Files
ng-eventually/packages/polyfill
Sylvain Duchesne 1957a8fe0c docs: des contrats à deux voix, et une politique de version qui dit la vérité
Le régime des contrats est devenu bidirectionnel : chaque partie rédige sa
position dans son dépôt et tire celle de l'autre. Le fournisseur écrit son
engagement, chaque consommateur écrit sa déclaration — ce qu'il appelle
vraiment, sous quelles contraintes, et avec quelles frictions.

Ce dernier point change nos usages : la section Frictions est le chemin par
lequel un consommateur expose un problème, le canal hors-bande ne portant que le
signal. Les huit points que Festipod nous a remontés auraient dû arriver par là,
et notre réponse appartient à l'engagement plutôt qu'à un échange qui s'évapore.

Trois interfaces existaient, une seule était documentée. Elles ont maintenant
leur dossier et leurs deux voix : la surface du polyfill, ng-e2e-helpers, et la
couche d'indexation. On a écrit les engagements dont nous sommes l'auteur et les
déclarations des consommateurs qui sont à nous — délibérément AUCUN
usage_festipod : ce n'est pas notre dépôt, et décider à leur place ce qu'ils
consomment viderait le mécanisme de son sens.

Et la Change policy s'inverse. Elle disait « ce paquet n'offre pas de stabilité
sémantique ». Refuser un schéma ne ralentit pas le mouvement — ça retire au
consommateur le seul outil pour le gérer, alors qu'on faisait déjà le travail
d'une publication versionnée sans lui en donner l'étiquette.

Semver, donc, et les majeurs sont le cas NORMAL : une surface qui converge vers
une cible qu'elle n'atteint pas encore casse souvent, et c'est le signal vrai.
Le texte dit les déclencheurs plutôt que le nom du schéma — retirer un symbole
publié ou resserrer un appel est un majeur, ajouter est un mineur. Version
pleine sur main, pré-version sur une branche : Festipod peut épingler
aujourd'hui sans qu'on lui promette du stable, et sans qu'on ait à lui retirer
son adresse à la fusion.

Au passage, la signature publiée de watchShape était fausse — elle annonçait un
argument unique là où l'appel en prend deux. Rapporté par Festipod, confirmé
indépendamment.
2026-08-17 10:10:12 +02:00
..

@ng-eventually/polyfill

One entry point. Most of what it publishes has the same signature as the future SDK — ng, useShape, watchShape, docs, inbox, storeRegistry, readUnion (+ types) — and is 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.

One call does not, and it is the whole of what you will delete: configure. It exists because one shared wallet hosts every user; upstream, an application imports the SDK and each user opens their own wallet. src/index.ts groups it under a heading that says so. (ensureIdentity is a second in substance — the shared-wallet gate — but its call site survives: an application still awaits a session before it renders.)

(There were two entry points until 2026-08-07, . and ./polyfill, and the second one WAS that list. One door is easier to import from and says less — hence the grouping, and hence docs/api-contract.md, whose export inventory a test keeps honest.)

Per-symbol, with the target signature and an epistemic label on every claim: docs/api-contract.md.

Reading is key possession, and the isolation here is still fake. The cap surface has the shape of the real model — you hold a document's ReadCap or you do not read it, and there is no authorization list anywhere — but nothing is encrypted yet and the stand-in key is a constant. Nothing this library does may be described as "anonymous" or "private" until cap-enforcement lands per-document encryption.

import {
  // SDK-shaped — the real SDK replaces these in place.
  ensureIdentity, storeRegistry, inbox, readUnion, docs,
  // Polyfill-era — one call, and it is the whole of what goes away.
  configure,
} from "@ng-eventually/polyfill";

configure({ ng: realNg, useShape: realUseShape, getSession, sharedWallet });
await ensureIdentity();              // who I am (returned), connection work awaited
const doc = await storeRegistry.createEntityDoc("protected");
await docs.sparqlUpdate(sid, `INSERT DATA { … }`, doc);
const subjects = await readUnion(await storeRegistry.listMyEntityDocs("protected"));

Principle — the polyfill compensates, it never extends

Its only reason to exist is to bridge a NextGraph implementation gap. Every non-SDK surface must map to something NextGraph will provide natively, and must fall away at that point — no bespoke features, no observability, no convenience API that isn't strictly "NextGraph will do this later". The test for any proposed addition: does it compensate a real, exhibited gap? If not, it belongs in the consumer application. And a compensation whose gap is not actually exhibited on the target broker is dead weight, not defensive code.

Both halves are binding — the surface AND the implementation stay as close as possible to what NextGraph plans. The question to ask at every choice: would this make a caller learn something it has to UNLEARN at migration? If yes, it is a deviation, whatever it buys.

What the polyfill adds, each emulated now and native later:

  • Shared-wallet identity — one wallet hosts every user, so the library fabricates virtual users and confines every access to the connected one (emulated-verifier/reach.ts). Upstream, each user opens their own wallet.
  • Capability emulation — per-identity cap possession plus a read filter over it: you read the documents whose cap you hold. There is no authorization list, because the real model has none.
  • Inboxpost, postToDocument, share, and the recipient's processing. The model is verified (an inbox is a keypair on one repo); no JS surface exists yet.

Generic by construction: no application domain here. See examples/notebook for an application written against it, which the e2e suite drives.

How a document is reached — the three acts, and no others

import { storeRegistry, inbox, readUnion } from "@ng-eventually/polyfill";

// 1. CREATE — you hold its cap, with nothing to declare. No identity parameter: a
//    session belongs to one user, exactly as the target's own `doc_create` assumes.
const doc = await storeRegistry.createEntityDoc("protected");

// 2. GIVE TO READ — name the document and the person. The key is looked up and
//    sealed into a deposit; the recipient applies it by connecting, with nothing
//    to call. Irreversible: there is no revoking a key already handed out.
await inbox.share(doc, "bob");

// 3. CIRCULATE THE REFERENCE — no call at all. Every reference this surface returns
//    is BARE: it names the document and grants nothing. If the document sits in a
//    PUBLIC store, the store serves its read cap to whoever asks, so the bare
//    reference is enough to read it — and if it does not, the reference still names
//    it and opens nothing.
const publicDoc = await storeRegistry.createEntityDoc("public");
// …put `publicDoc` in a QR code, a message, another document. Nothing else to do.
await readUnion([publicDoc]);   // a stranger holding only this reads it

The invariant behind all three: you never derive a cap from a bare reference. You look it up in what you hold, you were given it, or a public store served it. A did:ng:o:… without :r: names a document and opens nothing — which is what makes confidentiality composable: a widely circulated document may point at a restricted one, and following the reference gets you a name, not a key. See docs/readcap-and-nuri-model.md § 0.

The types carry that invariant

Nuri and ReadCap are template literal types, not string aliases:

type Nuri    = `did:ng:${string}`
type ReadCap = `did:ng:${string}:r:${string}`

They are still strings — assignable to string, JSON-serializable, no wrapper — but the distinction is checked. A ReadCap goes wherever a Nuri is expected (a cap is a NURI with the key inside); the reverse does not compile.

Permissive in, precise out. Public entries take NuriLike (Nuri | string) and validate at the door, so a value coming from storage, a URL or a form needs no narrowing and no cast on your side; what they return is a precise Nuri. The runtime checks stay regardless — a JavaScript caller never meets the compiler.

const saved = localStorage.getItem("doc");        // string | null
if (saved) await readUnion([saved]);              // ✓ validated at the door