5da28584a43f66921d7ea0d1224e2b7e942f7d85
2
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
  dtourolleandClaude Opus 5
|
ab0ef6a26d |
Say which requirements the code was already satisfying
Thirteen requirements were surveyed as built but untagged. Eight of them were: R3, R6, FR-DEV-1, FR-UI-6, FR-NC-6d, NFR-OPS-3, NFR-PORT-2 and NFR-SEC-3. Each was read against its full text in requirements.md and against the code before the tag was added, because a tag that is wrong is worse than an absent one — it turns a visible gap into an invisible one. The five that were refused, and why, because the reasoning is the part worth keeping: R2 carries "(figure TBD)" in its own acceptance criterion and asks for a stated prefetch margin and cache-hit rate; neither figure exists anywhere in the tree and neither quantity is measured, while TD-2 and TD-3 both describe the thumbnail path falling short of it. R5 asks for three things and the code does one. The display pipeline does run at viewport resolution, but "only visible tiles are computed" and "panning recomputes only newly exposed tiles" need a tile scheduler that does not exist — and frame_budget.rs currently argues for striking tiled computation from the interactive path rather than building it. FR-RAW-2 asks for a trait taking a SourceRef, so that a second decoder can be added without changing callers. What exists is free functions over &[u8]. That meets the requirement's stated *purpose* — the same decoder serves a local file, a SAF document and a byte range, which is exactly why it takes bytes — but there is no trait and no second implementation seam, so the requirement should probably be amended rather than tagged. NFR-ARCH-1 asks for named executors with stated thread counts. architecture.md §7.1 states the table; nothing implements it. Workers are twenty-odd ad-hoc std::thread::spawn sites, each building its own one-worker tokio runtime, with no decode pool, no GPU-submit executor and no I/O pool. The requirement's own text says R4 and NFR-P9 "assert an outcome with no stated means", and that is still true. NFR-SEC-4 is satisfied by absence — there is no telemetry — and absence has no module to tag. A tag would point at nothing. NFR-OPS-3 was the closest call of the eight taken. The store is single, separate from the catalog, survives a catalog rebuild and does not sync between devices; it has no version *field*, deliberately, and settings.rs argues why and names the condition that would need one. The substance is met and the reasoning is recorded where it belongs. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
dtourolle
|
c102ba9df2 |
Treat a placeholder as the photograph, not as a one-byte file
The folder connector was pointed at a Nextcloud VFS tree and got three things wrong, the first of which loses work. **A dehydrated sidecar read as absent.** `a.drsc` does not exist when the client has dehydrated it — only `a.drsc.nextcloud` does — so `get` missed, `.ok()` swallowed the `NotFound`, and the sidecar writer took that for "there is no sidecar yet" and wrote a fresh document over the existing one. Every edit another device had put there went with it. That function's own doc comment calls this the exact loss the format's unknown-key preservation exists to prevent. **A stub was catalogued as a 1-byte image**, and ARCH §9.0 measured this machine at 121,785 placeholders against 10,267 real files — so a folder library on a synced tree was ~92% broken rows. **Identity changed on hydration**, so downloading a photograph looked like a delete and an add, orphaning its thumbnail and its face rows. Entries now carry the photograph's own name and a `materialised` flag; `get` on a stub returns the new `RemoteError::NotMaterialised`, which is distinct from `NotFound` precisely because the sidecar writer must treat them differently — it fetches the sidecar and merges, or leaves the entry queued. Hydration is a **borrow**. `BorrowPool` records what was on disk before it asked, so `release_all` dehydrates only what a pass brought and leaves what the user already had. Reference counted: the thumbnail pass and the face pass meet on the same RAW, and without counting the first to finish dehydrates the file the second is reading. A borrow against a plain folder or a server does nothing, so a pass written for VFS runs everywhere. Releasing means asking the client to dehydrate and never deleting: a deletion inside a synced tree propagates to the server and removes the photograph from every device. Not a second backend — the capability is per *connection*, not per type, since the same folder hydrates only while the client runs. The convention arrives through a detector the registry supplies, so `dr-sync-folder` still knows nothing about any client's protocol. ARCH §9.0a records this as an amendment: finding 3 rejected hydration because it costs 100× a range read, and that comparison assumed a connector was available. A folder library has none. |