2 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
bvandeusen	03b3998585	feat(design-systems): the model, the parent chain, and the guard on it ... Milestone #254 step 1 (#2286). A design system becomes a record Scribe holds rather than prose in a rulebook: a named set of tokens with an OPTIONAL parent, so a family system carries the house style and an app system carries only what it changes. Answering "what does this app alter?" is then `list its tokens` — nothing to compute. `parent_id` is the whole model. It replaces both an `always_on` flag (a family system is one with no parent) and a subscription join table (a project points at ONE system; the chain supplies the rest) — less schema than the rulebook shape it mirrors. Two decisions the task left open, settled here: - **Token values are JSONB keyed by mode**, not `value_light`/`value_dark` columns. The deciding argument was not flexibility, it was ambiguity: in a child system an unset mode means "inherit", in a root it means "not mode-dependent", and as columns both are NULL and the resolver cannot tell them apart. As a map, resolution is `{**parent, **child}` at every level with no special case for roots. Against it: queryability — but nothing filters tokens by value in SQL, so that buys a query no caller makes. - **`group_name` is free text, no CHECK enum.** Groupings are each design system's own vocabulary; a whitelist would bake one install's kit into the schema. No CHECK is introduced anywhere, so rule #36 does not fire. The cascade lives in `services/design_cascade.py` as pure functions over a `{id: parent_id}` map, importing nothing — which is what lets both the service and `access.py` use it without a cycle, and lets a test state a whole hierarchy in one literal. Cycles are refused on WRITE by walking up from the proposed parent (the cheap direction), and survived on READ by a visited-set, because a loop from a direct DB edit must truncate rather than hang. ACL (rule #78) is deliberately asymmetric: owning a system grants write, reaching one through a project you can see grants READ ONLY. An editor on a shared project must not be able to rewrite the family system every other project in that family resolves through. Also renames `services/design_system.py` -> `design_rulebook_import.py`. It is the #251 prose extractor, whose role is already scheduled to become a one-shot importer (#2288), and leaving it one character away from the new `design_systems.py` was a trap for every later session. Rule #115 throughout: nothing seeds a system or implies a default. An install with zero design systems is ordinary, not degraded.	2026-07-30 16:54:41 -04:00
bvandeusenandClaude Opus 5	d3ee24f239	feat(design-explorer): rulebook binding + prose→claims extraction ... Milestone #251 step 2 (#2259). The half of the drift panel that needed to be testable, which is why it is Python: the frontend has no test runner, so the fiddly extraction lives server-side and the browser only does set arithmetic over live token values. BINDING. A per-user setting `design_rulebook_id` names the rulebook that describes this install's design system. A setting rather than a column: no migration, discoverable in the Settings UI (rule #25), and honest about being a per-install choice rather than a property of the rulebook. No rulebook designated returns an empty set with rulebook_id: null — the NORMAL case for any install but the one that set it up (rule #115), which the client renders as an explanatory empty state rather than an error. The id comes back alongside the list so "not designated" and "designated but empty" stay distinguishable. EXTRACTION. No NLP. Rule statements are prose written for humans and should stay that way, so this takes only what is unambiguous in any prose — the hex colours and custom-property names a rule mentions. Anything subtler needs a rule author to opt into a structured form, deliberately left for when someone wants it. Three things earn their complexity: - SENTENCE-SCOPED NEGATION. A rule routinely states what the palette requires and what it forbids in consecutive sentences ("Parchment #E8E4D8 …, Vellum #C2BFB4 …. Pure white #FFFFFF is NEVER used."). Detecting negation across the whole statement would mark the required colours as forbidden — inverting the finding rather than missing it, which is worse. Per sentence, all four come out right. - HEX NORMALISATION is load-bearing, not tidiness. The rulebook writes #FFFFFF and components write #fff; if those don't compare equal the largest drift finding in the codebase — 67 hardcoded white text colours (#2275) — reads as zero. Alpha forms keep their alpha, since #fff and #ffff are different colours and collapsing them would manufacture equality. - SLASH SHORTHAND. Rulebooks write token families as --fs-radius-sm/md/lg/xl and --fs-obsidian/iron/slate/pewter. Both expand under one rule — prefix is everything up to and including the LAST hyphen of the first segment — which also handles --fs-dur-fast/base/slow. Verified against the real rule text: 18 tokens from three different shorthand shapes. how_to_apply is read alongside statement, because rulebooks routinely keep the statement declarative and put the concrete values in how_to_apply; ignoring it would miss the checkable half. Claims dedupe on (kind, value), first source winning, so a colour named by several rules is one expectation attributed to the rule that introduced it. Prose with nothing checkable yields nothing — most rules are judgement, not specification, and a panel that reported unparseable rules as problems would be unusable. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01UaYUaouG9jjhATyuxCKrQs	2026-07-30 15:25:36 -04:00