fix(store): realpath:false to prevent ENOENT after stale lock cleanup (Issue #670)

src/store.ts

@@ -239,6 +239,12 @@ export class MemoryStore {
     }
 
     const release = await lockfile.lock(lockPath, {
+      // 【修復 #670】realpath:false — 避免 proactive cleanup 刪除 stale lock artifact 後，
+      // proper-lockfile v4 的 realpath() 在已刪除檔案上被呼叫，導致 ENOENT。
+      // 情境：T=0 proactive cleanup 刪除 stale lock → T=3ms lock() 的 realpath() → ENOENT
+      // 根本原因：v4 proper-lockfile 的 resolveCanonicalPath 預設呼叫 fs.realpath()。
+      // 解決：realpath:false 完全繞過 realpath()，對 lock file 場景完全無副作用。
+      realpath: false,
       retries: {
         retries: 10,
         factor: 2,

test/lock-recovery.test.mjs

@@ -253,3 +253,78 @@ console.log("RECOVERED_WRITE_OK");
     }
   });
 });
+
+/** Issue #670: ENOENT from proper-lockfile realpath() after proactive stale lock cleanup
+ *
+ * 情境：proactive cleanup 刪除 stale lock file 後（T=0），下一個 lock() 嘗試在
+ * 已刪除檔案上呼叫 realpath()（T=3ms），導致 ENOENT。
+ *
+ * 根本原因：proper-lockfile v4 的 resolveCanonicalPath 預設呼叫 fs.realpath()。
+ * 修復：realpath:false 完全繞過 realpath()，對 lock file 場景無副作用。
+ *
+ * 測試策略：直接呼叫 lockfile.lock()，在 artifact 已被刪除的狀態下，
+ * 驗證 realpath:false 不會拋出 ENOENT，並成功建立新 lock。
+ */
+it("store() succeeds when lock artifact was already deleted (Issue #670)", async () => {
+  const { store, dir } = makeStore();
+  const lockPath = join(dir, ".memory-write.lock");
+
+  try {
+    // Step 1: 先建立一個正常的 store，讓 proper-lockfile 建立 artifact
+    await store.store(makeEntry(1));
+
+    // Step 2: 直接刪除 lock artifact，模擬 proactive cleanup 已執行的狀態
+    if (existsSync(lockPath)) {
+      rmSync(lockPath, { recursive: true, force: true });
+    }
+    const artifactPath = lockPath + ".lock";
+    if (existsSync(artifactPath)) {
+      rmSync(artifactPath, { recursive: true, force: true });
+    }
+
+    // Step 3: 驗證 artifact 真的不存在了
+    assert.strictEqual(existsSync(lockPath), false);
+    assert.strictEqual(existsSync(artifactPath), false);
+
+    // Step 4: 再次 store()，在 artifact 已被刪除的狀態下
+    // 有了 realpath:false，這不會拋出 ENOENT
+    const entry = await store.store(makeEntry(2));
+    assert.ok(entry.id, "store() should succeed even when lock artifact was deleted");
+
+    // Step 5: 驗證資料真的寫入了
+    const all = await store.list(undefined, undefined, 20, 0);
+    assert.strictEqual(all.length, 2, "should have 2 entries total");
+  } finally {
+    rmSync(dir, { recursive: true, force: true });
+  }
+});
+
+/** Issue #670 變種：ELOCKED 恢復後的 lock acquisition
+ * 當另一個 process 持有 lock 並超過 stale threshold，ELOCKED handler 會刪除
+ * artifact 並重試。這時 realpath:false 確保重試不會因為 artifact 已被刪除而失敗。
+ */
+it("store() succeeds after ELOCKED recovery cleaned up the artifact", async () => {
+  const { store, dir } = makeStore();
+  const lockPath = join(dir, ".memory-write.lock");
+
+  try {
+    // 建立一個超舊的 artifact，模擬崩潰的 holder 已超過 5min threshold
+    mkdirSync(lockPath, { recursive: true });
+    const oldTime = new Date(Date.now() - 10 * 60 * 1000); // 10 分鐘前
+    utimesSync(lockPath, oldTime, oldTime);
+
+    // 驗證 artifact 存在且是 stale
+    const stat = statSync(lockPath);
+    assert.ok(stat.mtimeMs < Date.now() - 5 * 60 * 1000, "artifact should be >5min old");
+
+    // 嘗試 store() — proactive cleanup 會在 lock() 前刪除這個超舊 artifact，
+    // lock() 不會因為 realpath() 在已刪除檔案上而拋出 ENOENT
+    const entry = await store.store(makeEntry(1));
+    assert.ok(entry.id, "store() should succeed after recovering from stale lock");
+
+    const all = await store.list(undefined, undefined, 20, 0);
+    assert.strictEqual(all.length, 1, "should have exactly 1 entry");
+  } finally {
+    rmSync(dir, { recursive: true, force: true });
+  }
+});