feat(post-asap): model and validate execution phases - #300
Conversation
|
Current-main integration review: this PR is not ready to merge as-is after #295 and #299. The conflict is architectural rather than mechanical. #295 now owns the canonical recurrence vocabulary ( |
07ad2fa to
db55da6
Compare
|
Implemented the workload model and summary lifecycle maintenance from #310 on top of this PR's phase-aware exact composition. Highlights:
Validation: workspace check, workload/lifecycle/accuracy tests, all PromQL and SQL frontend tests, and all 11 |
|
Addressed the four follow-up review findings in
Added regression coverage for all four cases. Local validation passes: 5 workload tests, all 237 |
|
Addressed the second code-and-doc review in
Regression coverage was added for raw fallback, unsupported deletion, mixed predictable/ad-hoc consumers, and invalid bindings. Local strict Clippy, rustfmt, 241 mapping tests, 5 workload tests, and 11 exact-composition integration tests pass. |
16b364a to
b2d6151
Compare
b2d6151 to
5b33949
Compare
Summary
Introduces the generic Post-ASAP execution-phase contract used by later planner strategies:
ExecutionAvailability::{UpdateValue, SummaryState, ReadoutValue};UpdateTransformandReadoutPostProcesswith extensibleValueOperatorpayloads;This PR deliberately contains no exact-composition strategy, workload model, lifecycle planning, or cost-selection policy.
Verification
cargo test -p asap-types post_asap::phase— 11 passed, including a non-exact extension operator.cargo fmt --all -- --checkStack
Next: #314.