e08d49c3eb65a0a8d188d2801b379b6f620cf5a7
4
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 JesseMarkowitzandClaude Opus 5
|
e08d49c3eb |
M4: add durable named Save Points
A Save Point is a name for a story position, and restoring one is head movement. That is the whole architecture, and it is what ADR 012 and BUILD-MILESTONES' note on M4 asked for: M3 made the head a stored (branch, depth) and made arriving at one a row lookup plus a state restore, so a Save Point needs no restore machinery of its own. What the user gets: - Name the moment they are reading, keep playing, restart the app, and come back to it. Restoring moves the story back and deletes nothing: the later turns stay, Redo still walks forward into them, and writing something different is what starts a new line while the old one is kept. - Rename, delete, and a list, in a Save Points panel beside the branch panel, with a Save Point button next to Undo and Redo. Both confirmations say what is *not* destroyed, because that is the part the screen cannot show. - Save Points survive export and import. What was deliberately not built: - No second restore path. `head.move_to_node` is the only new movement: its depth half is M3's `head.move_to` unchanged, and its branch half is the single assignment `switch_branch` already makes. No head field is written in the checkpoint router, nothing reconstructs state, nothing prunes a memory, nothing copies or deletes a turn, and restore never forks — the first write below the restored head does, through `fork_if_behind_head`. - No automatic cleanup. A Save Point behind the head, or naming a line the story left, is doing its job (STORY-BRANCH-SEMANTICS §19). The one removal is a cascade: deleting a branch takes its Save Points, as it takes its memories, because the story they named went with it. - No new ADR. ADR 012 already decides the architecture, and a table is not a decision. The one call the planning package did not already make: restore moves the branch half of the head only when the coordinate is off the path being read. Doing it unconditionally would quietly hand back an abandoned continuation whenever a Save Point in a shared prefix was restored; never doing it would make a Save Point on a departed line unrestorable, which contradicts §19. TECHNICAL-DESIGN §8.8 records it. Schema: a `checkpoints` table holding a name, an optional note and a (branch, depth) coordinate — no copy of any story. `create_all` builds it as it did `memories` and `branches`; migration 80 adds the index. No backfill, because nobody had named a position before M4. The coordinate is deliberately not an action id: one coordinate holds every attempt at a turn and exactly one is live, so a coordinate follows a retry where a row id would pin a take the story no longer tells. Tests: 680 pass (638 before). 42 new in tests/test_save_points.py covering D11-D14, I04, L03, E-series lineage and memory isolation after restore and divergence, the edge cases, and an M3-database migration. One pre-existing fixture in test_tree_migration.py needed `checkpoints` added to its drop list — SQLite refuses to drop a table another table references. Not verified: the browser. No session has had a usable one, so the Save Point panel's DOM behaviour is unobserved — as M3's Redo control still is. The twenty-step sequence was driven over HTTP against a live server with a real process restart instead, and all seventeen checks pass. M4 is implemented, not accepted: no review has been written. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01PWU4gTfLYY6Qq9U7aa9Qw2 |
||
|
JesseMarkowitzandClaude Opus 5
|
c8755c21c2 |
Planning: close M3 and record active-head architecture
M3's review recommended planning changes and, following the M2 pattern, reported rather than applied them. This applies them, and adds the ADR the review asked for. ADR 012 records the architecture rather than the requirement. ADR 005 already says that going backward must preserve abandoned history and that the user sees Undo/Redo/Retry rather than branch management; it names a movable active head as the direction and stops. What M3 settled is the shape: the head is stored rather than derived, every read of the story is capped at it in one place, one mechanism moves it, the state of a position comes off the node rather than from a replay, the first write below a moved-back head is the divergence, and whether Redo exists is decided by the lineage rather than by a flag that could be stale. The last of those is the property worth keeping — a flag can be wrong and make the story wrong; a lineage cannot. Two semantics are ratified in STORY-BRANCH-SEMANTICS.md, both of them reversals or narrowings that a reader would otherwise take for bugs. Undo now crosses fork points and continues to the campaign opening, because refusing at the fork was a consequence of deleting rows the parent line was also reading, and nothing is deleted any more. And the system refuses to switch which take is live while a later story is off screen, because doing it quietly would leave retained history continuing from words the story no longer says. A new §14A covers editing in place. §14-15 describe the finished behaviour — the edit becomes authoritative, the state it implies is re-evaluated, a new continuation is created, the original is retained — and that requirement is intact and explicitly not weakened here. It is also not built, because re-evaluating state from prose a user typed needs M5's extraction pass. §14A says what exists in the meantime and why refusing is the minimum that holds the invariant rather than the destination. TECHNICAL-DESIGN.md gains §8.7 and §9.1, recording the implemented model and the bundle behaviour as fact in the way §5.2 records M1 and M2. §10.4 gains a constraint that is easy to lose: the snapshot half of the hybrid state model is a requirement, not an optimization. Head movement is a row lookup plus a restore, which is why Undo, Redo and Save Point restore cost the same at any distance into a campaign; a state model recoverable only by replaying from the opening would make all three proportional to campaign length, on exactly the long campaigns this product is for. DATA-MODEL.md records the head as stored on the campaign rather than derived from its newest turn — two campaigns holding identical turns can be read at different places, and nothing about the turns can tell them apart — and the branch disposition as implemented: the depth a divergent write left the branch at, deliberately advisory, and carried through export because every row of an abandoned line is exported either way. BUILD-MILESTONES.md marks M3 complete and states the one condition still open. M4 is told a Save Point is a durable pointer and that restoring one is head movement with a bounds check, not a restore system: a second mover is the specific failure to avoid, because the two paths would silently disagree about what restore means. M5 gets three constraints — keep state efficiently recoverable, move the test instrumentation rather than the assertions when the world-state protocol goes, and finish the narrator edit §14A defers. V1-ACCEPTANCE-TESTS.md clarifies ownership without lowering a bar. D10 keeps all three pass conditions and is explicitly recorded as *not* satisfied at the end of M3; what changed is that the document now says which milestone delivers which condition. D03's result is recorded as a full pass rather than the partial the text allowed for, I07 gains the pre-M3 bundle clause, and L01 gains the note that resolves its apparent conflict with A05 — a failed turn does advance the head by one, onto the player's retained input, and that is A05 working rather than L01 failing. README.md described a different application: a hosted demo, guest accounts, cloud providers, Postgres, a Render blueprint, an analytics dashboard, a QuickJS scripting engine, and 549 tests. M2 removed all of that and the README was never updated — a gap M2's own debt table missed. It now describes what this fork is, including the endpoint policy and the TLS behaviour, and the numbers in it are the current ones. M3's report is included here as its own evidence record: no separate baseline report was produced, so it carries the raw counts and runtime observations as well as the review, and §W records this closeout. SPECIFICATION.md and SECURITY-THREAT-MODEL.md are unchanged. M3 altered no product requirement and touched no path in the threat model. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01QF5TcoB86QADgjHz1GZe8u |
||
|
JesseMarkowitz
|
717670afe0 | Update planning package after Phase 0B | ||
|
JesseMarkowitz
|
f011362494 | Add initial planning files from ChatGPT research here |