DongHyeonkaandClaude Opus 5
b2963105a8
The keycloak project ended with four open questions that design could not
settle. A two-VM lab was built to answer them by measurement, and this is
that material: 26 experiments, 125 raw command outputs, 22 browser captures.
Follows the import procedure in README.md.
source/ the originating repository verbatim — 78 documents, 28 SVGs,
8 manifests, plus .source-revision recording the commit
final/ the SSOT
document.md 729 lines written from the 29 experiment documents, not
concatenated: what was predicted, what was measured, and
where the measurement itself was wrong
evidence/raw 125 outputs, flattened to <experiment>__<file> because
the originals collided (01-baseline.txt appeared three
times) and the audit only globs the top level
evidence/meta one per raw file; command and exitCode are null and the
README says why rather than inventing them
evidence/browser 22 captures
assets/ three diagrams through techviz
.techviz/ their VizSpecs
A separate project rather than an addition to keycloak: the B-layer answers
that project's four questions, but the A, C and D layers are about cluster
failure, SSO and operations, and one document.md should hold one subject.
The four question records there can point here through 관계.
Recorded rather than papered over: only three of the 28 diagrams were
remade. The repository forbids hand-drawn SVG and forbids titles inside the
canvas; all 28 originals carry both, so converting them is redrawing, not
reformatting. They stay in source/ and the gap is written into the document.
verify-pipeline.py passes. audit-records.py reports no issues.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
42 lines
1.8 KiB
Plaintext
42 lines
1.8 KiB
Plaintext
# 검사가 선언하는 범위
|
|
* <p>The check is structural and conservative: records, enums, strings, boxed primitives and
|
|
* immutable collection views replay; anything else is treated as one-shot, so the retry engine
|
|
* refuses rather than gambling. A caller who knows better can freeze the value itself — serialize
|
|
* it to a {@code byte[]} body — which states the guarantee instead of asserting it.
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
# 첫 분기
|
|
private static boolean deeplyImmutable(Object candidate) {
|
|
if (candidate == null) {
|
|
return true;
|
|
}
|
|
if (candidate instanceof String
|
|
|| candidate instanceof Number
|
|
|| candidate instanceof Boolean
|
|
|| candidate instanceof Character
|
|
|| candidate instanceof Enum<?>
|
|
|| candidate instanceof java.util.UUID
|
|
|| candidate instanceof java.time.temporal.Temporal) {
|
|
return true;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
# 이 검사가 존재하는 이유 (test 클래스 javadoc)
|
|
/**
|
|
* Replayability is a property of the value, not a promise in a javadoc.
|
|
*
|
|
* <p>Every {@code ObjectBody} used to report {@code REPLAYABLE}. A caller who reused a builder or
|
|
* kept a reference to a list therefore got a retry that re-encoded the value <em>as it was at retry
|
|
* time</em> — different bytes, same idempotency key, which is precisely what a replay must never
|
|
* be.
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
# 그 이유를 고정하는 test 넷
|
|
28: @DisplayName("a record of immutable components replays")
|
|
29: void anImmutableRecordReplays() {
|
|
41: @DisplayName("a value the caller can still mutate does not replay")
|
|
42: void aMutableValueIsOneShot() {
|
|
51: @DisplayName("a record wrapping a mutable component does not replay")
|
|
52: void aRecordWrappingMutableStateIsOneShot() {
|
|
66: @DisplayName("an uninspectable value is one-shot")
|
|
67: void anArbitraryBeanIsOneShot() {
|