PR #133 landed a different 0115 while this branch was open. The bus record
is now 0116, with every citation in designs 19, 25, 28 and the index
following it.
Note: cycle.py and records.py both fail on main as merged, on that record —
nothing cites it, and it rests on 0112, which is still proposed. Both
pre-date this branch and are left for their own change.
A record can assert a fact that goes stale while the decision it supports
stays right. Superseding for that buries a sound record under a second one
and makes every reader work out which is live. So a correction of fact is
now made in place, marked and dated, with the old wording quoted — bounded
by three conditions and checked by records.py, which fires on an unmarked,
undated or back-dated note. Judgements still supersede.
Applied to 0115: no conformance suite exists to recapture, and the full
genesis bed cannot run until the links exist. Designs 25 and 28 follow.
Counting the surface first changed the plan twice: the genesis bed cannot run
until the links exist, so it belongs to step 4, and there is no conformance
suite to recapture — step 3 builds one against the current bus before moving
it. Both corrections are recorded in the breakdown rather than edited into
ADR 0115. Also indexes design 25, which was never listed.
The NATS change was recorded as one undivided item, which hid three gaps:
a mesh already running had no adoption path, the protocol specification did
not know its transport was being replaced, and nothing was runnable until
everything was. Dividing it is what surfaced them.
Fixes, each named where it was wrong:
- reload-on is a service field; a container only has restart-on, which
recreates. Cited precedent (registry-trust-reload) is a service resource,
not a container. Fix: nats-server's own SIGHUP reload, triggered by an
in-image entrypoint watching a directory-mounted config file (issue 103's
recreate-on-change applies to a directly-mounted file, not a directory's
contents) -- asks nothing new of the host.
- A JetStream-delivered message's Reply field is already claimed by the
consumer's own ack address, so a responder using it answers nobody. Fix:
every CONTROL message needing a reply carries its reply subject in its own
payload; the controller publishes there explicitly, never via Respond().
Enrolment is the case this design actually depends on, so it's fixed there
too, not just noted.
- The listed permissions never granted publish on a durable consumer's own
ack-reply subject -- a module could receive but never ack, so every
message redelivers forever. Fixed with a scoped grant per module's own
consumer.
- One account (a deliberate choice, kept) means inbox privacy is the
permission list or nothing. The design granted 'its reply inbox' without
scoping it, which read as any user reaching any inbox. Fixed: each user's
inbox prefix is derived from its own identity and its permissions name
only that prefix.
New open question from this revision, not closed: whether the in-image
watch-and-SIGHUP shape belongs in mesh-sdk if a second module ever needs it.
Checks pass (records.py, cycle.py, index.py).
jschoubben