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
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
Two assertions in the full-mesh test encoded the old naming: the grant
file read back from the provider, and the PostgreSQL role the real
application logs in as. Both are named after the consumer now, and a
consumer is a module on a machine.
These are the two that matter most in this file — it is the only place
where a real application authenticates against a real database with a
password the mesh delivered and cannot read, so they are what would have
caught the naming going wrong end to end.
novox/hq 04-ISSUES/022: a consumer is a module on a machine, not a
machine. The mesh now writes <node>.<module>.secret and the provisioners
name the role and the access key after both.
The fixtures here write what the mesh writes, so they move with it —
that is the whole point of them, and a fixture that kept the old shape
would agree with the bug rather than catch it.
The object-store assertions are the ones that mattered most: one store
holds every bucket behind one endpoint, so isolation is a policy rather
than a property. One access key per machine meant every module on a node
shared it, and the policy confining each consumer to its own bucket
confined none of them.
The mesh generates a password, seals it to the machine that must accept
it, and discards the plaintext — so it cannot tell PostgreSQL to start
accepting it. Something on that machine reads what the host wrote and
makes it true. Everything up to that step is proven elsewhere; this is
where a password either becomes a login or does not.
A scenario with one machine and a database, and six assertions: the
password works, running again reaches the same state and says nothing,
rotation makes the new one work and the old one stop, a departed consumer
loses its login, a role nobody here made is left alone, and a manifest
naming a credential that was never written is refused rather than
creating a login with no password.
Each was confirmed to fail — and only it to fail — with the behaviour
removed from the provisioner: only-creates breaks rotation, no-revoke
breaks revocation, revoking everything breaks the bystander role, and
ignoring a missing credential breaks the refusal.
Two faults in the test itself, both worth recording:
- it checked logins from inside the database's own container over
127.0.0.1, which PostgreSQL's default pg_hba trusts. No password was
ever verified. Demonstrated directly: over loopback a deliberately
wrong password still returns a row. Only the rotation assertion
noticed, because it is the one that requires a password to STOP
working — which is an argument for writing that assertion every time.
- the fix then read .NetworkSettings.IPAddress, which docker 29 no
longer populates. It templates to empty, psql falls back to a unix
socket that is not there, and every login looks impossible rather than
misconfigured.
jschoubben