021 closed — the record was left open after the fix landed
The code and its tests went in hours before the record was touched, so an issue that read `located` had been fixed all along. That is the exact failure the frontmatter exists to prevent: status is meant to be answerable from the record rather than by reading the code. Closed with the commit that did it, and cross-referenced to 022 and 023, which came out of the same mistaken instinct — treating the machine as a boundary, then as an identity, then finding a consumer had a password and no name to present with it.
This commit is contained in:
+21
-2
@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
|
|||||||
---
|
---
|
||||||
status: located
|
status: fixed
|
||||||
opened: 2026-09-01
|
opened: 2026-09-01
|
||||||
located-in: [mesh-control]
|
located-in: [mesh-control]
|
||||||
fixed-by:
|
fixed-by: mesh-control df62bb5
|
||||||
amended-design:
|
amended-design:
|
||||||
---
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
@@ -69,3 +69,22 @@ them as consumers.
|
|||||||
readable secret for local consumers would be a hole opened for convenience.
|
readable secret for local consumers would be a hole opened for convenience.
|
||||||
- **Refusing must stay refusing.** A requirement nothing answers is still refused; this is about a
|
- **Refusing must stay refusing.** A requirement nothing answers is still refused; this is about a
|
||||||
requirement that *was* answered.
|
requirement that *was* answered.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Fixed
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
A requirement answered on this machine is still a requirement. Resolution now records a need for
|
||||||
|
it, so a credential is made, the provider is told who asked, and the consumer's file is written —
|
||||||
|
the same as if the two were on different machines.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The reasoning that made it a gap is now written where it was assumed: the machine is not a trust
|
||||||
|
boundary once both ends are containers, and treating it as one gave the commonest arrangement of
|
||||||
|
all — a service and its database on one node — the weakest handling.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Two later issues came out of the same mistaken instinct and are worth reading together:
|
||||||
|
[`022`](../022-one-credential-per-node-per-provision-not-per-module/00-report.md), where the
|
||||||
|
machine was treated as an *identity* rather than a boundary, and
|
||||||
|
[`023`](../023-a-consumer-cannot-build-a-connection-string/00-report.md), where the consumer was
|
||||||
|
given a password and never told the name to present with it.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
*Closed 2026-09-01. The fix landed the same day and this record was left open by oversight — the
|
||||||
|
code and the tests were in place for hours while the record still said `located`.*
|
||||||
|
|||||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user