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>
2.1 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-persistence-jpa-c33 | leaf list 자체는 outside consumer를 검사하지 않는다 | delivery-and-settlement-models | clean-architecture-backend-template | 게시 전 | 21234e38cdb9a926cbc92bb97a2aee2e4a7d2916 | concept:adapter-outbound-persistence-jpa-c33 | 2026-09-01 |
|
|
|
adapter-outbound-persistence-jpa |
leaf list 자체는 outside consumer를 검사하지 않는다
leaf의 export test와 consumer restriction이 서로 다른 데이터를 읽으므로, 둘 다 통과한다는 것이 둘이 drift하지 않는다는 증명은 아니다.
본문
JpaModuleBoundaryTest의 local export test는 export package가 실제 존재하는지, 새 top-level package가 governance 대상인지를 보지만 repository의 outside consumer import를 직접 스캔하지 않는다. 실제 consumer restriction은 app-bootstrap의 별도 ArchUnit rule이 담당한다.
JpaModuleBoundaryTest 참조 위치
:::evidence key="adapter-outbound-persistence-jpa-c33" alt="코드베이스에서 JpaModuleBoundaryTest 를 검색한 출력 2줄. 이 기록이 세는 참조가 그 출력에 그대로 보인다." caption="JpaModuleBoundaryTest 코드베이스 검색 — 2줄 · exit 0" zoom="true" :::
둘 다 통과한다는 것이 증명하지 않는 것
fresh architecture tests는 모두 통과했다. 이것은 현재 import graph가 각자의 rule을 만족한다는 뜻이지 A와 B가 서로 drift하지 않는다는 증명은 아니다.
권장 방향
우선순위는 P2/P3 architecture-governance hardening이고, 권장 방향은 exported package registry를 한 곳으로 옮겨 leaf package DAG와 consumer ArchUnit rule이 같은 데이터를 읽게 하는 것이다.