3 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
jochen	37947ca4ee	Raise genesis on the bus the mesh runs on, from one bundle (hq issue 146, ADR 0331) ... The installer could not raise a first node: the old bundle's control plane had no MESH_BUS_NATS and crash-looped, and the NATS bundle was refused because rootsecrets only knew the previous broker's guest:guest@ template. One bundle now, the NATS one. rootsecrets makes the controller's bus account and puts it in both placeholders (the address and the bcrypt hash in the carried user list), kept with its hash so a re-run writes the same bundle. Preflight refuses a template naming no bus connection it knows, naming the placeholder, instead of waiting out the verify step. The broker step adopts the bus as the nats module and refuses, by name, a catalogue without it or a server that is not the foundation's container.	2026-10-12 22:49:49 +02:00
jschoubben	121367319d	Rename mesh-control -> mesh-controller, substrate -> foundation ... One name per thing, per the HQ glossary: the module/container/image/binary/repo becomes mesh-controller, the seat the-controller, and the store+broker pair the foundation (embedded base bundles, default template and example lock renamed with their go:embed directives). No behaviour change — a pure vocabulary rename. Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01D6qtiYU3P9jk3pnAXyAFyx	2026-09-16 18:40:40 +02:00
jschoubben	8e12b3c9e4	Name the decisions these tests defend, and check the bundle at all ... From auditing the decision records: of 28, only 12 were named by any test, so "which decisions are defended" could not be answered without reading everything. ADR 0017 says a test names the decision it defends — that rule was itself unenforced. Most of the gap was citation, not coverage. Drift detection was tested in several places without naming ADR 0011; the archive refusal without naming 0012; forged declarations without naming 0002. Named now, so the question is answerable by grep. The bundle was the real gap: nothing tested substrate-first-node.lock at all. It is what a machine becomes when there is no mesh to ask — the one declaration applied with nothing to verify it against — and it was edited by hand and read by nothing but a running host. Two tests now assert what it carries: exactly postgres, lavinmq and the control plane. That defends ADR 0028, which removed the object store from the substrate after it had been a member for months on the strength of "it cannot grant itself a bucket" — true, and the answer to only half the test. Nothing counted what the bundle held. Fault-injected, and the first attempt did not bite: the injection landed on a comment line, which stripComments discards. Injecting into the image field fails as it should.	2026-08-31 17:33:34 +02:00