docs(adr): correct ADR 0024's stale build status and its no-401-handling claim - #381
Merged
Conversation
…ing claim Two accuracy defects, both understating shipped behaviour. Found while predicate-checking this ADR's clean verdict and deliberately not acted on then, because they were outside that pass; dispatched afterwards so they have an owner. DEFECT 1 -- the 401 backstop. Section 4 stated in the present tense that _post has "no" 401-specific handling and dead-letters a 401 as a permanent NegativeAckError, then described adding a branch as future work. Both branches shipped. THE INTERESTING PART IS WHY THIS SURVIVED A CHECK. The two branches do not share a spelling: the REST arm tests a `status` variable, the FHIR arm tests the exception's `code`. A grep for `exc.code == 401` returns 2 in fhir.py and ZERO in rest.py -- so a single-spelling search reads as "not shipped on REST" and would have confirmed the stale sentence. Caught only by printing every 401 site rather than counting one pattern. That warning is now written into the ADR so the next reader does not repeat it. DEFECT 2 -- the status contradiction. The Status line says accepted, built and shipped, while the section heading still read "Decision (proposed)" and a "To resolve on acceptance" list stood open. A reader skimming headings concludes the decision is unmade. Heading corrected. The to-resolve list is RETAINED rather than deleted, marked resolved, because the questions record what acceptance turned on -- that is history worth keeping, and deleting it would lose the reasoning while fixing the tense. SITE COUNT CHECKED BEFORE EDITING, per the pattern in the previous five: exactly two proposed/unbuilt markers in this file, both fixed. Every one of those five understated its own count, so counting first is now the default rather than a precaution. Verified: no ledger file touched, no engine code touched. cp1252 encodability run against the ADDED lines only -- 15 added lines, ZERO non-ASCII. A ZERO SEEN-COUNT IS NOT SELF-EVIDENCING, so the scanner was separately proved to discriminate against a planted corpus: an em dash (safe punctuation) and an arrow (U+2192, unsafe) in the same three lines returned seen=2, unsafe=1 at 0x2192. The control also demonstrated the rule's own rationale by crashing this console with UnicodeEncodeError when it first tried to print the offending character. No banner flip and no BACKLOG citation: dispatched as an accuracy fix, not a numbered item, and authoring ledger content is not the builder's.
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
1 participant
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.
Sixth ADR in the same accuracy sweep as #380, which merged before this one arrived -- so it lands as its own PR, rebased onto current main rather than stacked on the merged branch.
ADR 0024 (SMART Backend Services token provider) carried a stale build status and asserted the provider does not handle 401 responses. Both are false against the shipped code.
Scope
No banner flip, deliberately
Dispatched as an accuracy fix rather than a numbered item, and authoring ledger content is not the builder's. Flagged explicitly because the same visible shape -- a PR touching no ledger file -- was a real defect on #372 earlier today and is correct compliance here. The PR body is the only thing that distinguishes them.
Verification
Docs-only, no code path touched; no tests run for that reason. Commit hooks passed. Same accuracy-fix class as the five in #380, where every audit row understated its own site count -- an audit row tells you where the reader looked, not where the claim lives.