refactor: track unverified slots as a set, not a flag per slot

[raman325]

Proposed change

LockUsercodeUpdateCoordinator._verified was a dict[int, bool] read through:

return self._verified.get(slot, True)

Absence and an explicit True are indistinguishable, so two of the type's three values meant the same thing. Every writer had to remember which one to use, and the "verified" branches disagreed with each other for no reason — _apply_read wrote True in one branch and popped in another to express the identical outcome.

Membership is the whole state, so a set[int] of unverified slots says it directly:

self._unverified: set[int] = set()

def is_verified(self, slot: int) -> bool:
    return slot not in self._unverified

"Absence means verified" stops being a convention the docstring has to explain and becomes the only representation there is. The impossible-but-writable third value no longer exists.

The lockstep pruning simplifies as a side effect — rebuilding a filtered dict comprehension after every read and every push becomes one set intersection:

-        self._verified = {
-            slot: flag for slot, flag in self._verified.items() if slot in out
-        }
+        self._unverified &= out.keys()

Net +35 / −33 across two source files.

Type of change

• Dependency upgrade
• Bugfix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix/feature causing existing functionality to break)
• Code quality improvements to existing code or addition of tests

Additional information

No behaviour change. Every caller goes through is_verified() or mark_verified(), both of which keep their signatures, so the suite passes untouched apart from a single test that named the private attribute directly (tests/test_coordinator.py, one rename).

1480 passed / 3 skipped, coverage remains 100%.

Found while auditing for over-complicated implementation details after #1410 — the write-confirmation lifecycle was the area worth looking at, since it is where #1397's non-convergence lived.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[Copilot]

Copilot was unable to review this pull request because the user who requested the review has reached their quota limit.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 98.96%. Comparing base (452753a) to head (1487dc6).
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1411   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   98.96%   98.96%           
=======================================
  Files          53       53           
  Lines        6668     6668           
  Branches      470      470           
=======================================
  Hits         6599     6599           
  Misses         69       69           

Flag	Coverage Δ
python	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...components/lock_code_manager/domain/coordinator.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...om_components/lock_code_manager/providers/_base.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.