Files
alkstore/docs/plans/implementation.md
T

156 lines
8.3 KiB
Markdown
Raw Blame History

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters
This file contains Unicode characters that might be confused with other characters. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.
---
status: draft
last_updated: 2026-10-08 (waves 1–2 implemented + reviewed; ADR-023 follow-through folded into wave 3; wave 3 decomposed)
---
# alkstore — Implementation plan
Wave-based decomposition of the architecture
(`docs/architecture/`) into units of implementable work. This is a
deliberate deviation from the SDD process's decompose-everything-upfront
step: the architecture is large, early waves change the shape of later
ones (the fork's outcomes feed the SQLite engine tasks; the contract
suite's harness shape feeds both engines' verification work), and
decomposing only the next wave or two at a time keeps each session's
task set reviewable and lets later decompositions absorb earlier waves'
course corrections.
Rhythm: decompose a wave → implement it → review gate → decompose the
next wave. Task files live in `tasks/` (taskgraph-managed; frontmatter
carries the categorical estimates). Wave boundaries are also review
boundaries.
## The waves
Dependency logic in one line: core → (substrate fork ∥ postgres
engine) → sqlite engine → contract suite → release readiness. The
substrate fork is contract-blind (ADR-012 §2), so it needs only the
workspace scaffold from wave 1; the Postgres engine needs only the core
crate. Waves 2 and 4 are therefore independent of each other and could
run in either order (or in parallel, if agents are ever available in
parallel).
| Wave | Contents | Depends on | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| [1](#wave-1--foundations) | Workspace scaffold; core crate (errors, value types, full trait surface); contract-suite scaffold | — | implemented + reviewed (2026-10-08) |
| [2](#wave-2--sqlite-substrate-fork) | honker-core fork into `alkstore-sqlite/src/substrate/`: port, deltas, provenance, test floor | wave 1 (workspace scaffold only) | implemented + reviewed (2026-10-08) |
| [3](#wave-3--sqlite-engine) | SQLite engine: connection architecture, re-derived queue ops on contract v1, scheduler/outbox, tx seam, SQLite backlog column | waves 1 + 2 | decomposed (`tasks/`) |
| 4 | Postgres engine: schema bootstrap, pool/open, listener/forwarder, all mechanisms, tx seam, pg backlog column | wave 1 | not yet decomposed |
| 5 | Contract suite: the cross-engine equivalence properties (core-contract.md §Verification backlog), version-stamped per ADR-017 | waves 3 + 4 | not yet decomposed |
| 6 | Release readiness: crate docs, deployment matrix final pass, README (written last, honestly), publish prep; mem-engine and fuzzing decisions | wave 5 | not yet decomposed |
## Wave 1 — Foundations
The core crate is contract v1 in code: the error taxonomy (ADR-008 §5),
the value types (ADR-019 §3, ADR-020), the full trait surface
(ADR-008 §1–§3/§8, ADR-014, ADR-019, ADR-021), and the payload encoding
posture (ADR-020 §4). Nothing engine-specific lives here — no
resolution arithmetic, no SQL. The equal-jitter curve, opts-stamping
resolution, and boundary math are deliberately *not* core: ADR-012 §2
pins each engine as the owner of one implementation, with equivalence
pinned by the contract suite (wave 5).
The contract suite gets scaffolded now (not in wave 5) because its
harness shape — a `Store`-factory-parameterized property crate — is
easier to grow row by row as engines land than to retrofit onto two
finished engines. Wave 5 fills it with the cross-engine equivalence
rows; waves 3 and 4 adopt the harness for their own backlog columns.
## Wave 2 — SQLite substrate fork
The fork per ADR-011/012/013: port honker-core at `f4e53c6` into
`alkstore-sqlite/src/substrate/`, apply the three watcher port deltas
and the bootstrap re-keying, drop cron/experimental/cut-flag machinery,
re-own the table family as `__alkstore_*`, carry `PROVENANCE.md` and
the dual-license notice in-tree (ADR-018), and stand up the inherited
test suites as the floor. The substrate stays sync and contract-blind;
the engine layer that maps it onto the core contract is wave 3, not
here. Reviewability against the lineage (ADR-012 §3) is a property the
wave-2 review gate checks explicitly.
## Wave 3 — SQLite engine
The engine layer that maps the forked substrate onto the core
contract: the `open` constructor (connection architecture — writer
slot, reader pool, watcher spawn — per engine-sqlite.md), the
`spawn_blocking` seam, the full `Store`/`TxHandle`/mechanism-handle
trait impls over the substrate's ops, the scheduler leader loop and
outbox helper, and the engine's backlog column in the contract suite
(the ADR-023 rows among them, factory-parameterized so wave 5 runs
them against both engines).
The waves-1–2 general review
(`docs/reviews/2026-10-08-waves-1-2-general-review.md`) and its
resolution ([ADR-023](../architecture/decisions/023-fourth-review-round.md))
shaped this wave's task set:
- **Already landed pre-decomposition** (commit `44637ee`, not wave-3
tasks): `encode_payload` is fallible (`Result<Vec<u8>, Error::Codec>`,
ADR-023 §1); `open_conn` drops `SQLITE_OPEN_URI` (§3, register
D-29); the numeric-argument domain table is pinned in
core-contract.md (§2); the 1 ms watcher default stands with the
cadence documented in deployment.md (§4).
- **Folded into wave 3's tasks** (the review's §7 wiring items): the
trait-impl extent/duration guards (the contract-side domain rule,
enforced at the engine's trait-impl entry — the `sqlite-engine-*`
tasks carry it per mechanism), the two `#![allow]` lint removals in
`substrate/mod.rs` (the integration task — they can only lift once
every substrate surface is wired), and `SqliteOpts::poll_interval`
wiring (the constructor task).
- **Staying put as ordered**: M-1's retention-failure test and N-5's
panic probe → wave 5's contract-suite rows; N-1's growth-posture
review → wave 6.
## Decided points
- **Contract-suite layout — option (a)**: a small internal
`alkstore-contract-suite` crate (not published) exposing property
tests parameterized over a `Store` factory; each engine crate takes
it as a dev-dependency. One normative owner per property, mirroring
ADR-012 §2's one-owner rule. This discharges ADR-017 §4.2's
"decided at implementation" deferral; recorded as ADR-022 by the
scaffold task.
- **Engine tests vs. contract suite**: each engine wave carries its own
mechanism tests (does the engine work); wave 5 carries the
cross-engine *equivalence* properties (do the engines agree). The
verification-backlog rows are mostly equivalence-shaped, so this
split keeps wave 5 from re-testing engine internals.
- **CI**: none, deliberately. CI and publishing are run manually
(self-hosted Gitea; supply-chain posture). No CI-wiring task exists;
the merge gates (`cargo test`, `cargo clippy --all-targets --
-D warnings`, `cargo fmt --check`) are run coordinator-side.
- **Mem engine** (ADR-001 §4) and **fuzzing adoption** (the
alksocks/alktty/alktunnels pattern): both are "decided at
implementation" deferrals, recorded here so they surface as explicit
decision points in wave 6 (or earlier if the test story demands the
mem engine sooner) rather than ambushing a later session.
## Review gates
Each wave ends in a review task (`review-wave-N`) before the next wave
decomposes. Specific gates:
- **Wave 1 review** — the trait surface is versioned contract surface
from the first release (ADR-017); a shape error found here is cheap,
found in wave 5 it is a migration. Review checks the code against the
pinned ADR text line by line.
- **Wave 2 review** — diff reviewability against the honker lineage
(ADR-012 §3's fidelity posture), provenance register completeness
(ADR-018), floor tests green.
- **Wave 3/4 reviews** — engine-vs-contract conformance; the backlog
columns each engine owns.
- **Wave 5 review** — the suite as compatibility instrument: every
backlog row present, version-stamped, green on both engines; this is
the gate that flips the engine specs to `stable`.
## Review rounds so far
- **Wave 1 review gate** (`review-wave-1`) — trait surface vs pinned
ADR text; validation coverage fixes landed.
- **Wave 2 review gate** (`review-wave-2`) — lineage diff clean, one
re-derivation defect found and fixed (D-27).
- **General review, waves 1–2** (2026-10-08,
`docs/reviews/2026-10-08-waves-1-2-general-review.md`) — M-1 fixed
inline (sweep savepoint scope); M-2/N-2/N-4/N-6 resolved as ADR-023
pre-decomposition; lint removal + suite adds folded into waves 3/5;
N-1 recorded for wave 6.