Files
ng-eventually/packages/polyfill
Sylvain Duchesne 7062364569 fix(e2e): le harnais reconnaissait la page du broker comme l'application
Le prédicat qui cherchait l'iframe applicative était une correspondance de
sous-chaîne : f.url().includes("127.0.0.1"). Or la page d'authentification du
broker porte l'adresse de l'application DANS SA PROPRE requête —
nextgraph.eu/auth/#/?o=http%3A%2F%2F127.0.0.1%3A39975. Elle correspondait donc
dès le premier instant.

Conséquence en chaîne : la boucle d'attente sortait immédiatement, le clic sur
le portefeuille et la saisie du mot de passe étaient sautés comme « déjà
connecté », et la frame principale du broker était rendue à l'appelant comme si
c'était l'application. Celui-ci attendait alors une minute un élément qui
n'existe pas sur cette page.

Ce qui sauvait une exécution était le clic sur « Login », qui change l'URL et
lui retire le paramètre — gardé par une sonde de 2 s sur un bouton mesuré à
1,0–1,6 s d'affichage. Ce tirage au sort était toute l'intermittence, et il
expliquait l'asymétrie : le premier acteur fait la cérémonie du mot de passe,
les suivants non, le portefeuille étant déjà ouvert et diffusé entre les onglets
du broker par BroadcastChannel — vérifié, 3,4 s contre 1,4 s.

Le harnais attend désormais des ÉTATS, plus des durées : il énumère les écrans
possibles, attend celui qui se présente, et aiguille — sous une seule échéance.
Plus aucun waitForTimeout dans ce chemin. Le chemin sans mot de passe est une
branche attendue de plein droit.

Et un échec nomme maintenant le dernier écran reconnu, l'origine attendue, la
trace horodatée des écrans traversés, les URL de toutes les frames et le texte
visible. Les échecs d'aujourd'hui ne disaient qu'une chose : qu'une chose
n'était pas apparue. C'est ce silence qui a coûté la journée en conjectures.

J'avais attribué tout ça au broker. C'était faux, et c'était lisible dans le
code.
2026-08-14 10:56:49 +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