Repository navigation
The explorer draws why a flow exists and what checks its outcomes - #48
Merged
Merged
Conversation
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
INV-027 and INV-028 land in the one artifact a reader looks at first. Server-side, as
everything on that page is.
Why — a Flow's Intents, each with its frozen record, labelled provenance, never
truth so nobody reads the citation as a verification of the sentence. A Flow with no
Intent says so rather than rendering an empty list.
Outcomes now draw three states, not two:
● checkedwith the assertion idnever checkedno check declaredREFUTEDin error colourCollapsing any of those into "fine" would be the silent boundary INV-025 forbids, in the
place it would do the most damage.
A weak test, caught and fixed
The first version asserted the "no check declared" state against
traceos-itself, whereevery outcome now has a check — so the assertion could not fail for the case it was
named after. Repointed at
examples/ecommerce, which haspurchase.rejectedwith nocheck, and verified it fails when the branch is broken. Same for the Intent rendering.
Checks
39/39 groups, 185/185 assertions (three new).
check_docs28/28,check_locators38/38, ratchet exit 0 — discharged by re-reading
explore.buildand confirming thebrowser still computes nothing: the JS looks up a precomputed
IMPACTtable and toggleshidden, and the new Intent and Outcome rendering is Python.