@openwop/openwop-conformance 1.153.0 → 1.155.0

package/src/scenarios/rfc-lifecycle-coherence.test.ts

@@ -1,215 +0,0 @@
-/**
- * RFC 0149 §D — an `Accepted` RFC's unticked acceptance items must say why.
- *
- * §D asks the corpus generator to fail when an `Accepted` RFC "retains an
- * unresolved acceptance blocker not explicitly carried to a register/known-limit".
- * The obvious signal is the `- [ ]` boxes under §"Acceptance criteria", and the
- * obvious gate — every box ticked before `Accepted` — was measured and rejected.
- *
- * `docs/RFC-LIFECYCLE-COHERENCE.md` recorded the distribution: of 141 `Accepted`
- * RFCs, 42% ticked every box, 25% ticked none, 24% ticked some. A blanket gate
- * fails 69 RFCs on its first run, mostly for an authoring convention, and a gate
- * that fires 69 times on its first run gets disabled rather than fixed.
- *
- * The first triage hypothesis was also wrong, and correcting it produced the rule
- * this gate actually enforces. The partially-ticked RFCs are not a blocker
- * backlog: reading `0027`/`0028`/`0029`/`0040`/`0041` shows every trailing item
- * deliberately unticked AND annotated with why — "(Will land alongside the first
- * non-steward advertisement.)", "(Path-to-Accepted.)", "(Follow-up — … not
- * normative gate-blockers.)". That inline annotation IS §D's "explicitly
- * carried", just carried in a parenthetical rather than a register row.
- *
- * So the signal is **annotated vs bare, not ticked vs unticked**. An unticked
- * item with no explanation is indistinguishable from one nobody checked; an
- * unticked item that states its external gate is a decision on record. Ticking
- * nothing stays legal — the RFC did not use the mechanism — but leaving a box
- * unticked and unexplained does not.
- *
- * Applies from `LIFECYCLE_RULE_RFC` forward. Earlier RFCs are the dated record
- * of a period when the convention did not exist, and rewriting them would make
- * the record lie; the boundary is asserted here rather than assumed, so a NEW
- * RFC cannot inherit the exemption. Same carve-out shape as RFC 0149 §B's
- * root-layout lint.
- *
- * Server-free. `RFCS/` is repository-only, so this self-skips under the
- * published tarball layout.
- */
-
-import { describe, it, expect } from 'vitest';
-import { readFileSync, readdirSync, existsSync } from 'node:fs';
-import { join, resolve as pathResolve } from 'node:path';
-import { V1_DIR } from '../lib/paths.js';
-
-/** RFC 0149 §D takes effect with the RFC 0147 program's own cohort. */
-const LIFECYCLE_RULE_RFC = 147;
-
-const RFCS_DIR = V1_DIR === null ? null : pathResolve(V1_DIR, '..', '..', 'RFCS');
-
-interface BareItem {
-  readonly rfc: number;
-  readonly file: string;
-  readonly line: number;
-  readonly text: string;
-}
-
-/**
- * An item is "carried" when it states a reason: a parenthetical, or a pointer to
- * a gap register / known-limit / follow-up RFC. Anything else is bare.
- */
-function isAnnotated(text: string): boolean {
-  if (/\([^)]{12,}\)/.test(text)) return true;
-  return /\b(gap register|known.limit|register row|carried|deferred|blocked on|gated on)\b/i.test(text);
-}
-
-function statusOf(doc: string): string | null {
-  const m = /^\|\s*\*\*Status\*\*\s*\|\s*`([^`]+)`/m.exec(doc);
-  return m === null ? null : m[1]!;
-}
-
-/** Unticked acceptance items lacking a stated reason, for `Accepted` RFCs at or after the cutoff. */
-function bareItems(dir: string): BareItem[] {
-  const found: BareItem[] = [];
-  for (const name of readdirSync(dir).filter((f) => /^\d{4}-.*\.md$/.test(f)).sort()) {
-    const rfc = Number.parseInt(name.slice(0, 4), 10);
-    if (!Number.isFinite(rfc) || rfc < LIFECYCLE_RULE_RFC) continue;
-    const doc = readFileSync(join(dir, name), 'utf8');
-    if (statusOf(doc) !== 'Accepted') continue;
-    const lines = doc.split('\n');
-    let inAcceptance = false;
-    for (let i = 0; i < lines.length; i++) {
-      const line = lines[i]!;
-      if (/^##\s/.test(line)) inAcceptance = /^##\s+Acceptance criteria\s*$/.test(line);
-      if (!inAcceptance) continue;
-      if (!/^\s*-\s*\[ \]\s/.test(line)) continue;
-      const text = line.replace(/^\s*-\s*\[ \]\s*/, '');
-      if (!isAnnotated(text)) found.push({ rfc, file: name, line: i + 1, text });
-    }
-  }
-  return found;
-}
-
-describe.skipIf(RFCS_DIR === null || !existsSync(RFCS_DIR))('RFC 0149 §D — lifecycle coherence', () => {
-  const dir = RFCS_DIR as string;
-
-  it('the scan reaches Accepted RFCs in the governed range', () => {
-    // Guard: a status regex that matched nothing, or a heading regex that never
-    // entered the section, would make the assertion below vacuously true. That
-    // is the failure RFC 0148 exists to close, and it is especially easy here
-    // because the gate's PASSING state and its BROKEN state look identical.
-    const governed = readdirSync(dir)
-      .filter((f) => /^\d{4}-.*\.md$/.test(f))
-      .filter((f) => Number.parseInt(f.slice(0, 4), 10) >= LIFECYCLE_RULE_RFC)
-      .filter((f) => statusOf(readFileSync(join(dir, f), 'utf8')) === 'Accepted');
-    expect(
-      governed.length,
-      `at least one Accepted RFC numbered >= ${LIFECYCLE_RULE_RFC} MUST exist for this gate to mean anything`,
-    ).toBeGreaterThan(0);
-
-    const withBoxes = governed.filter((f) =>
-      /^##\s+Acceptance criteria\s*$/m.test(readFileSync(join(dir, f), 'utf8')),
-    );
-    expect(withBoxes.length, 'the acceptance-criteria heading MUST be found').toBeGreaterThan(0);
-  });
-
-  it('every unticked acceptance item states why it is unticked', () => {
-    const bare = bareItems(dir).map((b) => `RFCS/${b.file}:${b.line} — ${b.text}`);
-    expect(
-      bare,
-      'RFC 0149 §D: an unticked acceptance item on an `Accepted` RFC MUST carry its reason — an ' +
-        'external gate, a follow-up note, or a register / known-limit pointer. Unticked-and-' +
-        'unexplained is indistinguishable from unchecked, which is what makes the checkbox ' +
-        'signal unusable. Tick it, annotate it, or carry it to a register row.\n  ' +
-        bare.join('\n  '),
-    ).toEqual([]);
-  });
-
-  it('the rule binds the cohort that proposed it', () => {
-    // RFC 0149 is itself in the governed range. A gate whose author exempted
-    // their own RFC would be the shape RFC 0147 §A.10 forbids — citing a
-    // program's status as evidence its gaps are closed.
-    const self = readFileSync(join(dir, '0149-machine-contract-and-version-reconciliation.md'), 'utf8');
-    expect(statusOf(self), 'RFC 0149 is `Accepted`').toBe('Accepted');
-    expect(
-      149 >= LIFECYCLE_RULE_RFC,
-      'RFC 0149 MUST fall inside the range its own §D governs',
-    ).toBe(true);
-  });
-});
-
-/**
- * Every non-terminal RFC either carries the **Parked** annotation with a named
- * tripwire, or is genuinely in flight.
- *
- * `RFCS/README.md` §"Parked RFCs" extends the annotation from `Draft` to
- * `Active`, and the reason is the confusion this corpus has now made in both
- * directions: **an RFC blocked on the world and an RFC blocked on somebody's
- * unfinished work look identical from an index.** RFC 0038 was parked on an
- * external tripwire while three of its acceptance criteria were plain
- * repository work nobody had done; RFC 0121 sits on an unresolved legal
- * question and kept re-reading as an open action item.
- *
- * What this leg defends is the honesty of the annotation, not its presence. A
- * Parked RFC MUST name a **falsifiable** tripwire — a condition someone could
- * check and declare met. "Needs more adoption" is not one. Without this leg the
- * annotation would be a label anybody could apply to make an index look
- * finished, which is precisely the move RFC 0147 §A exists to stop: **Parked is
- * a reason an RFC has not graduated, never a substitute for having graduated.**
- */
-describe.skipIf(RFCS_DIR === null || !existsSync(RFCS_DIR))('RFCS/README §Parked — a park names its tripwire', () => {
-  const dir = RFCS_DIR as string;
-
-  function nonTerminal(): { file: string; doc: string; status: string }[] {
-    const out: { file: string; doc: string; status: string }[] = [];
-    for (const name of readdirSync(dir).filter((f) => /^\d{4}-.*\.md$/.test(f)).sort()) {
-      if (name.startsWith('0000')) continue; // the template is not an RFC
-      const doc = readFileSync(join(dir, name), 'utf8');
-      const st = statusOf(doc);
-      if (st === 'Draft' || st === 'Active') out.push({ file: name, doc, status: st });
-    }
-    return out;
-  }
-
-  it('the scan finds the non-terminal RFCs it is meant to govern', () => {
-    // Guard: if every RFC were `Accepted` this leg would pass over an empty set,
-    // which is the vacuity RFC 0148 §C found in the floor verifier. If the corpus
-    // ever genuinely reaches zero, delete this leg deliberately rather than
-    // letting it go quiet.
-    expect(
-      nonTerminal().length,
-      'RFCS/README §"Status index" records non-terminal RFCs; a zero here means the scan broke, ' +
-        'not that the corpus finished',
-    ).toBeGreaterThan(0);
-  });
-
-  it('every Parked RFC names a falsifiable tripwire', () => {
-    const offenders: string[] = [];
-    for (const { file, doc } of nonTerminal()) {
-      const statusLine = /^\|\s*\*\*Status\*\*\s*\|[^\n]*$/m.exec(doc)?.[0] ?? '';
-      if (!/\(\*\*Parked\*\*\)/.test(statusLine)) continue;
-      const updated = /^\|\s*\*\*Updated\*\*\s*\|([^\n]*)$/m.exec(doc)?.[1] ?? '';
-      if (!/tripwire/i.test(updated) || updated.length < 80) {
-        offenders.push(`${file}: Parked without a named tripwire in \`Updated\``);
-      }
-    }
-    expect(
-      offenders,
-      'RFCS/README.md §"Parked RFCs" rule 1: a Parked RFC MUST name the condition that un-parks ' +
-        'it, in `Updated`. An unfalsifiable park is a label that makes an index look finished ' +
-        'while nothing was decided — Parked records why an RFC has NOT graduated, and is never a ' +
-        'substitute for having graduated.\n  ' + offenders.join('\n  '),
-    ).toEqual([]);
-  });
-
-  it('no Parked RFC claims to be Accepted', () => {
-    // Rule 2. The annotation confers nothing: an `Active` (**Parked**) RFC is
-    // exactly as unimplemented as an `Active` one, and licenses no advertisement.
-    for (const { file, doc, status } of nonTerminal()) {
-      const statusLine = /^\|\s*\*\*Status\*\*\s*\|[^\n]*$/m.exec(doc)?.[0] ?? '';
-      if (!/\(\*\*Parked\*\*\)/.test(statusLine)) continue;
-      expect(
-        status,
-        `${file}: Parked applies to \`Draft\` and \`Active\` only — it never stands in for \`Accepted\``,
-      ).not.toBe('Accepted');
-    }
-  });
-});

package/src/scenarios/semantic-digest-v2.test.ts

@@ -1,128 +0,0 @@
-/**
- * RFC 0150 §C — the semantic request digest, and three defects in `replay.md`.
- *
- * **1. The exclusion list forbids exactly what §C requires.** `replay.md` §A
- * says "Fields NOT in this set MUST NOT influence the cache key — including but
- * not limited to: `max_tokens`, `stop`, … `seed`". §C says the digest "MUST
- * cover the complete semantic provider request … maximum output bound, stop
- * conditions, seed". Those are direct opposites, and §A's side is wrong: a
- * request with `stop: ["END"]` and one without produce different completions, so
- * a cache keyed identically for both **returns the wrong response** — not a
- * miss, a wrong hit. Same for `seed`, whose entire purpose is to change output,
- * and for the output bound, which decides whether a response is truncated.
- *
- * **2. It prescribes a normalization JCS does not perform.** Step 2 says
- * canonicalize "via RFC 8785 JCS", then tells hosts without JCS to emit "UTF-8
- * NFC for all strings". JCS does **not** apply NFC. So the two paths the same
- * sentence offers produce **different bytes for the same input** whenever a
- * string is not already NFC — which is the portability property §D claims as a
- * normative invariant. §C: "Implementations MUST NOT add Unicode normalization
- * outside JCS."
- *
- * **3. It cites a formula that no longer exists.** §C quotes the Layer-2 id as
- * `sha256(runId ':' nodeId ':' attempt ':' providerKey)` — the composition RFC
- * 0150 §B retired as a safety-fix, because `attempt` in the preimage guaranteed
- * a duplicate effect on every retry. `idempotency.md` is v1.4; `replay.md` was
- * left quoting v1.1. This one is a cross-document staleness the §B change itself
- * introduced and did not catch.
- *
- * Server-free; reads the corpus. `spec/v1/` is repository-only, so it self-skips
- * under the published tarball layout.
- */
-
-import { describe, it, expect } from 'vitest';
-import { readFileSync } from 'node:fs';
-import { join } from 'node:path';
-import { V1_DIR } from '../lib/paths.js';
-
-/** Fields whose presence changes the model's output, so they change its identity. */
-const OUTCOME_AFFECTING = ['seed', 'stop', 'maxOutputTokens'];
-
-describe.skipIf(V1_DIR === null)('RFC 0150 §C — semantic request digest v2', () => {
-  const doc = V1_DIR === null ? '' : readFileSync(join(V1_DIR as string, 'replay.md'), 'utf8');
-
-  /**
-   * Normative text only. Blockquote lines are excluded because this document
-   * deliberately QUOTES the rules it retired, so a reader can see what changed
-   * and why — and a naive substring search cannot tell a live rule from a
-   * quoted-and-retired one. Same carve-out shape as RFC 0149 §B's lint, which
-   * exempts pre-0073 RFCs as the dated record of what was proposed.
-   *
-   * The exemption is narrow on purpose: it covers `>` blocks, not the body, so
-   * a retired rule cannot be resurrected into normative voice unnoticed.
-   */
-  const normative = doc
-    .split('\n')
-    .filter((l) => !/^\s*>/.test(l))
-    .join('\n');
-  const plain = normative.replace(/[`*_]/g, '').replace(/\s+/g, ' ');
-  /** Full text including quotes — used only where a quote is the thing under test. */
-  const everything = doc.replace(/[`*_]/g, '').replace(/\s+/g, ' ');
-
-  it('the digest recipe section is found at all', () => {
-    // Guard: an empty read makes every leg below vacuously true.
-    expect(doc.length, 'replay.md MUST be readable').toBeGreaterThan(1000);
-    expect(plain, 'the cache-key recipe MUST exist').toMatch(/cache key/i);
-    // The blockquote filter must not swallow the document.
-    expect(
-      plain.length / everything.length,
-      'the normative-text filter MUST retain most of the document, or every leg below is vacuous',
-    ).toBeGreaterThan(0.7);
-  });
-
-  it('outcome-affecting fields are covered, not excluded', () => {
-    for (const field of OUTCOME_AFFECTING) {
-      expect(
-        plain.includes(field),
-        `RFC 0150 §C: the digest MUST cover \`${field}\`. Excluding it means two requests that ` +
-          'produce different completions share a cache key — a wrong hit, not a miss.',
-      ).toBe(true);
-    }
-    // The v1 exclusion sentence named them as MUST NOT influence. It must be gone.
-    expect(
-      /Fields NOT in this set MUST NOT influence the cache key/.test(plain),
-      'RFC 0150 §C: the v1 exclusion list forbade the very fields §C requires. It cannot survive ' +
-        'alongside the v2 recipe — a reader following it would build the colliding digest.',
-    ).toBe(false);
-  });
-
-  it('no Unicode normalization is prescribed outside JCS', () => {
-    expect(
-      /UTF-8 NFC for all strings/.test(plain),
-      'RFC 0150 §C: "Implementations MUST NOT add Unicode normalization outside JCS." JCS does ' +
-        'not apply NFC, so offering NFC as the no-JCS fallback makes the two paths produce ' +
-        'different bytes for the same input — defeating the portability §D asserts.',
-    ).toBe(false);
-  });
-
-  it('the recipe carries a version stamp so v1 and v2 digests cannot collide', () => {
-    expect(
-      plain,
-      'RFC 0150 §C: the canonical object carries `recipe: "openwop-semantic-request-v2"`, so a ' +
-        'digest computed under the old rules is distinguishable rather than silently comparable.',
-    ).toContain('openwop-semantic-request-v2');
-  });
-
-  it('unknown provider options are carried, not dropped', () => {
-    expect(
-      /providerOptions/.test(plain),
-      'RFC 0150 §C: unknown provider options MUST go in a closed, namespaced `providerOptions` ' +
-        'object before hashing. "Silently dropping them is nonconformant" — a dropped option that ' +
-        'changes output is the collision this section exists to prevent.',
-    ).toBe(true);
-  });
-
-  it('the Layer-2 cross-reference matches the composition that actually exists', () => {
-    // Cross-document staleness introduced by RFC 0150 §B and not caught by it.
-    expect(
-      /attempt \|\| ':' \|\| providerKey|nodeId ':' attempt/.test(plain),
-      'RFC 0150 §B retired the `attempt`-bearing Layer-2 composition as a safety-fix. `replay.md` ' +
-        'MUST NOT keep quoting it — a reader following this section would rebuild the exact ' +
-        'defect §B removed, and would do so believing they were following the spec.',
-    ).toBe(false);
-    expect(
-      plain,
-      'replay.md MUST cite the current Layer-2 identity',
-    ).toContain('logicalInvocationId');
-  });
-});