jason.woltje
b9ea9304fd
Unclaimed files left in the canonical checkout. Inventory: canonical-cleanup-inventory.md (commit-as-evidence groups). detect-secrets scan clean on 2026-11-02: hits are sha256 pins, git object ids, test sentinels already in tracked tests and unit-file lines.
1 line
4.3 KiB
JSON
1 line
4.3 KiB
JSON
{"id":28379,"html_url":"https://git.mosaicstack.dev/mosaicstack/stack/issues/1606#issuecomment-28379","pull_request_url":"","issue_url":"https://git.mosaicstack.dev/mosaicstack/stack/issues/1606","user":{"id":103,"login":"filbert","login_name":"","source_id":0,"full_name":"Mosaic fleet seat filbert","email":"[email protected]","avatar_url":"https://git.mosaicstack.dev/avatars/833ed4bade42095803be133d8ab240ee","html_url":"https://git.mosaicstack.dev/filbert","language":"","is_admin":false,"last_login":"0001-01-01T00:00:00Z","created":"2026-09-04T20:14:33Z","restricted":false,"active":false,"prohibit_login":false,"location":"","website":"","description":"","visibility":"public","followers_count":0,"following_count":0,"starred_repos_count":0,"username":"filbert"},"original_author":"","original_author_id":0,"body":"## Filbert review: row 112 round 1 (#1606): changes\n\nCandidate manifest sha256 `ac34ebd094fb3bb17d1dd14b8f6e0ca53d661e176ef42463dd5f5c8ecf683d32` (5 files), as named in comment 28376. I rebuilt it in my own worktree at BASE 96656dd21 with `build.patch` from packet dbf72a2a3. All 5 hashes match, `git diff --check` is clean, no manifest path has drifted from 96656dd21 to HEAD, and the patch's added lines have no dashes, bidi or control characters.\n\n### The brief, item by item\n\n1. **Tool text.** `recommendation` now says exactly one option key, as written, with nothing added, and that the reason goes in `question`. `question` asks for the reason. `approvalChoice` names the `yes` default and says to pass it when no key is `yes`. `tools.test.mjs` asserts each of these.\n2. **Broker.** The shared line is split. Duplicate keys refuse `invalid-options` first, a recommendation miss then refuses `invalid-recommendation`, and `invalid-approval-choice` is unchanged. Count and per-option checks still run before both. There is no schema change.\n3. **README.** See C1.\n4. **Tests.** The new broker test covers `\"yes: it matches the direction\"`, `maybe` and a missing recommendation (all `invalid-recommendation`), duplicate keys with a good and a bad recommendation (both `invalid-options`), and a single option (`invalid-options`). Decision and message counts don't change and the inbox stays empty. A plain `yes` is accepted and stored as `yes`. The existing duplicate-key case is unchanged.\n5. **Mutants.** I reran m1 (shared line restored) and m2 (recommendation check before the duplicate check) from `mutants.py` against `broker.test.mjs` alone. Each gave 15 pass and 1 fail on the new test. I restored the file each time and rechecked all 5 hashes.\n\n### Change requested\n\n- **C1. The `invalid-options` row names the wrong code for a malformed option.** The row says an option \"that isn't `{key,text}`\" refuses `invalid-options`. In the broker, `keys(o,['key','text'],['key','text'])` runs first and refuses `invalid-request` for that case. I ran a probe against the rebuilt broker with `recommendation: 'yes'`:\n\n | options | refusal |\n |---|---|\n | an option with an extra `note` field | `invalid-request` |\n | an option with no `text` | `invalid-request` |\n | a bare string `'yes'` as an option | `invalid-request` |\n | key `Yes!` | `invalid-options` |\n | empty text | `invalid-options` |\n | one option | `invalid-options` |\n\n This row exists so a caller can tell which field to fix, so it shouldn't name a code the broker doesn't return. The lead-in, \"each refusal names one field\", also doesn't hold for this case. Fix the README text, not the broker. For example: \"fewer than 2 or more than 9 options, an option key that isn't a valid id, empty or over-long text, or duplicate keys\", plus a sentence saying that an option that isn't exactly `{key,text}` refuses `invalid-request`. Widening the broker's codes is out of scope under the brief. No test is needed for a README fix.\n\n### What I ran (single files, no slot)\n\nbus: `broker` 16/16, `decisions` 7/7, `review` 8/8. harness: `tools` 11/11. I also ran the mutant reruns and the option probe described above. I didn't rerun the full gate and relied on `gate-run.log` for it: 14 packages and 9 scripts all pass, `GATE_PASSED`. The worktree is removed and no process is left in it.\n\nVerdict: **changes** (C1, README only).\n","assets":[],"created_at":"2026-10-14T15:52:40Z","updated_at":"2026-10-14T15:52:40Z"} |