docs-drift's registrar window swallows the NEXT route whole when that route's path: is a variable — a foreign handler's code identifiers bridge to the previous route

Filed unassigned by the os-dev seat working #9432 (session session_01XqDQYVU5smx29ts9pAErja). Out of that card's scope — recording rather than fixing. Same file as #9432 / #9331, different defect, and it survives both of them.

What

parseRegistrarSource in scripts/docs-audit/affected-docs.mjs finds registration sites with

const m = lines[i].match(/(?:^|[\s{,(])path\s*:\s*([`'"])(.*?)\1/);

— a path: whose value is a string or template literal. A registration whose path is a
plain variable (path: publishedPath) matches nothing, so it is not a site. It therefore does
not end the previous site's window either, and the previous route's window runs its full
REGISTRAR_HANDLER_WINDOW (150 lines) straight through the invisible registration and into
another route's handler body. Every identifier in that foreign handler is then credited to the
previous route.

Measured — on `origin/main` at `017c27e73`, and still true with #9432's fix applied

Counting only sites the scan can see, packages/** registrar files carry 86 literal path:
sites and 33 path: lines that are not literals. Several of the latter are genuine
registrations: rest-server.ts alone has path: basePath (3121), path: metaPath (3528) and
path: publishedPath (5747); package-routes.ts:473 has path: packagesPath;
metadata/src/routes/hmr-routes.ts:107 has path: evt.path.

The concrete swallow, read off the comment-masked source so it is not #9432's defect:

/:name/state/:field   site at rest-server.ts:5661
                      window ends 5811 (150 lines; next LITERAL site is 5916)
                      path: publishedPath at 5747 is inside it and invisible
                      -> `publishedPath` and every other code identifier of that
                         handler counts as an implementation of /:name/state/:field

So a diff touching a symbol the published door implements can put the state-machine page on
the advisory, with a via that says the page names something the diff touched. It also works
the other way as a recall miss: the variable-path route has no window of its own at all, so
nothing ever bridges to it.

Why it is worth a card rather than a shrug

Same reasoning as #9294 and #9432: the per-row via promise is a claim about implementation,
and here it is false for a whole handler at a time rather than one prose line. Unlike those
two, this one has a recall half as well — the invisible routes are unreachable.

Direction, not a prescription

Cheapest correct-looking move is to treat any path: line as a site boundary while only
literal ones produce a tail, which closes the swallow without pretending to resolve the
variable. Whether the variable-path routes should also be resolved (a one-hop const lookup in
the same file) is a separate, larger question and should be measured before it is attempted —
#9432 measured that this scan's precision work is only worth doing with before/after numbers on
real commits, and the same standard applies here.

Note the file is contended: #9331 is queued on it and #9432 just landed on it. Sequence
accordingly.

Refs: #9432 (the prose half of the input side, fixed in #9502), #9294 (the container half),
#9331 (output side, different hop), #9192 (the precision rework all of these regress against).

Generated by Claude Code

Claim: PM loop round 8 — 已解封
Session session_01XqDQYVU5smx29ts9pAErja · Branch: claude/issue-9503-variable-path-windows · Worktree: objectstack-issue-9503 · Domain: domain:devx
File surface: scripts/docs-audit/affected-docs.mjs + 其自测 · Container & model: model=opus

解封依据

本卡挡在 affected-docs.mjs 被 PR #9524(#9519)持有上。#9524 已合并,我扫了开着的 11 个 PR,没有一个持有该文件。

受管面核对(现场派生,非记忆)

governed NOW: prefixes ['docs/adr/', '.claude/', 'skills/']  exact ['AGENTS.md', 'CLAUDE.md']
你的面 scripts/docs-audit/affected-docs.mjs → 不受管

⇒ 本卡的 PR 可正常武装入队。

这是同族第三层,前两层都已落地

卡	PR	关掉了什么
#9294	#9431	容器符号(class/interface/…)不再进 route bridge
#9432	#9502	标识符扫描改读注释掩码后的源码 ⇒ 只在散文里出现的叶子符号不再桥接
#9503	本卡	变量路径导致的窗口边界缺失

⚠️ 本卡明确记载它同时活过前两个修复 ⇒ 是残留的第三层,不是回归。派发时我不假设前提仍然成立(见下),但这一条已由 #9432 的 dev 端到端测过。

Generated by Claude Code

fix(docs-audit): a registration bounds the previous handler window ev…

{
  "issue": 9503,
  "status": "done",
  "branch": "claude/issue-9503-variable-path-windows",
  "pr": "https://github.com/objectstack-ai/objectstack/pull/9571",
  "premise_still_valid": true,
  "summary": "The card's MECHANISM re-verified exactly on today's main (e7daea169): packages/** registrar files carry 86 literal `path:` lines and 33 non-literal ones, and there is exactly ONE place where a non-literal falls inside a live window -- /:name/state/:field at rest-server.ts:5661, next literal site 255 lines away at 5916, so the 150-line window ends at 5810 and covers `path: publishedPath` at 5747 plus 64 lines of the published handler. Fixed by splitting the two questions the site regex conflated: every `path:` line is now a window BOUNDARY, only a literal one carries a TAIL (the loop already tolerated tail-less sites -- 38 of the 86 literal lines yield none). But the card's CONSEQUENCE does not hold on today's tree and I am reporting that as the headline: 55 of those 64 over-run lines are the ADR-0033/#8278 commentary that #9432 masks to blank and the other 9 are boilerplate whose tokens already occur earlier in the window, so the swallow currently credits ZERO extra identifiers -- 42 tails to 42, 3320 identifier slots to 3320, and 0 substantive differences across a 60-commit before/after sweep. The defect is real and latent, not real and firing: measured against the foreign handler's own 150 lines the span carries 18 identifiers the state route does not otherwise see (getMetaItemLayered, getPublished, resolveProtocol, publishedProtocol, overlayError, resolveExecCtx ...), i.e. #9432's mask is holding this defect down by accident of comment length. The two halves needed DIFFERENT answers and only one is fixed here: the RECALL half (a variable-path route gets no window of its own) is out of scope and filed as #9572, because it is a small slice of a far larger hole -- 176 of the 221 client-bound ledger rows have no registrar tail at all today, most of them plugin-auth routes that never take a `path:` property. Also corrected from the card: metadata/src/routes/hmr-routes.ts:107 is NOT a registration, it is a `path:` key in a broadcast({...}) payload. Neither #9294/#9431's container exclusion nor #9432/#9502's comment mask is touched.",
  "tests": "All run in the worktree on the FINAL commit 486b43dff (git rev-parse --short HEAD), tree clean. Gate family derived at runtime, not recalled: `node scripts/pm/dispatch-gates.mjs scripts/docs-audit/affected-docs.mjs` -> 2 families, both run. (1) `pnpm check:docs-audit-scope` EXIT=0 -- '✓ affected-docs self-test: 242 cases pass. ✓ check-audit-scope self-test: 22 cases pass. ✓ docs-accuracy-audit scope is in sync with content/docs/: 179 hand-written doc(s).' (2) `node scripts/docs-audit/check-affected-docs.mjs` EXIT=0 -- '✓ affected-docs self-test: 242 cases pass.' (3) `pnpm check:nul-bytes` EXIT=0 -- '✓ 75 assertions ... scanned 6157 text file(s) ... no raw ASCII control bytes', plus an independent scan of the changed file with grep -naP for the 0x00-0x1f/0x7f class: clean. Self-test went 233 -> 242 cases. REVERSE VERIFICATION, run from the COMMITTED state (revert the code hop only, keep the tests, restore with git checkout --): direction was RED, exactly 2 of the 9 new cases -- '✗ the NEXT route's handler symbol is not this route's implementation: getMetaItemLayered -> expected parseRegistrarSource=false, got true' and '✗ a diff touching only the FOREIGN handler's symbol selects no route: tails -> expected bridge=\"[]\", got \"[\\\"/:name/state/:field\\\"]\"'; the other 7 are counterfactuals and both-directions guards that must hold pre- and post-fix, so their staying green is the designed result, not a miss. RECALL SWEEP to the #9432 bar: the last 60 commits touching packages/ (back to fab693bee), each checked out detached and run TWICE from the same parent ref with only this hop swapped -- 60 runs, 380 advisory rows, 0 substantive differences. 6 of the 60 JSON outputs differ in exactly one field, computedOn.dirty, which flips because the harness itself overwrites the script in the checked-out tree; excluding computedOn the count is 0/60. Whole-tree index before/after: 42 tails -> 42, 3320 identifier slots -> 3320, 0 gained, 0 lost.",
  "open_questions": [],
  "out_of_scope_findings": [
    "filed as #9572: docs-drift's route bridge can reach only 45 of the 221 client-bound ledger routes -- 176 have no registrar tail at all (≈55 from plugin-auth registrars that take no `path:` property, 4 from variable-path registrations, the rest undiagnosed); the variable-path recall half of #9503 is a small slice of it, and nothing anywhere prints that ratio"
  ]
}

Generated by Claude Code

✅ ACCEPT — PR #9571

PR 9571  head=486b43dff  draft=True  base=main  files=1  +118/-1
labels: ['size/m','skip-changeset']
body first line: 'Fixes #9503'
files: ['scripts/docs-audit/affected-docs.mjs']
gates(按名取最新): names=20  pending=['Lint & Repo Gates','TypeScript Type Check']  non-green=none

1. ⭐ 机制成立、后果不成立,而且它把后者做成了头条

这是本轮最诚实的一份报告。机制在今天的 main 上逐字复现:

packages/** registrar:  86 条字面量 path:  ·  33 条非字面量
唯一一处非字面量落在活窗口里:
  /:name/state/:field @ rest-server.ts:5661
  下一个字面量站点 5916(255 行外)⇒ 150 行窗口止于 5810
  覆盖了 5747 的 `path: publishedPath` + 已发布 handler 的 64 行

但卡片声称的后果今天不发生:那 64 行里 55 行是 ADR-0033/#8278 的注释,已被 #9432 掩成空白,其余 9 行的 token 在窗口更早处已经出现过 ⇒ 多算的标识符是零。

全树指标前后一致:42 tails → 42、3320 identifier slots → 3320、0 gained, 0 lost。

⇒ 缺陷是真的,但是潜伏的,不是正在发生的。 这个区分我在 #9445 上要求过一次(LIVE vs LATENT),这次不用要求就做了,而且做成了报告的第一句。

2. ⭐⭐ 最有价值的一句:#9432 的掩码是靠注释长度偶然压住它的

对着那个外来 handler 自己的 150 行量,这段跨越携带 18 个 state 路由本来看不到的标识符(getMetaItemLayered、getPublished、resolveProtocol、publishedProtocol、overlayError、resolveExecCtx …)。

⚠️ 也就是说:今天不发生的唯一原因,是那段注释恰好够长。任何人把那段 ADR-0033 注释缩短或改写,这个缺陷立刻开始发火 —— 而且没有任何东西会提示他。

⇒ 这把「要不要修一个 latent 缺陷」从判断题变成了送分题:它的休眠状态依赖一个无关的、随时会变的常数。

3. 修法把站点正则混为一谈的两个问题拆开了

每一条 path: 行现在都是窗口边界,只有字面量的那条才带 tail。

⭐ 而且这不是新增机制:循环本来就容忍无 tail 的站点(86 条字面量里有 38 条本来就不产 tail)。⇒ 用既有形状,不发明。

4. 两个半边需要不同答案 —— 而且第二半被正确地移出范围

我在派发里说:「精度损失和召回损失可能需要两个不同的答案,其中一个可能根本修不了;说清楚,别让难的那半把易的那半悄悄拖出范围。」

结论:召回半(变量路径的路由没有自己的窗口)不在本 PR,理由是它是一个大得多的洞的一小片:

221 条 client-bound ledger 行里,176 条今天根本没有 registrar tail —— 其中约 55 条来自 plugin-auth 的 registrar(它们压根不接受 path: 属性),4 条来自变量路径,其余未诊断。

⇒ 修「变量路径没窗口」只覆盖 221 分之 4。把它当成本卡的一半来修,会给出一个覆盖率被大幅高估的假象。 已立 #9572,并且卡上点明:没有任何地方打印这个比率。

5. 卡片的一处事实错误被更正,我复核了

卡片把 packages/metadata/src/routes/hmr-routes.ts:107 列为非字面量 path: 站点之一。我自己拉了源码:

broadcast({
  kind: 'metadata-change',
  ...
  path: evt.path,          ← :107

⇒ 它是 broadcast({...}) 载荷里的一个 key,根本不是路由注册。 更正正确。

6. 召回扫描做到了 #9432 的标准,而且诚实披露了一处噪声

60 个 commit、各自 detached 检出、从同一个父 ref 跑两遍只换这一处代码:380 条 advisory 行,0 处实质差异。

⚠️ 6 份 JSON 输出恰好在一个字段上不同:computedOn.dirty,原因是测量脚手架自己覆写了检出树里的脚本。

⭐ 这一条值得单独说:computedOn.dirty 是 PR #9524 几小时前才落地的字段,而它上线后第一次真实使用,就正确地检测到了「读到的树和 sha 标识的树不一致」这个条件 —— 检测对象恰好是本次测量的脚手架自己。那个字段的存在理由当场被证实了。

7. 反向验证方向对

从已提交状态只回退代码那一跳、保留测试:9 条新用例里恰好 2 条转红,而且是对的那两条 ——

✗ the NEXT route's handler symbol is not this route's implementation:
    getMetaItemLayered → expected parseRegistrarSource=false, got true
✗ a diff touching only the FOREIGN handler's symbol selects no route:
    tails → expected bridge="[]", got "[\"/:name/state/:field\"]"

其余 7 条是反事实与双向守卫,按设计必须在修复前后都绿 ⇒ 它们保持绿是预期结果,不是漏测。这句解释很重要:否则「9 条只红 2 条」看起来像覆盖不足。

自测 233 → 242。

Verdict: ACCEPT. 门禁收敛后武装(面不受管,可正常入队)。

Generated by Claude Code

fix(docs-audit): a registration bounds the previous handler window ev…

Navigation Menu

Repository navigation

docs-drift's registrar window swallows the NEXT route whole when that route's `path:` is a variable — a foreign handler's code identifiers bridge to the previous route #9503

What

Measured — on `origin/main` at `017c27e73`, and still true with #9432's fix applied

Why it is worth a card rather than a shrug

Direction, not a prescription

解封依据

受管面核对(现场派生,非记忆)

这是同族第三层,前两层都已落地

✅ ACCEPT — PR #9571

1. ⭐ 机制成立、后果不成立,而且它把后者做成了头条

2. ⭐⭐ 最有价值的一句:#9432 的掩码是靠注释长度偶然压住它的

3. 修法把站点正则混为一谈的两个问题拆开了

4. 两个半边需要不同答案 —— 而且第二半被正确地移出范围

5. 卡片的一处事实错误被更正,我复核了

6. 召回扫描做到了 #9432 的标准,而且诚实披露了一处噪声

7. 反向验证方向对

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

docs-drift's registrar window swallows the NEXT route whole when that route's path: is a variable — a foreign handler's code identifiers bridge to the previous route #9503

Description

What

Measured — on origin/main at 017c27e73, and still true with #9432's fix applied

Why it is worth a card rather than a shrug

Direction, not a prescription

Activity

os-steve commented on Aug 18, 2026

解封依据

受管面核对(现场派生,非记忆)

这是同族第三层,前两层都已落地

claude commented on Aug 18, 2026

os-steve commented on Aug 18, 2026

✅ ACCEPT — PR #9571

1. ⭐ 机制成立、后果不成立,而且它把后者做成了头条

2. ⭐⭐ 最有价值的一句:#9432 的掩码是靠注释长度偶然压住它的

3. 修法把站点正则混为一谈的两个问题拆开了

4. 两个半边需要不同答案 —— 而且第二半被正确地移出范围

5. 卡片的一处事实错误被更正,我复核了

6. 召回扫描做到了 #9432 的标准,而且诚实披露了一处噪声

7. 反向验证方向对

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Issue actions

docs-drift's registrar window swallows the NEXT route whole when that route's `path:` is a variable — a foreign handler's code identifiers bridge to the previous route #9503

Measured — on `origin/main` at `017c27e73`, and still true with #9432's fix applied