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>
2.8 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-cache-redis-c04 | 대칭 검사기 자신을 검사하는 메타 테스트가 있다 | admission-budget-and-backpressure | clean-architecture-backend-template | 게시 전 | 21234e38cdb9a926cbc92bb97a2aee2e4a7d2916 | concept:adapter-outbound-cache-redis-c04 | 2026-09-01 |
|
|
|
adapter-outbound-cache-redis |
대칭 검사기 자신을 검사하는 메타 테스트가 있다
ReactiveRedisOperations는 "Mirrors RedisOperations method for method"라고 주장하고 ApiParityTest가 그것을 반사로 강제한다. 그 위에 검사기가 고장 나 항상 통과하는 상태를 잡는 메타 테스트가 하나 더 있다.
본문
ReactiveRedisOperations는 "Mirrors RedisOperations method for method"라고 주장한다. ApiParityTest가 그것을 반사로 강제한다 — PAIRS 맵에 14쌍의 sync/reactive 인터페이스를 놓고 everySyncOperationHasReactiveCounterpart, everyTypedSurfaceIsInParity, theTwoEntryPointsExposeTheSameStructureAccessors, everyReactiveMethodReturnsAPublisher를 돌린다. 두 facade의 접근자 12개는 실제로 동일하다(diff 공백).
검사기에 대한 메타 검사
:::evidence key="adapter-outbound-cache-redis-c04-diagram" alt="두 진입점 인터페이스와 대칭 검사와 메타 테스트가 위에서 아래로 쌓이고 검사 방향 화살표가 아래로 그려진 구조" caption="검사기에 대한 메타 검사" zoom="false" :::
두 가지가 특히 좋다. 첫째, 예외가 이유와 함께 목록에서 빠져 있다 — Pub/Sub은 sync가 핸들러+closeable subscription이고 reactive는 publisher 자신이 전달하며 취소로 구독을 끊으므로 "different shapes on purpose, so mechanical parity would be the wrong check for them". 둘째, theInspectorDetectsADivergentReturnShape라는 검사기에 대한 메타 test가 있다 — 대칭 검사기가 고장 나 항상 통과하는 상태를 잡는다.
ReactiveRedisOperations 참조 위치
:::evidence key="adapter-outbound-cache-redis-c04" alt="코드베이스에서 ReactiveRedisOperations 를 검색한 출력 2줄. 이 기록이 세는 참조가 그 출력에 그대로 보인다." caption="ReactiveRedisOperations 코드베이스 검색 — 2줄 · exit 0" zoom="true" :::