docs(rfc): draft RFC 0044 — template-aware body equality - #667
Conversation
…esign #664) Specified: body == compiles to the RFC 0042-style two-arm form — the physical-column arm (retained/lossy bodies, unchanged) OR a plan-time template arm resolving the literal against the tenant map: zero-param templates as a prunable template_id IN-list, parameterized templates as template_id + implied param equalities. Equality only; other body operators are an explicit follow-up. Nine §5 criteria incl. the property test driving the §3.3 reconstruction invariant through the predicate path. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Qtny6z6cA74xPZa4qRhk4F Signed-off-by: Jens Holdgaard Pedersen <Jens@holdgaard.org>
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 59 minutes Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available. How can I continue?After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews. How do review limits work?CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability. For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window. Please refer docs for additional details. Review details⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: defaults Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (2)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
Adds RFC 0044 (status: specified) describing a template-aware compilation strategy for body == / body != predicates so queries remain correct when high-confidence mined records store the physical body column as NULL, addressing the silent-empty behavior in #664.
Changes:
- Add new specified RFC 0044 detailing a two-arm predicate compilation (physical body column arm OR plan-time template arm).
- Link RFC 0044 into the mdBook table of contents.
Reviewed changes
Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.
| File | Description |
|---|---|
| docs/SUMMARY.md | Adds RFC 0044 to the RFC index so it appears in the rendered book. |
| docs/rfcs/0044-template-aware-body-equality.md | Introduces RFC 0044 text: motivation, proposed design, acceptance criteria, and testing strategy for template-aware body equality. |
💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.
Summary
RFC 0044,
specified— the fix direction for #664.body == "literal"compiles to a two-arm predicate (the RFC 0042 §3.3 pattern): the physical body-column arm keeps covering retained/lossy bodies, and a new plan-time template arm resolves the literal against the tenant's template map — zero-parameter templates (the whole GenAI-event corpus) become a prunabletemplate_id IN (…), parameterized templates becometemplate_id == T AND param(i) == vvia unification with the token structure. Soundness rests on the §3.3 bit-identical reconstruction invariant; RFC0044.9 drives that invariant through the predicate path as a property test.Scope discipline: equality (
==/!=) only; substring/ordering/regex on body are an explicit §7 follow-up, not smuggled in. Structured bodies (RFC 0037) are excluded-not-errored. The template arm traverses aliases/versions (RFC 0007/0010) so the fix survives deploys. Correct empties stay cheap (all row groups pruned — RFC0044.8).Grounded in OTel guidance (consulted via the OTel MCP): body is a first-class addressable field across the ecosystem (OTTL
log.body, stanza body-default paths), so rejecting body equality was ruled out; the idiomatic event filter is RFC 0043'sevent_namehalf.Hazard #6 (DSL surface) addressed: behavior goes from silently-wrong to correct, no syntax changes.
mdbook buildclean; docs-only.🤖 Generated with Claude Code
https://claude.ai/code/session_01Qtny6z6cA74xPZa4qRhk4F