Skip to content

[finding] authz-conformance.test.ts's "#2567 Phase 2" comment still describes discover() as data/meta/graphql only — PROBES has grown past that #9027

Description

@qq9340100

Found while implementing #8711 half (2). Filed unassigned; observation-class.

packages/qa/dogfood/test/authz-conformance.test.ts carries a "#2567 Phase 2" comment block just above the PROBES table:

the anonymous-deny SURFACES are additionally pinned by the discover() ratchet: this test STATICALLY enumerates the data/meta/graphql HTTP entry points from source and asserts each is classified by a matrix row.

That description was accurate when written (#2567 Phase 2), but PROBES has grown well past data/meta/graphql since: #5519 added the /actions and /automation dispatcher gates, #7033/#7023 added the /packages domain gate, #2992 (ADR-0096 D4) added the realtime transport tripwires (in-memory-realtime-adapter.ts, realtime-service-plugin.ts, client/realtime-api.ts, plus a tripwire on rest-server.ts and http-dispatcher.ts), and ADR-0096/#3167 added the two MCP transport pins (http-dispatcher.tshandleMcp, domains/mcp.ts, mcp/plugin.ts). None of those is a data/meta/graphql route.

As of this writing the table is 15 probes over 11 named source files (re-derived while working #8711 half (2); see PR #9026), not the narrower surface the comment still names. The comment is cosmetic drift, not a checking-behaviour defect — discover() itself is unaffected and correctly enumerates all 15 — but a reader relying on the comment to know what's covered would undercount the surface, the same class of failure #8711 named for the matrix's own header (a written claim drifting out of step with what the mechanism does), one level down.

Not fixed here: #8711 half (2)'s ruled scope was narrowing the primitives-vs-routes completeness claim in the matrix header and the companion test's opening header, plus the hand-maintained statement — not auditing every other description in these files. Rewriting the #2567 Phase 2 comment's route-family list wasn't part of that ruling, and PR #9026 deliberately left it alone rather than touching prose beyond the ruled boundary.

Suggested fix: reword the #2567 Phase 2 comment to describe the enumerated surface generically (HTTP/transport entry points across the curated PROBES table) rather than naming a fixed, now-incomplete list of segments, or enumerate the route families it currently covers and expect that list to need updating again as new families join.

Metadata

Metadata

Type

Projects

No projects

Milestone

No milestone

Relationships

None yet

Development

No branches or pull requests

Issue actions