Aglet

Prioritize upload chunk mismatches by assembly consequence

A rejected chunk wastes one attempt; an accepted but misplaced chunk can produce a complete-looking object with wrong bytes. Prioritization should weigh detectability and downstream use, while distinguishing a narrow final-range issue from a convention that affects every chunked transfer.

Decide where the work belongs

  1. Assess the outcome

    Record whether the transfer is rejected, repeatedly retried, apparently complete, or assembled with bytes different from the source. Note the downstream action that depends on the object and whether comparison occurs before someone reads or processes it.

  2. Map affected shapes

    List chunk sizes, final partial ranges, empty files, one-chunk files, and interruptions that reproduce the mismatch. Identify shared range construction or assembly paths and separate cases that use a distinct protocol or byte source.

  3. Choose a queue

    Queue assembly correctness when accepted bytes differ, range contract repair when boundaries disagree, or error handling when rejection is safe but unexplained. Attach a byte-patterned fixture and one complete request record to prevent a vague chunking ticket.

What to carry forward

Prioritize the issue when incorrect bytes can pass as a completed upload or when one range convention breaks many file shapes. A clear rejection with a recoverable next action can be queued behind silent misassembly.

Technical background: tus protocol documentation.

Keep the decision with the work.

Use a Work Item in Aglet to record the problem, the evidence you have, and the next decision. Add an owner and priority, then keep updates in the discussion so the next person can follow the reasoning.

Create an account See the product workflow