The review's two nits. A write of bytes identical to what is stored was
invisible to a comparison of content, so the test store counts its
writes and the preview's tests read that count: a persist from inside
Preview now fails five of them instead of one. And a router holding an
ask's record and no condition said it held none, rather than saying what
that key is; the branches are the other way round, with a test that
holds nothing else.
The review of #192 found three faults, all verified by running.
The tests did not prove the claim the change leads with: a probe that
sent, queued, recorded and wrote from inside Preview still passed,
because the condition they used was a warning needing nothing, which is
held rather than sent. They now hold an urgent condition, snapshot what
a send would move — the channels, the queue, the history, the refusals,
the stored record and the record held — assert none of it moved, and
tick once more. Every one of those probes now fails the tests.
`cleared` and `silenced` said wording no send would carry: an open
record has no clearing time, so a condition open four hours cleared
"after a moment", and no silence, so a silence read "until Mon 1 Jan
00:17". A clearing is now composed as if it cleared now, which the
answer says; a silence is refused unless the condition is under one.
The preview composed only its own words, while a send reduces a message
whose words the content rule refuses. The escalation walk is now one
function, allowedWords, which `words` calls for a send and the preview
calls alone — so the words read are the words that would leave, and
reading them records no refusal and states nothing on the bus.
withTracking hands back the line it put in, so the preview reports that
line instead of deciding the rule a second time; and a record that is
not a condition, or one carrying an open ask, is refused or says that a
channel's message carries more.
The words a condition reaches the operator with are composed in the
router, and nothing kept them: a send's history row holds a key and an
outcome, never text, and a notification still on the desk is not in the
notifier's history. So a wording could only be proven by waiting for a
send and reading the operator's screen, which is why proving issue 400's
tracking line stalled.
messenger_preview composes what a send would carry for a condition the
router holds open — the same words, the same tracking line, the same
verdict — and says whether the content rule would let them out. It
sends, queues and records nothing.
jschoubben