-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6
docs(#152): reconcile blocked-resolution review findings #153
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
d3bb8f6
docs(#152): reconcile blocked-resolution review findings
fullsend-ai-coder[bot] 344bcc6
fix: address review feedback on PR #153
fullsend-ai-coder[bot] 4871a7b
fix: address review feedback on PR #153
fullsend-ai-coder[bot] 5314619
fix: address review feedback on PR #153
fullsend-ai-coder[bot] File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
Large diffs are not rendered by default.
Oops, something went wrong.
23 changes: 16 additions & 7 deletions
23
docs/architecture/fixtures/drafting-table-wms-golden.jsonl
Large diffs are not rendered by default.
Oops, something went wrong.
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
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
[medium] backward-compatibility
The authoritative resolve-block request now MUST include a currently-active resolution_submission_id (VR-032 is rewritten so its absence returns UNAUTHORIZED_ACTION); previously the contract only required human_approval_id and approval_resolution_digest. This is the intentional, #152-authorized fix, but neither validation-rules.md nor drafting-table-wms.md marks it as a breaking/corrected contract change, and the WMS Integration Contract document carries no version marker at all. No adapter implementation exists in this repository yet (wms/ is a placeholder README with zero code), so this is not a demonstrated production break, but it is a real gap for any future or external adapter implementer relying on the prior contract text.
Suggested fix: Add a short correction/breaking-change note in drafting-table-wms.md (e.g., a change-log or out-of-scope section) stating that resolve-block now requires the currently-active resolution_submission_id and that omitting it is UNAUTHORIZED_ACTION. Consider adding a lightweight contract version marker to the document so future changes to the request/response shape are mechanically detectable.