fix(miner): give queue dashboard the same store-failure handling as its siblings (#9690)

[kai392]

What

queue dashboard was the only queue subcommand that let a store failure escape runQueueCli. runPortfolioDashboard opened the portfolio-queue store outside its try and had only a finally, so an opener failure — a corrupt portfolio-queue.sqlite3, an unreadable state dir, an invalid LOOPOVER_MINER_PORTFOLIO_QUEUE_DB — propagated out of the CLI as a raw Node stack trace with exit 1, where every sibling subcommand prints { "ok": false, "error": ... } under --json and exits 2.

How

Mirror runQueueClaimBatch (portfolio-queue-cli.ts:520-541) exactly:

• Open the store inside the try.
• catch (error) { return reportCliFailure(parsed.json, describeCliError(error)); }.
• Import describeCliError from ./cli-error.js.
• Guard the finally close with ?. (the initializer may throw before assigning).

The success path, the parse-error path, and the ownsQueue ownership rule are unchanged.

Tests

Four named regression tests in test/unit/miner-portfolio-dashboard.test.ts, each failing against the current code:

1. An injected opener failure returns 2 (was: threw out of runQueueCli).
2. The same under --json emits { ok: false, error } on stdout and returns 2.
3. A store whose listQueue throws mid-run still closes the owned store and returns 2.
4. An owned-store opener failure returns 2 with nothing to close (the ?. guard short-circuits).

Together they cover both parsed.json arms of the new catch and both arms of the ownsQueue / ?. close.

Closes #9690

[loopover-orb]

Tip

✅ LoopOver review result - approve/merge recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-29 20:22:09 UTC}

2 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · readiness 100/100 · CI green · clean

✅ Suggested Action - Approve/Merge

• safe to merge

Review summary
The PR correctly aligns the `queue dashboard` subcommand with its siblings by handling store failures within a `try/catch` block, using `describeCliError` for consistent error formatting, and safely closing the store with `?.` in the `finally` clause. The tests validate all failure scenarios, including opener failures and mid-run errors, ensuring the CLI now exits with `2` and structured error output under `--json`.

Nits — 2 non-blocking

• The comment in the `try` block is lengthy; consider splitting it into a docblock for better readability.
• Ensure `describeCliError` is consistently used across all subcommands for uniform error formatting.

Decision drivers

• ✅ Code review — No blockers (1 reviewer)
• ✅ Gate result — Passing (No configured blocker found.)

Context & advisory signals — never blocks the verdict

Signal	Result	Evidence
Linked issue	✅ Linked	#9690
Related work	✅ No active overlap found	No same-issue or scoped active PR overlap found.
Change scope	✅ 20/20	Low review scope from cached public metadata (1 linked issue).
Validation posture	✅ 25/25	PR body includes validation/test evidence.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 89 registered-repo PR(s), 43 merged, 7 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	kai392; Gittensor profile; 89 PR(s), 7 issue(s).
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: clean · value: minor · LLM: significant

Linked issue satisfaction

Addressed
The diff moves store construction inside the try, adds a catch returning reportCliFailure(parsed.json, describeCliError(error)), imports describeCliError, and guards the finally close with `?.`, exactly mirroring runQueueClaimBatch as required. It also adds four named regression tests covering opener failure (plain and --json), mid-run listQueue failure with owned-store close, and the `?.` short-c

Review context

• Author: kai392
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: Python, Cuda, JavaScript, Kotlin, MDX, Perl, Ruby, TypeScript
• Official Gittensor activity: 89 PR(s), 7 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Keep the PR focused and include validation evidence before maintainer review.

Signal definitions

• Related work = same linked issue, overlapping active PRs, or title/path similarity.
• Change scope = cached public metadata such as size labels, draft state, and review-burden hints.
• Validation posture = whether the PR provides enough public validation/test evidence for maintainer review.
• Contributor workload = public contributor activity and cleanup pressure, not a repo-wide quality failure.
• Contributor context = public GitHub/Gittensor identity context; non-Gittensor status is not a blocker.

🧪 Chat with LoopOver

Ask LoopOver a question about this PR directly in a comment — grounded only in the same cached, public-safe facts shown above, never a new claim.

• @loopover ask <question> answers contribution-quality Q&A with source citations and freshness.
• @loopover chat <question> answers in natural prose from cached decision-pack facts via local inference (maintainer/collaborator; read-only).
• A plain-language @loopover mention with a real question is routed to the closest matching read-only command automatically — no exact syntax required.

Full command reference: https://loopover.ai/docs/loopover-commands

🧪 Experimental — new and may change.

_{🟩 Safe / merged · 🟦 Advisory · 🟨 Held for review · 🟥 Blocked / closed}

---

💰 Earn for open-source contributions like this. Gittensor lets GitHub contributors earn for the work they already do — register to start earning →.

Checked by LoopOver, a quiet PR intelligence layer for OSS maintainers.

• Re-run LoopOver review

[superagent-security]

Superagent didn't find any vulnerabilities or security issues in this PR.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 79.31%. Comparing base (49a3b17) to head (1877b64).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #9901      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   79.29%   79.31%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         281      282       +1     
  Lines       58566    58625      +59     
  Branches     6785     6808      +23     
==========================================
+ Hits        46440    46499      +59     
  Misses      11843    11843              
  Partials      283      283              

Flag	Coverage Δ
backend	100.00% <100.00%> (?)

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
packages/loopover-miner/lib/portfolio-dashboard.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

[loopover-orb]

LoopOver approves — the gate is satisfied and CI is green.