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>
1.7 KiB
1.7 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 | shared-contract-c02 | Permission의 정규화는 문법 제한이 아니다 | admission-budget-and-backpressure | clean-architecture-backend-template | 게시 전 | 21234e38cdb9a926cbc92bb97a2aee2e4a7d2916 | concept:shared-contract-c02 | 2026-09-01 |
|
|
|
shared-contract |
Permission의 정규화는 문법 제한이 아니다
Permission은 정확히 한 개의 colon으로 resource:action을 분리하고 trim/lowercase normalization을 수행한다. 그러나 component 내부 character set은 제한하지 않는다.
본문
Permission은 정확히 한 개의 colon으로 resource:action을 분리하고 trim/lowercase normalization을 수행한다. 테스트는 mixed case, surrounding whitespace, blank component, 0/2+ colon을 검증한다.
Permission 참조 위치
:::evidence key="shared-contract-c02" alt="코드베이스에서 Permission 를 검색한 출력 21줄. 이 기록이 세는 참조가 그 출력에 그대로 보인다." caption="Permission 코드베이스 검색 — 21줄 · exit 0" zoom="true" :::
정규화와 문법의 차이
source는 component 내부 character set을 제한하지 않는다. 즉 "lowercase colon-delimited"는 normalization 결과이지 [a-z0-9-]+ 같은 strict grammar는 아니다. 현재 test 역시 이를 요구하지 않으므로 observed contract로만 기록한다.