them, (b) in the description accompanying Your Submission, include the phrase “Submission
   containing materials of a third party:” followed by the names of the third party and any licenses or other
   restrictions of which You are aware, and (c) follow any other instructions in the Project’s written
   guidelines concerning Submissions.
4. Your Employer. References to “employer” in this Agreement include Your employer or anyone else
   for whom You are acting in making Your Submission, e.g. as a contractor, vendor, or agent. If Your
   Submission is made in the course of Your work for an employer or Your employer has intellectual
   property rights in Your Submission by contract or applicable law, You must secure permission from Your
   employer to make the Submission before signing this Agreement. In that case, the term “You” in this
   Agreement will refer to You and the employer collectively. If You change employers in the future and
   desire to Submit additional Submissions for the new employer, then You agree to sign a new Agreement
   and secure permission from the new employer before Submitting those Submissions.
5. Licenses.

• Copyright License. You grant Microsoft, and those who receive the Submission directly or
  indirectly from Microsoft, a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, irrevocable license in the
  Submission to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, and distribute
  the Submission and such derivative works, and to sublicense any or all of the foregoing rights to third
  parties.
• Patent License. You grant Microsoft, and those who receive the Submission directly or
  indirectly from Microsoft, a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, irrevocable license under
  Your patent claims that are necessarily infringed by the Submission or the combination of the
  Submission with the Project to which it was Submitted to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell and
  import or otherwise dispose of the Submission alone or with the Project.
• Other Rights Reserved. Each party reserves all rights not expressly granted in this Agreement.
  No additional licenses or rights whatsoever (including, without limitation, any implied licenses) are
  granted by implication, exhaustion, estoppel or otherwise.

6. Representations and Warranties. You represent that You are legally entitled to grant the above
   licenses. You represent that each of Your Submissions is entirely Your original work (except as You may
   have disclosed under Section 3). You represent that You have secured permission from Your employer to
   make the Submission in cases where Your Submission is made in the course of Your work for Your
   employer or Your employer has intellectual property rights in Your Submission by contract or applicable
   law. If You are signing this Agreement on behalf of Your employer, You represent and warrant that You
   have the necessary authority to bind the listed employer to the obligations contained in this Agreement.
   You are not expected to provide support for Your Submission, unless You choose to do so. UNLESS
   REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING, AND EXCEPT FOR THE WARRANTIES
   EXPRESSLY STATED IN SECTIONS 3, 4, AND 6, THE SUBMISSION PROVIDED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT IS
   PROVIDED WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTY OF
   NONINFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
7. Notice to Microsoft. You agree to notify Microsoft in writing of any facts or circumstances of which
   You later become aware that would make Your representations in this Agreement inaccurate in any
   respect.
8. Information about Submissions. You agree that contributions to Projects and information about
   contributions may be maintained indefinitely and disclosed publicly, including Your name and other
   information that You submit with Your Submission.
9. Governing Law/Jurisdiction. This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of Washington, and
   the parties consent to exclusive jurisdiction and venue in the federal courts sitting in King County,
   Washington, unless no federal subject matter jurisdiction exists, in which case the parties consent to
   exclusive jurisdiction and venue in the Superior Court of King County, Washington. The parties waive all
   defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction and forum non-conveniens.
10. Entire Agreement/Assignment. This Agreement is the entire agreement between the parties, and
    supersedes any and all prior agreements, understandings or communications, written or oral, between
    the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. This Agreement may be assigned by Microsoft.

@microsoft-github-policy-service agree

[Somay kousis (Somay-kousis)]

The token fix works for what it targets: run B's writes are no longer thrown away by A's late finally.

What I ran:

• Your two new tests against main's _runner.py: both fail (assert None == 'from-run-B', assert {'saves': 1} == {'saves': 2}). On your head both pass.

One thing in the same race that the PR doesn't cover, worth considering. The description says a failed or cancelled superstep still discards its own pending writes. In the scenario from your first test, A's write is never discarded. It gets committed when B starts, because _run_core calls self._runner.state.commit() right after setting the run kwargs (_workflow.py:636), and A's uncommitted a_key is still pending at that point. B's executor also reads it during its superstep.

Probe: your first test plus a read of a_key from B's handler and a dump of State at the end:

== your head
B saw a_key during its superstep: from-run-A
committed after B: b_key = from-run-B | a_key = from-run-A
== main
B saw a_key during its superstep: from-run-A
committed after B: b_key = None | a_key = from-run-A

So it's not new, main does it too. But after this PR the dropped run's half-finished superstep ends up committed next to B's writes, which is the opposite of what the description says.

I tried a small change on your branch: discard pending writes at the start of _run_core, before the run kwargs are set and committed:

# Pending writes here can only come from a superstep that never committed
# (e.g. a dropped stream whose finalizer has not run yet); do not commit them below.
self._runner.state.discard()

Results with it: the probe prints B saw a_key ...: None and committed after B: b_key = from-run-B | a_key = None. I'm not sure there is no legitimate case of pending writes at run start that I'm missing, so treat this as a suggestion. If you take it, an assert workflow._runner.state.get("a_key") is None at the end of your first test would cover it.

[digit50]

Good catch, thanks. A dropped run's half-finished superstep is now thrown away when the next run starts, before that run
commits its own setup. Your probe now prints B saw a_key during its superstep: None and
committed after B: b_key = from-run-B | a_key = None.
I checked for a legitimate case of pending writes at run start and found none: they can only come from a superstep or a
checkpoint save that never committed, and checkpoint restores already clear pending writes. The discard sits right
before the run's kwargs commit, so it also covers cancel_pending_requests, which starts a run through the same path.
The dropped-stream test now also asserts state.get("a_key") is None after run B.

[Jose Alvarez (jpalvarezl)]

This discard only removes predecessor writes already pending when B reaches this point. A's finalizer can run later: its cancelled handler may call ctx.set_state() from finally after this discard, and once B has replaced _superstep_token, A's cleanup skips its own discard. B's next superstep commit can then persist A's cleanup write. Please drain or track predecessor finalization, or isolate pending state by run/epoch, and add a regression where A writes state during cancellation after B has started.

[digit50]

Thanks, good catch. Fixed in e92c3f9: pending writes are now scoped per superstep, so the dropped run's cleanup write is ignored. New test: test_workflow_partial_stream_cancellation_write_not_committed_by_successor.

[digit50]

Thanks, good catch. Fixed in e92c3f9: pending writes are now scoped per superstep, so the dropped run's cleanup write is ignored. Regression: test_workflow_partial_stream_cancellation_write_not_committed_by_successor.

[Somay kousis (Somay-kousis)]

Sorry for the late reply. Reran my leak probe on e92c3f9: the dropped run's write no longer shows up, a_key stays None during B's superstep and after it commits, and nothing is left pending. Thanks.

[Eduard van Valkenburg (eavanvalkenburg)]

digit50 Thanks for the contribution. The linked issue #9473 does not currently have ready-for-implementation or explicit maintainer agreement on this implementation direction. Please wait for that direction before we review or merge this PR.

[Eduard van Valkenburg (eavanvalkenburg)]

digit50 Stale contexts can still mutate successor state through other State methods — WorkflowContext.state exposes the shared State object, but epoch checks are only applied to set, delete, and clear. A late cancellation handler from a dropped run can call ctx.state.discard() after the successor has staged writes, clearing those writes; commit() can publish them before the superstep boundary, and import_state() can directly alter committed state. These mutations bypass the ownership guard and let a stale run affect its successor.

[digit50]

Now fixed in 9af013f: commit, discard and import_state get the same stale-epoch check as set, delete and clear, and so does begin_epoch, which a stale handler could otherwise call to make the successor's own writes look stale. Framework callers of these methods all run outside any superstep's bound context, so they are unaffected. Regression: test_workflow_partial_stream_cancellation_state_operation_ignored_for_successor, parametrized over the four methods.