3 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
jochen	4d1b81b6cb	Say what a build was made from, and hand an image compiling Go only that (hq ADR 0267, issue 363) ... A merge to the controller's repository moved the route proxy and the build seat's holder whatever it changed, because nothing said which files their builds read. A build of a trunk commit now says its build source per repository: a Go program's import closure, an archive's directory, an image's recipe and the package it names in the new 'compiles' field. That image is built from its build source alone, so a recipe reading past it fails by name, and its fingerprint is over what it was handed.	2026-10-10 02:47:35 +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	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