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>
2.2 KiB
kind, slug, title, topic, project, status, sourceRevision, rootTreeNode, evidenceCapturedOn, assets, evidence, source, module
| kind | slug | title | topic | project | status | sourceRevision | rootTreeNode | evidenceCapturedOn | assets | evidence | source | module | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CONCEPT | adapter-inbound-web-c11 | 기여자가 커스터마이저에 도달하지 않아 스키마가 문서에 없다 | schema-and-wire-models | clean-architecture-backend-template | 게시 전 | 21234e38cdb9a926cbc92bb97a2aee2e4a7d2916 | concept:adapter-inbound-web-c11 | 2026-09-01 |
|
|
|
adapter-inbound-web |
기여자가 커스터마이저에 도달하지 않아 스키마가 문서에 없다
배선된 OpenApiCustomizer는 익명 람다 하나이고, 607줄짜리 미배선 쪽이 담은 기여자들은 커스터마이저에 도달하지 않는다.
본문
배선된 것은 config/OpenApiContractConfig(37줄, @Configuration)가 익명 람다 OpenApiCustomizer 하나를 빈으로 등록하는 것뿐이다. 하는 일은 ApiError.details 스키마를 ObjectSchema로 되돌리는 것 한 가지다.
OpenApiCustomizer 참조 위치
:::evidence key="adapter-inbound-web-c11" alt="코드베이스에서 OpenApiCustomizer 를 검색한 출력 7줄. 이 기록이 세는 참조가 그 출력에 그대로 보인다." caption="OpenApiCustomizer 코드베이스 검색 — 7줄 · exit 0" zoom="true" :::
배선되지 않은 607줄
openapi/WebOpenApiCustomizer(74줄)와 그것이 쓰는 ProblemSchemaContributor(88) · CursorSchemaContributor(47) · WebOpenApiProfile(72) · WebOpenApiBreakingPolicy(187) · WebOpenApiReleaseGate(100) · WebOpenApiDiffResult(39). 빈으로 등록하는 코드가 main·app-bootstrap에 없고, 참조는 자기들끼리와 테스트뿐이다.
문서에 기여되지 않는 스키마
springdoc이 생성하는 문서에는 RFC 9457 problem 스키마도 커서 스키마도 기여되지 않는다 — 그 기여자들이 커스터마이저에 도달하지 않기 때문이다. SS2에서 확인한 "problem 계약이 문서에 없다"(§7.3)와 같은 방향의 사실이 스키마 쪽에서도 성립한다.