jschoubben
333356cff3
Jochen asked whether the order made sense. It did not -- it followed when things happened to be decided, which after consolidation is fictional anyway since record 5 alone folds decisions taken across a week. Concretely wrong before: the domain statement sat at 8, after five engineering rules; the constitution was scattered across 5, 12 and 17; the tiers landed at 15, 16, 21 and 22 with process records in between. Now it walks: what the mesh is (1-3), its tiers from the bottom up (4-8), what runs on them and how it gets there (9-10), how it is built (11-16), how it is checked (17-18), how we work (19-23). Two things made this safe rather than free. It is a permutation, not a compaction, so the renames go through temporary names -- otherwise two files want one slot and one is lost. And the reference rewrite is a single simultaneous pass, because almost every number moved into a slot another number was vacating; replacing one at a time would have cascaded and pointed things at the wrong record while still resolving. Verified: 284 [ADR NNNN](path) links across the repository, all with matching text and target. The ordering principle is now stated in 19 rather than left implicit -- the repository already said "the numbering is the flow" about its folders, and there was no reason for the records to be the exception.
66 lines
3.1 KiB
Markdown
66 lines
3.1 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
status: accepted
|
|
date: 2026-06-04
|
|
deciders: jochen
|
|
reconstructed: true
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 14. No workspace — each module is a standalone package consuming published dependencies
|
|
|
|
> Reconstructed after the fact from the evidence cited below.
|
|
|
|
## Context
|
|
|
|
Modules depend on each other, above all on the shared library every module builds against.
|
|
A workspace was the obvious way to express that: sibling packages, resolved locally, one
|
|
install at the root.
|
|
|
|
It produced a divergence that is worth stating precisely, because it is not obvious. In
|
|
development, a workspace member importing a sibling resolves to that sibling's **local source**.
|
|
In the pipeline, each module is built alone, from a clone, without its siblings present — so
|
|
the same import resolves to the **published version**. The two environments were therefore
|
|
building different code from identical source, and the failure appeared only in the pipeline,
|
|
in a module that had not been touched.
|
|
|
|
## Considered options
|
|
|
|
1. **Keep the workspace and make the pipeline replicate it** — clone every module, build the
|
|
graph. Rejected: it makes every build a whole-repository build, which is the cost the
|
|
per-module pipeline exists to avoid, and it does not extend to modules in their own
|
|
repositories.
|
|
2. **Keep the workspace and pin siblings to published versions.** Rejected as the worst of
|
|
both: the workspace's local resolution silently overrides the pin, so the divergence
|
|
remains while looking solved.
|
|
3. **No workspace. Every module is standalone and consumes published dependencies.** Chosen.
|
|
|
|
## Decision
|
|
|
|
There is no workspace. Each module is an independent package that declares its dependencies
|
|
and consumes them from the private registry, including the mesh's own shared library.
|
|
|
|
A cross-package change is therefore two steps: publish the producer, then consume it. The
|
|
pipeline does the first on push and resolves the levels so that a module always builds against
|
|
its dependencies' freshly published versions.
|
|
|
|
## Consequences
|
|
|
|
- Development and the pipeline resolve imports identically. The divergence is gone by
|
|
construction rather than by discipline.
|
|
- A module in its own repository is not a special case. It builds exactly as a module in the
|
|
monorepo does — which is what makes [ADR 0015](0015-applications-live-in-their-own-repository.md)
|
|
cheap.
|
|
- A cross-package change costs a publish-and-consume round trip. This is the real price, paid
|
|
on every shared-library change.
|
|
- There is no repository-wide install and no repository-wide build. Anything that assumed one
|
|
broke, and one thing that assumed one has stayed broken: the end-to-end pipeline harness has
|
|
not built since this decision landed. See
|
|
[`04-ISSUES/005`](../04-ISSUES/005-pipeline-test-harness-unbuildable/00-report.md).
|
|
|
|
## References
|
|
|
|
- `fix(noxflow): kill npm workspace, restore encryption inside PgAdminRepo` (#240),
|
|
2026-06-04. The reason is recorded in the root package manifest, which still carries the
|
|
note explaining why no workspace exists.
|
|
- The divergence it fixed is named there: workspace members importing each other resolved to
|
|
local unbuilt source in the pipeline.
|