FR-PLG-8 reads as unbuilt, and most of it is: no aggregated missing-plugin
notice, no catalog-wide view, no export gate, no mark on an image whose
operation is unavailable. But its opening sentence is a claim about existing
behaviour — "the sidecar already preserves lines it does not understand
verbatim and writes them back untouched" — and it goes on to say that property
"is now load-bearing and shall be treated as such".
Two tests treat it as such, and neither was tagged. `sidecar.rs` keeps an
unknown operation across a parse-and-write, and keeps it out of the edit graph
so that preserving it is safe rather than merely tidy. Both would fail if the
verbatim path were removed, which is what CONTRIBUTING.md asks a tag to mean.
The tag sits on the two tests rather than on the module, so the matrix points
at the clause that is closed rather than at the requirement as a whole.
It is still short of the requirement's own acceptance criterion, and the tag
comment says so: FR-PLG-8 asks that a sidecar written with a plugin, opened and
saved without it, be byte-identical to the original, and the test asserts
`contains`. Both halves exist separately — `writing_the_same_state_twice_is_byte_identical`
proves byte identity for content this build understands — and nothing joins
them into the single claim the requirement makes.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
dtourolleandClaude Opus 5
99563b33f7