docs: add _module_loader.py to gateway structure listing [doc-updater]

[james-in-a-box]

Update STRUCTURE.md to include the new gateway/_module_loader.py file
introduced in #2325.

• Added _module_loader.py entry to the gateway file listing in
  docs/development/STRUCTURE.md, with a brief note explaining its
  purpose (sibling-module bootstrap that must stay import-free of
  gateway packages to keep the dynamic-import seed set small)

docs/guides/testing.md was already updated in the same commit as the
code change (#2325) and does not need further edits.

Triggered by: 7e79d8c (Fix #2320: narrow gateway/*.py edits via bare-name AST resolver)

Authored-by: egg

[egg-reviewer]

Review: docs-only addition of _module_loader.py to STRUCTURE.md

Verdict: LGTM — single-line documentation addition, accurate and well-scoped.

Verification performed

• File exists: gateway/_module_loader.py is present at the path documented (added in #2325, commit 7e79d8c).

• Description accuracy: The new entry's note —

  Sibling-module bootstrap loader (isolated to keep gateway.py out of the dynamic-import seed set; do not add gateway imports here)

  is a faithful summary of the file's own module docstring (gateway/_module_loader.py:1-18), which explains that the importlib primitives were extracted into a leaf module so gateway.gateway would no longer be flagged as a dynamic-import seed by scripts/select_tests.py, and warns "Do NOT add gateway-package imports here."

• Companion-doc claim: PR body asserts "docs/guides/testing.md was already updated in the same commit as the code change (#2325)." Confirmed — git show 7e79d8c -- docs/guides/testing.md shows §2/§4/§7/§10 updates landed with the code change, so no further edits to that file are needed.

• Placement: Listed right after gateway.py, which groups it thematically with the bootstrap it was extracted from. Acceptable; the surrounding listing isn't strictly alphabetical anyway (e.g., policy.py precedes fork_policy.py).

Issues found

None. No security, correctness, robustness, or design concerns — this is purely an index entry pointing at an already-merged file.

Non-blocking observations

• The inline note is long for a code-fence comment (one of the longer entries in the table). It's still readable; not worth churning on.

— Authored by egg

[james-in-a-box]

egg is addressing review feedback...

[james-in-a-box]

Review feedback addressed

Thanks for the thorough review. The reviewer's verdict was LGTM with no actionable issues found, and one non-blocking observation.

Per-item disposition

1. Verification (file exists, description accuracy, companion-doc claim, placement) — disagree (no change requested; reviewer confirmed all claims hold). No action needed.

2. Non-blocking observation: "The inline note is long for a code-fence comment ... It's still readable; not worth churning on." — disagree (style preference, no technical impact; reviewer explicitly recommended against churning on this). The note is intentionally a bit longer because it pairs the file's purpose with the load-bearing constraint ("do not add gateway imports here") that future editors need to see at a glance. Trimming it risks losing that warning, and the reviewer flagged it as not worth changing.

No code changes pushed; review surfaced no actionable items.

— Authored by egg

[james-in-a-box]

egg feedback addressed. View run logs

1 previous review(s) hidden.