Skip to content

help: the sizeless volume default is 10 GiB, the free cap, on every plan - #177

Merged
CarmenDou merged 3 commits into
mainfrom
chore/volume-help-default-10
Sep 5, 2026
Merged

help: the sizeless volume default is 10 GiB, the free cap, on every plan#177
CarmenDou merged 3 commits into
mainfrom
chore/volume-help-default-10

Conversation

@CarmenDou

@CarmenDou CarmenDou commented Sep 4, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

What

Two help strings still describe the sizeless volume default as 1 GiB, and the compute limits / db limits help still says "(paid plans)" although free may set a ceiling within the free cap (insta-platform #224). The platform's default has been the free volume cap, 10Gi, since insta-platform #327, and insta-platform #378 keeps disks at the free cap on every plan (only cpu/memory follow the plan at birth). Text only, no behavior change.

How

--volume <gi> on services add and the compute volume description now say "the default 10 (the free cap, on every plan)". compute limits and db limits say "any plan within the free cap; raising above it needs a paid plan", mirrored in insta-skills #73. Companion to insta-platform #378 and insta-frontend #382 (prefill 1 → 10). The agent-facing command reference (skills/insta/cli-reference.md, AGENTS.md rule 4) is updated in insta-skills #73, together with the stale insta compute limits example in operate.md.

Verify

npm run typecheck and npm test clean (702 tests). insta services add --help shows the new text. Review round: the volume test comment that still called 1 "the default size" is corrected.

`--volume` and `compute volume` still said "default 1"; the platform's
sizeless attach has been the free volume cap (10Gi) since insta-platform
#327, and insta-platform #378 keeps it there on every tier (only cpu/memory
follow the plan at birth). Text only.

@cubic-dev-ai cubic-dev-ai Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No issues found across 1 file

Re-trigger cubic

@jwfing jwfing left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Summary
This updates the two CLI help strings to say the compute volume default/free cap is 10Gi, but the required agent-facing command reference still documents 1Gi.

Requirements Context
I used the PR title/description, the local repo docs, and the current linked command reference. AGENTS.md and CONTRIBUTING.md require command/flag surface changes to be mirrored in skills/insta/cli-reference.md; README also points users to that full command reference. The current reference still says default 1Gi for insta compute volume and the Volumes section: https://github.com/InsForge/insta-skills/blob/main/insta/cli-reference.md#L36 and https://github.com/InsForge/insta-skills/blob/main/insta/cli-reference.md#L155

Findings
Critical:

  • AGENTS.md:15-16, CONTRIBUTING.md:41-42, src/index.ts:139, src/index.ts:246, insta/cli-reference.md:36, insta/cli-reference.md:155 (Software engineering / functionality): this PR changes the command/help surface for compute volumes, but the required agent-facing CLI reference was not updated and still tells agents/users that free plans attach at the default 1Gi. That creates conflicting guidance for the exact behavior this PR is trying to correct and violates the repo’s documented command-surface requirement. Update the reference to the 10Gi/free-cap wording alongside this change.

Suggestion:

  • test/volume.test.ts:38-39 (Software engineering): the test comment still calls 1 “the default size.” It does not affect runtime behavior, but it should be updated so the tests do not preserve the old assumption for future maintainers.

Information:

  • src/commands/services.ts:93-100, src/commands/compute.ts:684-689 (Functionality): no runtime regression found; volume sizes are still parsed/forwarded and backend paid/cap gates remain authoritative.
  • src/index.ts:139, src/index.ts:246-249 (Security): no security-relevant changes; this only changes static help strings.
  • src/index.ts:139, src/index.ts:246-249 (Performance): no performance-relevant changes; no runtime loop, I/O, allocation, or query behavior changed.
  • package.json:35-40 (Verification): attempted npm run typecheck && npm test, but npm run typecheck failed immediately with sh: tsc: not found, so tests did not run locally. The worktree remained clean.

Verdict
Request changes due to the missing required CLI reference update.

Comment only. The agent-facing command reference is updated in the companion
insta-skills PR, as AGENTS.md rule 4 requires.

@jwfing jwfing left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Summary
This is a scoped text-only update that matches the PR’s stated intent, with no blocking findings.

Requirements Context
I based the intent on the PR title/description, local repo notes, and docs. README.md says insta --help is authoritative for commands and links the full command reference; .claude/skills/developing-insta-cli/SKILL.md identifies src/index.ts as the Commander command surface and says command/flag docs should be mirrored in insta-skills. I also checked the public companion docs PR, InsForge/insta-skills#73, which states the 10Gi free-cap default; the linked platform/frontend PRs returned 404 in this environment, so I treated those as PR-description context only.

Findings

Critical
(none)

Suggestion
(none)

Information

  • Software engineering: The changes follow the existing Commander help-string pattern in src/index.ts:132-140 and src/index.ts:246-249. The nearby test comment in test/volume.test.ts:38-42 now matches the backend-owned cap rule; no executable behavior was changed.
  • Functionality: Both stale local strings named by the PR now describe the default as 10Gi/free cap at src/index.ts:139 and src/index.ts:246. The volume request paths still forward explicit sizes unchanged to the backend at src/commands/services.ts:93-100 and src/commands/compute.ts:715-719, which is consistent with the PR’s “text only” claim.
  • Security: No security-relevant changes; this PR only changes static CLI help text and a test comment at src/index.ts:139, src/index.ts:246, and test/volume.test.ts:38-42.
  • Performance: No performance-relevant changes; no runtime loops, I/O paths, data access, or dependencies were added.
  • Verification note: I did not run npm run typecheck or npm test because this was a read-only review and dependencies are not installed in the workspace (node_modules/.bin/tsx is absent). git diff --check main...HEAD passed.

Verdict
Approved per the structured verdict rules: no Critical findings. This is a bot review comment only, not a GitHub green-check approval.

…"paid plans"

`compute limits` and `db limits` help still said "(paid plans)". Free may set
a ceiling anywhere within the free cap and is refused only above it
(insta-platform #224, kept by #378). Mirrored in insta-skills #73's
cli-reference.md rows. Text only.

@jwfing jwfing left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Summary
This scoped help-text update matches the PR intent, with no blocking findings.

Requirements Context
I based intent on the PR title/description for #177, the local repo guidance that src/index.ts owns the Commander command surface (.claude/skills/developing-insta-cli/SKILL.md:17-38, CONTRIBUTING.md:20-44), and the README statement that insta --help plus the full command reference are the command docs (README.md:191-194). I also checked the companion docs PR, InsForge/insta-skills#73, and its branch reference for matching compute limits, db limits, and compute volume wording. The linked platform/frontend PRs were not readable from this environment, so I treated those details as PR-description context only.

Findings

Critical
(none)

Suggestion

  • src/commands/compute.ts:605 and src/commands/db.ts:79-81 (Software engineering): internal comments still describe the limits path as paid-plan-only, while the updated help says any plan can set ceilings within the free cap. This is not user-facing and does not change behavior, but updating the comments would avoid preserving the old rule for future maintainers.

Information

  • src/index.ts:132-140, src/index.ts:236-259 (Functionality): the user-facing services add --volume, compute volume, compute limits, and db limits strings now match the PR’s stated 10Gi/free-cap and free-within-cap wording.
  • src/commands/services.ts:93-100, src/commands/compute.ts:715-719 (Functionality): explicit volume sizes are still parsed and forwarded unchanged; backend paid/cap enforcement remains authoritative, so this is text-only as claimed.
  • test/volume.test.ts:30-43 (Software engineering): the nearby volume test comment now reflects the platform-owned 10Gi free-cap default, and the existing test keeps coverage on the no-client-side-plan-gate behavior.
  • src/index.ts:139, src/index.ts:236-259, test/volume.test.ts:38-43 (Security): no security-relevant changes; this PR changes static help text and a test comment only.
  • src/index.ts:139, src/index.ts:236-259, test/volume.test.ts:38-43 (Performance): no performance-relevant changes; no loops, I/O paths, data access, or dependencies changed.
  • package.json:35-39 (Verification): I did not run npm run typecheck or npm test because the review was read-only and node_modules is absent. git diff --check main...HEAD passed.

Verdict
Approved per the structured verdict rules: no Critical findings. This is a bot review comment only, not a GitHub green-check approval.

@jwfing jwfing left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM - approved.

@CarmenDou
CarmenDou merged commit a961540 into main Sep 5, 2026
3 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants