`seat <name> --to <node>/<module>` makes one assignment the holder of a seat in
the same write that removes the previous one. The row is new (migration 0039);
without one, the resolver derives the holder as it always did — the sole eligible
assignment, two refused — so nothing changes for a mesh that never hands a seat
over. With one, the recorded assignment holds and any other whose module could
hold the seat is eligible and silent: not refused, not holding. That is what lets
the next holder run beside the current one until the switch (hq design 26, design
28 task 5.3, ADR 0131).
Why: the controller finds its own bus through a seat, and the day that seat was
left with nobody in it — because two eligible holders could not coexist and the
old one's claim was taken away — the control plane looped for two hours while
every service stayed up. A handover that is never empty in between is the fix,
not a workaround for it.
`CanHold` is the one judgement of whether a module may hold a seat — claims it at
its scope, provides what it delivers, against the store's row — shared by
registration and the handover so they cannot drift apart. The holding belongs to
the assignment and goes when it does, so a seat never points at nothing running.
Tests: the resolver with and without a record, on the same and another machine,
under a former name; the store's row replaced not added, refused for an
unassigned target, removed with its assignment; CanHold's four answers and that
they follow the store. Full suite green against a real NATS and store.
A claim on a seat was checked against `SeatNamed` inside `ParseManifest`, and the
build machine parses manifests too. It has no store, so there it answered from the
set compiled into the binary — a copy of data the control plane owns (ADR 0122).
When the two disagreed, that copy won where it mattered. The store's row said the
bus seat answers for `amqp`; the binary's said `mesh-bus`; and a holder that
provides `amqp` was refused at build time for not providing `mesh-bus`. The seat
went unheld, the controller lost the address it composes through that seat, and the
control plane crash-looped on a bus that was healthy the whole time.
So the two checks that read the set — a seat's scope, and what its holder must
provide — move to CatalogueProblems, which runs only in the control plane and only
after UseSeats has replaced the set with the store's. The parser keeps what it can
judge from the manifest alone, the reserved-namespace rule included.
A test pins it: the same manifest, two different values in the store, and the answer
follows the store both times. It fails if the check moves back.
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 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.
jschoubben