Sylvain Duchesne
4.9 KiB
id, title, parent, depends_on, created, claimed_by, claimed_at, blocked
| id | title | parent | depends_on | created | claimed_by | claimed_at | blocked |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T01.b | What the ORM offers for writing and deleting, and what the three remaining symbols are | T01 | 2026-09-16 | null | null | false |
Description
Reconnaissance, not implementation. Piece 2 of the parent task rests on a fact nobody has established: upstream's shape for deletion. Specifying a wrapper before knowing it is how this project has invented before. This child establishes the facts and proposes the arbitrations; T01.e implements against its ## Result.
Read the target at the source. /home/sylvain/projects/nextgraph/nextgraph-rs is a sibling checkout, at 213338f6 when this was planned — the commit the existing knowledge leaves were read at. Record in the leaf you write the commit you actually read.
The three questions:
- Deletion. What does the target offer to delete an object? Starting facts, verified at planning:
sdk/js/orm/src/connector/holdsgetObjects.tsandinsertObject.tsand no deletion file;sdk/js/orm/src/core.tsexports exactlyinitNg,ngSession,OrmSubscription,DiscreteOrmSubscription,insertObject,getObjects, plusgetRaw/watch/effectre-exported from@ng-org/alien-deepsignalsand the types. Run the cascade of.project/rules/nextgraph/no-divergence-from-nextgraph.md— level 3 first, then level 2 (sdk/js/lib-wasm,sdk/js/web), then the engine's model — and report which level answers, with symbols. A shape the target declares and constructs nowhere isdeclared-not-wiredand is the strongest thing to align on; an absent implementation is not evidence the target will not have one, and must not be reported as one. getObjectsandinsertObject. Exact signature, parameters and return of each, precisely enough that a wrapper can be published at an identical signature without translating anything.docs/api-contract.md§ 6 already recordsgetObjectsas level 3 VERIFIED (sdk/js/orm/src/connector/getObjects.ts:23) — check it rather than re-deriving it, and correct it if it has drifted.OrmSubscription,DiscreteOrmSubscription,ngSession. What each one is, what it hands the caller, and whether an application coding against this package needs it. Propose an arbitration for each — publish as-is / publish under what name / do not publish — with the evidence. Do not implement. Weigh it against the rule's own tell: a symbol that makes the caller handle what the target will never hand it (a document's key, a store id, its own identity) is a divergence even when upstream exports it.
Established facts — cite them, do not re-derive them from nextgraph-rs: .project/concepts/app-contract/knowledge_what-a-read-scope-is-upstream.md (the Scope type and its two axes; a graphs entry is one document's graph; did:ng:i means the whole local dataset with no permission narrowing; the graph filter is literal; OrmSubscription.readyPromise distinguishes not-ready from ready-and-empty at level 3 while the React useShape adapter drops it; OrmConfig's richness is real and unreachable), knowledge_what-an-iri-says-upstream.md, knowledge_what-an-inbox-is-upstream.md.
The problem being served is a rights hole, not a missing convenience. Today an application must import these straight from @ng-org/orm, and then receives every identity's data out of the shared wallet with nothing signalling it. The filter that closes it is makeReadFilteredView (packages/polyfill/src/emulated-verifier/read-filter.ts, annotated kind=aligned level=1 ref=engine/verifier/src/verifier.rs:load_repo_from_read_cap), applied per document on what comes back — where the target bounds it. For each candidate wrapper, report how that filter would have to apply, or why it cannot. A write path is the hard case: the filter is a read emulation, and packages/polyfill/src/surface/ng-proxy.ts already overrides sparql_update with an emulated write guard — read it before concluding.
Deliverable. A knowledge_ leaf under .project/concepts/app-contract/, written by invoking /concept document rather than by writing the file directly. Every claim points at a symbol, never a line number. The arbitration proposals and every unresolved question go in this task's ## Result, where T01.e will read them.
Out of scope: no edit under packages/, no contract edit, no version bump. If a fact you establish changes what the published contract says, name it in ## Result and leave the edit to the child that owns it.
Pass condition for this child (it changes no code, so the implementation gate does not apply): python3 ~/.claude/skills/concept/lint.py → 0 ERROR; the leaf names the commit it was read at; every target-side claim carries a symbol reference; each of the three questions has either an answer or an explicitly stated open question.