1e3e1f7cd8dd6eca32c3ce93bb71fffea802b7ee
2 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Tom Boucher
|
fac0e9de86 |
docs(#4906): ADR-4910 amendment — a write refuses on a document with any unreadable node (#4913)
* docs(#4906): ADR-4910 amendment — a write refuses on a document with any unreadable node §5 scoped the parse error to the node. That is correct for reads and was never examined for writes. §5 was reasoned entirely from #4899, a read bug. Node-scoping is right there: a ragged Progress table must not make phase list and init.progress fail, because those are the commands a user needs to see what to repair. But the rule was stated unqualified, and it licensed something never considered — phase.complete mutating a ROADMAP.md whose Progress table it could not read. A partial-view write persists a wrong answer rather than merely returning one. Amendment: reads stay node-scoped; a write refuses when ANY node in the document carries a parse error, whether or not the mutation targets it. A reader answers a bounded question from a bounded region; a writer asserts that the document it emits is the document it read, and cannot make that assertion about a region it could not parse. §3's byte-stability does not rescue it — splicing untouched bytes faithfully is not the same as knowing they were consistent with the change. Rejected: refusing only when the mutation's own target node is unreadable. It is the appealing middle and it does not hold — phase.complete writes **Plans:** while deriving that value from plan/summary counts in a different region. The regions a write depends on are not statically the regions it touches. Downstream: Phase 1 ships both scopes plus a hasUnreadableNodes predicate the serializer consults; Phase 2 gains a new acceptance criterion (a refused write leaves the file byte-identical on disk); Phase 4's census gains a second axis and must publish both counts. Appended as a dated section per docs/contributor-standards.md pattern 1 — the original Decision body is unchanged. Refs #4906 Refs #4910 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> * docs(#4906): correct the amendment's motivating example and state the limit it exposes An isolated review pass falsified the first draft's central example. The correction is recorded in the amendment rather than quietly patched, because it bounds what the rule can promise. - The draft claimed phase.complete derives the value it writes into **Plans:** from a different REGION of the same document. It does not. planCount and summaryCount come from findPhaseInternal at src/phase.cts:3429-3434 — a filesystem scan of the phase directory. No PlanningDoc node holds them. That widens the dependency rather than narrowing it, and it makes an explicit limit necessary: a document-scoped write refusal protects the document's own consistency and says nothing about the correctness of a value sourced from outside the document. Recorded as a stated limit and named out of scope for this epic. - The rejected alternative (refuse only when the mutation's own target node is unreadable) is re-grounded on two arguments that survive: it would almost never fire, since a verb locates the node in order to write it; and it guards something smaller than the operation performs, because serialization re-emits the whole file. - §5's body names `phase list` as a consumer an unreadable Progress table would block. It is not one — cmdPhasesList (src/phase.cts:207) enumerates phases/ and never opens ROADMAP.md. init.progress and roadmap.analyze are the real instances; the argument never needed three. §5's body left unmodified per the append-only rule, correction carried in the amendment, fold in at ratification. - Clarified that the new WriteOutcome refusal sits on a different axis from §5's reserved document-level Result<PlanningDoc> parse failure, so no reader can conclude that reservation was reopened. A document can be valid to open and still refuse to be written. Refs #4906 Refs #4910 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> --------- Co-authored-by: sim <sim@local> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Tom Boucher
|
01dbda9c49 |
docs(#4910): ADR-4910 — the PlanningDoc parse → mutate → serialize seam — Phase 0 of #4906 (#4911)
* docs(#4910): ADR-4910 — the PlanningDoc parse → mutate → serialize seam — Phase 0 of #4906 Design lock for epic #4906. Docs-only; no production code lands here. Eight decisions: one PlanningDoc seam composing markdown-sectionizer, markdown-table and frontmatter as layers; node-replacement writes so a field write cannot reach past its own value; byte-stable serialization for untouched regions; escape-or-refuse shared between each artifact's writer and its reader, with an explicit accepted-superset-of-emittable split; a typed parse error scoped to the node rather than the document; a type-narrowed write boundary paired with a lint; a positive control per accepted grammar; and one implementation per shared pattern. Two corrections to the epic's stated mechanism, both load-bearing for later phases: - The epic asks for a ratchet where a reintroduced content.replace() "does not typecheck". It cannot: fs.writeFileSync(p, s.replace(...)) typechecks fine because fs has never heard of PlanningDoc. Enforcement is type-narrowing plus a lint that owns the bypass, and the ADR says so rather than shipping a guarantee one require() defeats. - The epic names scripts/lint-planning-artifact-writer-drift.cjs as the drain point. That script is a registry-completeness guard that states "No ratchet / no baseline" by design and never inspects how a write is performed. It is correct on its own axis and left untouched; the right home is local/no-adhoc-markdown-parsing. ADR-2143's Phase 4 already shipped the table-regex and replace-mutation detectors, so the ADR scopes the remaining gap precisely rather than asking for that work twice: adhocReplaceMutation keys on a table-or-section regex, and #4852's pattern is a bold-label field regex — which is why the defect sits in src/phase.cts, a file the rule does lint, with lint:ci green. Per docs/adr/README.md lifecycle rule 3, ADR-1372 and ADR-2143 are NOT given the reciprocal `Subsumed by` back-link here: a Proposed ADR's Subsumes claim is prospective, so its targets are not marked until ratification. Both back-links land in the Phase 6 ratification PR. ADR index regenerated. Refs #4906 Closes #4910 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> * docs(#4910): apply review findings — link every ADR cross-reference and state the node-scoping interpretation Three review passes ran against the ADR: an isolated adversarial fact-check of every citation, and both axes of /code-review as separate sub-agents. Standards axis (hard violation of docs/adr/README.md lifecycle rule 2): 14 bare ADR-1372 / ADR-2143 / ADR-1411 references in body prose. gen-adr-index.cjs does not catch this — its bare-id check runs only over relation-field values, never body prose — so a green lint:generated-sync did not clear it. Every bare cross-reference is now a file link; only the self-reference ADR-4910 remains bare, which is not a cross-reference. Spec axis: §5 scopes the parse error to the node, while #4906's criterion reads "an unparseable shape surfaces could-not-parse with the offending span" with no document-or-node qualifier. Both readings are faithful to that sentence and they produce materially different Phase 1 and Phase 4 work. §5 now records the distributive reading explicitly, names the document-scoped alternative, states what it would cost (one bad table failing phase list and init.progress alongside roadmap.analyze), and names what changes if the epic meant the other one. A silent narrowing became a stated one. Refs #4906 Closes #4910 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> * docs(#4910): make each phase's acceptance a structural property, not a list of fixed issues Phases 2-5 read as "fixes #4852, #4862, #4499" — a point-fix list with a seam attached. That is the failure the epic names in its own words: "an implementation that does that has not closed this epic, even with every symptom gone and CI green." New section "What makes a phase done" locks three criteria every phase carries: - Census -> zero. A phase enumerates every instance of its anti-pattern in the tree, publishes the count in its PR, and closes when it is zero. Not "the reported ones". - Deletion, not coexistence. Bespoke implementations are removed, not kept in sync beside the seam — including src/roadmap.cts:1196's three-arm planCountPattern, which is correct today and still goes, because a correct copy of a rule the seam owns is the two-copies-that-agree case. - Unrepresentable by construction. Each phase ships one property that makes its class impossible rather than currently absent: a property over generated documents, a type that does not admit the wrong shape, or a drift guard. The absorbed issues are demoted to fail-first regression evidence. A phase may not close on those tests alone. Each phase restated accordingly, with its own census / deletion / unrepresentable / evidence breakdown. The six community point-fix PRs and their issues were closed unmerged (#4762/#4736, #4897/#4837, #4848/#4661, #4610/#4605, #4609/#4606, #4530/#4499). The ADR now records that as executed rather than pending, which is what lets census-to-zero be an acceptance criterion at all — a landed point fix would make the tree look healthier than it is. Phase PRs reference those six with Refs, since CONTRIBUTING forbids a closing keyword against an already-closed issue. Refs #4906 Closes #4910 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> --------- Co-authored-by: sim <sim@local> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |