fix: model run failed on windows

[louis-menlo]

Describe Your Changes

Fixed models run on Windows, cortex.cpp could not look up for CUDA dependencies exported from PATH.

Fixes Issues

• Closes #
• Closes #

Self Checklist

• Added relevant comments, esp in complex areas
• Updated docs (for bug fixes / features)
• Created issues for follow-up changes or refactoring needed

---

Important

Fixes model run failure on Windows by setting current_dir for command execution and updates configuration to include additional resources.

• Behavior:
  • Fixes model run failure on Windows by setting current_dir for cmd in setup.rs.
• Configuration:
  • Updates tauri.conf.json to include binaries/**/* in resources.
• Misc:
  • Removes unnecessary PATH environment variable modification for Windows in setup.rs.

^{This description was created by for e77b7d1. You can customize this summary. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed everything up to a6ad952 in 57 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 49 lines of code in 2 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 3 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. src-tauri/src/core/setup.rs:228

• Draft comment:
  Setting the current directory to the binaries folder is a neat fix for the Windows CUDA issue. Consider handling a None case for resource_dir() instead of unwrapping.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50% None

2. src-tauri/src/core/setup.rs:242

• Draft comment:
  The Windows-specific PATH augmentation has been removed. Verify that setting the current directory now suffices for CUDA dependency resolution on Windows.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50% None

3. src-tauri/tauri.conf.json:85

• Draft comment:
  Resource configuration updated to include 'binaries//*' instead of just 'binaries/engines//*'. Confirm that this change doesn't inadvertently include unwanted files.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50% None

Workflow ID: wflow_zwmmwHSvozR0sp3g

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed 238744a in 1 minute and 51 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 13 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 1 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. src-tauri/src/core/setup.rs:250

• Draft comment:
  The change appends the 'deps' subdirectory to the binaries path for LD_LIBRARY_PATH, which is appropriate for Unix. However, the PR title indicates a Windows fix. Since Windows uses PATH (with semicolon separators) rather than LD_LIBRARY_PATH, consider adding a similar branch for Windows so that the 'deps' directory is appended to PATH if needed.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50% The comment makes a reasonable point about platform parity, but there are several issues: 1) We don't have the PR title or description to confirm the Windows context 2) We don't know if Windows PATH handling is needed or handled elsewhere 3) The comment is speculative ("if needed") rather than pointing out a definite issue 4) Without seeing the Windows-specific code paths, we can't be sure this is actually a problem. I may be overlooking a critical Windows compatibility issue. The commenter might have more context about Windows requirements that I'm missing. While Windows compatibility is important, we need stronger evidence that this is actually causing a problem. The speculative nature of the comment and lack of context about Windows requirements makes it less actionable. Delete the comment. While it raises an interesting point about platform parity, it's too speculative and requires more context about Windows requirements to be actionable.

Workflow ID: wflow_7ocx96mqOVzmoKBK

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed c0744da in 52 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 12 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 1 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. src-tauri/tauri.conf.json:101

• Draft comment:
  Removed mapping for 'usr/lib/Jan/binaries': 'binaries/deps'. Verify this removal is intended solely for the Windows fix, and ensure it doesn't break the Linux deb package which might rely on these dependencies.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50% The comment is asking the PR author to verify their intention regarding the removal of a mapping. It also asks to ensure that the change doesn't break something else, which violates the rules.

Workflow ID: wflow_PxnDBEW85UynHif3

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed 13edf2b in 1 minute and 49 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 17 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 2 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. .github/workflows/template-tauri-build-linux-x64.yml:112

• Draft comment:
  Removed mapping for 'usr/lib/Jan-${{ inputs.channel }}/binaries': 'binaries/deps'. Confirm that its removal won’t break dependency packaging, especially if legacy CUDA deps are expected.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% The fact that deps are still being copied in the AppImage section suggests this was an intentional change to handle dependencies differently between deb and AppImage packages. The PR author likely knows what they're doing with the packaging configuration. The comment is speculative ("Confirm that...") and asks for verification rather than pointing out a clear issue. I could be wrong about the intentionality - maybe this is an oversight that could break deb packages. The deps may be critical for CUDA functionality. While deps may be important, the comment violates the rule about not asking for confirmations or verifications. If there was strong evidence this would break something, it should be stated directly rather than asking for confirmation. The comment should be deleted as it asks for verification rather than pointing out a clear issue, and the change appears intentional given the AppImage build still includes the deps.

2. .github/workflows/template-tauri-build-linux-x64.yml:116

• Draft comment:
  Removed mapping for 'usr/lib/Jan/binaries': 'binaries/deps' in the stable branch. Verify that removal is intentional and that any required dependencies are handled elsewhere.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 0% vs. threshold = 50% The comment asks to "verify" the removal is intentional, which violates our rules about not asking for verification. Additionally, the fact that the deps are still being copied in the AppImage section suggests this was an intentional change. The build would fail if required dependencies were missing. The deps files are still being copied in a different section - could this indicate an inconsistency that needs to be addressed? Maybe the removal wasn't actually intentional? Even if there is an inconsistency, asking for verification is not actionable. If there was a real issue, the build would fail. The author clearly made this change deliberately. Delete this comment. It asks for verification rather than pointing out a clear issue, and the build system would catch any real dependency problems.

Workflow ID: wflow_QXfSrSoWiiZ2edj3

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed e77b7d1 in 59 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 23 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 2 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. src-tauri/src/core/setup.rs:225

• Draft comment:
  Removed setting the current directory to the 'binaries' subfolder unconditionally. Verify that non‑Windows builds still correctly pick up CUDA dependencies via LD_LIBRARY_PATH.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50% The comment is asking the PR author to verify that non-Windows builds still work correctly after a change. This falls under the rule of not asking the author to ensure behavior is intended or to double-check things. Therefore, this comment should be removed.

2. src-tauri/src/core/setup.rs:242

• Draft comment:
  On Windows, the current directory is now set to the resource directory (not to the 'binaries' subfolder) to resolve CUDA dependency lookup. Confirm that required DLLs reside in this directory.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50% This comment is asking the PR author to confirm the location of required DLLs, which is similar to asking them to ensure or verify something. This violates the rule against asking the author to confirm or ensure things.

Workflow ID: wflow_bzmbzU97gvIuYkmU

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}