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>
2.3 KiB
2.3 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-outbound-notification-c04 | unhealthy 조건 넷에 DRAINING이 없다 | security-and-trust-boundaries | clean-architecture-backend-template | 게시 전 | 21234e38cdb9a926cbc92bb97a2aee2e4a7d2916 | concept:adapter-outbound-notification-c04 | 2026-09-01 |
|
|
|
adapter-outbound-notification |
unhealthy 조건 넷에 DRAINING이 없다
NotificationHealthReporter.snapshot()이 healthy = false로 넘어가는 조건은 넷이고, DRAINING은 그 목록에 없다. 로테이션 중 드레인은 정상 운영이므로 그 자체로는 옳다.
본문
NotificationHealthReporter.snapshot()이 healthy = false로 넘어가는 조건은 넷이다.
| 조건 | 위치 |
|---|---|
감시 대상 프로파일이 레지스트리에 없음 (UNREGISTERED) |
:57-62 |
상태가 AUTHENTICATION_FAILED 또는 DISABLED |
:64-67 |
| provider는 있는데 라우팅된 채널이 하나도 없음 | :78-80 |
| 서빙 상태가 선언된 임계치를 넘음 | :83-85 |
세 번째 조건에 붙은 자기고발
"A platform with providers but no route accepts every request and delivers none. It was reported healthy because every runtime was healthy — which was true and beside the point."
분석 원문의 조건 표
:::evidence key="adapter-outbound-notification-c04" alt="분석 문서 analysis/13-adapter-outbound-notification.md 에서 이 기록의 근거 절을 그대로 잘라낸 15줄. 코드베이스를 측정한 것이 아니라 원본 판정이 무엇을 적었는지를 보여 준다." caption="analysis/13-adapter-outbound-notification.md 발췌 — 15줄" zoom="true" :::
DRAINING이 목록에 없다
여기서 눈에 띄는 것은 DRAINING이 목록에 없다는 점이다. 로테이션 중 드레인은 정상 운영이므로 그 자체로는 옳다. 그러나 §13의 P2와 겹치면 부작용이 하나 더 생긴다 — 아래 §21.2.