shoney.arickathil
2e1041daed
- docs/examples/employee-list: attaches to the running employee program; modes list / report (byte-identical to A's own) / staff <dept> / probe-write (registered read-only, insert must trap access-denied, exit 4, A unchanged) - the manifests ARE the design, written as a pair: A's [share] gains listen = unix socket beside WO_DATA plus [[share.clients]] naming B's public-key fingerprint with rights = "read"; B's [connect.employee] carries A's ipc string, A's PINNED fingerprint, and project = ../employee for compile-time shapes -- the connect section's name is the code's namespace (employee.Employee) - fingerprints are PASTE-HERE placeholders by design: keys generate into WO_DATA at first boot (9d), tomls carry fingerprints only, printed by --identity - sample-first: compiles after 9/9b/9c/9d; README maps each mode to the acceptance line it exists for; 9c/9d stories now name this sample as their workload Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
42 lines
2.3 KiB
Markdown
42 lines
2.3 KiB
Markdown
# employee-list — program B: attach, authenticate, read
|
|
|
|
> **Status: target workload — does not compile on today's toolchain.**
|
|
> Written ahead of iterations
|
|
> [9c (cross-program tables)](../../stories/language-runtime-database/09c-cross-program-tables.md)
|
|
> and [9d (keypair attach auth)](../../stories/language-runtime-database/09d-keypair-attach-auth.md),
|
|
> the way every acceptance sample here precedes its features. It also leans
|
|
> on 9/9b (the [employee sample](../employee/) it attaches to must run
|
|
> first).
|
|
|
|
Two programs, one database, one writer:
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
employee (A) employee-list (B)
|
|
owns WO_DATA + WAL no database of its own
|
|
[share] listen = unix:...sock [connect.employee] ipc = unix:...sock
|
|
[[share.clients]] public_key = <A's fingerprint, pinned>
|
|
public_key = <B's fingerprint> project = ../employee (shapes)
|
|
rights = "read"
|
|
▲ │
|
|
└── every statement executes here ◄───┘ (typed, over the wire)
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
The manifests are the design: **A grants, B pins.** A's `[share]` names B's
|
|
public-key fingerprint with rights (`read` here); B's `[connect.employee]`
|
|
names A's IPC string AND A's fingerprint, so neither side talks to an
|
|
impostor. Fingerprints are printed by each program's `--identity` after
|
|
first boot (keys are generated into `WO_DATA`, never written into a toml)
|
|
and pasted — the `PASTE-…-HERE` placeholders mark exactly where. The
|
|
connect-section name is the code's namespace: `[connect.employee]` is why
|
|
the source says `employee.Employee`.
|
|
|
|
| Mode | What it proves |
|
|
| --- | --- |
|
|
| `employee-list list` | typed reads over the wire, `e.dept.name` ref navigation executing inside A |
|
|
| `employee-list report` | **byte-identical output to A's own `report`** — attach + GroupBy compose, the wire changes nothing |
|
|
| `employee-list staff <dept>` | unique-name index probe + `staff` backlink scan, both in A |
|
|
| `employee-list probe-write` | the rights matrix: registered read-only, so the insert traps with access-denied (caught, `DENIED …`, exit 4) and A's row count is unchanged |
|
|
|
|
The 9d acceptance drives the rest from the outside: wrong key, no key,
|
|
same-uid-wrong-key, impostor socket, handshake replay, key rotation — see
|
|
the iteration's criteria; this sample is the workload they run against.
|