admin
9dc26459ea
gates / gates (push) Successful in 10s
R-218's declaration half shipped in v0.201.0 and works. Its consume half never existed. Reconcile ran exactly twice per process — at start-up and when the recovery screen drives it — and BOTH fire before the hub has anything staged, because the hub stages in RESPONSE to the declaration those runs precede. Measured on the R-201 re-walk: unlock reconcile 11:43:07, hub staged 11:44:57 saying 'next cycle', a full report cycle ran 11:55:46, still unconsumed at 12:06. A guest command line applied it in 18 seconds — everything correct except the trigger. Bridge.RetryIfDeclared re-runs the SAME reconcile on a 5-minute tick, driven from the box's own published declaration (OffboxReportStatus().State) — the very statement the hub acts on, so the two cannot disagree. Poll, not an ACK flag, decided on the promise: the no-target message says 'amint megvannak' (no deadline) and the card says 'within a day'. Five minutes is inside both by a wide margin and needs no hub change. It stops by construction — a healthy box does no work and logs nothing — and the settle gate is deliberately kept via ReconcileWhenSettled. The marker was investigated and left alone: applied_marker lives in the guest's DataDir, which a rebuild destroys, so it cannot suppress a legitimate re-run. R-220's customer half: the refusal no longer tells the customer to choose from a list that may be empty. It names the rebuild, points at the Meghajtók page, and promises no outcome. Red-proofs: remove the retry -> credential uncollected (the dead end reproduced); drop the stop condition -> a healthy box hammers the hub; call Reconcile instead of ReconcileWhenSettled -> settle gate bypassed; restore the old sentence -> the impossible action returns. 28 packages ok, vet clean, all controller gates OK.
41 lines
1.9 KiB
Go
41 lines
1.9 KiB
Go
package settings
|
|
|
|
import (
|
|
"strings"
|
|
"testing"
|
|
)
|
|
|
|
// ── SCENARIO G (R-220) — AN EMPTY LIST MUST EXPLAIN ITSELF ──────────────────────────────────────
|
|
//
|
|
// The old refusal said "choose an attached drive from the list" while the list was empty — on a
|
|
// rebuilt box, for a reason the customer had no part in and could not see. Measured three times live.
|
|
// A refusal that names an action the customer cannot perform is the I3 breach the campaign recorded.
|
|
//
|
|
// RED-PROOF: restore the old sentence and this FAILS on the impossible-action assertion.
|
|
func TestRefuseAppNamespace_DoesNotNameAnImpossibleAction(t *testing.T) {
|
|
msg := refuseAppNamespaceUndeterminable
|
|
|
|
if strings.Contains(msg, "Válasszon a listából") {
|
|
t.Fatal("R-220's I3 breach RETURNED: the refusal tells the customer to choose from a list that may be empty")
|
|
}
|
|
// It must say WHY the list can be empty — the rebuild — so the state is explicable.
|
|
if !strings.Contains(msg, "újratelepítettük") && !strings.Contains(msg, "újra") {
|
|
t.Fatalf("the refusal must explain why the drive is unregistered; got %q", msg)
|
|
}
|
|
// And point somewhere a customer can actually go.
|
|
if !strings.Contains(msg, "Meghajtók") {
|
|
t.Fatalf("the refusal must name where re-attaching happens; got %q", msg)
|
|
}
|
|
// It must not promise an outcome it cannot know.
|
|
for _, forbidden := range []string{"biztosan", "garantál", "mindig sikerül"} {
|
|
if strings.Contains(msg, forbidden) {
|
|
t.Errorf("the refusal promises an outcome it cannot know (%q)", forbidden)
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
// The NAS refusal is a different situation and keeps its own wording — it points at a list that
|
|
// genuinely does have entries, so it is not the same defect.
|
|
if !strings.Contains(refuseAppNamespaceNetwork, "Válasszon csatlakoztatott meghajtót") {
|
|
t.Fatal("the NAS refusal was changed; it is a different situation and was not part of R-220")
|
|
}
|
|
}
|