validations[]script rules: the case that DEFINES them as invariants (a stored violation refused on an unrelated edit) has no pin #14891

Description

@claude

Observation, filed unassigned. Found while writing the spec docblocks for #13879 (transition gate vs invariant). Not a behaviour defect — the engine does the right thing; the pin for the case that defines the behaviour is missing.

What the engine does

checkPredicate (packages/objectql/src/validation/rule-validator.ts) evaluates a script (and cross_field) condition against ctx.merged — the prior row overlaid with the incoming patch — on every write, with no exemption for a violation that was already stored. So a row that already violates is refused on any edit until a repairing write lands: frozen, not bricked. That is exactly what makes it an invariant rather than a transition gate, and as of #13879 it is stated as contract text in packages/spec/src/data/validation.zod.ts (the script rule's condition describe string and the module docblock, both of which ship as the JSON Schema description and the generated reference page).

The gap

packages/objectql/src/validation/rule-validator.test.ts, block script / cross_field predicates, pins:

  • a write that CARRIES the offending value ("rejects when the failure predicate is true (end before start)"),
  • a write that makes the predicate false ("allows when the predicate is false (merged record honours unchanged fields)"),
  • an unevaluable predicate (fail-closed).

Nothing pins the write that touches an unrelated field while the stored row violates. That case is the whole difference from Field.requiredWhen, whose corresponding case IS pinned on the other side of the boundary ("legacy rows rest: a pre-existing violation does not block an unrelated write"). So the two mechanisms' distinguishing behaviours have asymmetric coverage: the gate's exemption is pinned, the invariant's absence of one is not.

Measured

2026-09-03 at 2263ca4d6, scratch vitest over evaluateValidationRules with a rule condition: record.discount is greater than 60:

writeprevious rowresult
touch an unrelated field onlydiscount 90ValidationError (frozen)
repairing write, discount 50discount 90passes (not bricked)

Both behave as the new spec text now claims. The scratch file was deleted rather than landed, to keep that PR inside packages/spec.

Suggested fix

Two it cases in the existing script / cross_field predicates block, one per row above. Note PR #14801 is open on rule-validator.ts itself; the test file is a separate path, but whoever picks this up should check that PR's state first.

Generated by Claude Code


Generated by Claude Code

Activity

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Type

No type

Projects

No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions

    , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Add copy buttons to all
     blocks\n(function() {\n function addCopyButtons() {\n document.querySelectorAll('pre code').forEach(function(codeBlock) {\n if (codeBlock.parentElement.hasAttribute('data-copy-added')) return;\n codeBlock.parentElement.setAttribute('data-copy-added', 'true');\n \n var btn = document.createElement('button');\n btn.textContent = 'Copy';\n btn.style.cssText = 'position:absolute;top:4px;right:4px;padding:2px 8px;font-size:11px;background:#4ecdc4;border:none;border-radius:4px;color:#1a1a2e;cursor:pointer;opacity:0.7;transition:opacity 0.2s;';\n btn.onmouseover = function() { this.style.opacity = '1'; };\n btn.onmouseout = function() { this.style.opacity = '0.7'; };\n btn.onclick = function() {\n navigator.clipboard.writeText(codeBlock.textContent).then(function() {\n btn.textContent = 'Copied!';\n setTimeout(function() { btn.textContent = 'Copy'; }, 1500);\n });\n };\n codeBlock.parentElement.style.position = 'relative';\n codeBlock.parentElement.appendChild(btn);\n });\n }\n \n addCopyButtons();\n \n // Re-run on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(addCopyButtons);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks");
    }
    } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks]', __e); }
    })();
    (function(){
    try {
    var __m = "github.com";
    var __re = new RegExp('^' + "github\\.com" + '
    
    Skip to content

    validations[]script rules: the case that DEFINES them as invariants (a stored violation refused on an unrelated edit) has no pin #14891

    Description

    @claude

    Observation, filed unassigned. Found while writing the spec docblocks for #13879 (transition gate vs invariant). Not a behaviour defect — the engine does the right thing; the pin for the case that defines the behaviour is missing.

    What the engine does

    checkPredicate (packages/objectql/src/validation/rule-validator.ts) evaluates a script (and cross_field) condition against ctx.merged — the prior row overlaid with the incoming patch — on every write, with no exemption for a violation that was already stored. So a row that already violates is refused on any edit until a repairing write lands: frozen, not bricked. That is exactly what makes it an invariant rather than a transition gate, and as of #13879 it is stated as contract text in packages/spec/src/data/validation.zod.ts (the script rule's condition describe string and the module docblock, both of which ship as the JSON Schema description and the generated reference page).

    The gap

    packages/objectql/src/validation/rule-validator.test.ts, block script / cross_field predicates, pins:

    • a write that CARRIES the offending value ("rejects when the failure predicate is true (end before start)"),
    • a write that makes the predicate false ("allows when the predicate is false (merged record honours unchanged fields)"),
    • an unevaluable predicate (fail-closed).

    Nothing pins the write that touches an unrelated field while the stored row violates. That case is the whole difference from Field.requiredWhen, whose corresponding case IS pinned on the other side of the boundary ("legacy rows rest: a pre-existing violation does not block an unrelated write"). So the two mechanisms' distinguishing behaviours have asymmetric coverage: the gate's exemption is pinned, the invariant's absence of one is not.

    Measured

    2026-09-03 at 2263ca4d6, scratch vitest over evaluateValidationRules with a rule condition: record.discount is greater than 60:

    writeprevious rowresult
    touch an unrelated field onlydiscount 90ValidationError (frozen)
    repairing write, discount 50discount 90passes (not bricked)

    Both behave as the new spec text now claims. The scratch file was deleted rather than landed, to keep that PR inside packages/spec.

    Suggested fix

    Two it cases in the existing script / cross_field predicates block, one per row above. Note PR #14801 is open on rule-validator.ts itself; the test file is a separate path, but whoever picks this up should check that PR's state first.

    Generated by Claude Code


    Generated by Claude Code

    Activity

    Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

    Metadata

    Metadata

    Assignees

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions

      , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Force GitHub README to respect dark mode\n(function() {\n var style = document.createElement('style');\n style.textContent = '\n .markdown-body {\n color-scheme: dark light;\n }\n .markdown-body pre { background: #161b22 !important; }\n .markdown-body code { background: rgba(110, 118, 129, 0.4) !important; }\n .markdown-body table th, .markdown-body table td { border-color: #30363d !important; }\n .markdown-body img { background: #0d1117; }\n .markdown-body blockquote { border-left-color: #8b949e; }\n .markdown-body hr { border-color: #30363d; }\n ';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n})();", "GitHub Dark Mode README Fix"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:GitHub Dark Mode README Fix]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
      Skip to content

      validations[]script rules: the case that DEFINES them as invariants (a stored violation refused on an unrelated edit) has no pin #14891

      Description

      @claude

      Observation, filed unassigned. Found while writing the spec docblocks for #13879 (transition gate vs invariant). Not a behaviour defect — the engine does the right thing; the pin for the case that defines the behaviour is missing.

      What the engine does

      checkPredicate (packages/objectql/src/validation/rule-validator.ts) evaluates a script (and cross_field) condition against ctx.merged — the prior row overlaid with the incoming patch — on every write, with no exemption for a violation that was already stored. So a row that already violates is refused on any edit until a repairing write lands: frozen, not bricked. That is exactly what makes it an invariant rather than a transition gate, and as of #13879 it is stated as contract text in packages/spec/src/data/validation.zod.ts (the script rule's condition describe string and the module docblock, both of which ship as the JSON Schema description and the generated reference page).

      The gap

      packages/objectql/src/validation/rule-validator.test.ts, block script / cross_field predicates, pins:

      • a write that CARRIES the offending value ("rejects when the failure predicate is true (end before start)"),
      • a write that makes the predicate false ("allows when the predicate is false (merged record honours unchanged fields)"),
      • an unevaluable predicate (fail-closed).

      Nothing pins the write that touches an unrelated field while the stored row violates. That case is the whole difference from Field.requiredWhen, whose corresponding case IS pinned on the other side of the boundary ("legacy rows rest: a pre-existing violation does not block an unrelated write"). So the two mechanisms' distinguishing behaviours have asymmetric coverage: the gate's exemption is pinned, the invariant's absence of one is not.

      Measured

      2026-09-03 at 2263ca4d6, scratch vitest over evaluateValidationRules with a rule condition: record.discount is greater than 60:

      writeprevious rowresult
      touch an unrelated field onlydiscount 90ValidationError (frozen)
      repairing write, discount 50discount 90passes (not bricked)

      Both behave as the new spec text now claims. The scratch file was deleted rather than landed, to keep that PR inside packages/spec.

      Suggested fix

      Two it cases in the existing script / cross_field predicates block, one per row above. Note PR #14801 is open on rule-validator.ts itself; the test file is a separate path, but whoever picks this up should check that PR's state first.

      Generated by Claude Code


      Generated by Claude Code

      Activity

      Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

      Metadata

      Metadata

      Assignees

      Type

      No type

      Projects

      No projects

        Milestone

        No milestone

        Relationships

        None yet

        Development

        No branches or pull requests

        Issue actions

        , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Highlight search terms from Google/DuckDuckGo/Bing referrer\n(function() {\n var ref = document.referrer;\n var terms = [];\n \n if (ref.includes('google.com') || ref.includes('duckduckgo.com') || ref.includes('bing.com')) {\n var url = new URL(ref);\n var q = url.searchParams.get('q') || url.searchParams.get('p');\n if (q) {\n terms = q.split(/\\s+/).filter(function(t) { return t.length > 2; });\n }\n }\n \n if (terms.length === 0) return;\n \n var style = document.createElement('style');\n style.textContent = '.userscript-highlight { background: #fbbf24; color: #1a1a2e; padding: 1px 3px; border-radius: 2px; }';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n \n function highlight(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 3) { // text node\n var text = node.textContent;\n var found = false;\n terms.forEach(function(term) {\n var regex = new RegExp('(' + term.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\\]\\\\]/g, '\\\\') + ')', 'gi');\n if (regex.test(text)) {\n found = true;\n var frag = document.createDocumentFragment();\n var parts = text.split(regex);\n parts.forEach(function(part, i) {\n if (i % 2 === 0) {\n frag.appendChild(document.createTextNode(part));\n } else {\n var span = document.createElement('span');\n span.className = 'userscript-highlight';\n span.textContent = part;\n frag.appendChild(span);\n }\n });\n node.parentNode.replaceChild(frag, node);\n }\n });\n } else if (node.nodeType === 1 && node.childNodes) { // element\n var skipTags = ['SCRIPT', 'STYLE', 'NOSCRIPT', 'TEXTAREA', 'INPUT', 'SELECT'];\n if (!skipTags.includes(node.tagName)) {\n Array.from(node.childNodes).forEach(highlight);\n }\n }\n }\n \n highlight(document.body);\n \n // Re-highlight on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n mutations.forEach(function(m) {\n m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 1 || node.nodeType === 3) highlight(node);\n });\n });\n });\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Highlight Search Terms"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Highlight Search Terms]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
        Skip to content

        validations[]script rules: the case that DEFINES them as invariants (a stored violation refused on an unrelated edit) has no pin #14891

        Description

        @claude

        Observation, filed unassigned. Found while writing the spec docblocks for #13879 (transition gate vs invariant). Not a behaviour defect — the engine does the right thing; the pin for the case that defines the behaviour is missing.

        What the engine does

        checkPredicate (packages/objectql/src/validation/rule-validator.ts) evaluates a script (and cross_field) condition against ctx.merged — the prior row overlaid with the incoming patch — on every write, with no exemption for a violation that was already stored. So a row that already violates is refused on any edit until a repairing write lands: frozen, not bricked. That is exactly what makes it an invariant rather than a transition gate, and as of #13879 it is stated as contract text in packages/spec/src/data/validation.zod.ts (the script rule's condition describe string and the module docblock, both of which ship as the JSON Schema description and the generated reference page).

        The gap

        packages/objectql/src/validation/rule-validator.test.ts, block script / cross_field predicates, pins:

        • a write that CARRIES the offending value ("rejects when the failure predicate is true (end before start)"),
        • a write that makes the predicate false ("allows when the predicate is false (merged record honours unchanged fields)"),
        • an unevaluable predicate (fail-closed).

        Nothing pins the write that touches an unrelated field while the stored row violates. That case is the whole difference from Field.requiredWhen, whose corresponding case IS pinned on the other side of the boundary ("legacy rows rest: a pre-existing violation does not block an unrelated write"). So the two mechanisms' distinguishing behaviours have asymmetric coverage: the gate's exemption is pinned, the invariant's absence of one is not.

        Measured

        2026-09-03 at 2263ca4d6, scratch vitest over evaluateValidationRules with a rule condition: record.discount is greater than 60:

        writeprevious rowresult
        touch an unrelated field onlydiscount 90ValidationError (frozen)
        repairing write, discount 50discount 90passes (not bricked)

        Both behave as the new spec text now claims. The scratch file was deleted rather than landed, to keep that PR inside packages/spec.

        Suggested fix

        Two it cases in the existing script / cross_field predicates block, one per row above. Note PR #14801 is open on rule-validator.ts itself; the test file is a separate path, but whoever picks this up should check that PR's state first.

        Generated by Claude Code


        Generated by Claude Code

        Activity

        Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

        Metadata

        Metadata

        Assignees

        Type

        No type

        Projects

        No projects

          Milestone

          No milestone

          Relationships

          None yet

          Development

          No branches or pull requests

          Issue actions

          , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Strip utm_, fbclid, gclid, etc. from all links on page\n(function() {\n var trackingParams = ['utm_source', 'utm_medium', 'utm_campaign', 'utm_term', 'utm_content',\n 'fbclid', 'gclid', 'dclid', 'msclkid', 'yclid',\n 'ref', 'ref_src', 'source', 'medium', 'campaign'];\n \n function cleanUrl(url) {\n try {\n var u = new URL(url, window.location.origin);\n var changed = false;\n trackingParams.forEach(function(p) {\n if (u.searchParams.has(p)) {\n u.searchParams.delete(p);\n changed = true;\n }\n });\n return changed ? u.toString() : url;\n } catch (e) {\n return url;\n }\n }\n \n function cleanLinks() {\n document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {\n var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);\n if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;\n });\n }\n \n cleanLinks();\n \n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n mutations.forEach(function(m) {\n m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 1) {\n if (node.tagName === 'A') cleanLinks();\n node.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {\n var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);\n if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;\n });\n }\n });\n });\n });\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Remove Tracking Parameters from Links"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Remove Tracking Parameters from Links]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "youtube.com"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + "youtube\\.com" + '
          Skip to content

          validations[]script rules: the case that DEFINES them as invariants (a stored violation refused on an unrelated edit) has no pin #14891

          Description

          @claude

          Observation, filed unassigned. Found while writing the spec docblocks for #13879 (transition gate vs invariant). Not a behaviour defect — the engine does the right thing; the pin for the case that defines the behaviour is missing.

          What the engine does

          checkPredicate (packages/objectql/src/validation/rule-validator.ts) evaluates a script (and cross_field) condition against ctx.merged — the prior row overlaid with the incoming patch — on every write, with no exemption for a violation that was already stored. So a row that already violates is refused on any edit until a repairing write lands: frozen, not bricked. That is exactly what makes it an invariant rather than a transition gate, and as of #13879 it is stated as contract text in packages/spec/src/data/validation.zod.ts (the script rule's condition describe string and the module docblock, both of which ship as the JSON Schema description and the generated reference page).

          The gap

          packages/objectql/src/validation/rule-validator.test.ts, block script / cross_field predicates, pins:

          • a write that CARRIES the offending value ("rejects when the failure predicate is true (end before start)"),
          • a write that makes the predicate false ("allows when the predicate is false (merged record honours unchanged fields)"),
          • an unevaluable predicate (fail-closed).

          Nothing pins the write that touches an unrelated field while the stored row violates. That case is the whole difference from Field.requiredWhen, whose corresponding case IS pinned on the other side of the boundary ("legacy rows rest: a pre-existing violation does not block an unrelated write"). So the two mechanisms' distinguishing behaviours have asymmetric coverage: the gate's exemption is pinned, the invariant's absence of one is not.

          Measured

          2026-09-03 at 2263ca4d6, scratch vitest over evaluateValidationRules with a rule condition: record.discount is greater than 60:

          writeprevious rowresult
          touch an unrelated field onlydiscount 90ValidationError (frozen)
          repairing write, discount 50discount 90passes (not bricked)

          Both behave as the new spec text now claims. The scratch file was deleted rather than landed, to keep that PR inside packages/spec.

          Suggested fix

          Two it cases in the existing script / cross_field predicates block, one per row above. Note PR #14801 is open on rule-validator.ts itself; the test file is a separate path, but whoever picks this up should check that PR's state first.

          Generated by Claude Code


          Generated by Claude Code

          Activity

          Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

          Metadata

          Metadata

          Assignees

          Type

          No type

          Projects

          No projects

            Milestone

            No milestone

            Relationships

            None yet

            Development

            No branches or pull requests

            Issue actions

            , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Auto-enable theater mode on YouTube\n(function() {\n function tryTheater() {\n var btn = document.querySelector('button[aria-label=\"Theater mode\"], ytd-player #player button[title=\"Theater mode\"]');\n if (btn && !btn.classList.contains('activated')) {\n btn.click();\n }\n }\n \n // Try immediately\n tryTheater();\n \n // Try after navigation (SPA)\n var lastUrl = location.href;\n setInterval(function() {\n if (location.href !== lastUrl) {\n lastUrl = location.href;\n setTimeout(tryTheater, 500);\n }\n }, 1000);\n \n // Also try on player load\n var observer = new MutationObserver(tryTheater);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "YouTube Theater Mode Default"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:YouTube Theater Mode Default]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
            Skip to content

            validations[]script rules: the case that DEFINES them as invariants (a stored violation refused on an unrelated edit) has no pin #14891

            Description

            @claude

            Observation, filed unassigned. Found while writing the spec docblocks for #13879 (transition gate vs invariant). Not a behaviour defect — the engine does the right thing; the pin for the case that defines the behaviour is missing.

            What the engine does

            checkPredicate (packages/objectql/src/validation/rule-validator.ts) evaluates a script (and cross_field) condition against ctx.merged — the prior row overlaid with the incoming patch — on every write, with no exemption for a violation that was already stored. So a row that already violates is refused on any edit until a repairing write lands: frozen, not bricked. That is exactly what makes it an invariant rather than a transition gate, and as of #13879 it is stated as contract text in packages/spec/src/data/validation.zod.ts (the script rule's condition describe string and the module docblock, both of which ship as the JSON Schema description and the generated reference page).

            The gap

            packages/objectql/src/validation/rule-validator.test.ts, block script / cross_field predicates, pins:

            • a write that CARRIES the offending value ("rejects when the failure predicate is true (end before start)"),
            • a write that makes the predicate false ("allows when the predicate is false (merged record honours unchanged fields)"),
            • an unevaluable predicate (fail-closed).

            Nothing pins the write that touches an unrelated field while the stored row violates. That case is the whole difference from Field.requiredWhen, whose corresponding case IS pinned on the other side of the boundary ("legacy rows rest: a pre-existing violation does not block an unrelated write"). So the two mechanisms' distinguishing behaviours have asymmetric coverage: the gate's exemption is pinned, the invariant's absence of one is not.

            Measured

            2026-09-03 at 2263ca4d6, scratch vitest over evaluateValidationRules with a rule condition: record.discount is greater than 60:

            writeprevious rowresult
            touch an unrelated field onlydiscount 90ValidationError (frozen)
            repairing write, discount 50discount 90passes (not bricked)

            Both behave as the new spec text now claims. The scratch file was deleted rather than landed, to keep that PR inside packages/spec.

            Suggested fix

            Two it cases in the existing script / cross_field predicates block, one per row above. Note PR #14801 is open on rule-validator.ts itself; the test file is a separate path, but whoever picks this up should check that PR's state first.

            Generated by Claude Code


            Generated by Claude Code

            Activity

            Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

            Metadata

            Metadata

            Assignees

            Type

            No type

            Projects

            No projects

              Milestone

              No milestone

              Relationships

              None yet

              Development

              No branches or pull requests

              Issue actions

              , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Remove or un-stick sticky/fixed headers that block content\n(function() {\n function unstick() {\n document.querySelectorAll('header, nav, [role=\"banner\"], .header, .navbar, .sticky, .fixed-top, [style*=\"position: fixed\"], [style*=\"position:sticky\"]').forEach(function(el) {\n if (el.style.position === 'fixed' || el.style.position === 'sticky' || \n getComputedStyle(el).position === 'fixed' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'sticky') {\n el.style.position = 'static';\n el.style.top = 'auto';\n el.style.zIndex = 'auto';\n }\n });\n }\n \n unstick();\n \n var observer = new MutationObserver(unstick);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true, attributes: true, attributeFilter: ['style', 'class'] });\n})();", "Kill Sticky Headers"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Kill Sticky Headers]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
              Skip to content

              validations[]script rules: the case that DEFINES them as invariants (a stored violation refused on an unrelated edit) has no pin #14891

              Description

              @claude

              Observation, filed unassigned. Found while writing the spec docblocks for #13879 (transition gate vs invariant). Not a behaviour defect — the engine does the right thing; the pin for the case that defines the behaviour is missing.

              What the engine does

              checkPredicate (packages/objectql/src/validation/rule-validator.ts) evaluates a script (and cross_field) condition against ctx.merged — the prior row overlaid with the incoming patch — on every write, with no exemption for a violation that was already stored. So a row that already violates is refused on any edit until a repairing write lands: frozen, not bricked. That is exactly what makes it an invariant rather than a transition gate, and as of #13879 it is stated as contract text in packages/spec/src/data/validation.zod.ts (the script rule's condition describe string and the module docblock, both of which ship as the JSON Schema description and the generated reference page).

              The gap

              packages/objectql/src/validation/rule-validator.test.ts, block script / cross_field predicates, pins:

              • a write that CARRIES the offending value ("rejects when the failure predicate is true (end before start)"),
              • a write that makes the predicate false ("allows when the predicate is false (merged record honours unchanged fields)"),
              • an unevaluable predicate (fail-closed).

              Nothing pins the write that touches an unrelated field while the stored row violates. That case is the whole difference from Field.requiredWhen, whose corresponding case IS pinned on the other side of the boundary ("legacy rows rest: a pre-existing violation does not block an unrelated write"). So the two mechanisms' distinguishing behaviours have asymmetric coverage: the gate's exemption is pinned, the invariant's absence of one is not.

              Measured

              2026-09-03 at 2263ca4d6, scratch vitest over evaluateValidationRules with a rule condition: record.discount is greater than 60:

              writeprevious rowresult
              touch an unrelated field onlydiscount 90ValidationError (frozen)
              repairing write, discount 50discount 90passes (not bricked)

              Both behave as the new spec text now claims. The scratch file was deleted rather than landed, to keep that PR inside packages/spec.

              Suggested fix

              Two it cases in the existing script / cross_field predicates block, one per row above. Note PR #14801 is open on rule-validator.ts itself; the test file is a separate path, but whoever picks this up should check that PR's state first.

              Generated by Claude Code


              Generated by Claude Code

              Activity

              Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

              Metadata

              Metadata

              Assignees

              Type

              No type

              Projects

              No projects

                Milestone

                No milestone

                Relationships

                None yet

                Development

                No branches or pull requests

                Issue actions

                , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Universal Dark Mode - works on any site\n(function() {\n var enabled = true;\n \n function applyDarkMode() {\n if (!enabled) return;\n \n // Create style element if it doesn't exist\n var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');\n if (!style) {\n style = document.createElement('style');\n style.id = 'universal-dark-mode-style';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n }\n \n // Dark mode CSS - inverts colors but preserves images/video\n style.textContent = '\n /* Invert everything except media */\n html {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n background: #1a1a2e !important;\n }\n \n /* Restore images, videos, iframes, canvas */\n img, video, iframe, canvas, svg, picture, [style*=\"background-image\"] {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n }\n \n /* Preserve specific elements that should not be inverted */\n .no-dark-mode, .no-dark-mode *,\n [data-theme=\"light\"], [data-theme=\"light\"],\n .ace_editor, .ace_editor *,\n .CodeMirror, .CodeMirror *,\n .monaco-editor, .monaco-editor *,\n .markdown-body pre, .markdown-body pre *,\n .highlight, .highlight *,\n pre code, pre code * {\n filter: none !important;\n }\n \n /* Fix common UI elements */\n .modal, .popup, .dropdown-menu, .tooltip, .popover {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n background: #2d2d44 !important;\n border-color: #444 !important;\n }\n \n /* Scrollbars */\n ::-webkit-scrollbar { background: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb { background: #444 !important; }\n ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb:hover { background: #555 !important; }\n \n /* Selection */\n ::selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ::-moz-selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ';\n }\n \n function removeDarkMode() {\n var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');\n if (style) style.remove();\n }\n \n // Toggle with Alt+Shift+D\n document.addEventListener('keydown', function(e) {\n if (e.altKey && e.shiftKey && e.key === 'D') {\n e.preventDefault();\n enabled = !enabled;\n if (enabled) {\n applyDarkMode();\n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Enabled');\n } else {\n removeDarkMode();\n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Disabled');\n }\n }\n });\n \n // Apply on load\n applyDarkMode();\n \n // Re-apply on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n if (enabled && !document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style')) {\n applyDarkMode();\n }\n });\n observer.observe(document.head, { childList: true });\n \n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Loaded - Press Alt+Shift+D to toggle');\n})();", "Universal Dark Mode"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Universal Dark Mode]', __e); } })(); })();
                Skip to content

                validations[]script rules: the case that DEFINES them as invariants (a stored violation refused on an unrelated edit) has no pin #14891

                Description

                @claude

                Observation, filed unassigned. Found while writing the spec docblocks for #13879 (transition gate vs invariant). Not a behaviour defect — the engine does the right thing; the pin for the case that defines the behaviour is missing.

                What the engine does

                checkPredicate (packages/objectql/src/validation/rule-validator.ts) evaluates a script (and cross_field) condition against ctx.merged — the prior row overlaid with the incoming patch — on every write, with no exemption for a violation that was already stored. So a row that already violates is refused on any edit until a repairing write lands: frozen, not bricked. That is exactly what makes it an invariant rather than a transition gate, and as of #13879 it is stated as contract text in packages/spec/src/data/validation.zod.ts (the script rule's condition describe string and the module docblock, both of which ship as the JSON Schema description and the generated reference page).

                The gap

                packages/objectql/src/validation/rule-validator.test.ts, block script / cross_field predicates, pins:

                • a write that CARRIES the offending value ("rejects when the failure predicate is true (end before start)"),
                • a write that makes the predicate false ("allows when the predicate is false (merged record honours unchanged fields)"),
                • an unevaluable predicate (fail-closed).

                Nothing pins the write that touches an unrelated field while the stored row violates. That case is the whole difference from Field.requiredWhen, whose corresponding case IS pinned on the other side of the boundary ("legacy rows rest: a pre-existing violation does not block an unrelated write"). So the two mechanisms' distinguishing behaviours have asymmetric coverage: the gate's exemption is pinned, the invariant's absence of one is not.

                Measured

                2026-09-03 at 2263ca4d6, scratch vitest over evaluateValidationRules with a rule condition: record.discount is greater than 60:

                writeprevious rowresult
                touch an unrelated field onlydiscount 90ValidationError (frozen)
                repairing write, discount 50discount 90passes (not bricked)

                Both behave as the new spec text now claims. The scratch file was deleted rather than landed, to keep that PR inside packages/spec.

                Suggested fix

                Two it cases in the existing script / cross_field predicates block, one per row above. Note PR #14801 is open on rule-validator.ts itself; the test file is a separate path, but whoever picks this up should check that PR's state first.

                Generated by Claude Code


                Generated by Claude Code

                Activity

                Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

                Metadata

                Metadata

                Assignees

                Type

                No type

                Projects

                No projects

                  Milestone

                  No milestone

                  Relationships

                  None yet

                  Development

                  No branches or pull requests

                  Issue actions