3 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
bvandeusenandClaude Opus 5	bb6ab0f2a8	fix(tests): the trigger backfill assumed keyword calls; three fixtures pass positionally (#4099) ... CI run 6937 red — 3 collection errors, `positional argument follows keyword argument`, in the three integration fixtures that call the service positionally (`create_rule(topic.id, uid, "title", "statement")`). The script that added `when_to_apply=` to 15 fixtures inserted it as the FIRST argument, which is valid only where every other argument is already a keyword. Moved to the last argument in every call, which is legal in both styles, and the continuation indent now matches the surrounding arguments. Also repairs self-inflicted damage: the same script added a trigger to the two tests in test_rule_trigger_required.py whose whole purpose is to call the creators WITHOUT one. They would have stopped raising and the guard's own proof would have inverted — a test that passes for the opposite reason than the one it names, which is worse than a failing one. Caught by ast.parse across tests/ rather than by the next CI round trip. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01821k5B3Ysecp9fNYs92Kuy	2026-09-16 14:49:05 -04:00
bvandeusenandClaude Opus 5	07bdbf1647	feat(rules)!: a rule cannot be created, or edited into, having no trigger (#4099) ... `when_to_apply` is not metadata. `rule_document` embeds a rule as `{title} — {trigger}` / `When to apply: {trigger}\n\n{statement}`, the trigger appearing twice so purpose dominates a short vector — the shape note 2485 measured on snippets (a 0.153 top-to-second gap against 0.010–0.023 for everything else). Without one the document silently becomes title + statement: a DIFFERENT shape, ranked against a corpus it does not match, with nothing to report it. Every bar and every rank in the system assumes one shape. `create_preference` has refused an empty trigger since it shipped. The two rule creators defaulted it to "" — so the shape was enforced for the record kind that guides and optional for the kind that binds. The guard lives in the SERVICE, because both doors reach it: the MCP tools and the frontend's fast path in routes/rulebooks.py. Written in either alone, the other could still create a rule that never fires. The route keeps a matching check for the STATUS CODE only (400, not the 404 it maps ValueError to). update_rule refuses to EMPTY an existing trigger, checked after the mutation so it covers `clear=[...]`, an emptied form input, and any route added later. Deliberately asked as "did this edit remove one" rather than "does one exist": a rule predating the guard has none, and refusing to save it would freeze precisely the unreachable records that most need fixing. Deliberately not following arose_from_id, which the human door exempts itself from because provenance is about auditing what the AGENT changed. That reasoning does not reach this field — a missing trigger is not a missing explanation, it is a rule that does not work, and it fails an operator as badly as a session. 15 test fixtures across 6 files were creating rules with no trigger. They now pass one; that they did not is the point — curation is not a guarantee. Step 1 of milestone 416 "Retrieval stops guessing a bar". First because every later step assumes one document shape, and it is much cheaper to guarantee before a corpus grows than to backfill after. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01821k5B3Ysecp9fNYs92Kuy	2026-09-16 14:45:32 -04:00
bvandeusenandClaude Opus 5	89d16d89a9	feat(rules): a preference updates without asking, and says what taught it (#3849 step 2) ... The write path, and the step where a preference stops being a relabelled rule. `create_preference` / `update_preference` on the MCP surface, plus `kind` on update_rule and both HTTP doors. SEPARATE TOOLS, NOT A `kind=` ARGUMENT. create_rule's docstring IS the approval gate (#3557): propose, offer three answers, wait. That is right for a rule — the person it binds should have agreed. A preference inverts it, and one reached through create_rule would be read through that prose, so the caller would hesitate over exactly the act this kind exists to make routine. Two doors, two contracts, one table. Reads stay shared: a preference IS a rule row, and "what governs this" wants both. Two required fields, each buying something: - `when_to_apply`, because the trigger is two-thirds of the embedded document. Without one the record is written, stored, and silently never delivered — indistinguishable from one nobody wrote. - `arose_from_id`, the price of the ungated write. A corpus that drifts with no record of what taught each change cannot be audited, and the operator's veto over drift is worth exactly as much as their ability to read why it happened. The near-duplicate gate is what lets this corpus be written freely and stay small: the second preference about a thing updates the first. It is title-scoped and kind-blind, so it also catches a preference restating a rule that already binds. The asymmetry is guarded as two PRESENCE facts — the rule door still asks, the preference door still says write it — never as an absence. An absence check passes against a docstring that was deleted or rewritten into something else, which is snippet #3352's warning and would read as coverage here while proving nothing. `_plain_detail` moved to tests/helpers on its second copy, per that module's own reason for existing (#2825). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011cPyzNnegXHr5iRMzzy5KJ	2026-09-10 21:59:23 -04:00