7 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
dtourolleandClaude Opus 5	0906c3983f	Stop reading a coverage calculation as a diagnostics subsystem ... NFR-OPS-1 asks for structured levelled logging to a rotating, size-capped on-disk log in the XDG state or Android app directory, automatic redaction of credentials and tokens, and a one-click diagnostics bundle with an explicit preview-and-consent step. Its two tags were on `compute_coverage` and on the traceability tool's gesture extractor. Neither is diagnostics under any reading. One computes a ratio and the other generates a markdown document; neither writes a log, and no rotating on-disk log exists anywhere in the tree — logging goes to stderr and to logcat. These were real tags, not the fixtures the extractor was just taught to ignore, which makes them the more instructive case: the tool was correct and the tags were wrong. NFR-OPS-1 is untagged again, and outstanding.md §9 now says what is actually missing rather than that the requirement is covered. `gestures.rs` keeps its FR-UI-4 tag, which is a separate claim and unaffected. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-08-30 10:17:53 +02:00
dtourolleandClaude Opus 5	9d9abb227f	Ask where a TRACES tag sits, so the tool stops tagging its own fixtures ... The traceability tool scans `tools/`, which is its own source, and a line was taken for a tag whenever `TRACES:` appeared anywhere on it. Its unit-test fixtures are therefore tags. R1 — cross-platform output within a bounded tolerance, the requirement with no acceptance criterion at all — was reported implemented on the strength of two string literals in `context_looks_forward_then_backward`. R1 was only the visible case because it had no other coverage. The same fixtures also contributed sites to FR-CAT-1, FR-CAT-2 and NFR-P1, `gestures.rs` contributed one to FR-UI-4 from a `push_str`, and `dr-pipeline/build.rs` contributed FR-DEV-3a and FR-DEV-3c from the tag it *emits* into generated code. Those four requirements keep real tags elsewhere, so nothing but noise is lost by dropping them. The rule is about position, not about string literals. It cannot be about string literals: `schema.rs` writes six genuine tags inside Rust string literals, because the SQL it embeds is commented with `--`, and an extractor that refused those would lose more than it saved. What separates the two is where on the line the tag is. A tag written to be read is the first word of its comment; a tag quoted inside an expression never is. So `tag_body` asks for a comment opener at the start of the line and `TRACES:` immediately after it. That closes every shape but one: a multi-line literal whose lines really do begin with `///`, which no line-oriented reader can tell from source. There is one such fixture and its ids are now UT and IT, which `is_requirement` already excludes from coverage — the mechanism existed and was simply never used on the tool itself. `this_crates_own_fixtures_cannot_reach_the_register` enforces that: any requirement id below `mod tests` in this crate fails the test and says to use a UT- or IT- id instead. Tagging the tool's real code is still allowed. On `SOURCE_SUFFIXES`, which cannot reach `AndroidManifest.xml`, the Flatpak manifest, the Dockerfile or the CI workflows: it is deliberately left alone, and the reasoning is recorded beside it. A tag on a manifest asserts that a comment exists next to a line nothing checks, which is the weak form CONTRIBUTING.md warns about. The convention already in the tree — a Rust test that `include_str!`s the file and asserts what must be in it, with the tag on the test — is what a tag is supposed to mean. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-08-30 10:17:34 +02:00
dtourolleandClaude Opus 5	091306f736	Gate the gesture vocabulary the way the matrix is gated ... Three holes, all found by the gate catching itself out. **Prose that mentions the tag was read as a tag.** `dr-ui`'s module list carries a comment saying where the generated table comes from, and it names `GESTURE:` in passing; the scan extracted that sentence fragment as a gesture with no place and no way to perform it. A tag must now *open* its comment. A line that merely mentions it is describing the mechanism, not declaring a member of it, and position is the only thing that tells the two apart — which also makes the string-literal guard fall out for free rather than being a special case. **Neither artefact was regenerated on commit.** They cite line numbers, so they go stale on anything that moves a line — the sheet commit made the document wrong about every gesture in `library.slint` without touching a single one. The pre-commit hook that already keeps the matrix in step now keeps these too, and unlike the matrix it *fails* rather than shrugging when the scan does: a matrix that will not build leaves a stale one in place, where a malformed gesture block means a user about to be told the wrong thing. **CI did not check them at all.** It does now, blocking. The matrix is read; the gesture table is *shown to somebody using the application*, and a stale one tells them to perform a gesture that no longer exists — from which they will conclude the application is broken rather than the page. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-08-30 00:51:13 +02:00
dtourolleandClaude Opus 5	31a3580f9d	Extract the gesture vocabulary from the code that implements it ... Every gesture the application has was documented in the comment beside the `TouchArea` that implements it. Excellent comments, and unreachable by anyone not reading the source — which is the FR-UI-4 failure in a different costume: a gesture nobody can find is a feature only its author knows about. Writing them out again in a hand-kept help page is the failure this avoids. Two descriptions of one gesture drift, and it is always the prose that drifts: the code is exercised every time somebody uses the application and the page is exercised never. A help screen confidently describing a double tap the grid stopped honouring last week is worse than no help screen — and the grid did stop honouring one, in the commit before this. So the comment beside the implementation stays the only copy, and a `GESTURE:` block beside it is scanned into two artefacts: `docs/gestures.md` for a reader, and a Rust table for the application to draw a help sheet from. Both committed, both gated, so neither can quietly stop describing the code. It lives in the traceability crate because it is the same operation on the same input — walk the tree, pull structured tags out of comments, render, fail if the committed artefact has moved. Only the vocabulary is new. It scans `ui` and `apps` alone: a gesture needs an interface to be performed on, and excluding `tools` is also what stops the scanner extracting its own worked examples as broken gestures. Fifteen gestures so far, across the library grid and the People screen. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-08-30 00:09:49 +02:00
dtourolleandClaude Opus 5	69dccaa061	Count the platform layer's traceability tags ... `platform` was missing from the traceability scanner's source roots, so every TRACES tag in `dr-plat` — the secret store, volume discovery, and now display-profile acquisition — was invisible to the matrix. The FR-PLAT-* family is exactly what that crate exists to satisfy, so the omission understated coverage by the requirements it was meant to count. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-08-27 18:46:59 +02:00
dtourolleandClaude Opus 5	7c57f490fe	Declare a develop operation in YAML, and generate the rest ... An operation was, in the overwhelming majority of cases, four facts: what its parameters are, what uniforms they compute, what WGSL those uniforms drive, and where it sits in the chain. Written in Rust those four facts arrived wrapped in ninety lines of trait implementation — a match on parameter id to a struct field, another match back, an is_active comparing each field to its default, a Vec<Uniform> built by hand. All mechanical, and each one a place to make a silent mistake: a param() arm returning the wrong field reads perfectly and breaks the sidecar round-trip. So the four facts are the file now. core/dr-pipeline/ops/<id>.yaml is a node, build.rs compiles it into the same Operation impl as before, and the result lands in OUT_DIR — the same reasoning as style.yaml -> theme.slint, including why it does not land beside the sources it would look exactly like. Nothing downstream can tell a declared node from a hand-written one: same &'static OpDescriptor, same fused-shader composition, same sidecar. Nine nodes moved: exposure, white_balance, contrast, highlights_shadows, blacks_whites, brilliance, vibrance, saturation, and the shared WGSL helper registry. Their prose came with them, and so did their tests — set/expect/expect_active/expect_wgsl in the declaration compile to real #[test]s, so a node file carries its own proof rather than leaving it behind in a file that no longer exists. Two stayed in Rust and say so with `rust:`. The tone curve's neutral is a relationship between five interpolated points rather than a set of values; the colour mixer generates thirty-six faceted parameters from twelve computed hue bands. A schema stretched to cover either would be a worse language than Rust aimed at one caller. They still declare their position here, because the chain's *order* is the one thing a reader comes to this directory to learn, and an order written half in YAML and half in Rust would be worse than either alone. default_chain() is generated from it. Uniforms are derived by a small expression language — exp2(exposure), blacks / 100 * 0.02 — compiled to Rust rather than interpreted, so an unknown name or a wrong arity is a build error naming the file and the key and the arithmetic costs nothing at runtime. The build script refuses a duplicate order, a filename disagreeing with its id, a default outside its own range, a test value the graph would clamp before the node saw it, a helper that does not define the function it names, and a declared node colliding with a file in src/ops. Verified by adding a scratch node and removing it again: one file, no other edit, and it joined the chain at its declared order with its test running. 237 tests pass in dr-pipeline, clippy and fmt clean. .yaml joins the traceability tool's scanned suffixes, because a node's Rust now lives in OUT_DIR where a tag could never be linked from the report. Coverage 47.7% -> 48.3%. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-08-16 21:08:16 +02:00
dtourolle	0f202fd3f9	Add requirements traceability gate and Gitea pipelines ... Ports JellyTau's traceability tooling to Rust, carrying across the bug it was repaired for. That gate divided a traced count by frozen literal denominators; the requirements file outgrew them and it reported 158% coverage, so it could never fail its own threshold. Two rules, both enforced by the extractor's own tests: - denominators parsed from docs/requirements.md at run time - coverage is |traced ∩ defined| / |defined|, never a raw traced count The gate additionally fails hard on a misconfigured run — zero requirements parsed or zero files scanned — rather than reporting a plausible 0%, and on any orphan tag naming a requirement that does not exist. Adapted for DarkRoom: IDs are FR-CAT-1 / NFR-P13 / FR-DEV-3a shapes rather than JellyTau's fixed three digits, and decisions (D), spikes (S), milestone items (M) and test ids remain taggable while being excluded from the denominator — counting them inflated it by 25. Also adds dr-sync: the RemoteBackend trait and capability model, so the Nextcloud connector is one implementation rather than the only shape the engine understands. No mature Nextcloud crate exists (reqwest_dav is too thin), so the connector will be hand-rolled over reqwest per D7. Gitea workflows follow the same style: containerised, commented with the reasoning, desktop and Android on every push, plus a CI check that no core/ crate depends on the UI toolkit (ARCH §6.5a). Coverage today: 13.3% (19/143). 50 tests passing.	2026-08-09 08:01:32 +02:00