A module a person assigns to a machine that cannot host it — its declared
capability has no detector there, as fail2ban does on a host with no firewall —
made Resolve refuse the entire node, so a whole-node push refused to send the
healthy modules beside it too. One module on the wrong machine took down every
other module on that node.
Assign already keeps such an assignment on purpose (it is what a person meant,
and acts.go says so), so the fix is on the resolve/push side: a directly-assigned
module the machine cannot host is left out of the closure and reported as
un-applied on the Resolution, rather than refusing the set. The healthy modules
still resolve, declare, and converge. A module that is *required* by something
running here and cannot be hosted still refuses — that set is genuinely
incoherent — so the distinction is who wanted it.
assign, plan and push now name the un-applied module and the missing capability,
via a shared WrongMachine message, so it is neither silently dropped nor fatal.
Reconciled two tests that encoded the old whole-node refusal for directly-assigned
un-hostable modules; added coverage for the healthy-modules-still-converge case
and the required-un-hostable-still-refuses distinction.
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01LrgweAeERJYBg88c5cKDzF
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