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>
16 lines
2.3 KiB
Plaintext
16 lines
2.3 KiB
Plaintext
## 13. Confirmed — "설계상 부재" 주장 6건이 구현·정책 계층까지 일치한다
|
|
|
|
주장이 API 문서에만 있는지 확인했다(`160-...` §8.4).
|
|
|
|
- `sdk/api` 전체에서 `SETNX`·`SETEX`·`PSETEX`·`ZREVRANGE`·`RPOPLPUSH`·`BRPOPLPUSH`·`GEORADIUS`가 등장하는 곳은 **"없다"고 적는 javadoc 네 줄뿐**이다.
|
|
- Lettuce 구현 계층에서 걸린 둘은 무해하다 — `HashOperationRequests:128`의 `HSETNX`(다른 명령이다), `WritePresence:6`의 주석("This is what replaces `SETNX` and `SETEX`").
|
|
- 명령 정책 SSOT(`redis-command-policy.yml`, 1,406줄)에서 `KEYS`는 **`risk: R4`, `support: BLOCKED`**이고, 파일 머리의 표에 따르면 `BLOCKED`의 access는 `NONE`이다. 같은 자리에 `RANDOMKEY`(R2 BLOCKED)·`DUMP`·`RESTORE`·`MIGRATE`·`SELECT`·`SWAPDB`도 BLOCKED다. 즉 raw gateway로도 `KEYS`에 닿을 수 없다.
|
|
|
|
정책 파일 자체의 구조는 sub-scope 05에서 다룬다 — 머리 주석이 "Official server metadata … decides what a command *is*. This file decides what this SDK is willing to *do* with it. **The catalog drift gate compares the two and fails the build when the server grows a command this file has not judged.**"라고 적는다.
|
|
|
|
## 14. Confirmed — 두 프로그래밍 모델의 대칭이 기계 검사되고, 검사기 자신도 검사된다
|
|
|
|
`ReactiveRedisOperations`는 "Mirrors `RedisOperations` method for method"라고 주장한다. `ApiParityTest`가 그것을 반사로 강제한다 — `PAIRS` 맵에 14쌍의 sync/reactive 인터페이스를 놓고 `everySyncOperationHasReactiveCounterpart`, `everyTypedSurfaceIsInParity`, `theTwoEntryPointsExposeTheSameStructureAccessors`, `everyReactiveMethodReturnsAPublisher`를 돌린다. 두 facade의 접근자 12개는 실제로 동일하다(diff 공백).
|
|
|
|
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, `theInspectorDetectsADivergentReturnShape`라는 **검사기에 대한 메타 test**가 있다 — 대칭 검사기가 고장 나 항상 통과하는 상태를 잡는다.
|