server/test/frozenManifest.test.js

@@ -157,21 +157,50 @@ test('every path in the fragment is fully qualified', () => {
 
 test("the manifest and the module's declared mounts agree", () => {
   const { routes } = JSON.parse(fs.readFileSync(MANIFEST, 'utf8'))
-  const { mounts } = JSON.parse(fs.readFileSync(path.join(__dirname, '..', '..', 'module.json'), 'utf8'))
+  const manifest = JSON.parse(fs.readFileSync(path.join(__dirname, '..', '..', 'module.json'), 'utf8'))
 
   const declared = []
-  for (const [tier, prefixes] of Object.entries(mounts)) {
+  for (const [tier, prefixes] of Object.entries(manifest.mounts)) {
     for (const prefix of prefixes) declared.push(`/api/v1/${tier}${prefix}/`)
   }
 
-  // Every route this module serves is under a prefix it declared. There is no
+  // **The exception this test predicted, now grown deliberately.** Phase 6 fills
-  // exception here yet, and that is the point of asserting it now: phase 6 adds
+  // `admin.users.detail`, whose routes live on a resource CORE owns
-  // the `admin.users.detail` extension slot, whose routes live under core's
+  // (`/api/v1/admin/users/:id`) rather than under any mount of ours — §2.4's
-  // `/api/v1/admin/users/` rather than under any mount of ours (§2.4). When that
+  // fourth mount shape. So a route is legitimate if it is under a declared
-  // arrives this test must grow the exception deliberately, rather than a route
+  // prefix, or under the mount of a slot this module declares.
-  // outside every declared mount arriving unnoticed.
+  //
+  // The slot's mount is restated here rather than imported, for the same reason
+  // the protocol catalogue is restated in `catalogue.test.js`: it is CORE's
+  // constant, and a module that derived it from its own generator would be
+  // checking that file against itself.
+  const SLOT_MOUNT = { 'admin.users.detail': '/api/v1/admin/users/' }
+
+  const slots = (manifest.extensions || []).map((slot) => {
+    const mount = SLOT_MOUNT[slot]
+    assert.ok(mount, `module.json declares slot "${slot}", which §2.4's table does not list`)
+    return { slot, mount }
+  })
+
+  const used = new Set()
+
   for (const route of routes) {
-    const under = declared.some((d) => route.path.startsWith(d))
+    if (declared.some((d) => route.path.startsWith(d))) continue
-    assert.ok(under, `${route.method} ${route.path} is served from outside every mount module.json declares`)
+
+    const slot = slots.find((s) => route.path.startsWith(s.mount))
+    assert.ok(
+      slot,
+      `${route.method} ${route.path} is served from outside every mount module.json declares, ` +
+      'and outside every slot it fills',
+    )
+    used.add(slot.slot)
+  }
+
+  // The other half, and the reason the exception is narrow: a declared slot that
+  // contributes no route is an exception widening this check for nothing. Core
+  // never checks that a declared slot was filled (`checkDeclared` covers `mounts`
+  // alone), so this is the only place it is noticed.
+  for (const { slot } of slots) {
+    assert.ok(used.has(slot), `module.json declares "${slot}" but no route in the manifest comes from it`)
   }
 })