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>
52 lines
2.7 KiB
Markdown
52 lines
2.7 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
kind: CONCEPT
|
|
slug: adapter-outbound-persistence-jpa-c25
|
|
title: 문서 상수와 같은 상수를 assert하는 test를 피한 이유
|
|
topic: schema-and-wire-models
|
|
project: clean-architecture-backend-template
|
|
status: 게시 전
|
|
sourceRevision: 21234e38cdb9a926cbc92bb97a2aee2e4a7d2916
|
|
rootTreeNode: concept:adapter-outbound-persistence-jpa-c25
|
|
evidenceCapturedOn: 2026-09-01
|
|
assets:
|
|
- key: adapter-outbound-persistence-jpa-c25
|
|
file: ../../../final/evidence/rendered/adapter-outbound-persistence-jpa-c25.svg
|
|
- key: adapter-outbound-persistence-jpa-c25-diagram
|
|
file: ../../../final/assets/diagrams/adapter-outbound-persistence-jpa-c25.svg
|
|
evidence:
|
|
- ../../../final/evidence/raw/adapter-outbound-persistence-jpa-c25.txt
|
|
source:
|
|
- 원본 분석 절은 analysis/05-adapter-outbound-persistence-jpa.md#L1643 이다.
|
|
module: adapter-outbound-persistence-jpa
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 문서 상수와 같은 상수를 assert하는 test를 피한 이유
|
|
|
|
`HibernateProviderPolicy`가 선언된 baseline 상수와 classpath에서 읽은 runtime version을 분리해, drift를 보고할 수 있게 한다.
|
|
|
|
## 본문
|
|
|
|
<!-- body:start -->
|
|
|
|
`HibernateProviderPolicy`는 상수로 선언된 Stable provider baseline과 실제 classpath에서 읽은 runtime version을 구분한다. 이 설계가 필요한 이유는 repository가 과거 "7.4를 Stable baseline이라고 문서화하면서 실제 Spring Boot BOM은 7.1.x를 resolve"한 상태를 경험했기 때문이다.
|
|
|
|
## 선언 기준과 런타임 판본의 분리
|
|
|
|
:::evidence key="adapter-outbound-persistence-jpa-c25-diagram" alt="왼쪽에 정책 상수 baseline과 문서가 선언한 판본이 오른쪽에 org.hibernate.Version 조회와 BOM이 해석한 판본이 같은 축에 놓인다" caption="선언 기준과 런타임 판본의 분리" zoom="false"
|
|
:::
|
|
|
|
## 두 값을 비교하는 지점
|
|
|
|
declared baseline은 policy constant이고, runtime provider는 `org.hibernate.Version`에서 읽는다. drift 여부는 `driftsFromDeclaredBaseline()`이 판정하며, app-bootstrap capability/report가 runtime value를 사용한다. 즉 "문서 상수와 같은 상수를 assert해서 green"인 self-fulfilling test는 피한다.
|
|
|
|
## HibernateProviderPolicy 참조 위치
|
|
|
|
:::evidence key="adapter-outbound-persistence-jpa-c25" alt="코드베이스에서 HibernateProviderPolicy 를 검색한 출력 25줄. 이 기록이 세는 참조가 그 출력에 그대로 보인다." caption="HibernateProviderPolicy 코드베이스 검색 — 25줄 · exit 0" zoom="true"
|
|
:::
|
|
|
|
## 이 sub-scope에서 도달성이 확실한 타입
|
|
|
|
outside-leaf production consumer가 명확히 존재하는 핵심 Hibernate type도 `HibernateProviderPolicy`다. app-bootstrap이 이를 composition/report에 사용한다.
|
|
|
|
<!-- body:end -->
|