Sibling articles under this feature previously restated requirements in inconsistent forms.
Contracts and edge cases
Platform spec article
Contracts and edge cases
Spec standingStandard
-
This feature hub owns normative MUST/SHOULD contract text for Crate-to-spec anchors.
Context
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/implementation-map/crate-to-spec-anchors/index.mdxarticle bundle under the same feature directory.
-
Platform-spec text supersedes informal crate comments for Crate-to-spec anchors.
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/
-
Canonical index from compiler crates to platform-spec features.
Context
Crate references were scattered across hubs without a single ownership surface.
Decision
This feature hub is the canonical map from
compiler/crates/*to platform-spec features; other pages link here instead of duplicating tables.Consequences
New crates require anchor rows before Standard promotion of dependent features.
Verification anchors
- Implementation-map articles and
compiler/Cargo.tomlworkspace layout.
- Implementation-map articles and
- Contracts and edge cases Normative guarantees and known edge cases for `Crate-to-spec anchors`.
- Design model Conceptual model for `Crate-to-spec anchors` and its subsystem boundaries.
- Examples Practical examples that demonstrate `Crate-to-spec anchors` behavior.
- FAQ and troubleshooting Common questions and debugging guidance for `Crate-to-spec anchors`.
- Flow and algorithm End-to-end control flow and major algorithmic steps for `Crate-to-spec anchors`.
- Verification and traceability How `Crate-to-spec anchors` requirements map to tests and implementation anchors.
0 revisions (git unavailable at build; counts may be empty)
No commits recorded for this path.
| Section id | Required | Found |
|---|---|---|
what-this-feature-specifies | yes | yes |
implementation-anchors | yes | yes |
Full tree: run pnpm verify:platform-spec-layout (writes src/generated/platform-spec-layout-report.json).
Normative contracts
Section titled “Normative contracts”- Producer crates must emit data in a shape accepted by downstream consumers.
- Consumer crates must not silently reinterpret the contract surface.
- Contract regressions must be captured as compile-time or test-time failures, not hidden runtime drift.
Edge cases to monitor
Section titled “Edge cases to monitor”- Partial refactors that update only one side of a crate boundary.
- Symbol/name changes that compile locally but break cross-crate integration.
- Fixtures that pass in isolation but fail in end-to-end harnesses.
Failure handling expectations
Section titled “Failure handling expectations”When contract checks fail, diagnostics should point contributors to the responsible boundary crate and to the corresponding conformance fixture.