Examples

Platform spec article

Examples

Back to Rules and diagnostics catalog ◎ 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 Rules and diagnostics catalog.

   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/rules-and-diagnostics-catalog/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 Rules and diagnostics catalog.

   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
   • compiler/crates/beskid_analysis/src/analysis/rules/staged
   • compiler/crates/beskid_analysis/src/analysis/diagnostic_kinds.rs

   Open full ADR page

3. 0003-primary-contract-choice Primary contract for Rules and diagnostics catalog Accepted

   This feature defines how semantic rules are scheduled and how their findings map to stable diagnostic kinds. The primary

   Context

   This feature defines how semantic rules are scheduled and how their findings map to stable diagnostic kinds. The primary implementation roots are beskid_analysis/src/analysis, staged rule modules under analysis/rules/staged, and services that expose diagnostics to CLI/LSP consumers.

   Decision

   The reference compiler must implement Rules and diagnostics catalog as documented in this feature hub and its article bundle.

   Consequences

   Changes require hub/ADR updates and verification anchor extensions.

   Verification anchors

   • compiler/crates/beskid_analysis/src/analysis
   • compiler/crates/beskid_analysis/src/analysis/rules/staged
   • compiler/crates/beskid_analysis/src/analysis/diagnostic_kinds.rs

   Open full ADR page

Articles

• Contracts and edge cases Rule-level guarantees and high-risk semantic edge cases. article Standard
• Design model Mental model for staged semantic rules and diagnostic production. article Standard
• Examples Practical examples of semantic rule outcomes and diagnostic generation. article Standard
• FAQ and troubleshooting Common semantic-pipeline debugging questions and practical checks. article Standard
• Flow and algorithm End-to-end semantic rule flow from resolved items to user-facing diagnostics. article Standard
• Verification and traceability How semantic rule behavior is validated and traced to source modules. 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) · 5 H2 heading(s)

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

Related spec docs

• Feature
  Rules and diagnostics catalog

  Parent feature

• Feature
  Diagnostic code registry

  Example outcomes map to registry-owned diagnostic codes

Example A: duplicate symbol definition

1. Resolver exposes two declarations with the same identity in one scope.
2. Definition-stage rule reports a duplicate-definition issue kind.
3. CLI and LSP render different message shells but reference the same issue code.

Example B: invalid method signature usage

1. Parsed node is syntactically valid.
2. Semantic rule validates contract/method constraints against resolved type context.
3. Failure emits a semantic diagnostic code with spans pointing to the offending signature and related declaration.