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>
2.0 KiB
2.0 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 | messaging-testkit-c08 | 자기 자신을 검증하는 상수가 여섯 얼굴로 나타났다 | state-machines-and-ownership | clean-architecture-backend-template | 게시 전 | 21234e38cdb9a926cbc92bb97a2aee2e4a7d2916 | concept:messaging-testkit-c08 | 2026-09-01 |
|
|
|
messaging-testkit |
자기 자신을 검증하는 상수가 여섯 얼굴로 나타났다
커밋 메시지는 정보가 거의 없지만 코드 주석이 커밋 로그를 대신한다. 세 javadoc이 남긴 것이 하나의 결함이다.
본문
커밋 메시지는 정보가 거의 없다. 그러나 이 리프는 코드 주석이 커밋 로그를 대신하는 드문 사례다. 세 개의 javadoc 이 각각 "무엇이 틀렸었고 왜 지금 형태인가" 를 남겼다.
CompatibilityMatrixTest 참조 위치
:::evidence key="messaging-testkit-c08" alt="코드베이스에서 CompatibilityMatrixTest 를 검색한 출력 1줄. 이 기록이 세는 참조가 그 출력에 그대로 보인다." caption="CompatibilityMatrixTest 코드베이스 검색 — 1줄 · exit 0" zoom="true" :::
여섯 곳이 같은 결함의 여섯 얼굴이다
자기 자신을 검증하는 상수. 그리고 여섯 곳 모두 지금은 매니페스트를 가리킨다.
강등의 근거가 적혀 있다
messaging-rabbit 이 Stable 에서 Experimental 로 강등된 흔적도 남아 있다 — CompatibilityMatrixTest.theStableSetIsExactlyWhatALaneHasCertified 의 .as("RabbitMQ passes the shared contract, but no fault scenario has been run against it"). 강등의 근거가 "계약은 통과하지만 결함 증거가 없다" 로 정확히 적혀 있다.