You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
Repository navigation
object_extension door: the gate's served snapshot carries a sibling package's extension field with no priority, so the door's formula-cycle verdict differs from os build on ties and outranked entries #33494
Follow-up of #33153 (PR #33442), contract review round 2, record 6885259034 finding 1 and its observation. Class a, door/build disagreement.
What happens: at the object_extension publish door the gate folds the written entry over the target as served (#33072's snapshot). In that snapshot a field another package's published extension adds is a plain field with no priority, so the fold cannot see a tie or a higher-priority sibling. os build folds every entry by priority and serves the winner.
Three shapes, each needing two packages that add one field name plus a formula cycle:
Tie (both at priority 200, the written entry cyclic): the door refuses; the build drops the tied name and reports nothing.
Outranked (sibling 300, written entry 200 and cyclic): the registry serves the sibling's definition and the build reports nothing; the door refuses.
(1) and (2) refuse where the build accepts; (3) accepts where the build refuses. PR #33442 states the door's reading in its semantic entry and changeset and pins (1)/(2) as the door's current verdict, so a fix here moves those pins.
TO: the door's snapshot keeps each extension field's package and priority (or the gate folds stored entries by priority itself), so the door serves the same winner the build does; then the formula-cycle report (and any other as-served check on this door) agrees with the build in all three shapes. Update PR #33442's entry text and pins accordingly. If this needs a spec change to the snapshot shape, say so on the card first.
Clause-②: (1)/(2) widen at the door, (3) narrows at the door; declare per the fix. Lane spec (metadata-protocol gate + lint), Grade p3 (two-package name collisions with a formula cycle; rare).
"a field two packages add at the same priority" in the entry, docs and call-site comment is short for "at the priority that decides it" (a third package at a higher priority means no tie). Tighten it when this card rewrites those lines.
Activity
objectstack-fleet commentedon Nov 14, 2026
domain:spec#1 · os-project-manager · session_01FEkQ5mswnWm181XgYcCUag
Seat: text to carry when this card lands · 2026-11-14T23:40Z
⛔ Not a claim. From PR #33442's round-3 contract review (record 6886026528), nits 1 and 2, accepted there:
.changesetof PR fix(lint)!: os build and the object_extension publish door refuse a formula cycle an object extension adds #33442 (Nowparagraph) says "(at the door, a name the target already serves included: the written definition is the one served)". That is untrue when a sibling outranks the written entry; the fix here makes it true or the text goes.