Twenty-eight integration tests each carried their own copy of the same two helpers,
which pointed a manifest and the substrate bundle at whatever the lab's registry had
assigned. They now share two in the harness, and the difference is the point: ours is
rewritten to the ID the machine holds it under, and everything else is left exactly as
written so the machine pulls it.
**The substrate bundle is where the fiction was most load-bearing.** mesh-host's
`examples/substrate-first-node.lock` pins all three of its images at
`192.0.2.250:5000/…`, which is the address the lab's registry served from — it was
written for a target, and the target was the lab. Two of those are ordinary third-party
images and become the digests mesh-catalog's own postgres and lavinmq modules pin, so
the substrate's store and broker are literally the images the mesh runs. mesh-control
exists in no registry at all and becomes the ID the machine was handed. **The bundle
itself should be fixed in mesh-host and this substitution deleted with it.**
Beds that wrote a manifest by hand named an image by repository and let the rewrite
supply a digest. There is nothing to supply one now, so `onTheMachine` refuses an
unpinned reference and hands back the digest the catalogue pins — a bed runs the image
the mesh ships, and a bed that drifts from the catalogue is testing a different
postgres.
Three beds took a third-party image out of the raised list, which no longer contains
one: certificates (pebble), objectstore (minio and its client) and provisioner
(postgres) now name theirs and pull it. builds and mesh publish into the MESH's own
artifact store — the `registry` module's image, on the node, on 5000 — rather than into
scenery the lab raised. That is a different claim, and only one of them exists in
production.
New unit tests cover what a full raise would otherwise be the only way to check: the
routes an egress machine gets (that its gateway is still the path to the rest of the
scenario, that a range with no path is unreachable rather than leaked to the uplink,
that each family gets its own next hop), which machine is handed which of our images,
and the `images:` rule that refuses a third-party entry. The "shipped scenarios are
valid" test now loads every scenario rather than two of them.
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01LrgweAeERJYBg88c5cKDzF
The chain this closes: a repository exists, the mesh asks for it, a build
machine takes the work, publishes what it made, and the catalogue then
says what the module is, which commit it came from, and — after the
source moves — that it is behind.
Three assertions, against a real broker and registry, because what is
under test is four processes agreeing over a wire:
- the mesh asks, a machine builds, and the artifact is really in the
registry at the digest the manifest names
- a build that cannot succeed says why and records nothing. A failure
that is silent is indistinguishable from a builder that is not running
- the source moving makes the catalogue say "behind", and rebuilding
catches it up
git is now in the base image, with the same reasoning as docker and
wireguard-tools: a machine that builds modules clones them, and a sealed
scenario cannot install anything. Read back from `git --version` rather
than from the package manager — an installed package is not a
capability, and a build machine whose clone fails does so three minutes
into a scenario with the failure reported as a build problem rather than
a lab one.
jschoubben