Commit Graph
49 Commits
Author SHA1 Message Date
jschoubben 05ff6065d0 Event names are checked now, per manifest and across the catalogue
Issue 127 stood because nothing compared the two halves. Every manifest was
well-formed on its own and every derivation correct on its own, and no
cross-module subscription in the mesh matched anything — a subscription that
matches nothing is not an error, it is silence.

Two checks, because the mistake is possible at two scales.

Per manifest: an event is a local name, and `module.` is refused with the name to
write instead. A module emitting under what reads as another module's name is
refused too, pointing at the seat, where a name outlives whoever holds it.

Across the catalogue: where a consumed event's emitter is present, it must emit
that event. It cannot demand a live emitter for everything — a module lives in its
own repository and may be installed long before the one whose events it wants — so
the rule is narrower and still catches this. It found two real dangling
subscriptions the moment it ran.

Wildcards were undecided and two manifests needed them: `*` is one name and `**`
is the rest, spelled the mesh's way and derived to `>` here and `#` on the old bus.
A manifest naming either would stop being true when the wire changed, which is the
whole reason names are local.

And the field documentation taught the old form, examples included — which is why
the drift was uniform across 37 manifests rather than scattered. Nobody was
guessing; everybody followed the comment.
2026-09-27 14:43:16 +02:00
jschoubben f8ab9f2dcf The mesh composes the accounts; the module owns its server
The delivery question, decided. The alternative was a manifest field enumerating
the server's ports, TLS paths and store directory so the controller could write a
whole configuration file. That is wrong: those are properties of the container the
module raises, they live in its image and its mounts, and the controller would
have to be kept in step with a Dockerfile it never sees. So the mesh writes only
what only the mesh knows — who may connect — and the module's own configuration
includes it.

`ComposeAccounts` is that file. A test says what must *not* be in it as plainly as
what must: no port, no tls block, no store_dir. Each of those in the mesh's file
is a value the controller would then own, and the module could no longer change
its own image without the mesh agreeing.

`bus-users` is where a module wants it written, and **asking is not enough to
receive it**: the file holds every user's password hash, so a module that could ask
for it could read every credential on the bus. The claim on `mesh-broker`
authorises it, checked from the manifest alone. A holder with nothing composed is
refused rather than given an empty file, for the reason a certificate is — a bus
with no user list refuses every connection in the mesh and looks like a machine
problem.

Six claims checked against a running server before any of this was committed to,
and two of them changed what got written:

**An absolute include path is resolved relative to the including file's
directory.** `include /etc/nats/accounts.conf` from /etc/nats-server/nats.conf
makes the server look for /etc/nats-server/etc/nats/accounts.conf and refuse to
start. So both files share one directory, and the module declares its own as a
file resource beside the mesh's.

**`verify: true` was refusing every connection in the mesh.** It makes the server
demand a *client* certificate, and nothing in the mesh presents one: a host pins
this server's exact certificate and authenticates with the password the mesh
minted, and so does a module's runtime. Every connection died at the TLS handshake
before any password was looked at, with an error — "client didn't provide a
certificate" — that reads as a fault in the client. Removed. TLS is still
required; verify only decides whether client certificates are checked.

The other four: a user in an included file authenticates, an unknown user is
refused so the include is the whole authority rather than an addition, a publish
outside a grant is refused, and rewriting the mesh's half alone makes a new user
appear — noticed by the module's own watcher, with no signal from outside, and
without dropping the connection the mesh already had. That last one is task 1.2's
payoff, collected.
2026-09-27 02:50:23 +02:00
jschoubben 7232d6df4b A module may declare its own seats (novox/hq ADR 0118)
The manifest carries seats and uses; registration refuses a mesh-* name, a
duplicate declarer, an undeclared uses or claim, a seat with no protocol, a
scope mismatch, and a holder that does not answer what its seat promises.

The parser stops judging unknown claim names, because it cannot: another
module may declare that seat, and one manifest cannot tell. The test that
encoded the old rule is rewritten to assert the refusal at registration, and
a new one pins the case the parser could not have distinguished.

Tools are declared for the first time, under their own key — serves already
means a provision's facts.
2026-09-26 22:17:17 +02:00
jschoubben 2e3b13c0f8 The assignment's own root is a place, and the manifest's maps are placed
Slice two of ADR 0112. A pathless directory saying place "." is the
assignment's one directory, <root>/<module> — to-be 27's shape — and
place never reaches the host, which parses strictly. The maps naming
where bindings, credentials and contributions land (binds, secrets,
own-secrets, receives, grants) fill against the placed directories at
composition, into fresh maps and a fresh module slice, because one
resolution composes for many nodes. The five absolute-path checks on
those maps accept a placed reference — resolution makes it absolute
before anything reads it — while certificate, operator-keeps and
accesses paths stay absolute-only: those are the operator's or another
vocabulary's. unknownDirRefs scans the maps too, and validates place
itself: only on a directory, only ".", never beside a stated path.

Found by the foundation tests validating the sibling catalogue: the
first conversion's blanket replace turned /var/lib/gitea/database.json
into ${dir:data}base.json — which resolves to the right path by pure
string concatenation. Production was saved by a coincidence; the
catalogue cleanup that follows spells it ${dir:state}/database.json.
2026-09-26 18:18:13 +02:00
jschoubben d2cbc9dbdc A directory the mesh places: ${dir:<id>} and the pathless directory resource
The first executable slice of ADR 0112 / to-be 27, sized to what the
operator settled tonight: a module definition names no host path for
its own data. A directory resource may omit path; composition resolves
it to <root>/<module>/<id>, the root a node's setting on Rendering with
/var/lib as the default — which reproduces exactly the layout novox
converged to by hand. ${dir:<id>} names the place from a resource's
path, content, mounts, environment and env-files, the same shape as
${bound:…}. A directory that states a path keeps it and still answers
by name — that is the adopted-data placement, mssql its live case.

Resolved in the controller at composition, so the wire format and the
host change not at all; a reference naming no directory refuses at the
manifest and again at composition; nested fills are rebuilt, never
written into the manifest's own maps, because one manifest composes
for many nodes.
2026-09-26 17:51:54 +02:00
jochen 97448194ac Seats are a closed set, a seat's holder answers for what it delivers, and a build source may live on the git seat
Implements novox/hq ADR 0110 and 0111.

The seat set lives in internal/catalogue/seats.go: fourteen seats, each with a scope, what occupying
it delivers, and the record that made it one. A test asserts the count and a decision per entry, so
changing the set means finding the argument, as the host's vocabulary test does. The first set is
every seat already claimed — including the-private-network, which the network module claims from a
manifest composed in this repository's code, not from any module.json — plus npm-package-registry
(ADR 0109) and git (ADR 0111). A test parses every catalogue manifest and this repository's own and
fails on any refused claim, so closing the set refuses nothing in use.

ParseManifest now refuses a claim on a seat the mesh does not define, a seat claimed at another
scope, and a delivering seat claimed by a module that does not provide what it delivers. A
malformed claim is refused once, for being malformed.

Resolution: among several providers of a mesh provision, a pin still wins; then the holder of the
seat that delivers it; then the only provider; otherwise refused as before. ADR 0009's "never
guessed" holds — the seat is the choice made once, mesh-wide, rather than a pin per consumer node.
A provider now carries the module it came from, because a provider is a (node, module) pair and the
pair is what tells a holder from a neighbour on the same machine.

The planner's second pass is now given the first pass's holdings. Without them, a node consuming a
seat-delivered provision was refused there, and a refused node's own claims dropped out of what the
mesh holds — letting a second holder of one of its seats pass unrefused.

`seats [--json]` lists every seat, what it delivers, and each holder, derived from assignments
every time and never stored. Unheld seats are listed. A stored claim outside the set — possible
for a manifest registered before the set closed, since stored manifests are not re-validated — is
shown rather than hidden.

`build --self <owner>/<repo>` builds from a repository on the git seat's holder. The clone URL is
composed at build time from the holder's node and what it serves for git; the recorded source is the
path and the seat (migration 0032), never an address, so a moved forge changes nothing recorded.
Nobody holding the seat refuses self-hosted builds and says so; external URLs are unchanged. An
address passed with --self is refused rather than recorded as a path.

Replaces three foundation tests that defended the builder's carried package binding. The catalogue
removed that binding when the builder began requiring the registry through a real grant, so the
tests were already failing on main; they now assert the builder requires what the npm seat delivers
and carries no copy of its own, and that the forge holds the npm and git seats.

Verified: go vet clean; the whole suite passes against a throwaway Postgres (make postgres), the new
inventory tests included; gofmt clean apart from cmd/mesh-builder/stdout_test.go, which fails on
main too.
2026-09-25 20:48:10 +02:00
jschoubben 20e57c3f51 an image artifact may name its own build context, apart from the module's repository
route-proxy's own Dockerfile documents the shape it has always needed and
never had: 'the proxy source is not vendored here... the build context is
the mesh-controller repository root, and this Dockerfile compiles
./examples/route-proxy from it.' Nothing in the mesh could do that — the
build command clones one repository and builds every artifact from
within it, so route-proxy has never once been built through the pipeline,
consistent with it never having been assigned anywhere. Found attempting
exactly that build tonight: 'stat go.mod: file does not exist', because
the context was mesh-catalog, which does not have one.

An image artifact may now carry a context: {repository, ref}, cloned
fresh alongside the module's own tree. The recipe (Dockerfile) is still
read from the module's own directory, at the module's own commit — only
docker build's own context argument moves. Packaging and source stay
exactly as separate as route-proxy's own comment already said they were,
now for real.
2026-09-25 17:39:27 +02:00
jschoubben f4bcb320fe contributes: a module may answer one requirement several times
A module's contributes was map[string]map[string]any — one JSON object key
per requirement, structurally exactly one contribution to "route" ever.
minio needs two public hostnames (the S3 API and the console), which is
two different contributions to route from one module, and nothing let it
say so.

This is the same shape of problem ADR 0094 solved for secrets (a module
needing several values from one provider that gives one per pair):
contributes now accepts either the ordinary {label, port} object, or an
object of local names to several such objects. Detected per requirement
key by what's inside, since (unlike secrets' string-vs-object split) both
shapes are JSON objects: an ordinary contribution's fields are scalars, the
several-instance shape is local-name -> object. Confirmed against every
module.json in mesh-catalog before relying on that split.

Both route-proxy and the migration-era route-adapter already key generated
routers off the composed hostname (Values["name"]), not the module name,
so two contributions with the same From reach them as two independent
routes with no changes needed on the receiving side.
2026-09-24 18:36:08 +02:00
jschoubben c3b1617693 Declare openings and a refusal-only guard on an adopted node in place of the filter (hq ADR 0100) 2026-09-22 17:21:44 +02:00
jschoubben e4da83496f A run-once step may name what it reads: the pair run-once + restart-on is no longer refused (novox/hq ADR 0099) 2026-09-21 23:31:06 +02:00
jschoubben 9f3790dcda Review: one local name is still a local name; a local name is unique; recovery knows it; recipes read as instructions; a tag before a digest; ask fails at once when nothing serves
A secrets object with one local name delivered no file. Two requirements could share
a local name. secret recover and the export could not tell two locals apart. The
recipe check missed continued lines and read heredoc bodies as bases. repo:tag@digest
kept the tag in the repository. ask now publishes mandatory, so a tool nothing serves
is said at once rather than after the wait.
2026-09-21 21:03:22 +02:00
jschoubben 6f6e1244d4 A build declares the vendor image it stands on, and a recipe fetches nothing undeclared
build.on takes {arg, image@sha256:…} beside {arg, module, artifact}: the image is
copied into the mesh's registry before the build (ADR 0096) and the recipe reads the
copy from the argument. A FROM or COPY --from naming a registry image the manifest
did not declare is refused before the build, naming it and the remedy; stages,
declared arguments and scratch are not fetches (novox/hq 04-ISSUES/064, ADR 0097).
2026-09-21 20:45:36 +02:00
jschoubben 6ae4ae1dba A module may hold several secrets from one provider, each a pair of its own
secrets: maps a requirement to several files under local names. Each local name is
its own need, its own pair credential (the pair is keyed on it: migration 0027),
its own file on the consumer, its own holder at the provider (the identity with the
local name after it) and rotates apart from the others. The plain shape is
unchanged and every existing row is the credential it was (novox/hq 04-ISSUES/069,
ADR 0094).
2026-09-21 20:28:16 +02:00
jschoubben 53a79a17a1 Review: a failure is the same by resource id, not by the host's words; bound files and /run/docker.sock are declared
The host's error text may carry a duration or a counter, and a resource looping on
it would never have read as stuck. The previous row is read and compared here.
Stuck needs a start to say. A container may mount the file a binding lands in; the
runtime socket is declared under both of its spellings; the catalogue-wide test
takes MESH_CATALOG.
2026-09-21 19:23:02 +02:00
jschoubben 537ad544d3 A container may not mount a path the module never declared — and three things declare one
Brought back from 53eb000, withdrawn because it refused the builder's mount of the
container runtime's socket. A path is declared as the module's own (a directory or
file resource, or where a secret, grant or contribution lands), as the operator's
(an accesses entry, ADR 0051), or as the machine's (a facility a declared capability
grants: container-runtime grants its socket). Every catalogue manifest passes, and
a test says so (novox/hq 04-ISSUES/026, ADR 0091).
2026-09-21 17:47:44 +02:00
jschoubben 69bb0fcb67 A module names who its secret files belong to (secrets-owner)
The control plane runs as 65534 and crash-looped on permission denied the
first time its credentials were mounted as files the host wrote as root at
0600 — the env-file shape hid this because the daemon reads an env-file on
the host side. The composer now gives a module's secret files the owner the
manifest names.
2026-09-21 10:19:00 +02:00
jschoubben e140ed5d0b An operator key, a second seal on every own secret, and the vault keeps the export
novox/hq ADR 0085, amended: the mesh's root secrets — the store's superuser,
the broker's administrator, every secret a module holds for itself — were
sealed to a node key and nothing else, so a lost node took them with it.
Now the mesh records an operator's public sealing key and seals every own
secret to it as well, minted or accepted. The private half is written once
by `operator key new` to a file the operator keeps off the mesh; the mesh
holds one more blob per secret that it cannot open.

`secret recover` opens a secret with that key, to a 0600 file, from the
store or from an export; `secret export` writes every operator-sealed copy
as ciphertext. A module that `keeps` (the vault) is handed that export as a
declared file on its own disk, so recovery survives the store.

Secrets made before the key exists have no operator copy and are said so —
the plaintext was discarded — until each is issued again.
2026-09-20 23:56:49 +02:00
jschoubben c3b88b9148 Rename mesh-control -> mesh-controller, substrate -> foundation
One name per thing, per the HQ glossary: the module/container/image/binary/repo
becomes mesh-controller, the seat the-controller, and the store+broker pair the
foundation (embedded base bundles, default template and example lock renamed with
their go:embed directives). No behaviour change — a pure vocabulary rename.

Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01D6qtiYU3P9jk3pnAXyAFyx
2026-09-16 18:40:40 +02:00
jschoubben 4b9bc50aad The builder resolves the SDK from the mesh registry, and can publish packages
A new 'package' artifact kind builds a module's own code on a public base image
and publishes it to the mesh's package registry by version (hq ADR 0076) — the
SDK above all, which the toolchain is built from and so cannot be built in the
toolchain. The credential a build needs to resolve or publish packages is
rendered as an .npmrc (basic auth, hq ADR 0048) and given to an image build as a
buildkit secret, never a layer, so a token is not baked into the toolchain image.

Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01D6qtiYU3P9jk3pnAXyAFyx
2026-09-16 10:27:26 +02:00
jschoubben fcdb065660 The mesh's knowledge is a fact a module asks for, not three modules
mesh-names, mesh-resolver and the names half of the overlay generators are gone.
They ran no software and could not be swapped for anything, which is the test of
whether something is a module at all — they existed because computed output
needed somewhere to live, and the control plane's only shape for output was a
module.

Now a module says where it wants what the mesh knows:

  facts: { node-zones: /etc/mesh-resolver/nodes.conf }

and is given a file, under its own name, applied and removed like anything else
it declares. Two facts exist: node-names (a hosts file — exact names) and
node-zones (every machine as a wildcard, *.homer.internal is homer). Asking for
a fact the mesh does not compute is refused naming what would have worked,
because a daemon that starts and reads a file nobody wrote is a worse way to
find out.

The names ride with the network now: wireguard's manifest asks for node-names
into /etc/hosts, because being on the private network is what gives a machine a
name. networking no longer requires name-resolution — names are not a provision,
and the module that answered it ran nothing.

One behaviour inverted, deliberately: choosing another VPN used to drag
WireGuard in anyway, because only WireGuard provided the addressing the names
module required — the node-scope claim existed to at least make that loud. With
names as a fact there is nothing to drag in: tailscale assigned means tailscale,
alone. The claim still catches two VPNs assigned explicitly.

And a machine the mesh cannot place is left out of both files rather than named
at nothing: a name resolving to nothing hangs a connection, where an unknown
name fails at once and says so. In practice that is only ever a token issued and
not yet used — a machine that has announced itself has an address.

Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01D6qtiYU3P9jk3pnAXyAFyx
2026-09-15 21:31:18 +02:00
jschoubben 4b7bd1b3e2 A module says what it is written in, and needs no Dockerfile
The bundle recipe: the one that both builds and packs. An archive packs a
directory as it stands, so shipping compiled output meant compiling somewhere
first — which meant a Dockerfile repeating the same incantation in every module.
Two base arguments with no defaults, a working directory chosen so the SDK
resolves upward, the compiler invoked by absolute path because the usual symlink
is resolved away when the base image is assembled, a second stage, an environment
variable naming the entrypoints. Most of the catalogue is unconverted and that is
why; two conversions done in one session were each wrong twice with a working
example open in the next window.

A bundle says a language and a list of entrypoints. The mesh knows what the
language implies. Anything a module could override there it would be writing a
Dockerfile to override, so a toolchain is deliberately not configurable.

Declared rather than inferred, both of them: guessing the language from which
files are present makes a build depend on a directory listing, and guessing the
entrypoints makes it change meaning when somebody adds a helper.

A toolchain the mesh does not hold is refused before anything is compiled, naming
what to build first — the same treatment a missing base already gets, because it
is the same question and somebody can answer it. A language the mesh does not
build is refused saying what would have worked, since the author is usually one
word away.

The list of languages is closed and adding to it is a decision. Every language is
another implementation of the contracts every module shares, and those change
rarely and cascade when they do (ADR 0039) — a mesh whose SDKs disagree about the
envelope fails by ignoring messages rather than by failing to compile.

Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01D6qtiYU3P9jk3pnAXyAFyx
2026-09-15 01:59:07 +02:00
jschoubben 811b805c67 An artifact may name which stage of its recipe to stop at
One source, two images, deliberately different: a toolchain carries a compiler
and the image the same module runs in should not.
2026-09-14 01:57:07 +02:00
jschoubben cfe2816495 A module names the module its build stands on, not a copy of it
A fingerprint written into a recipe names one particular copy of the base — the
copy on whichever machine the person typing it was using. On any other mesh that
copy has never existed, so the build stops on its first line with a message
about an image nobody can look up. Three modules in the catalogue were in
exactly that state, and the line each of them replaced was equally dead.

A module now names the module and artifact instead, and the mesh answers with
what it holds. The builder is still a thing that clones, builds and answers: the
answer travels with the question, because only the mesh knows what it has.

A base the mesh has not built is refused before anything is built, naming which
module has to exist first.
2026-09-13 23:53:22 +02:00
jschoubben 78b8b6e256 catalogue: carry and validate a container schedule (ADR 0053)
A container may declare schedule: "<cron>", the recurring twin of
run-once. The resolver already carries a resource's keys through
untouched, so schedule reaches the rendered host declaration on its own;
what belongs here is refusing, near its author, what the host would
otherwise refuse far away.

The manifest parser refuses a schedule that is not a string, one that is
not a well-formed five-field cron (cron.go: fields, ranges, *, comma,
dash, slash), and the contradictory pair run-once + schedule -- a
container runs once and gates, or on a cadence, or stays up, never two.

Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01LrgweAeERJYBg88c5cKDzF
2026-09-06 14:08:51 +02:00
jschoubben f96c247c5f catalogue: run-once is a step the host runs to completion (ADR 0052)
A container may be marked `run-once: true` — a step the host runs to completion,
gating whatever the declaration places after it. The control plane's part is
small: the field is carried to the host unchanged (containers pass through as
maps), and the step keeps its author-order position ahead of the container it
gates, because the gate is declaration order, not a resolved dependency
(ADR 0005).

The manifest parser refuses a run-once that is not a boolean and the pair
run-once + restart-on (contradictory lifecycles) — near the manifest rather than
far away on the machine, the same lesson the action ban records. Three unit
tests; go build ./... and go test ./... green.

Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01LrgweAeERJYBg88c5cKDzF
2026-09-05 23:57:33 +02:00
jschoubben aeb65a3e1d catalogue: a module accesses operator-owned data, and does not own it
04-ISSUES/036: the media stack is several modules that must share the
library and download directories on one machine, but the manifest could
only say "a directory I own". Six modules each declared the same paths as
their own resources, and the resolver's duplicate-owner refusal — right
in general — would refuse the stack's only sensible assignment the first
time two of them landed on one node.

Add an `accesses` field: a pre-existing, operator-owned path a module is
granted use of but does not own (novox/hq ADR 0051). Distinct from a
`directory` resource on every axis the host acts on — the mesh creates,
chowns and reconciles a directory; it mounts an access and owns nothing.
An access is not a resource, so it never enters the duplicate-owner map
and several modules may name one path with no conflict. What is refused
is the contradiction: a path one module owns and another accesses.

Rendered into the declaration as an `access` resource, before the
container that mounts it, so the host can find it present or refuse
clearly. Unit tests cover co-resolution (the exact 036 case), the
unchanged owner-vs-owner refusal, the owner-vs-accessor refusal, and
access validation.

Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01LrgweAeERJYBg88c5cKDzF
2026-09-05 22:10:58 +02:00
jschoubben 87c193b202 Resync hq ADR references 0044-0054 -> 0039-0049 after the hq record reconciliation 2026-09-05 12:47:13 +02:00
jschoubben 9b7ba2e20c identity: a consumer's identity fits the tightest backend, via a slug (ADR 0054)
A module may declare a short `slug`; the mesh derives mesh_<node>_<slug|name> and
refuses at assignment (naming the slug as the remedy) when it would still overflow —
identityLimit is now 20, an S3 access key's, the tightest of the backends a login
reaches (04-ISSUES/010). The slug rides the grant so the provider derives the same
login the consumer does, even across nodes. CheckIdentity is now wired, in grantsFor.

Also, the minted secret shrinks to 40 chars (30 bytes) from 43: an S3 secret key is
8-40, the same fit-the-tightest-backend rule on the credential's other half.

Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01LrgweAeERJYBg88c5cKDzF
2026-09-05 02:51:39 +02:00
jschoubben 2c06c0d663 manifest: emits and consumes — the event relationship
A module declares the event types it emits and the patterns it consumes,
parallel to provides/requires (novox/hq ADR 0046). Events span module.*,
mesh.* and node.* sources; a consumes for an event nothing emits is a
dangling edge. Fields only here; the dangling-edge check and the runtime
wiring follow.

Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01LrgweAeERJYBg88c5cKDzF
2026-09-03 23:44:30 +02:00
jschoubben b70f0d626a What review found in the port machinery, fixed
Three faults, one file split. All from reading, all verified to bite.

Unassign now releases the module's ports. ReleasePorts existed, said
"for when it is unassigned" in its own comment, and was called by
nothing — so a fixed port stayed claimed in the name of a module that
was gone, and the next module needing it was refused by a ghost.
Kept-once-chosen is a promise about a module that is still here.

MachineSide reads addressed mappings. "127.0.0.1:8080:80" was split at
the first colon, "127.0.0.1" failed to parse as a port, and the mapping
was silently skipped — putting the filter back on the declared port,
the exact fault the function was written to end. The machine side is
the second-from-last part, which is the reading the host already
applies, and the substrate bundle writes that shape today.

An allocation race answers in the mesh's words. Two concurrent picks of
the same port used to surface as a Postgres constraint violation,
verbatim. The table has two keys, so the collision is one of two facts:
the racer was this same assignment — then its answer is the answer,
kept-once-chosen does not care who chose — or another module took the
machine port, and an unfixed pick is simply made again against the
moved free list. A fixed port that lost the race is refused by name.
Told apart by re-reading the row, not by the constraint's name, so this
does not couple to the migration's spelling.

And the artifact-store cycle tests moved to bootstrap_cycle_test.go;
machineside_test.go had quietly become three subjects.
2026-09-01 21:54:05 +02:00
jschoubben be62f49eab What provides the artifact store cannot be delivered through it
Refused where it is written: a module that provides `artifact-store` and
also builds artifacts asks the mesh to put an artifact into the thing
that artifact is needed to create. Building publishes to the store, and
the builder will not start without one — "a built artifact nobody can
fetch is not built".

This is the question the substrate record asks of every candidate: can
it grant itself the thing it provides? The store cannot create its own
database, the broker cannot create its own virtual host, and a registry
cannot grant itself a repository. The first two are why they are in the
bundle. This is the same sentence, unenforced.

So such a module names its image, exactly as the bundle names the three
a first node starts from. One that wants an interface or a tool server
beside it is a second module, mirrored the ordinary way once the first
is running — a real limit, and better said here than discovered on a
mesh new enough that nobody is watching it.

Refused at the manifest because the alternative is a build that never
returns.

The provision name is now a constant. A string compared in one place is
a convention; a string a rule turns on is a fact.
2026-09-01 21:18:14 +02:00
jschoubben 83c6a2f244 Withdraw the mount check: it refuses the builder
The rule was right about data and wrong about everything else. The
builder mounts the container runtime's socket, which is not its data,
does not belong to it, and must not be declared as one of its
directories — and the check refused the builder's own manifest.

Caught by the lab, though not honestly: the run was already going when
this went in, so the builder binary was rebuilt mid-run with the check
compiled into it and the failure was mine, not the mesh's. Confirmed
against the manifest directly rather than inferred from the log.

What it was protecting is real and stands — the fourteen mounts are all
declared. But enforcing it needs a way to tell "the directory my data
lives in" from "a machine facility I was granted", and the mesh has no
vocabulary for the second. `capabilities` is the closest thing and does
not name paths. That is a design decision, so it goes back to
04-ISSUES/026 rather than being invented here to make a check pass.

The check that every real manifest still parses is kept. It costs
nothing and it is how the next attempt at this finds out sooner.
2026-09-01 19:45:36 +02:00
jschoubben 53eb000a84 A container may not mount a path the module never declared
Closes the half of 04-ISSUES/026 that would otherwise come back. The
fourteen mounts across the forge, the mail system, the store and the
object store are all declared now — but nothing said they had to be, so
they were right by coincidence and the next volume added would not be.

A bind mount whose source does not exist is created by the container
runtime, as root, with a mode it picks. So `owner` and `mode` — which
exist precisely so a module can say who its data belongs to — were
silently not applied to the only directories holding data.

And the rule written for exactly this case did not reach them. A
directory the mesh declared and no longer wants is kept, not removed,
when it holds anything the mesh did not put there (ADR 0030). That is
the answer to *what happens to my data when a module goes away*, and it
is written in terms of declared directories: an undeclared one sits
outside it, because the mesh does not know it is there.

Refused where it is written rather than on the machine, which cannot
tell the difference — by the time the host sees the mount it is being
asked to make a directory, which it is perfectly able to do. The fault
is in the manifest, so it is named at the manifest. Same argument as the
action refusal directly above it.

A path under a declared directory counts as declared, as do the files a
module already names: its own secrets, its grants, what it receives.

Every real manifest is checked to still parse, and the refusal bites.
2026-09-01 19:36:01 +02:00
jschoubben c67f836185 The mesh may only move a port it actually publishes
The lab caught this: a module declaring a port and running no container
had its rule set opened on 20000 while its service sat on 9101. The
firewall reported success and blocked the thing it was told to admit,
which is the precise failure the filtering comment warns about, arrived
at from the other side.

Assignment was applied to every declared port. But a container's mapping
is the thing that translates, and where there is none the software binds
what it binds — the mesh choosing a number does not move the service, it
only makes the mesh wrong about where it is.

The declaration side already knew this: publishedOn rewrites container
ports and nothing else. Filtering did not, so the two disagreed about
the same fact. MachineSide is now the one derivation both follow.

It also fixes a second case nobody had hit yet: a mapping the manifest
wrote itself, like the mail system's 7080:80. That is passed through
untouched when composing, so assigning it a machine port would have
opened a rule on a port the container does not publish. Either side of
such a mapping now names it, and the host side is the answer — a module
may read `listens` as what its software binds or as what the machine
exposes, and both readings want the same number.

Recorded either way, assigned or not: the map means where this module's
port is on this machine, and every reader needs that answer regardless
of who chose it.

Tests bite — making it always assignable reproduces the lab failure.
2026-09-01 19:31:05 +02:00
jschoubben 1f5b70a995 The mesh assigns the port, and a module says it once
novox/hq ADR 0038. A module cannot choose a port: it is written once and
assigned anywhere, so any number it picks is a guess about a machine it
has never seen. A database module met the mesh's own store on 5432 and
was told, by a container runtime three layers down, that the port was
already allocated.

The number used to appear three times in every module — the rule set,
what a consumer is told, and what the runtime publishes — agreeing only
because one person wrote all three. Now it appears once, in `listens`,
and the other two are derived: the container publishes `20000:5432`, the
consumer is told 20000, and the rule set opens 20000.

An assignment is made once and kept, as a credential is. A port that
moved on every declaration would restart both ends each time and hand a
consumer a number that was true when it was read.

Ports the protocol fixes — mail on 25, submission on 587, DNS on 53 —
say so, and are then claims: one holder per machine, and the second is
refused by name at assignment. That is the mechanism the mesh already
has for what is singular on a machine, pointed at ports.

A mapping written the long way is left exactly as it is. Some things
must be pinned by hand, and quietly overruling somebody who wrote both
halves would be worse than not offering the short form.

Still open, and known: the substrate is not a module, so the mesh has
never heard of its own store and cannot yet assign around it. That is
what 028 will still be about after this.
2026-09-01 17:52:53 +02:00
jschoubben 96f90ab986 Refuse an action where it was written, not on the machine
A module may not declare an action: the link may not carry a command to
run, and that bound is what limits a compromised control plane to shapes
it cannot turn into arbitrary code (novox/hq ADR 0005). The host
enforces it, correctly and in the right place.

But a module's resources reach a machine over the link, so a manifest
carrying an action was accepted here, stored, resolved, planned and
pushed — and refused on the machine, in the host's log, with nothing
connecting it back to the manifest that caused it.

The rule held. It was just unusable, which is the same shape as the
network shape earlier today: the refusal was right, arrived far from its
cause, and nobody was reading the log.

The refusal names the rule and what to do instead, because "you may not"
with no alternative is where a module author stops.

Found while checking a claim I had written in the coverage document —
that a module cannot declare one. It could; it just could not deliver
it. The document is corrected.
2026-09-01 02:55:56 +02:00
jschoubben ee84b624b1 A provision names the engine, because a consumer is coupled to one
Provisions were named after roles: provides "database", requires
"database". Nothing distinguished engines, so a module written against
PostgreSQL could be matched to a provider of SQL Server, resolve as
satisfied, deploy, and fail on its first query — with nothing
connecting that error back to a match made elsewhere by something that
believed it had done its job.

The failure is in the direction that hides. Refusing on ambiguity
exists precisely so this does not happen, and the generic name walked
around it: with one provider of each name nothing is ambiguous, so
nothing is asked.

How it got in: every resolver test had exactly one provider per name,
so no mismatch was expressible and none was caught. The fixtures agreed
with the design — the same fault as the imagined test output in
04-ISSUES/005, at the level of a name.

Refused rather than documented, because the old naming *was* the
documented convention. Providing database/db/sql/sql-database is now a
parse error naming what to write instead.

The rule is about coupling, not specificity everywhere: route and
resolver stay role-named, because a consumer genuinely cannot tell
which proxy answered. novox/hq ADR 0027.
2026-08-31 17:12:46 +02:00
jschoubben a18c3b9d13 needs is now own-secrets, named for whose it is
It sat beside `secrets` — where a *provision's* credential lands on a consumer.
Both were name-to-path, both held something secret, and the names
distinguished them not at all. Reaching for the wrong one parsed cleanly and
failed somewhere else entirely, which is the shape of fault this whole design
exists to prevent, sitting in the manifest format.

The axis that separates them is not how secret they are — both are — but
whose. `secrets` is keyed by the provision it is for and belongs to a
relationship with another machine. `own-secrets` is keyed by a name the module
chose and belongs to nobody else.

A manifest using the old name is told the new one rather than refused with
"unknown field": whoever wrote it knew what they meant, and the mesh knows what
it is called now. An invented key is still refused as one rather than guessed
at.

Found by auditing the 19 manifest fields for whether any could be mistaken for
another. This was the only pair that could — and while checking it, a second
instance of the same collision turned up one layer down: `Manifest.Needs` and
`Resolution.Needs` were different concepts sharing a name in Go. The rename
separates those too.
2026-08-31 13:47:21 +02:00
jschoubben 48735171eb A machine's filtering is computed from what it was assigned
A rule nobody derives is a rule somebody keeps in step by hand, and five HAL
manifests carry a `scope:` key that reads as a restriction and restricts
nothing. Both halves are closed here.

Manifests are parsed strictly. An unknown key is refused, which is the
discipline the host's declaration parser has always had; `scope:` survived
because nothing rejected it.

A module says what it listens on and who may reach it, and saying from where is
required — a rule with no source is open, and must say so rather than appear to
restrict something. The mesh gathers every assigned module's ports, widens
where two overlap, names every module that wanted each one, and renders one
nftables file per node. What no module declared is closed.

Three things it deliberately does not do: it writes no forward policy, because
what a machine routes is the container runtime's business and dropping there
stops every container on the node; it never flushes the whole ruleset, only
its own table; and it carries no command to load itself, because the link may
not carry an action. A service declares `restart-on` the file instead, which is
the shape that rule leaves.

Also fixes a fault the lab found: certificateFor asked where every node is
without the catalogue, so nothing resolved, every machine looked like it was on
no private network, and every certificate the mesh was asked for was refused
with a reason that was not true. Asking that question without the catalogue is
now refused rather than answered wrongly.
2026-08-31 00:25:12 +02:00
jschoubben 646609c1b2 The mesh certifies names inside it
08-connectivity keeps two authorities apart on purpose: a public one for
names the outside world reaches, and the mesh's own for names only the
mesh knows. Nothing implemented the second, so anything between machines
was plaintext or trust-on-first-use — which the design refuses everywhere
else.

A node now generates a fourth key at enrolment and reports the public
half. A fourth, because a key used for two purposes is one rotation away
from breaking the other: the identity key signs messages to the mesh and
would do for TLS, and reusing it would mean rotating a node's identity
every time its certificate is replaced.

**Nothing secret travels and nothing is sealed.** A certificate authority
says "this name belongs to the holder of this key", so the mesh signs a
public half it cannot use, and the certificate it issues is public. A
module asks for one and is given the certificate and, if it wants,
the mesh's own — the private key is a path to a file the machine already
has, the same arrangement the private network's key uses.

Asserted by verifying rather than inspecting, because a certificate that
parses and does not chain fails at the moment something connects:

- what the mesh issues verifies against the mesh, for the name asked for
- the name is in the subject alternative names, since a certificate
  carrying it only in the common name is refused by every modern client
- it certifies the key the node generated and no other
- another mesh's certificate does not verify, which is the whole point of
  two authorities being separate
- the authority cannot sign another authority — one that could is one
  that can be delegated without anybody deciding to
- two control planes starting together agree on one authority, or a mesh
  has certificates half its machines refuse

Certificates last ten years, which is a choice: a short life needs
something to renew it, and a renewal that fails silently is a mesh that
stops trusting itself on a date nobody wrote down. What makes one
replaceable is that the mesh reissues on demand, not that it expires.
2026-08-31 00:09:13 +02:00
jschoubben 15fd70e3ce A module may mirror an image it did not write
A module usually runs software somebody else built: a database module
ships configuration and a provisioner and does not build a database. It
could name the upstream reference directly, and then every machine needs
a route to a public registry and the reference is a tag somebody else can
move — which is what pinning exists to prevent.

So an artifact may be `upstream`: pulled by the reference the module
names, pushed into the mesh's own registry, and pinned by the digest that
registry assigns. This is what the bootstrap already does by hand; it is
now something a module can say.

Refused: an upstream reference with no tag or digest, because what gets
mirrored would be whatever `latest` means today and a module pinned to
that is not pinned. And the rule that a build reads only its own
repository does not apply to it — applying it anyway refused every
reference with a registry host in it, which the test caught.

Written by trying to write a real postgres module and finding it could
not be said. It can now: two directories, two containers pinned by
digest, a superuser password sealed to the machine, and the grants
manifest — six resources from one assignment, all accepted by the host's
own parser.

That exercise also found my manifest wrong rather than the host: a
container declared `restart-on`, which is a service field, and the host
refused it by name. It is right to. A container whose own definition
changes is recreated, and a file it mounts is read by the process inside,
which is that image's business.
2026-08-30 18:28:05 +02:00
jschoubben c37d368f65 A module may need a secret of its own, and the provisioner watches
Two things, both found by trying to write a real postgres module and
discovering it could not be said.

A database has a superuser password, a broker an administrator, a
registry an account. None of them is *for* anybody — they are not the
credential a consumer is given, and the mechanism that hands those out
has a consumer in the middle of it. So a module may declare what it needs
and where to put it, and the mesh generates one per node, seals it, and
reads it no more than it reads any other.

Per node, deliberately: a module running on three machines has three
passwords. One in the manifest instead would put the same secret on every
machine that ever runs it, in a file anybody can read, for ever. Made
once and kept, or a running database would be handed a password it was
not started with; remade when the machine's sealing key changes, like
everything else sealed here.

A need declared and not made is refused rather than skipped, because a
module whose own credential is silently absent starts, fails to
authenticate, and the reason is three layers from the machine reporting
it.

And the provisioner can watch. That is what lets it be a module rather
than a binary somebody places: run once, it needs invoking after every
declaration by a timer or a unit wired to a file; watching, it is an
ordinary long-running service the host already supervises. It polls
rather than watching the filesystem, because the host writes atomically —
the file is replaced, so a watch on the path stops seeing anything after
the first replacement, and a watcher that silently stops working is worse
than a poll. Credentials are compared by digest and never held: this runs
for as long as the machine is up.
2026-08-30 18:22:05 +02:00
jschoubben 44ba100595 A module says what it builds, and the built manifest is a different
document

The manifest in a repository names artifacts; the manifest the mesh holds
names digests. Keeping them the same file would mean a repository
carrying a digest — wrong the moment anybody edits anything, and pinning
a value nobody could have checked.

So a resource says `"artifact": "server"`, and resolving a build rewrites
it to the image reference or the archive's source and digest, removing
the build-time word entirely. The host has never heard of an artifact and
its strict decoder would refuse one, at the worst moment.

A module that builds nothing is ordinary and needs no build section —
most of what a person installs is configuration, and a field that exists
to be left blank is a field nobody fills in correctly.

Refusals worth having:

- an artifact declared and not produced blames THE BUILD, not the
  resource. Both are failures and the remedies are in different places;
  telling somebody to fix the wrong one costs an afternoon. Found by
  injection: the first version's message could not be told apart from
  the resource-level one, so the check was not actually tested.
- a build reads its own repository and nothing else. An input path
  leaving it makes what gets built depend on whatever happens to be on
  the machine building it.
- two artifacts with one name, because a resource naming it could mean
  either.
2026-08-30 03:29:17 +02:00
jschoubben 20f78cd5f1 Credentials the mesh delivers and cannot read
HAL keeps env vars in the registry, encrypted at rest. Its own tooling
records what that bought and what it did not. `secret_locate` matches by
value rather than by name — because the same password sits in
mesh_provisions, in module_env, in each node's .env in plain text, and
inside every connection string composed from it, and its documentation
says those URL copies "are often the only copies actually in use". And a
query against the encrypted column returns zero rows and proves nothing,
so auditing moved to the decrypted copies on the nodes.

Two faults there, and encryption at rest addresses neither: the control
plane can read what it stores, so a copy of the database is a copy of
every credential; and one secret has many homes with nothing tracking
them.

So here the mesh generates a password, seals it to each end with keys
those nodes generated, stores both blobs, and discards the plaintext. It
cannot read what it holds. Neither can the broker relaying it. And
nothing is composed centrally — a connection string is assembled on the
machine that needs one — so no copy is ever minted in a shape nothing
tracks. `Compromise of a node is compromise of that node` (ADR 0004) is
now true of secrets, not only of identity.

Two files rather than one, because the mesh cannot compose a document
containing a value it discarded: `binds` carries the readable facts,
`secrets` carries the credential alone. The readable half stays readable
in the declaration; the secret half changes only when the secret does,
which makes restart-on precise. The provider gets a directory, one file
per consumer, for the same reason.

It is made once and kept — regenerating per declaration would restart
both ends on every push, and the password a provider was told to create
would never be the one its consumer was given. It is remade when either
end's sealing key changes, and both ends learn the new one in the same
push, so there is no window where half the mesh holds a dead credential.

Two tests found passing for the wrong reason, both caught because their
injection came back clean:

- the provider's copy was asserted non-empty, which reads the same
  whichever column is selected. It now opens the blob with the
  provider's own key.
- RotateSecret deleted and re-created; the re-create was dead, because
  the next read makes one anyway. Removed, and a second path to the same
  act is how two ends come to disagree.

And one real fault: three places built a declaration, and the one behind
`--json` predated credentials, so it silently produced a declaration
missing them — a difference between what `plan` showed and what anything
reading `--json` got. There is one path now.
2026-08-30 00:21:18 +02:00
jschoubben c4782ae2fd An app is told where its database is
Knowing that a machine needs the anchor's database is useless to the
program that needs it unless the program is told. It knew; nothing was
written anywhere it could read.

Two fields, mirroring contributes/receives in the other direction:

  serves: {database: {port: 5432, driver: postgres}}   on the provider
  binds:  {database: /etc/app/database.json}           on the consumer

The provider says what a consumer needs to know; the mesh adds the half
only it has — which machine, and what that machine is called on the
private network. The file says, in itself, that it carries no credential
and why. A missing field looks like a bug; a stated absence looks like a
boundary.

Binding something answered on this machine writes nothing. A file saying
"it is on this node" is a fact nobody needs and one more thing to keep
true.

And two machines that share no private network are refused rather than
wired together. An app here and a database there with no path between
them is a mesh that reports itself configured and does not work — the
failure surfaces as a connection timing out, which is the slowest place
to find it. This is checkable now only because the network became
something a machine is given rather than something it has by having an
address.

One fault, found by running it: working out who is on the private network
resolved the mesh, and resolving the mesh asks who is on the private
network. It hung for two minutes. The comment above the function said not
to do that and the function did it anyway; it now resolves each node
locally, which is the right answer to the question regardless — whether a
machine is on the network depends on what it was assigned, not on what it
takes from others.
2026-08-30 00:02:18 +02:00
jschoubben d4064122d6 Where the answer to a requirement is allowed to live
Two different things were both written `requires`. A shell, a display
server and a private network have to be on the machine that needs them.
A database does not — it runs somewhere and is reached over the network.
Both were answered the same way, so requiring a database installed
PostgreSQL on every machine that ran a web application.

What a module provides now carries a scope, the same idea claims already
use, written short in the ordinary case:

  "provides": ["shell"]
  "provides": [{"name": "database", "scope": "mesh"}]

A mesh-scoped requirement is answered by finding the node already running
it — never by installing it here. Choosing a machine to put a database on
is a decision with consequences, and nothing resolving a web application
should make it silently. With nothing anywhere it refuses and says which
module to assign; with two it refuses and says how to choose.

Choosing is `pin <node> <provision> <from>`, kept per node because that
is the granularity the choice has. A pin at a machine that does not
provide it refuses rather than falling back — a fallback would quietly
move somebody's data. One provider does not overrule a pin either.

Resolving a node now needs to know what the others offer, and working
that out needs them resolved, so it is two passes: the first answers only
what each node offers, the second answers everything. Nothing is ever
declared from the first.

A node's plan says what it takes from elsewhere. It is the only part of a
set that stops working when a different machine goes away, and nothing
else in that output would have said so. It is also where a credential
will hang once there is a mechanism for handing one back.

One test found passing for the wrong reason: it read pins through a join
on the provider, which hides a dangling row whether or not it was cleaned
up. It counts rows now, and bites when the cascade is removed.
2026-08-29 23:51:50 +02:00
jschoubben 5a3a87e8c3 A module can tell its provider what it needs
`requires` said a thing must be there. It never said what to do with it,
so a web application requiring a reverse proxy had nowhere to put "this
name, this port". The two modules that needed it most went round the
outside and opened a connection to the control plane's database, which is
why every node holds a credential to it permanently.

Two fields close it:

  contributes: {reverse-proxy: {host: board, port: 8080}}
  receives:    {reverse-proxy: /etc/traefik/dynamic/mesh.json}

The control plane collects every contribution on a node and writes them
to the path the provider named, ordered by module so the file does not
churn. Contributing to something is requiring it — asking to be published
means a publisher must exist, and a module that had to say both would
eventually say one.

The control plane does not know what a reverse proxy is and does not
write one's configuration. It delivers facts; the module turns them into
whatever it runs. That is why swapping the proxy touches nothing that
publishes through it, and why the host needs no new vocabulary — a
received file is a file.

Settings reach a contribution the same way they reach a file, because a
hostname is exactly what differs between one mesh and the next.

Two things found by running it:

- the file had a `//` header, so it said "do not edit" to a person and
  failed to parse for the program meant to read it. The note is inside
  the document now.
- a provider with no consumers gets an empty file rather than none. It
  cannot otherwise tell "nothing asked for me" from "the mesh never
  wrote it", and those want different responses.

Also `plan <node> --json`, which is how the declaration gets handed to
the host's own parser.
2026-08-29 23:35:43 +02:00
jschoubben 44d134ba25 Networking is a module, and a domain module is how you avoid choosing
Connectivity was code beside the module system doing the module system's
job: every machine with an address was on the private network and there
was no way to keep one off.

A manifest can now say its resources are computed by the control plane,
which is what a peer list needs — it is derived from every machine at
once, so nothing could be written in advance. The network is a module
from there on: assigned, resolved, settled, and absent from a machine
nobody gave it to.

Three modules rather than one, because WireGuard is one VPN of several:

  mesh-wireguard   provides private-network, mesh-addressing
                   claims the-private-network, one per node
  mesh-names       provides name-resolution, requires mesh-addressing
  networking       requires both, and ships no files of its own

The last is the point. Most people want the network up and do not want
to choose a VPN, so `assign networking` takes the only answer to each
requirement silently. The day the catalogue holds a second one there are
two answers, the resolver refuses and names them, and choosing is
assigning the one you want. No flavor field, nothing to configure.

Names left the WireGuard declaration for their own module. They would be
identical over a different private network, and bundling them made one
module out of two things.

Three faults the walk found:

- choosing tailscale still installed WireGuard, dragged back in by the
  names needing the mesh's own addresses. Caught now by a claim: running
  two VPNs is fine, being *the* mesh network is singular.
- a requirement wanted by two modules was reported twice, identically.
- "this mesh has no hub" was reported when the real cause was that a
  node could not be resolved at all. It now names the node and the why.

And a test that asserts the manifests actually shipped, after the claim
went missing from the real one while every test stayed green.
2026-08-29 23:19:32 +02:00
jschoubben 409cd16a09 The mesh decides what a node runs
The gap that has been named at the end of every report for a week. Until now a
declaration came from a person handing over a file; now it comes from what was
assigned, resolved against the catalogue, and the control plane is deciding
rather than relaying.

Everything from the module conversation, built and run on real machines:

  assign laptop i3      -> accepted, brings xorg, because nothing else provides
                           it and there was no choice to make
  assign laptop sway    -> refused: xorg and wayland both claim the-seat
  assign laptop editor  -> refused: three modules provide a shell -- bash,
                           fish, zsh -- choose one
  assign laptop zsh     -> accepted, and the editor's requirement is answered
  bash, fish beside it  -> fine, nothing is claimed

Claims rather than pairwise exclusion, so a third display server would say what
it claims and need no edit to xorg or wayland. Scoped to node, site or mesh:
two DHCP servers at one site collide and at two sites do not, and the mesh-wide
one is the hub said as a claim instead of hard-coded.

Some conflicts cost no manifest field at all. The refusal above names the seat
AND the two files, because the mesh already holds every resource of every
module -- neither i3 nor sway knows the other exists.

Resource identities carry their module, so two modules may both call something
"config" without the second silently replacing the first. What a service
reflects is qualified the same way, or it would name a resource that no longer
exists and stop being restarted when its own configuration changes.

Nothing is sent until every node resolves. A push that configured three and
refused on the fourth would leave the mesh in a state nobody asked for, and the
fourth is exactly where a claim collision appears.

One real flaw found by using it rather than by testing it: assigning zsh did
not satisfy a requirement for a shell. Requirements were counted against the
catalogue without first asking what the set already offers, so "choose one and
assign it" named three modules and then ignored the one you chose. The remedy
was useless and every test passed.
2026-08-29 22:00:06 +02:00