7 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
jschoubben	bb01a656d0	Carry an unassigned port as the declaration publishes it, refusing only a port a module does not listen on (issue 774, research 072 row 34) ... influxdb and unifi publish bare ports that mesh-placement assigns none: the machine runs them at the software's own number, so a plan refusing them held their whole plan for a route that works.	2026-10-31 13:21:37 +01:00
jschoubben	b611022457	Carry the machine-assigned port in a plan's contribution, so a provider serving from plans dials where the module listens (issue 774, research 072 row 34) ... route-proxy served every route at the software's own port (gitea's 3000, published at 20000; grafana's 3000 on another machine, published at 20012) and public sites answered 502. The plan's contribution now carries the port the placement assigned, the number ${port:N} gives the module, and a composition for plans refuses a port none assigned by module, node and port.	2026-10-31 13:08:35 +01:00
jschoubben	acbf80ad91	Carry what a consumer contributes in its plan entry as one opaque payload, so a provider serving from the seat's plans reads it with its own contract and the provisioner knows no provision's fields (issue 774, research 072 row 34)	2026-10-31 09:47:08 +01:00
jschoubben	2d1d8def75	Take the plan entry's Given and ConsumerAt back out: route-proxy's seat defines its own contract and the provisioner's plan stays generic (the operator, 2026-10-31; issue 774). process.Conn.Read stays.	2026-10-31 09:29:17 +01:00
jschoubben	a4e7629742	Carry each contribution, composed, and the consumer's address in its plan entry, and let a process read another module's state, so route-proxy serves routes from the seat's plans alone (issue 774, research 072 row 34)	2026-10-31 09:27:26 +01:00
jschoubben	17fc9b9b81	Say whether a plan hands its module in one rule, Plan.Hands, so no reader takes a plan naming provisions alone for a handed module (issue 774)	2026-10-30 23:50:09 +01:00
jschoubben	91aa7b78fc	Key provisions by one rule the plan, the seat and the assigner share (issue 774) ... The assigner's rule 8 waited for a key for every `requires`, while the plans named only the needs of handed modules: every new build of grafana, dnsmasq, mesh-knowledge, mesh-mail and the builders waited for a key nobody would make, and grafana, not handed, had no plan, so no route key and no route on route-proxy. catalogue.Keyed is the rule (a need a module answers is keyed when its consumer is handed or the provider's helper answers it), catalogue.Awaited the same rule from manifests for the assigner, and a module not handed now has a plan for what a helper answers of it. Handed modules' plans are unchanged. Quick fix: drop the missing-key check from rule 8. Thorough fix (chosen): one rule in mesh-sdk all three parts use, since the kind (three parts deciding the same set apart) already drifted once and hid failures as waits.	2026-10-30 22:29:12 +01:00