ADR 0163: taking a module over is a comparison — what it compares, refuses and carries; designs 05 and 09; group 6's issues located, 093 resolved

2026-10-01 21:12:36 +02:00
parent b277f3b4ba
commit 2904c359b8
14 changed files with 234 additions and 21 deletions
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 ---
-status: open
+status: located
 opened: 2026-09-22
-located-in: []
+located-in: [mesh-controller cmd/mesh-controller/adoption.go (take previews nothing), mesh-host internal/apply (the comparison and the record)]
 fixed-by:
 amended-design:
 ---
@@ -35,3 +35,8 @@ it changes before it changes it, and for taking a module this one does not.
  included, and ask for the same kind of confirmation as the flip?
 - Or should taking refuse while a port of the module is reachable more widely than the module
  declares, until the operator either changes the module's exposure or confirms the narrowing?
+
+## Decided, 2026-10-01
+
+[ADR 0163](../../02-DECISIONS/0163-taking-a-module-over-is-a-comparison.md), rules 1 and 2: the preview names a narrowing. Building follows,
+host first, then the controller's `take`.
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 ---
-status: open
+status: located
 opened: 2026-09-22
-located-in: []
+located-in: [mesh-controller cmd/mesh-controller/adoption.go (take previews nothing), mesh-host internal/apply (the comparison and the record)]
 fixed-by:
 amended-design:
 ---
@@ -48,3 +48,8 @@ network, or it is not a takeover.
  directory — so the module adopts it by the rule that already exists?
 - Should something refuse to call a module the successor of a bootstrap service it cannot adopt?
 - Is the forge's own address better resolved than set, which is [issue 088](../088-the-forges-own-address-names-a-port-it-may-not-have/00-report.md)?
+
+## Decided, 2026-10-01
+
+[ADR 0163](../../02-DECISIONS/0163-taking-a-module-over-is-a-comparison.md), rule 7: genesis raises as the module declares. Building follows,
+host first, then the controller's `take`.
@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
 ---
-status: located
+status: resolved
 opened: 2026-09-22
 located-in: [mesh-catalog, mesh-controller internal/catalogue]
-fixed-by:
+fixed-by: ADR 0104 — the route adapter module (mesh-catalog modules/route-adapter) writes each migrated route into the predecessor's proxy; it runs on the home server's migration
 amended-design:
 ---

@@ -71,3 +71,10 @@ answered by an **adapter** that writes into the predecessor's own configuration.
 the predecessor's proxy keeps serving every name and keeps its certificates, while each migrated
 module's name is pointed at the mesh's container. The proxy is the last cutover again, and by then
 every route is one the mesh contributed.
+
+## Resolved, 2026-10-01
+
+The adapter ADR 0104 decided exists and runs: `route-adapter` provides `route` on an adopted
+machine by writing each migrated module's route where the predecessor's proxy reads it, and the
+proxy itself is the last cutover. [ADR 0163](../../02-DECISIONS/0163-taking-a-module-over-is-a-comparison.md)
+records the rest of what a take compares.
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 ---
-status: open
+status: located
 opened: 2026-09-23
-located-in: []
+located-in: [mesh-controller cmd/mesh-controller/adoption.go (take previews nothing), mesh-host internal/apply (the comparison and the record)]
 fixed-by:
 amended-design:
 ---
@@ -58,3 +58,8 @@ knowing the code.
  an operator to undo it without reading the source?
 - Is there anything a node must never be pushed without, such that sending a partial declaration is
  worse than sending none?
+
+## Decided, 2026-10-01
+
+[ADR 0163](../../02-DECISIONS/0163-taking-a-module-over-is-a-comparison.md), rule 6: judged where stored; an impossible statement costs a module. Building follows,
+host first, then the controller's `take`.
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 ---
-status: open
+status: located
 opened: 2026-09-23
-located-in: []
+located-in: [mesh-controller cmd/mesh-controller/adoption.go (take previews nothing), mesh-host internal/apply (the comparison and the record)]
 fixed-by:
 amended-design:
 ---
@@ -75,3 +75,8 @@ found, and so would be kept for ever on purpose.
  module unassigned between the two declarations?
 - What reports this? Nothing on the machine currently answers "what is running here that the mesh
  did not ask for", which is the question that would have found this in seconds.
+
+## Decided, 2026-10-01
+
+[ADR 0163](../../02-DECISIONS/0163-taking-a-module-over-is-a-comparison.md), rule 5: former targets are removed and strays reported. Building follows,
+host first, then the controller's `take`.
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 ---
-status: open
+status: located
 opened: 2026-09-23
-located-in: []
+located-in: [mesh-controller cmd/mesh-controller/adoption.go (take previews nothing), mesh-host internal/apply (the comparison and the record)]
 fixed-by:
 amended-design:
 ---
@@ -63,3 +63,8 @@ written.
  substitutes settings into content today.
 - Is the kept original enough of an answer, given nothing restores it and nothing points at it
  when the service starts behaving differently?
+
+## Decided, 2026-10-01
+
+[ADR 0163](../../02-DECISIONS/0163-taking-a-module-over-is-a-comparison.md), rules 1 and 2: the difference is shown and a differing file refuses. Building follows,
+host first, then the controller's `take`.
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 ---
-status: open
+status: located
 opened: 2026-09-23
-located-in: []
+located-in: [mesh-controller cmd/mesh-controller/adoption.go (take previews nothing), mesh-host internal/apply (the comparison and the record)]
 fixed-by:
 amended-design:
 ---
@@ -60,3 +60,8 @@ expected rate.
  nothing answers the first.
 - Is a digest pin the right thing for a module that takes over an existing service at all, or
  should a cutover be able to say *keep what is running* and record what that was?
+
+## Decided, 2026-10-01
+
+[ADR 0163](../../02-DECISIONS/0163-taking-a-module-over-is-a-comparison.md), rules 1 and 2: the images are compared by age and a downgrade refuses. Building follows,
+host first, then the controller's `take`.
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 ---
-status: open
+status: located
 opened: 2026-09-23
-located-in: []
+located-in: [mesh-controller cmd/mesh-controller/adoption.go (take previews nothing), mesh-host internal/apply (the comparison and the record)]
 fixed-by:
 amended-design:
 ---
@@ -65,3 +65,8 @@ the module can only be installed fresh.
  Should it, so the dangerous case can be refused rather than discovered?
 - What is the reverse path: the mesh has minted one, the service ignored it, and the working value
  is still on the machine. Nothing reconciles those.
+
+## Decided, 2026-10-01
+
+[ADR 0163](../../02-DECISIONS/0163-taking-a-module-over-is-a-comparison.md), rules 2 and 3: a minted secret for found data refuses; secret accept reaches required secrets. Building follows,
+host first, then the controller's `take`.
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 ---
-status: open
+status: located
 opened: 2026-09-23
-located-in: []
+located-in: [mesh-controller cmd/mesh-controller/adoption.go (take previews nothing), mesh-host internal/apply (the comparison and the record)]
 fixed-by:
 amended-design:
 ---
@@ -61,3 +61,8 @@ exercise.
  learn to take a group atomically? Nothing takes more than one module at a time today.
 - Does the same hole exist for anything else the predecessor's runtime resolves and the mesh's does
  not — a network alias, a `depends_on`, a name in a shared `/etc/hosts`?
+
+## Decided, 2026-10-01
+
+[ADR 0163](../../02-DECISIONS/0163-taking-a-module-over-is-a-comparison.md), rules 1 and 4: the neighbours are named; a found network may be kept by a setting. Building follows,
+host first, then the controller's `take`.
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 ---
-status: open
+status: located
 opened: 2026-09-26
 located-in: [mesh-host internal/apply]
 ---
@@ -45,3 +45,8 @@ Instant renames both ways broke the circular dependency (forge needed for builds
 builds needed for the push, push needed for the forge): data back to the old path,
 old-spec forge started, artifacts rebuilt, data renamed forward, push. Nothing lost;
 the install-page junk was discarded twice.
+
+## Decided, 2026-10-01
+
+[ADR 0163](../../02-DECISIONS/0163-taking-a-module-over-is-a-comparison.md), rules 5 and 7: every field compared; build says the policy. Building follows,
+host first, then the controller's `take`.