Retire the completed clone traversal review
This commit is contained in:
@@ -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.
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user