Tianyi Cui
30c1863755
Rename per review naming decisions: - package dsh-file-context → dsh-fs-policy (dir, package name, plugin name, tsconfig refs, importers, type-equiv manifest, generated catalog + module-graph) - events fs/write-expectation → fs/write-intent, fs/edit-expectation → fs/edit-intent (fs/observed unchanged); type FsWriteExpectation → FsWriteIntent, "expectation" wording → "intent" throughout - exported FileContextExec → FsPolicyExec Make the implemented RFCs describe what shipped, not the superseded designs: the 2026-06-17 capability-seam + tool-schemas RFCs no longer place policy on ctx.fs or use full/partial-view authorization, and the fsspec RFC's ctx.fileContext service prose is rewritten to the fs/* event-gate reality (freshness-based auth). Sharpen docs/rfc/implemented/AGENTS.md: a rename is a fact to fix IN PLACE — the "new RFC" escape hatch is for macro decision reversals only, not renames. Code fixes from review: - fsio.ts resolveLocalTarget/probe translate ENOTDIR (a parent path segment is a file) into the structured FsError taxonomy instead of leaking a raw Node error; resolve reports FS_NOT_FOUND, probe reports absent. Regression tests proven to fail on the unfixed code. - tool-fs HMR test now asserts prompt sections (not just tool schemas) are withdrawn on disposal. - fs/observed is a plain (unguarded) ctx.emit: correct the fs-policy comment, filesystem.md, and tool-fs module doc that wrongly claimed the tool "contains" a throwing listener; a throw surfaces as the tool's isError result. - drop the false "loaded by the default product config" claim (no config wires the fs tools yet), the duplicate ctx.bash service-map row, the stale FileReadRequest catalog link-map entry, and the fs/fs README EOF blank line; correct the dsh-fs package.json description.
16 lines
2.3 KiB
Markdown
16 lines
2.3 KiB
Markdown
# AGENTS.md — Implemented RFCs
|
|
|
|
These are RFCs whose decision has **shipped**. The repo-wide and docs-wide rules still apply ([root AGENTS.md](../../../AGENTS.md) § "Type Safety and Documentation", [docs/AGENTS.md](../../AGENTS.md)); this file adds one rule specific to this folder.
|
|
|
|
## Keep an implemented RFC current with what actually shipped
|
|
|
|
An RFC in `implemented/` describes a decision that is now **live code**. Keep its description of the shipped reality accurate: when the implementation later moves a file, renames a package or symbol, changes a config key/default/error code, or relocates a plugin, update the RFC in the **same change** that touches the code — exactly as you would a package README. A stale implemented RFC (pointing at a path that no longer exists, naming a package that was renamed, describing a structure that was refactored) is worse than no RFC: a future reader trusts it and is misled.
|
|
|
|
Update it **in place** to state the current truth. Do **not** leave the outdated text in and bolt on a "superseded / now actually…" note — that makes the document a changelog of its own drift and forces the reader to reconstruct the present from a pile of corrections. Write what is true now.
|
|
|
|
### This is not a license to rewrite the *decision*
|
|
|
|
Keeping the shipped-state description current is about **facts** (paths, names, structure, defaults) — not about silently flipping the **decision and its rationale** into a different one. The "new RFC" escape hatch is for **macro** changes — a genuine reversal of *what was decided* or its rationale — NOT for renames, moves, or structural relocations. A rename is always a fact to fix **in place**: leaving a package/symbol/path at its old name (even with a "was renamed to…" aside) only confuses a reader who greps the current tree for a name that no longer exists. So: the package was renamed, a symbol changed, a plugin moved, the decision is now realized through a different mechanism → edit this RFC to state the current names and structure. Only a reversal of *what was decided* → a new RFC and cross-link, per [rfc/README.md](../README.md) ("An RFC is never edited into a different decision").
|
|
|
|
When in doubt, ask whether a reader following this RFC to the code would land on something real. If not, it needs updating.
|