ba26c0b12adea0eabcae1fb9a47c605ecafc59ac
6 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Kgothatso Ngako
|
0be31803f2 |
docs: record phase 10, and the deferred decision it carries out
`docs/subgroups.md` was written as ten phases of reasoning kept in the order they were argued, and phase 4 spent forty lines on why the child's ceremony was *not* held in the parent's Marmot room -- explicitly so the decision would not be re-litigated without its price attached. That section is now a shopping list that has been carried out, so it keeps its argument and gains a pointer forward, and the three costs it enumerated are checked off one by one in a new phase 10. The parts of the note that state the old arrangement as present-tense fact are updated rather than annotated: the three-ceremonies table now reads one room, three ceremonies, two quorums, and says the thing that needs saying twice -- an MLS message reaches the whole tree, so a ceremony in the parent's room has to name who it is with. Phase 10 itself is written the way the others are, around what fails silently: - `DkgSession.chatRoomId` stopped identifying a ceremony, and the place that matters is `completedKey`'s last fallback, which every member welcomed after a group's own ceremony lands on; - `signingPath` had to admit a Marmot room, which widens the one function whose contract is that a path never comes off a proposal; - the p-tags had to stay on both transports, which is the opposite of what `FrostSigningManager` correctly does. The two sections that argued the old collision -- "The collision this buys" and "Why a subgroup cannot be the whole group was withdrawn" -- keep their reasoning and gain the end of it: `(room, parent)` stopped telling two subgroups of one parent apart, so the lookup moved to `(room, parent, admins)`, and the permanent half of the refusal disappeared with the derived room. The limitation and the appendix entry are struck through rather than deleted, since what they were weighing is why the phase exists. `docs/shared-key-ceremony.md` no longer says a ceremony runs over a NIP-17 chat. The participant set is the proposal's p-tags on both transports, and that distinction is the whole reason it is stated that way rather than as "the group". `docs/mls-skipped-keys.md` keeps `proposeRitual` in its table of reliable triggers and now says what changed about it: it reached that table on gift wraps, where the bug does not apply, and a subgroup's ceremony now rides group events. It is the entry with the worst consequence -- a ChillDKG cannot finish until every participant takes part, so one lost round-1 message stalls it permanently for everybody rather than costing one member a line of chat. That is the thing the quartz fix in that note is now load-bearing for. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Kgothatso Ngako
|
45cc80b538 |
feat(marmot): put a # in front of every group's name, and retire (#admins)
A device's room list holds two unrelated kinds of room and nothing on a row said
which. A NIP-17 room is a conversation between the people in it. A Marmot room is
a *group* -- an id its key derives, a membership baked into an MLS tree, admins
who can act for it, a signature anyone holding the id can check -- and the two
behave differently enough that guessing is a mistake.
`"Ekklesia (#admins)"` was an attempt at saying so, and it marked the wrong half.
Only the admin room got it; a subgroup got no marker at all, so as soon as a group
had one child, half the Marmot rooms on the device were unmarked. It also sorted
nowhere near the group it belonged to, and a truncated row drops a trailing suffix
first -- so the marker was missing exactly where the list is crowded enough to
need it.
**The rule is `MarmotGroupName.of`, and it runs where a room is minted rather than
where it is drawn.** The name is baked into the epoch-0 `MarmotGroupData` every
member is welcomed with, so a `#` added at display time would be a name this
device alone could see. `#Ekklesia` marks both kinds of group room, and marks them
at the front.
**Three mints, because there are three ways a Marmot room comes into existence.**
`MarmotGroupCreation.create` is the funnel for two of them -- the admin room a
group opens after its ceremony, and a subgroup -- and normalising there means
neither caller has to remember. The third, `SelectChatRoomTypeViewModel`'s
convenient room, has a random id rather than a derived one, so it has no key state
to adopt and no admin set to bake in and does not pass through that funnel; it
applies the rule itself.
**Idempotence is load-bearing, not tidiness.** A subgroup's name is derived twice
from the same bare ceremony-room subject, by two callers that never see each
other: `SubgroupManager.proposeBirthCertificate` normalises the name the parent's
quorum is asked to sign, and `MarmotGroupCreation` normalises the name the room
carries. Those two have to be the same string, or the subgroup is not called what
its parent certified -- and a certificate is a signature over the name, so a
verifier comparing them would see a real mismatch. `of` being idempotent is what
makes them agree by construction rather than by both sites being kept in step.
**The ceremony room keeps the bare name.** It is a NIP-17 room -- where a subgroup
is made, not the subgroup -- and prefixing it too produced two identically-named
rows, which spends the mark to say nothing. `Translators` (the ceremony) now sits
beside `#Translators` (the group it stood up), which is the distinction the `#`
exists to draw. Its subject is trimmed, so the bare name and the two normalised
ones cannot differ by whitespace.
**The `#` is drawn beside the name field, not pushed into its state.** `name` in
`SelectSubgroupAdminsViewModel` stays bare and the M3 `prefix` slot shows the
convention, because normalising on every keystroke moves the caret out from under
somebody halfway through a word. The coordinator still reads the name they are
about to get.
Four strings lose the old name -- "Create the #admins group" becomes "Create the
admin room", and the three about what "the #admins room" will sign with now say
"the admin room". Their keys are renamed with them, since the keys in this
catalogue are derived from the text. Around twenty comments, two screen previews
and seven test fixtures follow.
Docs: the ceremony note states the convention and what it replaces, and the
subgroups note's name-field section is rewritten -- it had been arguing from the
`"${parent.subject} (#admins)"` synthesis that no longer exists.
`docs/mls-skipped-keys.md` keeps its `"Frosty (#admins)"`: that is a captured
debugging log, and rewriting it would falsify a record.
Three tests. `MarmotGroupNameTest` pins the rule, idempotence included.
`MarmotGroupCreationJvmTest` pins the funnel -- a bare name in, `#Ekklesia` on both
the room row this device draws and the group data every other member reads.
`SubgroupManagerJvmTest` pins the pair that has to agree, by reading the proposed
event's tags back out of the signing session: the name the parent is asked to sign
is the name `MarmotGroupCreation` will give the room. That last one needed the
signable-parent fixture to seed host keys, since a ceremony's signer ids are
derived from them rather than stored.
**Rooms that already exist keep their names.** The name lives in the epoch-0 group
context, so renaming one is an MLS commit every member has to process -- a
different change from a naming convention, and not made here.
403 common tests, 726 jvm tests, `m3Audit` meets every budget with 0 title-case
strings and 0 dp literals.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
Kgothatso Ngako
|
1930d6aaef |
fix(subgroups): a subgroup may be the whole group
"A subgroup cannot be the whole group. Leave at least one member out." That rule shipped in Phase 8 and it was wrong twice. **It refused something legitimate.** A subgroup is a logical division -- a group deciding that some of its work belongs to a differently-keyed room -- not a group carving out a smaller membership. Every member being in it is an ordinary case, and no guard here had any business deciding otherwise. **And it was a proxy, not a check.** The thing it stood in for is real: a ceremony room is derived from its admins, so a subgroup over everybody lands in the room the group's *own* ceremony was held in, and `proposeRitual` handing back that ceremony would quietly make the child the parent. But set size does not detect that. A parent whose membership has changed since its own ceremony derives a different room -- so the sizes can match with no collision, and differ with one. **Sharing the room was never the problem; sharing a ceremony was.** `DkgSession.parentChatRoomId` already told two ceremonies apart, so the fix is to scope the lookup by it rather than to forbid the selection. `DkgSessionDao.getLatestSessionFor(room, parent)` replaces `...ForChatRoom` at the three places that decide whether a ceremony already exists: `proposeRitual`'s one-at-a-time guard, `refuseCeremonyRoom`, and the two repository observers the ritual screen follows. A room may now hold the group's own ceremony and a subgroup's at once. Nothing below that lookup had to learn about the second one. A ceremony's messages, approvals and transcript are already keyed by session id; only the question "what is this room's current ceremony" was ever room-scoped, and that question was always really "for what purpose". One collision survives and it is degenerate: the same parent, over the same admins, twice. Those two have nothing left to distinguish them -- which is another way of saying they are one subgroup asked for twice, and that is what the message now says. `a subgroup that is the whole group is refused` becomes `a subgroup may be the whole group`, and two new cases pin the scoping: the group's own ceremony sitting in the derived room does not block a subgroup there, and the same parent asking twice over the same admins still does while a different admin set is untouched. `docs/subgroups.md` keeps the withdrawn rule struck through in the refusals table with a section saying why, rather than quietly deleting it -- the reasoning that led to it is the reasoning somebody would repeat. 397 common tests, 713 jvm tests, `m3Audit` meets every budget. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Kgothatso Ngako
|
0180425904 |
docs: record what the subgroups plan built, and the six places it chose differently
All nine phases are built, one commit each. The phases are kept as written -- they are the reasoning, and the code reads better against the argument it came from than against a summary of itself -- with a table of where the building disagreed with the plan. Six worth reading. `openCeremony` was never built, because a wrapper over two repository calls the picker already makes would be a third name for one act. `MarmotGroupCreation` is reached through the repository rather than called from a view model, because view models here talk to repositories and managers take the database. The guards' tests are in jvmTest rather than pure, because every refusal reads the database and a pure version would test less. Phase 4 added two tags rather than one, the second fixing a bug older than subgroups -- every robust group has been arriving nameless on every device but its creator's. `stateFrom` needed a third reader and a wrapper, because "tag present and unreadable" looks identical to "absent" through a parser, and "refused" has to be distinguishable from "none claimed". And Phase 8's two capability refusals short-circuited the tests already written, which is how it came out that the fixtures had never had a parent that could sign. Two the plan got right and worth keeping if this is ever rewritten: the key-package check moved to the picker on review, before a line was built, and it is the difference between a subgroup failing in a second and failing after three ceremonies; and the founding-roster rule has a test whose job is to fail the day somebody adds the comparison that looks obviously missing. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Kgothatso Ngako
|
6fb0af1147 |
docs: close five gaps in the subgroups plan, one of which wasted three ceremonies
A review pass over the plan committed in
|
||
|
Kgothatso Ngako
|
c1ce262f3e |
docs: plan subgroups, and phase the four ceremonies a group needs to make one
A group can make another group, and the child can prove where it came from. This
is the plan for that, in nine phases, written against the code at
|