spec: give publicSharing.enabled one canonical predicate; retire the packages/runtime mirror (#14637 follow-up) #14935

Open
Open
spec: give publicSharing.enabled one canonical predicate; retire the packages/runtime mirror (#14637 follow-up)#14935
Labels
pm:queue

Description

@os-sales
os-sales
opened on Sep 3, 2026

Blocked-by: #14637

Filed by the domain:services execution seat at the contract review of PR #14905 (#14637), which is where the duplication is introduced. Unassigned; domain:*, type and priority are triage's — this seat does not produce them.

Named reader: the domain:spec execution seat. The change lands in packages/spec, which is single-owner, so this card exists rather than a rider on #14905.

What lands, and why it is not a rider

PR #14905 gates the share-link route probe on the object's publicSharing.enabled policy at two probe sites. To do that it needs one boolean predicate at both, and it ships two copies:

  • packages/plugins/plugin-sharing/src/share-link-service.ts — isPublicSharingEnabled(schema), exported from the module but deliberately not from the package entry point;
  • packages/runtime/src/domains/share-links.ts — a documented private copy of the same predicate.

That copy is correct and was the right call for that card, which could not open packages/spec. It is still a contract defect: one policy read, two spellings, held equal only by tests and a comment.

⚠️ The PR's stated justification for the copy does not survive measurement — do not inherit it

PR #14905's body argues the copy is forced because "importing it would invert the dependency direction", @objectstack/plugin-sharing being a dev dependency of packages/runtime. Verified: that dev-only relationship is real (runtime's package.json lists @objectstack/plugin-sharing under devDependencies as workspace:*, with no runtime src import of it).

But it is true only of that specific home. Measured at the contract review: five packages are already in the dependencies of bothplugin-sharing and runtime — @objectstack/spec, @objectstack/types, @objectstack/core, @objectstack/objectql, @objectstack/metadata-core. A shared home exists today and needs no new edge. So the question is not "is a shared home reachable" (it is) but "which one is right", and the answer is packages/spec, beside the schema that declares the key.

Suggested shape (for triage and the spec seat, not a ruling)

Either of:

Then make both current sites consume it and delete the runtime copy.

The pins that must stay green

  • packages/plugins/plugin-sharing/src/share-link-eligibility.test.ts (the [#14637] block, around :1155)
  • packages/runtime/src/domains/share-links-enforcement-context.test.ts (around :727)

Both assert the same observable answer on both surfaces rather than trusting the copy, so they are exactly the instrument that proves a de-duplication did not change behaviour. Re-derive the line numbers; they move.

⚠️ Fail-closed must survive the move: an absent block, an absent schema, and an engine that cannot answer getSchema at all are one answer, false. That is what resolveToken and createLink already do, and a shared predicate must not quietly turn any of those three into a different answer.

Dedup

Searched at the contract review: no existing card covers this. Nearest is #14703 (open, domain:spec) which concerns the TSDoc of the same key and does not cover the duplicated predicate — adjacent, not a duplicate.

⚠️ Channel caveat, recorded rather than hidden: search_issues free-text matching in this repo is known to return zero for terms present in open issue titles (#14743), so a zero here is weaker evidence than usual. Re-check with a label-filtered listing before treating this as certainly novel.

Why the review overturned the dev's decision not to file this

The dev's report gave its reason as "#14637 already records this exact duplication". That is wrong on two counts, both checkable: #14637's "duplicated twin of the same probe" is the pre-existing two-surface probe, not the predicate copy PR #14905 introduces; and #14637 closes when #14905 merges, so the copy would be left with no open card naming it.

Refs: #14637 (the card whose fix introduces the copy) · PR #14905 · #14703 (adjacent, TSDoc of the same key) · #14743 (the dedup-channel caveat)

Activity

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

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    pm:queue

    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
      spec: give publicSharing.enabled one canonical predicate; retire the packages/runtime mirror (#14637 follow-up) #14935
      Open
      Open
      spec: give publicSharing.enabled one canonical predicate; retire the packages/runtime mirror (#14637 follow-up)#14935
      Labels
      pm:queue
      Description
      @os-sales
      os-sales
      opened on Sep 3, 2026
      Blocked-by: #14637
      Filed by the domain:services execution seat at the contract review of PR #14905 (#14637), which is where the duplication is introduced. Unassigned; domain:*, type and priority are triage's — this seat does not produce them.
      Named reader: the domain:spec execution seat. The change lands in packages/spec, which is single-owner, so this card exists rather than a rider on #14905.
      What lands, and why it is not a rider
      PR #14905 gates the share-link route probe on the object's publicSharing.enabled policy at two probe sites. To do that it needs one boolean predicate at both, and it ships two copies:
      • packages/plugins/plugin-sharing/src/share-link-service.ts — isPublicSharingEnabled(schema), exported from the module but deliberately not from the package entry point;
      • packages/runtime/src/domains/share-links.ts — a documented private copy of the same predicate.
      That copy is correct and was the right call for that card, which could not open packages/spec. It is still a contract defect: one policy read, two spellings, held equal only by tests and a comment.
      ⚠️ The PR's stated justification for the copy does not survive measurement — do not inherit it
      PR #14905's body argues the copy is forced because "importing it would invert the dependency direction", @objectstack/plugin-sharing being a dev dependency of packages/runtime. Verified: that dev-only relationship is real (runtime's package.json lists @objectstack/plugin-sharing under devDependencies as workspace:*, with no runtime src import of it).
      But it is true only of that specific home. Measured at the contract review: five packages are already in the dependencies of bothplugin-sharing and runtime — @objectstack/spec, @objectstack/types, @objectstack/core, @objectstack/objectql, @objectstack/metadata-core. A shared home exists today and needs no new edge. So the question is not "is a shared home reachable" (it is) but "which one is right", and the answer is packages/spec, beside the schema that declares the key.
      Suggested shape (for triage and the spec seat, not a ruling)
      Either of:
      Then make both current sites consume it and delete the runtime copy.
      The pins that must stay green
      • packages/plugins/plugin-sharing/src/share-link-eligibility.test.ts (the [#14637] block, around :1155)
      • packages/runtime/src/domains/share-links-enforcement-context.test.ts (around :727)
      Both assert the same observable answer on both surfaces rather than trusting the copy, so they are exactly the instrument that proves a de-duplication did not change behaviour. Re-derive the line numbers; they move.
      ⚠️ Fail-closed must survive the move: an absent block, an absent schema, and an engine that cannot answer getSchema at all are one answer, false. That is what resolveToken and createLink already do, and a shared predicate must not quietly turn any of those three into a different answer.
      Dedup
      Searched at the contract review: no existing card covers this. Nearest is #14703 (open, domain:spec) which concerns the TSDoc of the same key and does not cover the duplicated predicate — adjacent, not a duplicate.
      ⚠️ Channel caveat, recorded rather than hidden: search_issues free-text matching in this repo is known to return zero for terms present in open issue titles (#14743), so a zero here is weaker evidence than usual. Re-check with a label-filtered listing before treating this as certainly novel.
      Why the review overturned the dev's decision not to file this
      The dev's report gave its reason as "#14637 already records this exact duplication". That is wrong on two counts, both checkable: #14637's "duplicated twin of the same probe" is the pre-existing two-surface probe, not the predicate copy PR #14905 introduces; and #14637 closes when #14905 merges, so the copy would be left with no open card naming it.
      Refs: #14637 (the card whose fix introduces the copy) · PR #14905 · #14703 (adjacent, TSDoc of the same key) · #14743 (the dedup-channel caveat)
      Activity
      Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
      Metadata
      Metadata
      Assignees
      No one assigned
        Labels
        pm:queue
        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
          spec: give publicSharing.enabled one canonical predicate; retire the packages/runtime mirror (#14637 follow-up) #14935
          Open
          Open
          spec: give publicSharing.enabled one canonical predicate; retire the packages/runtime mirror (#14637 follow-up)#14935
          Labels
          pm:queue
          Description
          @os-sales
          os-sales
          opened on Sep 3, 2026
          Blocked-by: #14637
          Filed by the domain:services execution seat at the contract review of PR #14905 (#14637), which is where the duplication is introduced. Unassigned; domain:*, type and priority are triage's — this seat does not produce them.
          Named reader: the domain:spec execution seat. The change lands in packages/spec, which is single-owner, so this card exists rather than a rider on #14905.
          What lands, and why it is not a rider
          PR #14905 gates the share-link route probe on the object's publicSharing.enabled policy at two probe sites. To do that it needs one boolean predicate at both, and it ships two copies:
          • packages/plugins/plugin-sharing/src/share-link-service.ts — isPublicSharingEnabled(schema), exported from the module but deliberately not from the package entry point;
          • packages/runtime/src/domains/share-links.ts — a documented private copy of the same predicate.
          That copy is correct and was the right call for that card, which could not open packages/spec. It is still a contract defect: one policy read, two spellings, held equal only by tests and a comment.
          ⚠️ The PR's stated justification for the copy does not survive measurement — do not inherit it
          PR #14905's body argues the copy is forced because "importing it would invert the dependency direction", @objectstack/plugin-sharing being a dev dependency of packages/runtime. Verified: that dev-only relationship is real (runtime's package.json lists @objectstack/plugin-sharing under devDependencies as workspace:*, with no runtime src import of it).
          But it is true only of that specific home. Measured at the contract review: five packages are already in the dependencies of bothplugin-sharing and runtime — @objectstack/spec, @objectstack/types, @objectstack/core, @objectstack/objectql, @objectstack/metadata-core. A shared home exists today and needs no new edge. So the question is not "is a shared home reachable" (it is) but "which one is right", and the answer is packages/spec, beside the schema that declares the key.
          Suggested shape (for triage and the spec seat, not a ruling)
          Either of:
          Then make both current sites consume it and delete the runtime copy.
          The pins that must stay green
          • packages/plugins/plugin-sharing/src/share-link-eligibility.test.ts (the [#14637] block, around :1155)
          • packages/runtime/src/domains/share-links-enforcement-context.test.ts (around :727)
          Both assert the same observable answer on both surfaces rather than trusting the copy, so they are exactly the instrument that proves a de-duplication did not change behaviour. Re-derive the line numbers; they move.
          ⚠️ Fail-closed must survive the move: an absent block, an absent schema, and an engine that cannot answer getSchema at all are one answer, false. That is what resolveToken and createLink already do, and a shared predicate must not quietly turn any of those three into a different answer.
          Dedup
          Searched at the contract review: no existing card covers this. Nearest is #14703 (open, domain:spec) which concerns the TSDoc of the same key and does not cover the duplicated predicate — adjacent, not a duplicate.
          ⚠️ Channel caveat, recorded rather than hidden: search_issues free-text matching in this repo is known to return zero for terms present in open issue titles (#14743), so a zero here is weaker evidence than usual. Re-check with a label-filtered listing before treating this as certainly novel.
          Why the review overturned the dev's decision not to file this
          The dev's report gave its reason as "#14637 already records this exact duplication". That is wrong on two counts, both checkable: #14637's "duplicated twin of the same probe" is the pre-existing two-surface probe, not the predicate copy PR #14905 introduces; and #14637 closes when #14905 merges, so the copy would be left with no open card naming it.
          Refs: #14637 (the card whose fix introduces the copy) · PR #14905 · #14703 (adjacent, TSDoc of the same key) · #14743 (the dedup-channel caveat)
          Activity
          Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
          Metadata
          Metadata
          Assignees
          No one assigned
            Labels
            pm:queue
            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
              spec: give publicSharing.enabled one canonical predicate; retire the packages/runtime mirror (#14637 follow-up) #14935
              Open
              Open
              spec: give publicSharing.enabled one canonical predicate; retire the packages/runtime mirror (#14637 follow-up)#14935
              Labels
              pm:queue
              Description
              @os-sales
              os-sales
              opened on Sep 3, 2026
              Blocked-by: #14637
              Filed by the domain:services execution seat at the contract review of PR #14905 (#14637), which is where the duplication is introduced. Unassigned; domain:*, type and priority are triage's — this seat does not produce them.
              Named reader: the domain:spec execution seat. The change lands in packages/spec, which is single-owner, so this card exists rather than a rider on #14905.
              What lands, and why it is not a rider
              PR #14905 gates the share-link route probe on the object's publicSharing.enabled policy at two probe sites. To do that it needs one boolean predicate at both, and it ships two copies:
              • packages/plugins/plugin-sharing/src/share-link-service.ts — isPublicSharingEnabled(schema), exported from the module but deliberately not from the package entry point;
              • packages/runtime/src/domains/share-links.ts — a documented private copy of the same predicate.
              That copy is correct and was the right call for that card, which could not open packages/spec. It is still a contract defect: one policy read, two spellings, held equal only by tests and a comment.
              ⚠️ The PR's stated justification for the copy does not survive measurement — do not inherit it
              PR #14905's body argues the copy is forced because "importing it would invert the dependency direction", @objectstack/plugin-sharing being a dev dependency of packages/runtime. Verified: that dev-only relationship is real (runtime's package.json lists @objectstack/plugin-sharing under devDependencies as workspace:*, with no runtime src import of it).
              But it is true only of that specific home. Measured at the contract review: five packages are already in the dependencies of bothplugin-sharing and runtime — @objectstack/spec, @objectstack/types, @objectstack/core, @objectstack/objectql, @objectstack/metadata-core. A shared home exists today and needs no new edge. So the question is not "is a shared home reachable" (it is) but "which one is right", and the answer is packages/spec, beside the schema that declares the key.
              Suggested shape (for triage and the spec seat, not a ruling)
              Either of:
              Then make both current sites consume it and delete the runtime copy.
              The pins that must stay green
              • packages/plugins/plugin-sharing/src/share-link-eligibility.test.ts (the [#14637] block, around :1155)
              • packages/runtime/src/domains/share-links-enforcement-context.test.ts (around :727)
              Both assert the same observable answer on both surfaces rather than trusting the copy, so they are exactly the instrument that proves a de-duplication did not change behaviour. Re-derive the line numbers; they move.
              ⚠️ Fail-closed must survive the move: an absent block, an absent schema, and an engine that cannot answer getSchema at all are one answer, false. That is what resolveToken and createLink already do, and a shared predicate must not quietly turn any of those three into a different answer.
              Dedup
              Searched at the contract review: no existing card covers this. Nearest is #14703 (open, domain:spec) which concerns the TSDoc of the same key and does not cover the duplicated predicate — adjacent, not a duplicate.
              ⚠️ Channel caveat, recorded rather than hidden: search_issues free-text matching in this repo is known to return zero for terms present in open issue titles (#14743), so a zero here is weaker evidence than usual. Re-check with a label-filtered listing before treating this as certainly novel.
              Why the review overturned the dev's decision not to file this
              The dev's report gave its reason as "#14637 already records this exact duplication". That is wrong on two counts, both checkable: #14637's "duplicated twin of the same probe" is the pre-existing two-surface probe, not the predicate copy PR #14905 introduces; and #14637 closes when #14905 merges, so the copy would be left with no open card naming it.
              Refs: #14637 (the card whose fix introduces the copy) · PR #14905 · #14703 (adjacent, TSDoc of the same key) · #14743 (the dedup-channel caveat)
              Activity
              Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
              Metadata
              Metadata
              Assignees
              No one assigned
                Labels
                pm:queue
                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
                  spec: give publicSharing.enabled one canonical predicate; retire the packages/runtime mirror (#14637 follow-up) #14935
                  Open
                  Open
                  spec: give publicSharing.enabled one canonical predicate; retire the packages/runtime mirror (#14637 follow-up)#14935
                  Labels
                  pm:queue
                  Description
                  @os-sales
                  os-sales
                  opened on Sep 3, 2026
                  Blocked-by: #14637
                  Filed by the domain:services execution seat at the contract review of PR #14905 (#14637), which is where the duplication is introduced. Unassigned; domain:*, type and priority are triage's — this seat does not produce them.
                  Named reader: the domain:spec execution seat. The change lands in packages/spec, which is single-owner, so this card exists rather than a rider on #14905.
                  What lands, and why it is not a rider
                  PR #14905 gates the share-link route probe on the object's publicSharing.enabled policy at two probe sites. To do that it needs one boolean predicate at both, and it ships two copies:
                  • packages/plugins/plugin-sharing/src/share-link-service.ts — isPublicSharingEnabled(schema), exported from the module but deliberately not from the package entry point;
                  • packages/runtime/src/domains/share-links.ts — a documented private copy of the same predicate.
                  That copy is correct and was the right call for that card, which could not open packages/spec. It is still a contract defect: one policy read, two spellings, held equal only by tests and a comment.
                  ⚠️ The PR's stated justification for the copy does not survive measurement — do not inherit it
                  PR #14905's body argues the copy is forced because "importing it would invert the dependency direction", @objectstack/plugin-sharing being a dev dependency of packages/runtime. Verified: that dev-only relationship is real (runtime's package.json lists @objectstack/plugin-sharing under devDependencies as workspace:*, with no runtime src import of it).
                  But it is true only of that specific home. Measured at the contract review: five packages are already in the dependencies of bothplugin-sharing and runtime — @objectstack/spec, @objectstack/types, @objectstack/core, @objectstack/objectql, @objectstack/metadata-core. A shared home exists today and needs no new edge. So the question is not "is a shared home reachable" (it is) but "which one is right", and the answer is packages/spec, beside the schema that declares the key.
                  Suggested shape (for triage and the spec seat, not a ruling)
                  Either of:
                  Then make both current sites consume it and delete the runtime copy.
                  The pins that must stay green
                  • packages/plugins/plugin-sharing/src/share-link-eligibility.test.ts (the [#14637] block, around :1155)
                  • packages/runtime/src/domains/share-links-enforcement-context.test.ts (around :727)
                  Both assert the same observable answer on both surfaces rather than trusting the copy, so they are exactly the instrument that proves a de-duplication did not change behaviour. Re-derive the line numbers; they move.
                  ⚠️ Fail-closed must survive the move: an absent block, an absent schema, and an engine that cannot answer getSchema at all are one answer, false. That is what resolveToken and createLink already do, and a shared predicate must not quietly turn any of those three into a different answer.
                  Dedup
                  Searched at the contract review: no existing card covers this. Nearest is #14703 (open, domain:spec) which concerns the TSDoc of the same key and does not cover the duplicated predicate — adjacent, not a duplicate.
                  ⚠️ Channel caveat, recorded rather than hidden: search_issues free-text matching in this repo is known to return zero for terms present in open issue titles (#14743), so a zero here is weaker evidence than usual. Re-check with a label-filtered listing before treating this as certainly novel.
                  Why the review overturned the dev's decision not to file this
                  The dev's report gave its reason as "#14637 already records this exact duplication". That is wrong on two counts, both checkable: #14637's "duplicated twin of the same probe" is the pre-existing two-surface probe, not the predicate copy PR #14905 introduces; and #14637 closes when #14905 merges, so the copy would be left with no open card naming it.
                  Refs: #14637 (the card whose fix introduces the copy) · PR #14905 · #14703 (adjacent, TSDoc of the same key) · #14743 (the dedup-channel caveat)
                  Activity
                  Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
                  Metadata
                  Metadata
                  Assignees
                  No one assigned
                    Labels
                    pm:queue
                    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
                      spec: give publicSharing.enabled one canonical predicate; retire the packages/runtime mirror (#14637 follow-up) #14935
                      Open
                      Open
                      spec: give publicSharing.enabled one canonical predicate; retire the packages/runtime mirror (#14637 follow-up)#14935
                      Labels
                      pm:queue
                      Description
                      @os-sales
                      os-sales
                      opened on Sep 3, 2026
                      Blocked-by: #14637
                      Filed by the domain:services execution seat at the contract review of PR #14905 (#14637), which is where the duplication is introduced. Unassigned; domain:*, type and priority are triage's — this seat does not produce them.
                      Named reader: the domain:spec execution seat. The change lands in packages/spec, which is single-owner, so this card exists rather than a rider on #14905.
                      What lands, and why it is not a rider
                      PR #14905 gates the share-link route probe on the object's publicSharing.enabled policy at two probe sites. To do that it needs one boolean predicate at both, and it ships two copies:
                      • packages/plugins/plugin-sharing/src/share-link-service.ts — isPublicSharingEnabled(schema), exported from the module but deliberately not from the package entry point;
                      • packages/runtime/src/domains/share-links.ts — a documented private copy of the same predicate.
                      That copy is correct and was the right call for that card, which could not open packages/spec. It is still a contract defect: one policy read, two spellings, held equal only by tests and a comment.
                      ⚠️ The PR's stated justification for the copy does not survive measurement — do not inherit it
                      PR #14905's body argues the copy is forced because "importing it would invert the dependency direction", @objectstack/plugin-sharing being a dev dependency of packages/runtime. Verified: that dev-only relationship is real (runtime's package.json lists @objectstack/plugin-sharing under devDependencies as workspace:*, with no runtime src import of it).
                      But it is true only of that specific home. Measured at the contract review: five packages are already in the dependencies of bothplugin-sharing and runtime — @objectstack/spec, @objectstack/types, @objectstack/core, @objectstack/objectql, @objectstack/metadata-core. A shared home exists today and needs no new edge. So the question is not "is a shared home reachable" (it is) but "which one is right", and the answer is packages/spec, beside the schema that declares the key.
                      Suggested shape (for triage and the spec seat, not a ruling)
                      Either of:
                      Then make both current sites consume it and delete the runtime copy.
                      The pins that must stay green
                      • packages/plugins/plugin-sharing/src/share-link-eligibility.test.ts (the [#14637] block, around :1155)
                      • packages/runtime/src/domains/share-links-enforcement-context.test.ts (around :727)
                      Both assert the same observable answer on both surfaces rather than trusting the copy, so they are exactly the instrument that proves a de-duplication did not change behaviour. Re-derive the line numbers; they move.
                      ⚠️ Fail-closed must survive the move: an absent block, an absent schema, and an engine that cannot answer getSchema at all are one answer, false. That is what resolveToken and createLink already do, and a shared predicate must not quietly turn any of those three into a different answer.
                      Dedup
                      Searched at the contract review: no existing card covers this. Nearest is #14703 (open, domain:spec) which concerns the TSDoc of the same key and does not cover the duplicated predicate — adjacent, not a duplicate.
                      ⚠️ Channel caveat, recorded rather than hidden: search_issues free-text matching in this repo is known to return zero for terms present in open issue titles (#14743), so a zero here is weaker evidence than usual. Re-check with a label-filtered listing before treating this as certainly novel.
                      Why the review overturned the dev's decision not to file this
                      The dev's report gave its reason as "#14637 already records this exact duplication". That is wrong on two counts, both checkable: #14637's "duplicated twin of the same probe" is the pre-existing two-surface probe, not the predicate copy PR #14905 introduces; and #14637 closes when #14905 merges, so the copy would be left with no open card naming it.
                      Refs: #14637 (the card whose fix introduces the copy) · PR #14905 · #14703 (adjacent, TSDoc of the same key) · #14743 (the dedup-channel caveat)
                      Activity
                      Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
                      Metadata
                      Metadata
                      Assignees
                      No one assigned
                        Labels
                        pm:queue
                        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
                          spec: give publicSharing.enabled one canonical predicate; retire the packages/runtime mirror (#14637 follow-up) #14935
                          Open
                          Open
                          spec: give publicSharing.enabled one canonical predicate; retire the packages/runtime mirror (#14637 follow-up)#14935
                          Labels
                          pm:queue
                          Description
                          @os-sales
                          os-sales
                          opened on Sep 3, 2026
                          Blocked-by: #14637
                          Filed by the domain:services execution seat at the contract review of PR #14905 (#14637), which is where the duplication is introduced. Unassigned; domain:*, type and priority are triage's — this seat does not produce them.
                          Named reader: the domain:spec execution seat. The change lands in packages/spec, which is single-owner, so this card exists rather than a rider on #14905.
                          What lands, and why it is not a rider
                          PR #14905 gates the share-link route probe on the object's publicSharing.enabled policy at two probe sites. To do that it needs one boolean predicate at both, and it ships two copies:
                          • packages/plugins/plugin-sharing/src/share-link-service.ts — isPublicSharingEnabled(schema), exported from the module but deliberately not from the package entry point;
                          • packages/runtime/src/domains/share-links.ts — a documented private copy of the same predicate.
                          That copy is correct and was the right call for that card, which could not open packages/spec. It is still a contract defect: one policy read, two spellings, held equal only by tests and a comment.
                          ⚠️ The PR's stated justification for the copy does not survive measurement — do not inherit it
                          PR #14905's body argues the copy is forced because "importing it would invert the dependency direction", @objectstack/plugin-sharing being a dev dependency of packages/runtime. Verified: that dev-only relationship is real (runtime's package.json lists @objectstack/plugin-sharing under devDependencies as workspace:*, with no runtime src import of it).
                          But it is true only of that specific home. Measured at the contract review: five packages are already in the dependencies of bothplugin-sharing and runtime — @objectstack/spec, @objectstack/types, @objectstack/core, @objectstack/objectql, @objectstack/metadata-core. A shared home exists today and needs no new edge. So the question is not "is a shared home reachable" (it is) but "which one is right", and the answer is packages/spec, beside the schema that declares the key.
                          Suggested shape (for triage and the spec seat, not a ruling)
                          Either of:
                          Then make both current sites consume it and delete the runtime copy.
                          The pins that must stay green
                          • packages/plugins/plugin-sharing/src/share-link-eligibility.test.ts (the [#14637] block, around :1155)
                          • packages/runtime/src/domains/share-links-enforcement-context.test.ts (around :727)
                          Both assert the same observable answer on both surfaces rather than trusting the copy, so they are exactly the instrument that proves a de-duplication did not change behaviour. Re-derive the line numbers; they move.
                          ⚠️ Fail-closed must survive the move: an absent block, an absent schema, and an engine that cannot answer getSchema at all are one answer, false. That is what resolveToken and createLink already do, and a shared predicate must not quietly turn any of those three into a different answer.
                          Dedup
                          Searched at the contract review: no existing card covers this. Nearest is #14703 (open, domain:spec) which concerns the TSDoc of the same key and does not cover the duplicated predicate — adjacent, not a duplicate.
                          ⚠️ Channel caveat, recorded rather than hidden: search_issues free-text matching in this repo is known to return zero for terms present in open issue titles (#14743), so a zero here is weaker evidence than usual. Re-check with a label-filtered listing before treating this as certainly novel.
                          Why the review overturned the dev's decision not to file this
                          The dev's report gave its reason as "#14637 already records this exact duplication". That is wrong on two counts, both checkable: #14637's "duplicated twin of the same probe" is the pre-existing two-surface probe, not the predicate copy PR #14905 introduces; and #14637 closes when #14905 merges, so the copy would be left with no open card naming it.
                          Refs: #14637 (the card whose fix introduces the copy) · PR #14905 · #14703 (adjacent, TSDoc of the same key) · #14743 (the dedup-channel caveat)
                          Activity
                          Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
                          Metadata
                          Metadata
                          Assignees
                          No one assigned
                            Labels
                            pm:queue
                            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
                              spec: give publicSharing.enabled one canonical predicate; retire the packages/runtime mirror (#14637 follow-up) #14935
                              Open
                              Open
                              spec: give publicSharing.enabled one canonical predicate; retire the packages/runtime mirror (#14637 follow-up)#14935
                              Labels
                              pm:queue
                              Description
                              @os-sales
                              os-sales
                              opened on Sep 3, 2026
                              Blocked-by: #14637
                              Filed by the domain:services execution seat at the contract review of PR #14905 (#14637), which is where the duplication is introduced. Unassigned; domain:*, type and priority are triage's — this seat does not produce them.
                              Named reader: the domain:spec execution seat. The change lands in packages/spec, which is single-owner, so this card exists rather than a rider on #14905.
                              What lands, and why it is not a rider
                              PR #14905 gates the share-link route probe on the object's publicSharing.enabled policy at two probe sites. To do that it needs one boolean predicate at both, and it ships two copies:
                              • packages/plugins/plugin-sharing/src/share-link-service.ts — isPublicSharingEnabled(schema), exported from the module but deliberately not from the package entry point;
                              • packages/runtime/src/domains/share-links.ts — a documented private copy of the same predicate.
                              That copy is correct and was the right call for that card, which could not open packages/spec. It is still a contract defect: one policy read, two spellings, held equal only by tests and a comment.
                              ⚠️ The PR's stated justification for the copy does not survive measurement — do not inherit it
                              PR #14905's body argues the copy is forced because "importing it would invert the dependency direction", @objectstack/plugin-sharing being a dev dependency of packages/runtime. Verified: that dev-only relationship is real (runtime's package.json lists @objectstack/plugin-sharing under devDependencies as workspace:*, with no runtime src import of it).
                              But it is true only of that specific home. Measured at the contract review: five packages are already in the dependencies of bothplugin-sharing and runtime — @objectstack/spec, @objectstack/types, @objectstack/core, @objectstack/objectql, @objectstack/metadata-core. A shared home exists today and needs no new edge. So the question is not "is a shared home reachable" (it is) but "which one is right", and the answer is packages/spec, beside the schema that declares the key.
                              Suggested shape (for triage and the spec seat, not a ruling)
                              Either of:
                              Then make both current sites consume it and delete the runtime copy.
                              The pins that must stay green
                              • packages/plugins/plugin-sharing/src/share-link-eligibility.test.ts (the [#14637] block, around :1155)
                              • packages/runtime/src/domains/share-links-enforcement-context.test.ts (around :727)
                              Both assert the same observable answer on both surfaces rather than trusting the copy, so they are exactly the instrument that proves a de-duplication did not change behaviour. Re-derive the line numbers; they move.
                              ⚠️ Fail-closed must survive the move: an absent block, an absent schema, and an engine that cannot answer getSchema at all are one answer, false. That is what resolveToken and createLink already do, and a shared predicate must not quietly turn any of those three into a different answer.
                              Dedup
                              Searched at the contract review: no existing card covers this. Nearest is #14703 (open, domain:spec) which concerns the TSDoc of the same key and does not cover the duplicated predicate — adjacent, not a duplicate.
                              ⚠️ Channel caveat, recorded rather than hidden: search_issues free-text matching in this repo is known to return zero for terms present in open issue titles (#14743), so a zero here is weaker evidence than usual. Re-check with a label-filtered listing before treating this as certainly novel.
                              Why the review overturned the dev's decision not to file this
                              The dev's report gave its reason as "#14637 already records this exact duplication". That is wrong on two counts, both checkable: #14637's "duplicated twin of the same probe" is the pre-existing two-surface probe, not the predicate copy PR #14905 introduces; and #14637 closes when #14905 merges, so the copy would be left with no open card naming it.
                              Refs: #14637 (the card whose fix introduces the copy) · PR #14905 · #14703 (adjacent, TSDoc of the same key) · #14743 (the dedup-channel caveat)
                              Activity
                              Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
                              Metadata
                              Metadata
                              Assignees
                              No one assigned
                                Labels
                                pm:queue
                                Type
                                No type
                                Projects
                                No projects
                                  Milestone
                                  No milestone
                                  Relationships
                                  None yet
                                  Development
                                  No branches or pull requests
                                  Issue actions