Merge v0.8.x branch into v0.9.x

[bjester]

Summary

Merges the branches and resolves merge conflicts:

	both modified:   morango/__init__.py
	both modified:   morango/sync/session.py
	both modified:   morango/sync/syncsession.py
	deleted by us:   setup.py
	both modified:   tests/testapp/tests/sync/test_session.py
	both modified:   tests/testapp/tests/test_api.py

Also updated the migration history for conflicting migration nodes

[rtibblesbot]

🔵 Review posted

Last updated: 2026-07-28 21:03 UTC

[rtibblesbot]

PR #348 — merge of release-v0.8.x into release-v0.9.x. The merge is clean and the 0.8.12–0.8.15 work (idempotent buffer push, opt-in retries, update_fields scoping, dirty-bit fix) carries over faithfully.

One blocking issue, in the migration-history resolution: renaming 0004_self_ref_order → 0005_self_ref_order silently nulls out Store._self_ref_order on any database that already applied the old name. I reproduced it locally and verified a fix — details inline.

Remaining findings are suggestions around the new retry plumbing, the swallowed DatabaseError in the FK-deferrable migration, and the unbounded model_uuid__in queries.

CI: all unit tests (3.9–3.13, postgres, SQLite matrix) and linting pass. The one red check, Check if author is contributor, fails in the shared call-pull-request-target.yml workflow — repo/app-token infrastructure, not this diff.

No UI files changed, so visual verification and manual QA do not apply.

---

@rtibblesbot's comments are generated by an LLM, and should be evaluated accordingly

How was this generated?

Ran a phased review pipeline over the pull request diff:

• Classified the diff to select review passes (core, frontend, backend) and whether manual QA was required
• Core review pass checked correctness, design, architecture, testing, completeness, and DRY/SRP/Rule-of-Three principles
• Specialized frontend/backend review passes applied framework-specific lenses where those files changed
• For UI changes: manual QA and an accessibility audit against a live dev server, when available
• Checked CI status and linked issue acceptance criteria
• Synthesized one review from those passes and chose the verdict from the findings, CI status, and QA evidence