From 6385d52bc01ea08ed08fe7893482e136eb25d4bd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: jochen Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2026 21:43:42 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] =?UTF-8?q?029=20fixed=20=E2=80=94=20the=20store=20is=20ad?= =?UTF-8?q?ded,=20not=20built,=20and=20the=20cycle=20is=20refused?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The registry module names its image by digest, the way the bundle names the three a first node starts from, and goes in as a manifest. The lab now walks that path and passes. A manifest that provides the store and also builds artifacts is refused at parse. The lab had been passing only because its Docker Hub stand-in quietly received the push — a prop covering for the thing under test. --- .../00-report.md | 19 +++++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/04-ISSUES/029-the-artifact-store-cannot-be-delivered-by-the-artifact-store/00-report.md b/04-ISSUES/029-the-artifact-store-cannot-be-delivered-by-the-artifact-store/00-report.md index 7f78532..b4ba944 100644 --- a/04-ISSUES/029-the-artifact-store-cannot-be-delivered-by-the-artifact-store/00-report.md +++ b/04-ISSUES/029-the-artifact-store-cannot-be-delivered-by-the-artifact-store/00-report.md @@ -1,8 +1,8 @@ --- -status: open +status: fixed opened: 2026-09-01 located-in: [mesh-control] -fixed-by: +fixed-by: mesh-control be62f49; mesh-lab f85dbb0 amended-design: --- @@ -87,3 +87,18 @@ should be said out loud rather than discovered. A manifest that both provides `artifact-store` and declares built artifacts is refused where it is written, naming the cycle. Otherwise the fault surfaces as a build that never returns, on a mesh too new to have anybody watching it. + +## Fixed + +**The registry module names its image and is added, not built.** The lab's artifact-store test now +walks the only path open to a real first mesh — the manifest goes in directly, no builder and no +store involved — and passes. + +**And the cycle is refused where it is written.** A manifest that provides `artifact-store` and +also declares built artifacts is refused at parse, naming the cycle: building publishes to the +store, so it asks the mesh to put an artifact into the thing that artifact is needed to create. +The provision name became a constant for the rule to turn on. + +What surfaced it in the lab is worth keeping: the test had always *built* the registry module and +passed, because the scenario's stand-in for the public registry was standing there to receive the +push. A prop that quietly covers for the thing under test is how a bootstrap hole stays invisible.