Repository navigation
Revert "docs(briefs): Fn→Arrow refactor pre-prereq for unenumerated-effects chain" - #807
Conversation
…ffects c…" This reverts commit 7d384f4.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: a6436629fd
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| 3. Add lowerer extension (per req 5) producing the post-parser substrate carrier; resolve each surface effect to its `OperationEffect` declaration. | ||
| 4. Regen `parse_generated.rs` (per `feedback_no_generated_code_on_disk`). | ||
| 5. Exhaustive-match audit + updates (per req 6). | ||
| 6. Smoke test: parser accepts `fn read_user(id: String) -> User effects [Read]` and produces a function declaration with `declared_effects = [ReadEffect]`. **NOTE**: this PR does NOT consume the field via lens (sibling substrate sub-lane does that); after this PR the field is populated but unread. That's expected; the sibling sub-lane closes that path. Test should assert the parser-output shape, not end-to-end lens behavior. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Keep parser smoke test at surface-type stage
Step 6 now says the parser smoke test should produce declared_effects = [ReadEffect], but ReadEffect is the lowered OperationEffect form, not the parser surface form described in reqs 1/4 (List<SurfaceType>). This makes the acceptance target internally inconsistent (it also immediately says to assert parser-output shape), so an implementer following this brief will either write an impossible parser assertion or incorrectly couple parser and lowerer stages.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
Reverts #805