Retire the completed clone traversal review

This commit is contained in:
2026-10-25 14:58:56 +00:00
parent 8dfaf44d1d
commit 5e12b2d360
6 changed files with 44 additions and 65 deletions

View File

@@ -81,23 +81,24 @@ conversions maintenance defects.
### Findings And Recommended Treatment
The finding numbers below preserve the audit's identifiers. The selected work
remains unimplemented; the cloning portion of finding 3 is deferred to future
work. Retiring the original documents does not mark their findings implemented.
The finding numbers below preserve the audit's identifiers. The implementation
plan records progress on the selected work. The cloning portion of finding 3
was reviewed separately and closed without a refactor; see
[OQ-2](#oq-2-how-much-clone-cleanup-should-this-effort-commit-to).
| Audit finding | Maintenance priority | Assessment and recommended treatment |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. Import entry points and responsibilities | Higher | Main refactor. Include shared acquisition normalization, import-default ownership, declaration parsing, and directory admission. |
| 2. Shared inheritance executor | Higher | Main refactor. Expose meaningful phases and explicit combination results while retaining one executor. |
| 3. Projection and cloning | Higher for projection; cloning deferred | Main refactor for projection. Clone traversal review is tracked separately in [future.md](future.md#4-clone-traversal-review). |
| 3. Projection and cloning | Higher for projection; clone review complete | Main refactor for projection. The separate clone review concluded that the existing traversal should be retained; see [OQ-2](#oq-2-how-much-clone-cleanup-should-this-effort-commit-to). |
| 4. Schema field discovery and inline assembly | Medium | Include a focused refactor coordinated with projection. Keep one schema builder and its two descriptor views. |
| 5. Resolved filesystem context | Medium | Include alongside acquisition work. Reuse resolved facts without merging resource lifetimes or changing validation timing. |
| 6. Unused reverse inspection conversions | Small, independently reviewable cleanup | Include in the root facade and engine. Retain useful forward-conversion and detached-result coverage. |
Findings 1–3 confirm the earlier roadmap's main opportunities; findings 4–6 add
focused work. The following sections own their rationale and intended changes.
Implementation and validation will establish completion of the selected work;
the deferred clone review retains its separate disposition.
The implementation plan records validation of the selected work; the completed
clone review retains its separate disposition.
Completed correctness and algorithmic remediations remain part of the baseline,
including sequence records preserved at `ea46001:docs/roadmap/remediation.md`
@@ -336,9 +337,10 @@ into decoding and projection.
Keep pointer-chain and recursive-inline decisions explicit, preserve supported
field/tag forms and ambiguity paths, and retain cache/building-state behavior.
Clone traversal review and cleanup are deferred to
[future.md](future.md#4-clone-traversal-review). This effort preserves cloning's
existing behavior while changing the shared schema and projection machinery.
Clone cleanup remains outside this effort; the separate
[review](#oq-2-how-much-clone-cleanup-should-this-effort-commit-to) concluded that
no refactor was warranted. This effort preserves cloning's existing behavior
while changing the shared schema and projection machinery.
Keep projection's document-building semantics distinct from typed copying.
The mostly explicit dispatch in `decodeValue` and `valueBuilder.build` does not
warrant a generic reflection visitor solely because it has a high complexity
@@ -451,8 +453,8 @@ Completion requires reviewable evidence that:
resource lifetime, and algorithmic corrections remain protected by appropriate
tests and source review.
- The reviewed scope is accounted for against all six audit findings, with clone
traversal review deferred to future work. Completed portions have validation
evidence rather than being closed because code moved.
traversal review closed separately without a refactor. Completed portions have
validation evidence rather than being closed because code moved.
- Consumer guidance, contributor references, and internal documentation describe
the resulting implementation. Current contracts continue to own behavior.
@@ -473,9 +475,16 @@ not establish a perpetual restriction on future API design.
### OQ-2: How Much Clone Cleanup Should This Effort Commit To?
**Settled:** defer clone traversal review and any resulting cleanup to
[future.md](future.md#4-clone-traversal-review). Neither the review nor clone
refactoring is part of this consolidation effort. Projection and schema
refactoring remain in scope, including protection of existing cloning behavior
where they share descriptors or operation state. The future review can conclude
that no clone edits are warranted; its goal is demonstrated maintenance benefit.
**Settled:** clone review was excluded from the consolidation sprint and completed
separately on 2026-10-25 against `8dfaf44`. Retain the existing clone traversal;
no cleanup is planned.
The review examined the traversal, shared helpers, schema-member construction,
lifecycle callers, and relevant tests. Its branches already keep allocation,
recursive copying, and cycle cleanup together. Shared depth, cycle, dynamic-type,
and text-marshaling operations already have common owners. Further extraction,
including the similar slice/array loops, did not offer enough maintenance benefit
to justify the additional indirection. Focused engine tests for projection,
cloning, inline fields, callback ownership, and secret-copy behavior passed.
No code changes or benchmarks were needed. This is a maintenance assessment,
not a restriction on future changes justified by new needs.