Files
document-haness/docs/clean-architecture-backend-template/final/evidence/raw/analysis-finding-a20-f005.txt
T
DongHyeonkaandClaude Opus 5 b2963105a8 docs(keycloak-session-store): import the session-storage lab as a new project
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>
2026-09-04 22:51:59 +09:00

16 lines
1.3 KiB
Plaintext

### 3.5 P3 — 저장소 어디에도 참조가 없는 타입 3개
`main = 0`이면서 `test = 0`인 것, 즉 선언 파일 외에 아무 곳에서도 이름이 등장하지 않는 타입:
| 타입 | leaf | javadoc이 말하는 용도 |
|---|---|---|
| `ReactiveGrpcClient` | advanced-compat | "Exposes a unary call as a `Mono` and a server stream as a `Flux`" |
| `ReactiveGrpcServerAdapter<C,R>` | advanced-compat | "Runs a reactive use case behind a gRPC service adapter" |
| `GrpcDeadlineExceededException` | **core-api** | "Its own type rather than a generic platform exception **because callers branch on it**" |
앞의 둘은 advanced 가족의 Reactor 표면이고 채택자가 부를 타입이므로 참조 0이 설계와 모순되지는 않는다 — 다만 **테스트도 0**이라 다른 advanced 타입들과 다르다(나머지 advanced 미참조 타입은 전부 `test=1`).
세 번째가 더 구체적이다. `GrpcDeadlineExceededException`은 Stable core-api에 있고, javadoc이 "callers branch on it"이라고 단정하는데 **던지는 코드도 잡는 코드도 테스트도 없다.** `requiresReconciliation()`이 "status code가 답할 수 없는 질문에 답한다"고 적혀 있고, 그 메서드를 부르는 곳이 없다.
### 3.6 P3/기록 — 가족 문서의 `grpc-discovery` 행이 UDS를 빠뜨린다