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.
139 lines
5.8 KiB
Markdown
139 lines
5.8 KiB
Markdown
# The graph is not missing
|
|
|
|
Measured against `origin/main` of the code repository, 2026-08-26. Every manifest, read through
|
|
git refs rather than a checkout.
|
|
|
|
The effort was opened to ask whether the catalogue's missing structure is a graph. It is not
|
|
missing. **It exists, it is healthy, and three separate parts of the system already use it.**
|
|
|
|
That is the finding, and it changes what is worth asking.
|
|
|
|
## Finding 1 — the graph is already declared, and it is clean
|
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
|---|---|
|
|
| manifests | 126 |
|
|
| declare a dependency on another module | 64 |
|
|
| declare a requirement on a provision | 11 |
|
|
| **edges** | **103** |
|
|
| declare neither | 62 — 49% |
|
|
| **cycles** | **0** |
|
|
| **dependencies declared but absent** | **0** |
|
|
| deepest chain | 5 |
|
|
|
|
Half the catalogue is unconnected, which matches
|
|
[research 005](../005-domain-grouping/analysis.md)'s finding that fifty modules co-change with
|
|
nothing. The connected half is well formed: no cycles, nothing dangling.
|
|
|
|
## Finding 2 — it is already resolved, and already used
|
|
|
|
The platform SDK carries a dependency resolver that topologically sorts modules, and it is
|
|
called from three places: the tool loader at startup, the installer when syncing modules onto a
|
|
node, and the delivery coordinator when expanding what a change affects.
|
|
|
|
It also already does something the effort assumed would need designing: **a requirement on
|
|
another module's provision is treated as an implicit edge to that module**, so a consumer does
|
|
not have to declare the same relationship twice.
|
|
|
|
So *ordering by the graph* — which
|
|
[ADR 0005](../../02-DECISIONS/0005-the-node-host.md) says
|
|
the control plane will do — is not a thing to build. It is a thing to call.
|
|
|
|
## Finding 3 — the most important edges in the mesh are invisible
|
|
|
|
The one place the graph is wrong, and it is wrong about the substrate.
|
|
|
|
A module that needs a database declares it like this:
|
|
|
|
```yaml
|
|
provisions:
|
|
- name: mesh-db
|
|
provider: postgres # ← a dependency on the postgres module
|
|
node: <a named node> # ← and where it must run
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
`provider:` names a module. It is a dependency, declared, in the manifest — and it sits inside
|
|
`provisions:`, which is what a module *offers*. The resolver reads `dependencies:` and
|
|
`requires:`, so it never sees it.
|
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
|---|---|
|
|
| provider references that name a real module | 4 |
|
|
| **invisible to the resolver** | **3, across 2 modules** |
|
|
|
|
Three edges is nothing, and they are the mesh's own database, the mesh's own broker, and the
|
|
work engine's database. The most load-bearing relationships in the system are the ones the
|
|
graph cannot see.
|
|
|
|
**The consequence is measurable.** Computing what a working mesh needs, from the declared
|
|
graph:
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
registry → sdk → mesh → meshware 4 modules, 4 levels
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
No database. No broker. A closure that is arithmetically correct and obviously wrong, and wrong
|
|
for exactly one reason: a field that means *depends on* is not read as one.
|
|
|
|
This is [04-ISSUES/003](../../04-ISSUES/003-firewall-scope-is-read-by-no-code/00-report.md)
|
|
again, in a new place — not a key nothing reads, but a key read as something other than what it
|
|
means.
|
|
|
|
## Finding 4 — the resolver continues past faults it should stop on
|
|
|
|
Two behaviours, both contrary to
|
|
[ADR 0010](../../02-DECISIONS/0010-delivery.md):
|
|
|
|
- **A cycle warns and falls back to input order.** A cycle means no correct order exists; the
|
|
resolver proceeds with an arbitrary one and logs a line.
|
|
- **A dependency that does not exist warns and continues.** The validation is documented as
|
|
*non-fatal, logged as warnings*.
|
|
|
|
Neither has fired in the current catalogue — there are no cycles and nothing dangling — which
|
|
is why nobody has noticed. They are latent, and they are in the component that
|
|
[ADR 0005](../../02-DECISIONS/0005-the-node-host.md) makes
|
|
responsible for the ordering a host will apply without question.
|
|
|
|
## Finding 5 — placement is decided in the catalogue
|
|
|
|
`node:` in a provision pins it to a named node, in the manifest. Two modules do this today,
|
|
and they are the substrate ones.
|
|
|
|
Which node runs what is an inventory and placement decision — tier 2 by the skeleton's own
|
|
test. Having it in a manifest means the catalogue decides placement, and a second node cannot
|
|
provide the mesh's database without editing the module that consumes it.
|
|
|
|
## What this means for the effort
|
|
|
|
**The opening question — "what does the graph delete?" — has an answer: nothing, because the
|
|
graph is already there.** The premise was wrong, and finding that out is the effort's first
|
|
result rather than a setback.
|
|
|
|
The questions that survive are narrower and answerable:
|
|
|
|
| Missing declaration | Manifests using it today |
|
|
|---|---|
|
|
| `excludes` — installing A makes B unavailable | **0** |
|
|
| a required node capability | **0** |
|
|
| an interface, with adapters providing it | **0** |
|
|
|
|
Those are what a graph would *add*. What it would delete is a different and smaller list, and
|
|
the honest version of it is: nothing yet.
|
|
|
|
**And two defects worth fixing regardless of what else this effort concludes:**
|
|
|
|
1. `provider:` is a dependency edge and is not read as one. Fixing it makes the closure correct
|
|
— which is what [research 012](../012-the-minimum-viable-node/00-overview.md) needs in order
|
|
to answer what a one-node mesh requires.
|
|
2. The resolver continues past a cycle and past a missing dependency. Both should refuse.
|
|
|
|
## What was not measured
|
|
|
|
- **Whether the missing declarations would be used.** Zero manifests declare exclusions or
|
|
capabilities, and that is equally consistent with *nobody needs them* and *nobody can express
|
|
them*. Nothing here separates those.
|
|
- **Whether the interface-and-adapter idea has a consumer.** It is a good shape, and it is
|
|
argued for rather than measured.
|
|
- **What the closure should be.** Finding 3 says the computed one is wrong. It does not say
|
|
what the right one is; that needs the fix first.
|