wtclaude
d89ce06bb8
All checks were successful
PR checks / checks (pull_request) Successful in 1m13s
Twenty pages completing the tree section 10 planned: Modules (8), Architecture
(5) and Reference (7). Four decisions, D38-D41, recorded in PLAN.md section 10.
D39 is the one that shaped the phase. Section 1 forbids re-specifying a
contract, and a Reference section is exactly where that rule is most tempting to
break, so the line is drawn at names: every environment variable, config key,
installer command, visibility rung and canonical document is listed with one
terse line saying what it is FOR, while shapes, semantics and every "why" stay
in the canonical document.
That is only safe because the names are checked. checkReference.mjs compares six
enumerations against the repositories that own them, over the Gitea API, as set
comparisons in BOTH directions -- and the second direction is the one that earns
its keep, because a reference page does not usually rot by describing something
that vanished, it rots by quietly not mentioning what was added since.
The check went green on its first run, which is the least trustworthy possible
outcome, so it was verified by breaking it: seven mutations, all caught. The one
worth keeping is the visibility ladder REORDERED with its membership unchanged
-- it is a security boundary, and a set comparison alone would have passed it.
D41 turns plannedSidebar from a checklist into a checked invariant, and finding
out why was the phase's first defect: it had already drifted, because phase 7
added the Content page under D37 and never updated the list. Nothing failed,
because nothing read it. checkSidebar.mjs now asserts the two trees agree on
groups, labels and order -- order because the order of Getting started IS the
installation path.
Two more things the writing found. PLAN.md's page count was wrong and had been
since section 10 was written ("roughly 38, 37 planned" for a tree of forty).
And module.json's `mounts` and the SPA's paths are different mechanisms that no
single document stated plainly -- module-uo declares admin: ["/shard",
"/uo-link"] while its screen lives at /admin/uo/link, because API routes are
deliberately NOT namespaced while SPA routes are. That is precisely the
distinction the installer got wrong in v0.1.0, and it now has a named home.
D40: the docs link to /architecture/'s drawn diagrams rather than importing
them. Those components carry marketing chrome and depend on diagram.css, which
Starlight does not load; the docs use text diagrams, which paste into an issue.
npm run verify green: 40 pages across 5 groups agree with plannedSidebar, 2390
internal links resolve, 123 repository links point at a branch, 19 facts, 59
quickstart checks, 22 reference enumerations, astro check 0 errors, 36 tests.
Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
71 lines
2.8 KiB
Plaintext
71 lines
2.8 KiB
Plaintext
---
|
|
title: Canonical documents
|
|
description: Where the normative specifications live — the documents that win whenever this site disagrees with them.
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
import { Aside } from '@astrojs/starlight/components';
|
|
import { canonicalDocs } from '../../../../data/reference.mjs';
|
|
|
|
Everything on this site is a **summary**. These are the documents it summarises, and where
|
|
the two disagree, **they are right and this site has a bug**.
|
|
|
|
<Aside type="note" title="Why say that so bluntly">
|
|
A documentation site that quietly re-specifies a contract becomes a second source of truth,
|
|
and second sources of truth drift. Every page here links out for exactly this reason, and
|
|
this page is the index of what it links to.
|
|
|
|
If you find a disagreement, it is worth reporting — it means a check is missing.
|
|
</Aside>
|
|
|
|
## The documents
|
|
|
|
<table>
|
|
<thead><tr><th>Document</th><th>Answers</th></tr></thead>
|
|
<tbody>
|
|
{Object.entries(canonicalDocs).map(([docPath, why]) => (
|
|
<tr key={docPath}>
|
|
<td>
|
|
<a href={`https://gitea.whitlocktech.com/RunicGateway/docs/src/branch/main/${docPath}`}>
|
|
<code>{docPath}</code>
|
|
</a>
|
|
</td>
|
|
<td>{why}</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
))}
|
|
</tbody>
|
|
</table>
|
|
|
|
Every path above is checked to still exist on every build, so a document that is renamed or
|
|
moved turns this page red rather than leaving a dead link.
|
|
|
|
## Which document answers which question
|
|
|
|
- **"May a module do this?"** → `MODULE_API.md`. It is the contract, and it is the only thing
|
|
that can answer yes.
|
|
- **"Why is the module system like this?"** → `MODULE_SYSTEM.md`.
|
|
- **"What does this API return?"** → your own deployment's `/api/docs`, then
|
|
`BACKEND_DESIGN.md` §4.
|
|
- **"What can the shard send?"** → `link/PLAN.md` §5, and `v4.md` for the current protocol.
|
|
- **"Who may see this?"** → `SHARD_VISIBILITY.md` for the administrator's view,
|
|
`modules/uo/API.md` §4 for the specification.
|
|
- **"How do I set a shard up?"** → `installer/INSTALL.md`.
|
|
|
|
## Where they live
|
|
|
|
All of them are in
|
|
[`RunicGateway/docs`](https://gitea.whitlocktech.com/RunicGateway/docs), which is Markdown
|
|
only and versioned independently of the code it describes.
|
|
|
|
**A code change is not complete until `docs` reflects it.** That is a rule in the
|
|
project's own contributor guidance, not an aspiration — a change to behaviour, protocol,
|
|
endpoints, schema, configuration or the deployment model requires a matching edit there.
|
|
|
|
## Two things that are not in `docs`
|
|
|
|
**The Integration Kit** is its own repository, because its audience is outside this project
|
|
and it teaches rather than specifies. See [The Integration
|
|
Kit](/docs/modules/the-integration-kit/).
|
|
|
|
**The OpenAPI specification** is generated and committed in `website` itself, because it is
|
|
derived from the routes rather than written alongside them.
|