Repository navigation
Report a visitor's explain refusal as the 401 they receive, and remove the unused OperationScope.proposed #6589
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
habdelra
merged 7 commits into
main
from
cs-13348-policy-remove-the-unused-operationscopeproposed
Oct 7, 2026
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
139fbb5
Remove the unused OperationScope.proposed
habdelra 6533a8f
Drop the staged-document note from ResolvedEnvelopeEntry.scope; test …
habdelra 5d07563
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into cs-13348-policy-remov…
habdelra 2c48327
Report a visitor's explain refusal as the 401 the realm sends them
habdelra 8cfbdaf
Say which routes answer with refusalSeenBy
habdelra fd18585
Judge a visitor's write as the realm does where anyone may read the r…
habdelra b5b856f
Say what the realm asks of a declined writer, rather than what its AC…
habdelra File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
[Claude Code 🤖] Two problems with this test:
assert.deepEqual(entry.caller, batch.caller)from four lines up. It can only fail ifderivemutatedentryin place, andscopeForalways builds a fresh object, so it never fails.proposedgone, nothing tests the other half ofderive's contract: the part that does not carry over. Its comment now says "a trace belongs to one invocation and never does", andderiveis the only place a trace is attached (capabilities.tsdoesscope.derive({ trace })). The removedproposedassertions were the only check that a per-invocation member is dropped.Swapping the duplicate for a trace check would cover it:
Regression in coverage, not in behavior. Non-blocking.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
[Claude Code 🤖] Fixed in 6533a8f. The duplicate assertion is gone. The test now derives with a
GateTrace, then checks three things: the derived scope carries it, the original scope still has none, and a further derive that names no trace drops it. That is the member-does-not-carry-over check the oldproposedassertions covered.