mirror of
https://github.com/PerpetualSoftware/pad.git
synced 2026-09-22 18:43:45 +00:00
xarmian
461c5a3e3d
The review could not converge on this diff's comments because each round of corrections re-expanded the surface it was reviewing — rounds 16 and 17 found errors inside 15 and 16's fixes. That is a production rate being measured, not a backlog being drained, so the treatment is to write fewer claims rather than review the same ones again. PRUNED, ~135 comment lines: process narration. "An earlier version said X", "found by mutation testing", "codex round N caught this", the scoreboards. Every one of those is already in a commit message, which is where the archaeology belongs; in the source they are claims a future reader has to verify, about a past that no longer exists. KEPT, because they earn it and a reader would otherwise re-derive them: metric semantics, reachability boundaries, what a test does and does not discriminate, why the obvious alternative was rejected, and the hazards that cannot be enforced in code. MOVED TO A TEST, per the rule this run earned the hard way: a comment asserting countable behaviour belongs in the suite. Two test comments in internal/watchevents relied on "this constructor waits for its SUBSCRIBE to be confirmed" — prose, and the same assumption applied to the OTHER bus (which subscribes asynchronously) is what made a namespace test flake. It is now asserted with no polling and no sleep, and the mutation that removes the wait fails it. That rule generalises and is why round 17's find mattered: "counts every unservable resume" was prose, so its falseness could hide a real metric gap. Prose is for claims that cannot be asserted. Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01JVDBKbgn3Xt7ndW1YoYd8X