Intrepid/prometeu-runtime
Intrepid/prometeu-runtime
4
0
Fork 0
Code Pull Requests Activity
prometeu-runtime/discussion/workflow/plans/PLN-0050-system-pipeline-evidence-and-learning.md

3.5 KiB
Raw Blame History

id ticket title status created completed ref_decisions tags
PLN-0050 runtime-mode-separation-game-system System Pipeline Evidence and Learning open 2026-05-14
DEC-0023
runtime
firmware
hub
system-apps
validation
lessons

Briefing

This plan closes the implementation family by collecting evidence that DEC-0023 was executed and preparing the required learning artifact after spec/code publication.

Decisions de Origem

  • DEC-0023 - System Pipeline Separation.

Alvo

Produce test evidence and a didactic lesson showing how to reason about profile-specific pipelines after the implementation plans are complete.

Escopo

  • Run the relevant firmware/system/host checks after PLN-0046 through PLN-0049.
  • Verify that no System path enters GameRunningStep.
  • Verify that the game pipeline remains unchanged in behavior.
  • Create an English lesson under discussion/lessons/DSC-0031-runtime-mode-separation-game-system/.
  • Move the discussion lifecycle forward only after implementation evidence exists.

Fora de Escopo

  • No new architecture decisions.
  • No code or spec changes except small documentation links required by housekeeping.
  • No lesson before the execution result is published.

Plano de Execucao

Step 1 - Collect automated evidence

What: Run package-level checks covering firmware dispatch, system runtime gates, and host integration fallout. How: Execute the test commands from the preceding plans and record the passing command set in the PR or execution notes. File(s): Test output only.

Step 2 - Collect routing evidence

What: Demonstrate that AppMode::System does not enter GameRunningStep. How: Use tests, targeted logs, or debugger-visible state assertions to show System reaches the Runtime/Hub system path while Game reaches GameRunning. File(s): Tests from PLN-0047 and PLN-0048.

Step 3 - Write the lesson

What: Explain the resulting mental model. How: Create a lesson that distinguishes profile discriminator, pipeline routing, public ABI, syscall transport, and deferred WindowManager/filesystem contracts. File(s): discussion/lessons/DSC-0031-runtime-mode-separation-game-system/LSN-0040-system-pipeline-separation.md.

Step 4 - Housekeep the discussion state

What: Close the workflow once implementation and lesson are complete. How: Use the discussion housekeeping flow to mark completed plans and discussion state after the lesson exists. File(s): discussion/index.ndjson, lesson artifact.

Criterios de Aceite

  • Firmware and system runtime tests pass after the implementation family.
  • Evidence shows System does not enter GameRunningStep.
  • Evidence shows Game still enters and behaves through GameRunningStep.
  • The lesson is in English and links back to DEC-0023.
  • Housekeeping is run only after code/spec execution is complete.

Tests / Validacao

  • cargo test -p prometeu-firmware
  • cargo test -p prometeu-system
  • cargo test -p prometeu-host-desktop-winit if host-observable state changed.
  • discussion validate after housekeeping, or document existing unrelated index validation debt if it still blocks.

Riscos

  • Existing discussion index path debt may block deterministic CLI housekeeping; if so, record it separately and avoid broad historical rewrites inside this implementation family.
  • A lesson written before execution would become intent rather than learning; this plan explicitly sequences it after evidence.