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.
This is what stopped the forge. The host refused the whole declaration:
resource "postgres.server": a container does not use "restart-on",
and it is set. Refused rather than ignored
`restart-on` belongs to a service. I put it on containers this morning
so one would pick up a rotated credential — nine times across seven
modules — and nothing between the manifest and the machine said a word.
The control plane composed it happily; the parser accepted it; the
manifest tests passed. The only thing that knew was the host, five steps
downstream, and hearing from it cost a seventeen-minute run.
The host was right twice over. It refused, and it refused *everything*,
because applying the parts it understood would leave a machine that
looks configured and is not. One misplaced key therefore stops a module
dead, which is the correct severity and an argument for catching it
where it is written.
So the shapes and their keys are now written down here and checked. They
are duplicated from another repository deliberately — this is its wire
format, like the shape of a grant file — and a contract with two copies
and no check is a contract until somebody edits one.
What this does not fix is why I reached for it: a container cannot
follow a file. Filed separately.
novox/hq 04-ISSUES/026. Four modules mounted fourteen host paths that no
resource declared — the mail spool, the databases, the object store's
data. Each would be created by the container runtime as root, with a
mode nobody chose, so `owner` and `mode` went unapplied on exactly the
directories that matter.
The worse half: a directory the mesh declared and no longer wants is
kept rather than removed when it holds anything the mesh did not put
there. That rule is the answer to what happens to data when a module
goes away, and it is written in terms of declared directories. An
undeclared one is not covered. So the one rule guarding against data
loss reached the configuration directories, which are cheap to lose, and
missed the data directories, which are why the rule exists.
The cause is worth naming. These manifests were written by reading the
arrangement being replaced and carrying its compose files across —
service, image, ports, volumes, environment. The container shape can
express all of that, which is what made the transliteration feel like
progress. A shape that can express a compose file gets filled in like
one, and a volume line borrowed from compose declares no owner, no mode
and no intent.
Declared parent-first, because the host applies in the order written and
does not sort. The check is mechanical now, because a person comparing
volumes against directories by hand is the process that produced this.
Still open, and bigger: whether these paths are where a module's data
should live at all. They were inherited whole, and they decide what a
person backs up.
novox/hq 04-ISSUES/025. Every image reference in every example module
was sixty-four zeros — eighteen of them across five modules. Each
parsed, resolved, and composed into a declaration a host accepts, and
none could ever have started: the machine reaches `docker pull` and
stops. That is why those modules were written and not running, and no
check saw it because every check passed.
The host validates the shape of a reference and nothing more, which is
correct: verifying a digest exists means reaching a registry, and that
is the one thing a host must never have to do. So the last place that
could catch this is the wrong place to try.
The guard therefore sits where a declaration is composed, not where a
manifest is parsed. A file in a repository is allowed to await a pin —
the design already says the manifest in a repository names artifacts
while the manifest the mesh holds names digests, and the bundle works
exactly that way. What must never happen is a placeholder reaching a
machine, and composing is the last moment before one does.
Twelve third-party images resolved to real digests without pulling
anything, which is also the mechanism the open issue needs. Two
discoveries came free: mailu publishes to ghcr rather than Docker Hub,
so seven references named repositories that do not exist at all; and it
renamed roundcube to webmail, so that one would have failed even with
the right registry.
What stays a placeholder is the mesh's own provisioner images, which
genuinely have no digest until built and pushed — the bundle's problem,
legitimately unresolved here. The stand-in consumer now stands in with
a real image rather than an invented one.
Every one of these declared `own-secrets` pointing at a path called
`.env` and then mounted it as `env-file`. The file's whole content is
the password. Docker reads that as a malformed line and the container
starts with no password set — which is not a failure to start, it is a
service running with the wrong credential.
They parsed, they resolved, and none of them could ever have worked.
That is what a manifest checked only by the parser buys.
Each now keeps the sealed file as what it is — a password, alone — and
declares a file beside it whose content says ${secret:name}. The host
fills the hole on the machine, which is the only place both halves
exist. The provisioners mount the bare file, because they read a
password file and always did.
Two tests, both driven from the manifests on disk rather than from
fixtures: every ${secret:x} must name something the module declared, and
nothing may read a bare password file as an env file. Injecting the
shipped bug reproduces it word for word.
Keycloak, Gitea and Mailu still cannot connect to their databases, for
the reason in 04-ISSUES/023 — the user name is the provisioner's
invention and the bound values cannot reach a config file. Their own
credentials are right now; that half was independent and is done.
novox/hq ADR 0035: one implementation, several surfaces, and a surface
holds no decisions. The act of assigning — including that an assignment
which does not resolve is kept and still refused — moved into acts.go,
and the command line now calls it too. Two surfaces, one refusal, in the
same words.
It will not run without --issuer, and refuses at start rather than per
request so it is found by whoever ran it rather than by whoever finds
it. There is no flag that removes the check.
The authenticator is honest about what it is: no token can be verified
until an identity provider exists, because that is a module and none is
running, so every request is refused and told that the command line
still works. A surface that functioned without authentication would be
one somebody left running — and the board this stands behind is
published on a public name.
Four refusals, four tests. The last one first asserted "not 200", which
passed because a request with no database fails at the store anyway — it
proved nothing about whether the input was checked. It now asserts the
specific refusal, and bites when the check is removed.
jschoubben