Examples

Platform spec article

Examples

Back to Diagnostic code registry ◎ Open feature in platform map

Spec standingStandard

Owner

Piotr Mikstacki pmikstacki@cybernomad.it

Submitter

Piotr Mikstacki pmikstacki@cybernomad.it

Current document

ADRs (3)

1. 0001-feature-hub-authority Feature hub authority Accepted

   This feature hub owns normative MUST/SHOULD contract text for Diagnostic code registry.

   Context

   Sibling articles under this feature previously restated requirements in inconsistent forms.

   Decision

   This feature hub owns normative MUST/SHOULD contract text. Sibling articles must not redefine hub requirements and should link here for authority.

   Consequences

   Contract changes start on the hub or in linked ADRs, then propagate to articles and implementation anchors.

   Verification anchors

   • site/website/src/content/docs/platform-spec/compiler/semantic-pipeline/diagnostic-code-registry/index.mdx
   • article bundle under the same feature directory.

   Open full ADR page

2. 0002-spec-over-implementation-notes Specification over implementation notes Accepted

   Platform-spec text supersedes informal crate comments for Diagnostic code registry.

   Context

   Implementation crates accumulated informal notes that diverged from published contracts.

   Decision

   Normative platform-spec prose and ADRs under this feature supersede informal comments in implementation crates until explicitly migrated into spec text.

   Consequences

   Engineers file spec/ADR updates when behavior changes; crate comments are non-authoritative for conformance arguments.

   Verification anchors

   • compiler/crates/beskid_analysis/src/analysis/diagnostic_kinds.rs
   • compiler/crates/beskid_analysis/src/analysis
   • compiler/crates/beskid_analysis/src/doc/validate.rs

   Open full ADR page

3. 0003-codes-owned-in-analysis Diagnostic codes owned in analysis sources Accepted

   Rendered diagnostics drifted from semantic registry.

   Context

   Rendered diagnostics drifted from semantic registry.

   Decision

   Code-to-meaning mapping is normative in SemanticIssueKind::code() and diagnostic_kinds.rs, synchronized with trudoc verify scripts—not LSP presentation layers.

   Consequences

   Renaming codes requires migration notes; new issues need unique codes before release.

   Verification anchors

   • compiler/crates/beskid_analysis/src/analysis/diagnostic_kinds.rs
   • packages/trudoc/scripts/verify-diagnostics-spec-sync.mjs.

   Open full ADR page

Articles

• Contracts and edge cases Stability requirements and risky changes in the diagnostic registry. article Standard
• Design model Conceptual model for owning and evolving semantic diagnostic codes. article Standard
• Examples Representative registry update scenarios and expected outcomes. article Standard
• FAQ and troubleshooting Common registry maintenance questions and recovery guidance. article Standard
• Flow and algorithm Lifecycle of a semantic diagnostic code from definition to surfaced output. article Standard
• Verification and traceability Checks that keep diagnostic code docs and source synchronized. article Standard

History

0 revisions (git unavailable at build; counts may be empty)

Open full history on GitHub

No commits recorded for this path.

Completeness

OKfeature · 0 SpecSection(s) · 4 H2 heading(s)

Full tree: run pnpm verify:platform-spec-layout (writes src/generated/platform-spec-layout-report.json).

Related spec docs

• Feature
  Diagnostic code registry

  Parent feature

• Feature
  Rules and diagnostics catalog

  Rule additions usually trigger registry updates

Example A: adding a new semantic issue

1. Add a new issue kind and code in diagnostic_kinds.rs.
2. Emit it from the relevant staged rule.
3. Add/update docs and sync checks.
4. Verify CLI and LSP both expose the new code.

Example B: deprecating an old code

1. Keep legacy code mapping documented.
2. Route rule output to a replacement code behind an explicit migration step.
3. Update troubleshooting notes for users with code-based alerting.