main
3 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| f41ff92c67 |
docs(book): the four chapters — Phase 5 slice 2
The book, written out of the tree slice 1 proved. Four chapters in the order the
work happens: the first module in twenty minutes, the website module, the sidecar,
and the game-side plugin.
Shape, settled with the org lead:
* template/README.md stays the REFERENCE — it travels with a copied template and
CI holds it against the tree — and chapter 1 is the narration: what you should
see after each step, the state your module lands in, and the four ways it fails.
The chapter links to the checklist rather than restating it.
* chapters 3 and 4 cite link/ and servuo-plugins/ by FILE AND IDENTIFIER, never by
line. Those repositories move for their own reasons and checkLinks already
forbids commit permalinks, so a line number in this book is wrong the moment
they do. The template stays the only code quoted verbatim.
* one PR: the outline's status table and the link check are only coherent when the
whole set lands.
scripts/checkChapterPaths.js is the anti-rot half a machine can answer: every path
a chapter names in backticks must exist. None of those mentions is a markdown link,
so checkLinks never looked at them, and none is code, so nothing else did either —
renaming one template file would have left four chapters quietly pointing at
nothing. Its anchor list is STATED rather than derived from the tree, for the reason
the template's own build guard states it: a list derived from what exists cannot
fail when what exists changes, and an anchor that stops matching is a check that has
silently stopped checking. So each anchor must exist or the check fails. Eleven
tests, every "must not catch" case a span that really appears in the book.
stripFences moved to scripts/lib/markdown.js and both checks use it — shared code,
not a shared description.
CHAPTER 1 WAS RUN, NOT REASONED ABOUT. The template was copied into a real core on
edge, booted against the dev database, and every claim in "what you should see"
checked: the five log lines, /examplegame/status with its injected
<script type="module" src="/modules/examplegame/entry.js">, the chunk served
no-cache while module.json 404s, /api/v1/public/world/status, the capabilities in
/api/v1/public/modules, and the route in the merged /api/docs.json. Then the three
failures the chapter tells a reader to cause on purpose, because a chapter that
predicts the wrong debugging heuristic is worse than one that predicts none:
* an undeclared prefix -> stage `register`, "declared public/extra but never
registered it", routes 404 and absent from /public/modules;
* a table without the id prefix -> stage `schema`, at LOAD time, before mounting;
* a throwing onBoot -> after mounting, so the same route answers 503 "Module
unavailable" rather than vanishing.
All three came out exactly as written, and the messages in the chapter are that
core's own. Two small corrections fell out of the run: the log sample now shows the
real interleaving of core's three lines with the module's two, and the section on
failure adds that a module disappears from /api/v1/public/modules in every failure
case — a check that needs no login.
MODULE_SYSTEM.md 2.11.1 slice 2. Docs half: docs#146.
Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
|||
| 1ed617736e |
feat(template): a module that builds and loads — Phase 5 slice 1
The kit's `template/`: a complete, minimal Runic Gateway module a reader copies,
renames, and runs before reading a chapter. Slice 0 landed the workflow that runs
it; this is the tree that workflow was written against, so the `template` job
arms itself with no edit to the guard.
Installed into a real core it adds one public page at `/examplegame/status`, a nav
row pointing at it, one API route described in an OpenAPI fragment core merges,
one table created by an idempotent schema fragment and dropped by a purge file,
and both lifecycle hooks. That is deliberately less than a real module does; what
it is complete about is the shape — every seam used once, with the reasoning next
to it.
Four decisions, settled with the org lead:
1. **Public tier only, plus the lifecycle hooks.** §2.11.1 d1's "one public route",
plus enough to show the whole vertical seam once. Admin and player tiers become
worked examples quoted from module-uo in chapter 2 rather than two thirds of a
tree the reader deletes on day one.
2. **The release workflow ships as a file, in BOTH flavours** — `.gitea/` and
`.github/`. Neither runs where it sits (a workflow is only read from a
repository root) and each arms itself when the reader's copy is its own repo.
Packaging is the part of a module that cannot be guessed at, and the kit's
audience is outside this org, so assuming Gitea would have been assuming our
own deployment. Core installs from a URL and does not care where the release
lives — only that the host is on the operator's `MODULE_SOURCE_HOSTS`.
3. **A rename checklist that CI verifies**, not a rename script. `template/README.md`
carries the table; `scripts/checkRenameSites.js` holds it against the tree in
both directions — an unlisted file that still carries the placeholder fails, and
so does a listed file that no longer does. The second half is the one usually
left out and the more valuable: a row that has stopped matching reads as
instructions to edit something that is not there. Same rule core's identifier
check follows about its own exemptions. It has its own ten-test suite, run by
CI as `node --test`, because a check that has never been shown to fail is a
check nobody knows the state of.
4. **A neutral invented game.** One deviation from the literal answer, forced by
decision 3: the id is `examplegame`, not `example`. The checklist check is a
text search, and `example` occurs in ordinary English ("for example") all over
prose that is not a rename site — a placeholder that cannot occur by accident is
what makes the check answerable instead of a source of false alarms someone
learns to ignore.
**The pin moves to the 1.4.0 bump** (website `edge` 1b692bf), which is what
`template/module.json` declares as `coreApi`. Slice 0 pinned its parent, before
1.4.0 existed, so `checkCoreApi.js` arms for the first time here — it asserts
EQUALITY, and its failing on the next contract bump is the system working.
Also in CI: the client tests now run AFTER the build (two of them read the built
chunk and skip without one — run first, the job reports green while asking nothing
about the artifact that ships), and `check:swagger` verifies the committed
fragment is current.
## The finding: an UPDATE that changes nothing does not touch ON UPDATE CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
Every suite passed, both guards passed, the chunk built, the module loaded into a
real core and the page rendered correctly. Two hours later the same page said the
world was offline, and it was wrong.
`updated_at` was declared `ON UPDATE CURRENT_TIMESTAMP`, and MariaDB fires that
only when an UPDATE actually CHANGES a value. The boot refresh writes the same
numbers every thirty seconds — which is exactly what a quiet game looks like — so
the timestamp froze at the first write, the row crossed the freshness window, and
the model correctly reported a stale row as offline. Verified against the live
database: two hours of refreshes, `updated_at` still the boot timestamp.
No test in this repo could see it. The model takes its clock as an argument, and
nothing in a suite runs the same UPDATE twice against a real database. It is only
visible as a page that was right when you looked at it and wrong an hour later.
The writer now sets `updated_at = CURRENT_TIMESTAMP` explicitly and the column
drops the clause that was not doing what it looked like it was doing; both carry
the reasoning. Re-verified end to end: the timestamp advances every interval and
the API reports fresh.
Falling out of the fix, the schema fragment gained the rule the reader hits next:
**changing a table is an ALTER, never an edit to its CREATE** — `CREATE TABLE IF
NOT EXISTS` does nothing when the table exists, so an edited column definition
takes effect on a fresh install and on no existing one, which is the worst
possible split because your development database is usually the fresh one.
## Verified
- 29 server tests, 18 client tests, 10 kit-script tests; `check:imports`,
`check:externals`, `check:swagger` and `checkCoreApi` all green, run in CI's own
order from a clean `npm ci`.
- Browser smoke (MODULE_API.md §7.7) against a real core built from the pinned
ref: module `started`, published on `/api/v1/public/modules`, chunk served
`no-cache` with the right MIME from the entry's directory while `module.json`
and the server source 404, script tag injected after core's bundle, the page
rendering inside core's own chrome, the nav row interleaved into the public
header between Wiki and About, SPA navigation into it from another page, the
module's path and schema and tag merged into `/api/docs.json`, and
`[examplegame] registered against core API 1.4.0` in the console with no CSP
report and no React error.
Refs: MODULE_SYSTEM.md §2.11.1 (slice 1), MODULE_API.md §2.x, §3.x, §5.1, §7.7.
Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
|||
| cffd525bdf |
docs: scaffold the Integration Kit — front page, outline, and the checks
Phase 5 slice 0 (MODULE_SYSTEM.md §2.11.1). The repo's governance, the front page, the book's outline, and the CI that keeps the whole thing from rotting. README.md What the reader is building, all three parts, and the draft banner: the kit is finished when someone outside this project builds a working module by following it alone, and that has not happened. Says the sidecar rule plainly (MODULE_API.md §2.7) rather than leaving it to chapter 3, because a reader who skims the front page and starts coding should still get that one right. book/README.md The outline of four chapters, landed before the prose so the shape can be argued with. Chapters are named but NOT linked — a link to a file that does not exist is what the link check is for, and an outline should not be the first thing to fail it. CONTRIBUTING.md The rule that governs every change here: the kit never re-specifies a contract. Also the prose conventions, and why the pinned ref points at core's `edge` rather than `main`. SECURITY.md Scoped for a repo that runs nothing: the two things that ARE reportable are a template that teaches an insecure pattern (it is meant to be copied) and a chapter that teaches something dangerous. scripts/checkLinks.js Relative links resolve; anchors match a real heading; no link pins a reader to a commit snapshot of a moving document. Nothing is fetched — a self-hosted Gitea would fail on a credential-less runner and teach us to ignore red. Fences and code spans are stripped by a line walk, not a regexp. Its first run found a real one: a PR template's relative links resolve from the REPO ROOT, because that is where their text ends up when Gitea inlines them into a pull request body. Encoded, with the reason. scripts/checkCoreApi.js The anti-rot check. Asserts template/module.json's `coreApi` EQUALS the pinned core's MODULE_API_VERSION — equality, not "satisfies", because a range check stays green across a contract bump and green would then mean "the template still loads" instead of "someone has re-read the book". Both failure branches and the pass were exercised against a real core checkout. ci/core-ref.json The pin, same convention as Module-uo's. Points at `edge`: core's `main` has no server/src/modules/ until the cutover, and that pin is one of the things the cutover has to revisit. .gitea/workflows/pr-checks.yml Two jobs. `links` always runs; `template` is conditional on template/module.json existing, so the repo is gated now and the job arms itself when slice 1 lands, with no edit to the workflow. Same guard Module-uo used through its planning phase. Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com> |
