The probe connected bare, and a bus that requires TLS and a user refused it at the handshake —
so the check reported the standing server as absent. It now dials with the controller's own
credential and pin, which is the one fact the check is there to report.
The control plane is a module too, and its broker secret is the old bus's
credential it is still using while the mint runs. Writing the new bus's blob there
cut the mesh off from its own old bus mid-move. Its new-bus credential is the
controller principal's bus secret; the module principal is skipped.
BareAddress adds a scheme where none was, so the host it yielded carried one and
every URL built from it carried two. Caught before a push: the host is now taken
with no scheme and no port, and every URL adds its own. `rollout mint --again`
mints every credential afresh for exactly this case — a mint that was wrong before
anything received it.
The map of who is where on the private network lists the machines placed around
the hub, not the hub — and the control node is the hub, and runs the new bus.
Found on the first live run: refused for having no address. The address every
machine already dials the current bus at is the same machine, so that host with
the new port is what they are told.
`rollout mint` gives every principal the new bus will have a credential it does
not yet have and puts each where its owner reads it: a machine's as a membership
— bus address, fingerprint, password, transport — sealed into its declaration
(migration 0041, the `bus-membership` resource the host reads after applying); a
module's as its broker secret, through the same delivery `module issue` uses; the
control plane's own as its `bus` secret. Idempotent, and worked out from where the
bus's module is assigned rather than from this process's environment, because this
process is still on the old bus when it runs and must be.
This is the half of design 28 task 5.2 the first live attempt found missing: a
credential was minted only at enrolment, at `module issue` and for a person, so no
machine already enrolled could ever be moved. `rollout check` was right to refuse;
now there is something to run first.
`rollout check` said the old broker stays running as an ordinary provider of
amqp, and this was not its retirement. That was ADR 0127, which ADR 0131 has
superseded: AMQP is not a provision, so once every machine reports on the new bus
nothing of the mesh speaks to the old broker and its module is unassigned. The
plan says so, as its last step.
The flag that made the "it stays" line conditional is gone with the line — there
is no case in which the broker is kept. The test that pinned the opposite now
pins this, and says which record changed under it. The stale citation of a
record numbered 0119 is corrected while here.
Both branches changed the seat set from the same starting point, so every number
collided and every `mesh-*` name existed twice. The trunk's numbers and names win:
this branch's records became 0129/0130 and its migrations 0037/0038, and the
hardcoded rename map gave way to the trunk's `seat_alias` table — a rename is a
row now (ADR 0122), not a recompile.
Three of my checks were wrong and the merge is what showed it:
A seat with an empty protocol is a marker, not an incomplete declaration. Most
node-scoped seats are markers — which module is this machine's packet filter —
and refusing one refused most of the set, the showcase module included. A
mistyped field name is already refused by the parser, so an empty protocol was
written as one deliberately.
A claim on a seat this manifest does not declare is not the parser's to judge. A
module may hold a seat another module declared; that is the whole reason ADR 0126
has callers name the seat and not its provider. Whether the seat exists is a fact
about the catalogue, so the refusal is at registration, where every declaration
is in view.
And a seat may share a name with the provision it delivers. `git`, the npm
registry and the artifact store still do, because renaming a delivering seat
cascades to every consumer requiring it, with a window where a holder stops
resolving mid-flight. The trunk deferred exactly those three on purpose.
Full suite green against a real NATS and store.
The rollout moves every node at once, so there is nothing to inspect afterwards and no
half to roll back — either the mesh was ready or it was not. That makes the readiness
question the valuable half: it costs nothing, it can be asked of a mesh that is serving as
many times as you like, and every answer is a thing somebody can go and fix.
It reads from records and dials once. Is a bus answering, does a machine hold the seat, has
that machine been sent the composed user list, does every machine have a credential for the
new bus, does every module that speaks. Each missing thing names its own next step, because
"not ready" that cannot be acted on is not an answer — and this is read at the point where
the next step is irreversible.
**A machine with no credential is the one that must stop it.** It keeps running and cannot
come back, and afterwards there is no bus to tell it anything over, so the remedy has to
happen first. The message says so.
A module that never reaches the bus is not counted as missing a credential. A third of the
catalogue never speaks, and listing those would bury the ones that matter.
`rollout --confirm` refuses and says why: the move is not being written before its check has
been run against a real mesh. And the plan it prints says the old broker stays — it remains
an ordinary provider of `amqp` for whatever else uses it, which on this installation is a
whole automation layer that has nothing to do with the mesh. This move is not its retirement,
and that is why it is survivable: what breaks if it goes wrong is the mesh's ability to
change things, not the services its modules serve.
jschoubben