fix(firmware): halt-on-failure stopped waiting for the wave to finish (v0.24.5-beta)

A regression I introduced in v0.24.3, and described inaccurately in its own
commit message.

Adding concurrency moved the halt check to the end of a wave. I wrote that
"at the default of 1 those are the same moment". That is only true of a wave
holding one device. With several devices in one wave and the default
sequential setting, the old code stopped the moment one failed; mine went on
to attempt every remaining device in that wave first. Anyone relying on
halt-on-failure with a wide wave 1 got a wider blast radius than before,
without changing a setting.

Halting now stops further devices from *starting* as soon as a failure is
known, whatever the concurrency. Devices already in flight are allowed to
finish, because interrupting one mid-write is how you brick it. At
concurrency 1 that is precisely the previous behaviour. Above 1, only the
devices genuinely running side by side can carry a bad build -- which is the
unavoidable part of the trade in #135, rather than a cost imposed on rollouts
that never asked for concurrency.

The firmware documentation said the same wrong thing and is corrected.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

README.md

@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
 </p>
 
 <p align="center">
-  <img src="https://img.shields.io/badge/version-0.24.4_Beta-blue" alt="Version" />
+  <img src="https://img.shields.io/badge/version-0.24.5_Beta-blue" alt="Version" />
   <img src="https://img.shields.io/badge/license-AGPLv3-blue" alt="License" />
   <img src="https://img.shields.io/badge/docker-compose-2496ED?logo=docker&logoColor=white" alt="Docker" />
   <img src="https://img.shields.io/badge/TypeScript-5.3-3178C6?logo=typescript&logoColor=white" alt="TypeScript" />

backend/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "mikrotik-manager-backend",
-  "version": "0.24.4-beta",
+  "version": "0.24.5-beta",
   "description": "Mikrotik Network Management Platform - Backend API",
   "main": "dist/index.js",
   "scripts": {

backend/src/services/FirmwareOrchestrator.ts

@@ -98,12 +98,16 @@ export class FirmwareOrchestrator {
     // Waves stay strictly sequential -- that is the decision point, and it is
     // what makes wave 1 a canary. Concurrency applies only *within* a wave.
     //
-    // At the default of 1 this is the previous behaviour with one difference
+    // Halt-on-failure stops *starting* further devices the moment a failure is
-    // worth stating: halting is evaluated at the end of a wave rather than the
+    // known, rather than at the end of the wave. Devices already in flight are
-    // instant a device fails. With a wave of one those are the same moment. With
+    // allowed to finish, because interrupting a device mid-write is how you
-    // a larger wave it is the trade the operator asked for (#135) -- more devices
+    // brick it.
-    // carry a bad build before anything stops, in exchange for not waiting out
+    //
-    // ten five-minute reboots in series.
+    // At the default concurrency of 1 that is exactly the previous behaviour:
+    // a failure stops the next device immediately. Only devices genuinely
+    // running side by side can carry a bad build, which is the unavoidable part
+    // of the trade in #135 -- not a wider blast radius imposed on rollouts that
+    // never asked for concurrency.
     for (const wave of waves) {
       if (this.cancelRequested || halted) break;
       const inWave = items.filter((i) => i.wave === wave);
@@ -113,11 +117,15 @@ export class FirmwareOrchestrator {
                     `${inWave.length} device(s), up to ${concurrency} at once`);
       }
 
-      const results = await mapWithConcurrency(inWave, concurrency, (item) =>
+      let failedInWave = false;
-        this.cancelRequested
+      const results = await mapWithConcurrency(inWave, concurrency, async (item) => {
-          ? Promise.resolve(false)
+        if (this.cancelRequested) return false;
-          : this.upgradeDevice(rollout, item)
+        // Do not begin another device once this wave has already failed.
-      );
+        if (rollout.halt_on_failure && failedInWave) return false;
+        const ok = await this.upgradeDevice(rollout, item);
+        if (!ok) failedInWave = true;
+        return ok;
+      });
 
       if (rollout.halt_on_failure && results.some((ok) => !ok)) {
         halted = true;

docs/firmware.md

@@ -55,10 +55,11 @@ everything after it.
 
 There are two costs, and both are worth understanding before you raise it.
 
-**Halting becomes less precise.** With one device at a time, a failure stops the
+**Halting becomes less precise.** A failure stops any further device from *starting*,
-rollout immediately. Running several at once, the wave finishes first — so a wave of
+immediately — but devices already running finish, because interrupting one mid-write is
-five can put a bad build on five devices before anything stops. At the default of 1
+how you brick it. So with **At once** set to five, up to five devices can carry a bad
-these are the same moment.
+build before anything stops. At the default of 1 nothing else has started, so a failure
+stops the rollout exactly as it always has.
 
 **Devices reboot together.** That is fine for independent routers. It is not fine for
 a switch that the others are reached *through*: rebooting it alongside them cuts the

frontend/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "mikrotik-manager-frontend",
-  "version": "0.24.4-beta",
+  "version": "0.24.5-beta",
   "private": true,
   "type": "module",
   "scripts": {

frontend/src/version.ts

@@ -1 +1 @@
-export const APP_VERSION = 'v0.24.4 Beta';
+export const APP_VERSION = 'v0.24.5 Beta';