Rebased onto main: ADR 0188 renumbered to 0201, and issue 202's evidence re-taken

The bundles refactor took 0188 on main while this waited in a pull request, and the mesh's own code cites that one, so this record moves. Only the number moved; the decision is the one taken on 2026-10-02, and the record says so. Issue 202 re-checked against the refactored main: the fault stands, and the test that surfaced it now fails one step earlier on issue 203's new credential guard. Proven again past both — mint the credential, compose twice, and all eight of dnsmasq's resources appear only with the setting set. ADR 0164 is noted as the decision that answers half of it, and is not built.
2026-10-04 02:44:58 +02:00
parent 92c029d10e
commit 0231974226
5 changed files with 40 additions and 8 deletions
@@ -7,7 +7,11 @@ reconstructed: false
 extends: 02-DECISIONS/0048-a-provider-creates-the-credential-the-mesh-minted.md
 ---

-# 188. A provider declares what it derives for each consumer, and the mesh tells both ends
+# 201. A provider declares what it derives for each consumer, and the mesh tells both ends
+
+> Written as 0188 on 2026-10-02 and renumbered to 0201 on 2026-10-04: the record of the bundles
+> refactor took 0188 on main while this one waited in a pull request, and the mesh's own code now
+> cites that one. Only the number moved; the decision is the one taken on the 2nd.

 ## Context

@@ -188,7 +188,9 @@ python3 00-META/checks/index.py            fail if stale
 - **0185** — [A control plane behind its seat's row serves what it can](0185-a-control-plane-behind-its-seats-row-serves-what-it-can.md)
 - **0186** — [A ban list never holds a neighbour, and the mesh's own bans are its own wherever they hang](0186-a-ban-list-never-holds-a-neighbour.md)
 - **0187** — [A dead tracker is not the machine's failure](0187-a-dead-tracker-is-not-the-machines-failure.md)
+- **0189** — [The store keeps what the records name, and a maintenance step holds its writers still](0189-the-store-keeps-what-the-records-name.md)
 - **0190** — [A seat's work is shared by its holders, and building is the first such role](0190-a-seats-work-is-shared-by-its-holders-and-building-is-the-first-such-role.md)
+- **0201** — [A provider declares what it derives for each consumer, and the mesh tells both ends](0201-a-provider-declares-what-it-derives-for-each-consumer.md)

 ### Its tiers, from the bottom up

@@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ decisions:
  - 02-DECISIONS/0084-which-provider-serves-a-consumer.md
  - 02-DECISIONS/0046-a-module-configuration-is-its-assignments-not-its-manifest.md
  - 02-DECISIONS/0038-the-mesh-assigns-the-port.md
-  - 02-DECISIONS/0188-a-provider-declares-what-it-derives-for-each-consumer.md
+  - 02-DECISIONS/0201-a-provider-declares-what-it-derives-for-each-consumer.md
 ---

 # 27 — A module requires, the mesh resolves
@@ -208,7 +208,7 @@ the placeholder allows: the definition says which values reach which requirement
 does. *How it is checked:* the unit tests named in issue 173, and the plan comparison that closed it.

 *A provider says once what it derives for each consumer (2026-10-02,
-[ADR 0188](../../02-DECISIONS/0188-a-provider-declares-what-it-derives-for-each-consumer.md),
+[ADR 0201](../../02-DECISIONS/0201-a-provider-declares-what-it-derives-for-each-consumer.md),
 [issue 124](../../04-ISSUES/124-a-consumer-cannot-be-told-what-its-provider-derived/00-report.md)):*
 where a provider **names the resource** it gives each consumer — a bucket, a database, a vhost — the
 name is derived per consumer, and a literal `serves` block could not carry it. A served value may
@@ -221,7 +221,7 @@ its binding's served facts and as `${bound:<provision>:<key>}` in any file it wr
 as `derived` on that consumer's entry in its contributions file, so its provisioner is told the name
 rather than recomputing it. A consumer that writes the derived value into its own definition instead
 of asking for it is refused, naming the placeholder to use. *How it is checked:* the unit tests in
-ADR 0188's "how this is checked", each run against the unchanged controller first.
+ADR 0201's "how this is checked", each run against the unchanged controller first.

 ## How a definition reads what was resolved

@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
 status: resolved
 opened: 2026-09-26
 located-in: [mesh-controller internal/catalogue, mesh-sdk src/provisioner, mesh-catalog modules/minio]
-fixed-by: 02-DECISIONS/0188-a-provider-declares-what-it-derives-for-each-consumer.md
+fixed-by: 02-DECISIONS/0201-a-provider-declares-what-it-derives-for-each-consumer.md
 amended-design: 03-DESIGN/01-to-be/27-a-module-requires-the-mesh-resolves.md
 ---

@@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ compares it to what the provider will actually create. The one wrong instance wa
  bucket in its own configuration against the one the provider would create is a check that could
  exist today, for any interface, without the mechanism above.

-## Answered, 2026-10-02 — [ADR 0188](../../02-DECISIONS/0188-a-provider-declares-what-it-derives-for-each-consumer.md)
+## Answered, 2026-10-02 — [ADR 0201](../../02-DECISIONS/0201-a-provider-declares-what-it-derives-for-each-consumer.md)

 The channel is the provider's own `serves` block, which may now name the consumer the mesh is
 serving: `${consumer:as}` and `${consumer:as:dns}`. The mesh fills it once, where it knows who the
@@ -60,8 +60,34 @@ now on*, and about the silence.
 - Should the declaration say which modules it left out, where a person or the console can see it?
  `left_out` already travels to the host ([ADR 0163](../../02-DECISIONS/0163-taking-a-module-over-is-a-comparison.md));
  what is missing is anything that reads it back and says so.
- Should a `${setting:…}` be allowed a default in the definition — making "unset" mean "the
-  default" rather than "refuse" — or is a setting with a default no longer the operator's value?
+- ~~Should a `${setting:…}` be allowed a default?~~ **Decided in principle and not built.**
+  [ADR 0164](../../02-DECISIONS/0164-a-setting-is-declared-with-its-default-its-meaning-and-what-changing-it-costs.md)
+  (proposed, 2026-10-01) says a setting with a default is a tunable and one without is the
+  operator's, and narrows 0155's refusal to exactly the second. `listen-addresses` is a tunable by
+  that rule, and dnsmasq declares no settings block at all. So this issue is, in part, 0164 waiting
+  to be built — and in part the silence, which 0164 does not address.
 - Is leaving a module out ever right for a module a node is **assigned**, as opposed to one it
  merely pulls in? An assignment is somebody saying *this machine runs this*; silently not running
  it is the one answer nobody asked for.
+
+## Still true on 2026-10-04, and the evidence had to be re-taken
+
+Re-checked after the bundles refactor landed (fourteen records, ADRs 0188 and 0190–0200). **The
+fault stands and the old evidence no longer reaches it.**
+
+`TestTheResolverIsToldEveryMachineOnTheNetworkAndToldAgainWhenOneLeaves` still fails on
+mesh-controller main, with the same message — and now for a *different first reason*. `assign` is
+refused before composition ever happens:
+
+> dnsmasq on anchor has no bus credential: nothing was issued for anchor.dnsmasq … (novox/hq issue 203)
+
+That is [issue 203](../203-a-fresh-assignment-is-pushed-before-its-credential-exists/00-report.md)'s
+new guard doing its job on a test harness that mints no credential. Two faults are stacked in one
+failing test, and the second was invisible behind the first.
+
+Proven again, past both: mint `anchor.dnsmasq` so the assignment stands, then compose the machine
+twice. **Without `listen-addresses` the node composes four resources, all the overlay's. With it
+set to `127.0.0.1`, all eight of dnsmasq's appear** — `needs-broker`, `mesh-state`, `package`,
+`config`, `runtime-dns`, `runtime`, `service`, `fact-node-zones`. Nothing else differs.
+
+The test is now wrong about two things and should be fixed with whichever of these is fixed first.