Sylvain Duchesne
f2c5b30527
Couverture manquante de la couche réactive — c'est son absence qui a laissé
passer un bug de réactivité. Le runner exerce les DEUX poussées porteuses en
production contre le VRAI broker, par la même surface publique que l'app
(`subscribeDoc` → `ng.doc_subscribe`) :
SELF — l'écriture d'une session vers un doc qu'elle-même souscrit ;
CROSS — une seconde session (même wallet partagé) écrit sur ce doc.
Chaque push est enregistré comme événement typé ({typeKey, elapsedMs}) : le
verdict est le fait que le callback re-tire, pas une relecture du document.
Chaque attente est une promesse événementielle unique + timeout (pas de boucle
de relecture) — un timeout est donc un « n'a PAS tiré » définitif.
Verdict obtenu : doc_subscribe POUSSE bien dans les deux cas — le défaut de
réactivité observé côté app n'est donc pas ce primitif.
Standalone (pas `bun test`) : `bun run test:e2e:reactivity`.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_014GbGgNEHRejVKoREvFuDFg
@ng-eventually/client
Two entry points — the data-plane is SDK-identical, the polyfill bootstrap is separate:
| Import | Surface |
|---|---|
@ng-eventually/client |
The same signature as the SDK — ng, useShape, inbox (+ types). A drop-in for @ng-org/web / @ng-org/orm; as NextGraph matures it resolves to the real SDK (build alias removed) with no code change. |
@ng-eventually/client/polyfill |
The only non-SDK surface — configure, setCurrentUser, and capability helpers (getCaps, grantRead, canRead/canWrite). It falls away as NextGraph matures. |
// bootstrap (the only non-SDK call) — inject the real SDK
import { configure } from "@ng-eventually/client/polyfill";
configure({ ng: realNg, useShape: realUseShape, sharedWallet, currentUser });
// from here on, a pure SDK surface:
import { ng, useShape, inbox } from "@ng-eventually/client";
await ng.doc_create(/* … */);
const set = useShape(MyShape, scope); // filtered to what the identity may read
await inbox.post(targetInbox, ref); // deposit (anticipated SDK API)
Principle — the polyfill compensates, it never extends
The polyfill's ONLY reason to exist is to bridge a NextGraph implementation gap or a bug. Every non-SDK surface must map to a capability NextGraph will provide natively, and must fall away at that point. The polyfill MUST NOT add functionality of its own — no bespoke features, no observability/tooling, no convenience API that isn't strictly "NextGraph will do this natively later." The test for any proposed addition: does it compensate a real, exhibited NextGraph gap or bug? If not, it does not belong here — build it in the consumer application, not in the polyfill. Corollary: a compensation whose gap is not actually exhibited on the target broker is dead weight, not defensive code — it should be removed, not kept "just in case."
What the polyfill adds on top of the real SDK (each emulated for now, native as NextGraph matures):
- Shared-wallet identity (one wallet for everyone; the current identity id is relayed to the SDK).
- Capability enforcement — a read filter + write guard over emulated grants attached to documents; the app declares a document's read policy and issues directed read grants.
- Anticipated methods (inbox
post, capability ops) with their future-SDK shapes, emulated for now.
Generic: no application domain. The consumer application injects its shapes and performs the acts of granting access. The relationship concept ("who is connected to whom") is the consumer application's own — the client exposes only directed per-document read grants.