feat: runner-aware tools

[branchseer]

Set up a IPC channel between vite-task and the processes it spawns, so the spawned tools can declare at runtime what they actually read, wrote, or cared about, and then vite-task uses that to decide what to fingerprint in the cache.

Design notes: docs/runner-task-ipc/.

Problems this PR solves

Every example below is exercised by patches/vite.patch, which wires vite build into the IPC through @voidzero-dev/vite-task-client.

1. Dynamic tracked envs

Before: the user had to declare every relevant env in vite-task.json, statically:

{
  "tasks": {
    "build": { "env": ["NODE_ENV", "VITE_*"], "cache": true }
  }
}

This duplicates knowledge the tool already has. Forgetting NODE_ENV silently skips cache invalidation on mode change. envPrefix-matching envs (VITE_* by default) get inlined into the bundle through import.meta.env.* — so changing envPrefix: 'MYAPP_' in vite.config.js without updating vite-task.json drifts: the runner still tracks VITE_* while the build output is driven by MYAPP_*.

After: the tool declares its envs at runtime, driven by its own config.

// vite's resolveConfig
fetchEnv("NODE_ENV", { tracked: true });

// vite's loadEnv, one call per configured prefix — these envs are
// exposed to client code as import.meta.env.*, so their values are
// baked into the bundle
for (const prefix of envPrefix) {
  fetchEnvs(`${prefix}*`, { tracked: true });
}

The build task in vite-task.json needs no env: at all. Changing envPrefix in vite.config.js dynamically changes the set of envs the runner tracks, with zero config edits on the runner side.

2. Exclude tool's cache dir from input/output

Vite stores pre-bundled deps under node_modules/.vite/ and bundled configs under node_modules/.vite-temp/. Every build reads the cache metadata (to check staleness) and writes fresh entries when it isn't stale. Without intervention the runner sees:

• the reads → implicit inputs, so the cache key depends on dep-cache contents
• the writes → implicit outputs
• the same directory both read and written → the runner refuses to cache the run at all (read-write overlap)

There is a workaround already in vite-plus: voidzero-dev/vite-plus#1096 plus its follow-up #1198 hardcode !node_modules/.vite-temp/**, !node_modules/.vite/**/results.json, and !dist/** as negative input globs on every vp subcommand (build, test, pack). That's not good enough:

• Leaks vite internals into vp. Every time vite changes its cache layout (new path under .vite/, moved temp dir, new subcommand with its own transient files), vp has to ship a matching glob update. It's a lockstep coupling that design-wise shouldn't exist.
• Input-only, not symmetric. The globs suppress reads for the input fingerprint (which is enough to break the read-write overlap check), but the writes are still captured as outputs — meaning transient cache contents get archived into the runner's cache and restored on every hit, bloating the cache store.
• Per-subcommand, per-tool duplication. #1198 already had to retrofit the same glob into three subcommands. Any new subcommand, and any third-party tool with similar behavior (Nuxt's .nuxt/, SvelteKit's .svelte-kit/, Next's .next/), needs its own hand-maintained list — vp can't ship it generically.

After:

// in loadCachedDepOptimizationMetadata
const depsCacheDir = getDepsCacheDir(environment);
ignoreInput(depsCacheDir);
ignoreOutput(depsCacheDir);

The declaration lives with the tool that owns the directory. The dep cache is vite's private concern.

3. Exclude output from input when a tool clears the folder before writing it

vite build calls emptyDir(outDir) before writing dist/. emptyDir has to read the directory entries to know what to delete — those reads look identical to genuine input reads. Since dist/ is also where vite writes its final output, the runner sees a read-write overlap on the same paths and refuses to cache.

After:

// in prepareOutDir, right before emptyDir()
ignoreInput(outDir);

Only the writes count. The pattern generalizes: any tool that wipes-then-writes the same directory needs to tell the runner "my enumeration reads aren't inputs."

What's in this PR

• Step 1 — Protocol (vite_task_ipc_shared): message types + serialization shared by both ends.
• Step 2 — Transport (vite_task_server + vite_task_client): async server, sync blocking client, tested Rust-to-Rust.
• Step 3 — Extract artifact crate out of fspy for dylib embedding. (Landed on main via refactor: extract materialized_artifact crate out of fspy #344 as materialized_artifact.)
• Step 4 — JS bridge: vite_task_client_napi + @voidzero-dev/vite-task-client JS wrapper (fetchEnv single-name + fetchEnvs glob, with dedupe against already-set process.env).
• Step 5 — Runner integration: server started per task execution, client dylib embedded/extracted, IPC envs injected via serve()'s returned iterator.
• Step 6 — Cache integration: runner consumes reported ignored inputs/outputs, tracked env requests (single + glob), and disable-cache signals when fingerprinting.

Test plan

• Rust integration tests for server/client transport (vite_task_server/tests/integration.rs)
• E2E snapshot fixtures per client method: ignore_input, ignore_output, fetch_env, fetch_envs_glob, disable_cache
• E2E test caching a real vite build via patches/vite.patch (vite_build_cache fixture): NODE_ENV-change invalidation, envPrefix-driven tracked-env set change, dist/ write restoration on cache hit

[branchseer]

• feat: runner-aware tools #346 👈 (View in Graphite)
• main

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

[socket-security]

Review the following changes in direct dependencies. Learn more about Socket for GitHub.

Diff	Package	Supply Chain Security	Vulnerability	Quality	Maintenance	License
	cargo/​napi@​3.8.6
	cargo/​napi-build@​2.3.1
	cargo/​napi-derive@​3.5.5
	cargo/​ctor@​0.11.1
	cargo/​interprocess@​2.4.2

View full report

[branchseer]

@codex review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 53d7bd1883

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".