docs(6207): migrations 0088 and 0090-0094 state their rationale in terms of the data
Milestone/step labels, record ids, the rescoped-rule date and the 296-call measurement go; each header states what the change protects. "rule 36" citations become the DROP + ADD practice they named. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
|
||||
"""rules gain an edit history — rule_versions (milestone 323 step 1)
|
||||
"""rules gain an edit history — rule_versions
|
||||
|
||||
Revision ID: 0093
|
||||
Revises: 0092
|
||||
@@ -7,12 +7,9 @@ Create Date: 2026-08-29
|
||||
The sibling `note_versions` has had for a long time. A note's every meaningful
|
||||
edit is snapshotted, and the design-system note calls that history "the
|
||||
changelog". A RULE — which binds behaviour on every session that loads it —
|
||||
had nothing: an edit destroyed what it used to say, with no record anywhere.
|
||||
|
||||
Rescoping rule 79 on 2026-08-29 is what surfaced it. The superseded statement
|
||||
had to be hand-copied into a task log to survive the edit (#3237), which is
|
||||
not a process, it is a person remembering. The more consequential record had
|
||||
the weaker protection.
|
||||
had nothing: an edit destroyed what it used to say, with no record anywhere,
|
||||
and keeping a superseded statement meant a person remembering to copy it
|
||||
somewhere. The more consequential record had the weaker protection.
|
||||
|
||||
Three things are deliberately NOT copied from note_versions, and each is a
|
||||
guard that exists there for a reason that does not hold here:
|
||||
@@ -31,7 +28,7 @@ guard that exists there for a reason that does not hold here:
|
||||
CASCADE: deleting a user must not erase the history of the rules they edited.
|
||||
The edit still happened and the rule still binds because of it.
|
||||
|
||||
No CHECK constraint, so rule 36 does not apply. Nothing is backfilled — a
|
||||
No CHECK constraint is involved. Nothing is backfilled — a
|
||||
migration cannot invent the text a rule used to have, and inventing "the
|
||||
current text, as of now" would be worse than an empty history, because it
|
||||
would look like a record of an edit that never occurred.
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user