b0a7d9e89b61c0670068ab4533f4b6358c02cb2d
1
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
b0a7d9e89b |
feat(design-systems): the master sheet — purpose tokens, not per-element values
CI & Build / Python lint (push) Successful in 3s
CI & Build / Plugin hooks (push) Successful in 7s
CI & Build / integration (push) Successful in 16s
CI & Build / TypeScript typecheck (push) Successful in 33s
CI & Build / Python tests (push) Successful in 42s
CI & Build / Build & push image (push) Successful in 34s
Operator's new requirement (#2299, architecture in #2296): a design system does not just hold tokens, it generates and manages a master CSS sheet. That settles the milestone's open "authority mechanism" question — the record is authoritative because the stylesheet comes out of it. **The sheet is shaped by purpose and styles no elements.** It declares custom properties, grouped by what they mean, and contains no `.btn-primary`, no `table`, no `input`. That is the design, not a shortcut: a sheet that styled elements would restate the same handful of values once per element and grow with the UI, where purpose-named values are stated once and reused. Components live as SNIPPETS that reference these names — a surface that already exists and already carries prose, locations, drift checks, merge and write-path recall. A token named after an element (`--fs-button-bg`) is the smell that the two have been mixed; a purpose name (`--fs-action-primary`) is reused across all of them. Alongside the CSS the endpoint returns what the text cannot say for itself: which tokens are still valueless, and which VALUES are declared under more than one name. The second is the operator's "reuse consistent values" constraint made checkable — and it reports rather than refuses, because a design system legitimately aligns colours on purpose ("Success = Moss, by design") and only a human knows which case it is. Mode maps to selector the way the codebase already does it: base on the root selector, every other mode layered on `[data-theme="…"]`. The root selector is a PARAMETER — #251 recorded that a container-scoped preview cannot use `:root`, so hardcoding it would have made the generator useless to the preview surface. A token the rulebook names but states no value for is emitted as a commented-out declaration IN ITS GROUP rather than dropped. Its absence is the finding, and a comment puts that finding where the reader already is. Values are validated, not escaped, and this is a real boundary rather than tidiness: design systems are shareable records (rule #47), so `red; } body { display: none` in a system shared with you would otherwise inject CSS into your page. A value containing `{ } ; @ < >`, a comment delimiter or a newline is REFUSED and rendered as a comment saying so — rejecting beats stripping, since a partially-sanitised value is one the operator never wrote and the sheet's whole claim is that it is the record. Not in scope, and deliberately: serving this as the app's actual stylesheet. Generating and exposing a sheet is reversible; swapping theme.css for a generated one is not, and it should be an explicit call rather than a side effect. |