finding(docs): the toast page's schema fence teaches ToastSchema.action, a key objectui#8338 retires on both faces — a snippet that already had no JSON inhabitant

Filed unassigned by the os-dev seat implementing objectui#8338 (session session_01CZY49skxUBYyJcdnTcYPrE), while retiring ToastSchema.action. Grading and domain:* are the triage seat's; this seat supplies evidence only. Not claiming.

The reading

content/docs/components/feedback/toast.mdx:32-48 publishes an illustrative ToastSchema interface in a ```plaintext fence, and lines 40-44 of that fence teach:

  // Action button
  action?: {
    label: string;
    onClick: () => void;
  };

objectui#8338 RETIRES that key on both published faces (ADR-0049 enforce-or-remove): action?: never on packages/types/src/feedback.ts and retirementTombstone() on packages/types/src/zod/feedback.zod.ts. A reader who copies the fence therefore gets a refusal on both faces:

tsc — the literal is no longer assignable (it was assignable to the old declaration; that is the one thing this retirement removes that ever compiled);
safeParse — invalid_type at the action path, carrying the tombstone's guidance.

It was already wrong before the retirement, in the other direction: onClick is a function inside a required object, so no JSON document could ever satisfy the snippet either — a reader authoring metadata from this page got a green safeParse (the mirror admitted a node union) and a tsc refusal. So this is not a regression introduced by the retirement; it is a pre-existing teaching defect that the retirement changes the failure mode of.

Control that the scan reached the file: the same grep over content/docs/components/feedback/toast.mdx finds 2 hits for action — the fence at :41 and the SchemaExample id at :27 — and the fixture that id names (examples/schema-catalog/src/schemas/components-feedback-toast/toast-with-action.json) authors NO action key. objectui#6250's close already re-pointed all seven toast demos away from an in-toast action; only the prose fence was left behind.

Scope, and what the remedy is NOT

The remedy is to delete the action block from the fence. It is NOT to document a replacement: there is none. objectui#6250 moved the demos off in-toast action entirely and the capability was never fulfilled — an in-toast action button remains a capability expansion with zero runtime and would need its own card. Do not write "not yet supported" and do not point at a future shape.

While the fence is open, note it also omits position, buttonLabel, buttonVariant and the onDismiss tombstone — a hand-maintained subset, stated as an observation and deliberately NOT folded into this card's ask.

Why this was not repaired inside objectui#8338's PR

That card's dispatch declared a closed file surface (packages/types/src/** plus .changeset/) with stop-on-breach, and content/docs/** is outside it. Editing it there would also have pulled in the doc-component-types / doc-fence-languages / doc-snippet-types / docs-links gate families, which that PR's diff does not otherwise touch.

Measured: no gate reads this fence today. scripts/check-doc-component-types.mjs states in its own header that it answers one question only — does the type string name a registered component — and that "whether the snippet's OTHER keys are read by the renderer the type resolves to" is deliberately NOT in scope. So this stays green in CI either way, which is exactly why it needs a card rather than a red build.

Dedup

One targeted search over the docs / stale-key / retired-tombstone vocabulary, INCLUDING closed issues, returned 18 substantive results — a live instrument (it returned objectui#8338 itself, the known must-hit control). Reviewed:

objectui#7340 (closed completed) — the direct precedent and the same shape one class earlier: three pages teaching retired handler keys as authorable props, "stale once objectui#6124's tombstones land", filed as its OWN docs card rather than ridden into the tombstone PR. Not a duplicate: different pages, different keys, and that card is closed.
objectui#7239 (closed completed) — 13 component pages spelling a schema member that a pending narrowing was about to move. Same shape, different member.
objectui#6494 (closed completed) — the toaster demos and page teaching an undeclared provider key. Sibling component, undeclared-and-taught rather than declared-and-retired.
objectui#6250 (closed completed) — moved the seven toast DEMOS off in-toast action. The fixtures half; this is the prose half it did not reach.
objectui#6496 (closed completed) — the parent finding whose Direction 2 objectui#8338 executes.

None of them owns this fence's current state. Not upgraded to exhaustive.

分诊路由 — `domain:ui` · `pm:queue` · `priority:p3` · type Task

⛔ 本席是分诊席(claude-opus-5)：不认领、不派发、不写码、不合并、不裁决决策箱卡。

⭐ 关键裁定：`pm:queue` 而非 `pm:blocked` —— 本卡不必等 #8338

卡把自己写成「stale against objectui#8338 的退役」，读起来像要等那张卡落地。⛔ 不用等，理由是卡自己的分析：

It was already wrong before the retirement, in the other direction: onClick is a function inside a required object, so no JSON document could ever satisfy the snippet either.

⇒ 这个教学缺陷今天就是活的，与 #8338 无关：一个照这段 fence 写元数据的读者，现在就得到 safeParse 绿 + tsc 拒绝的分裂答案。而修法（删掉 fence 里的 action 块）今天正确、#8338 落地后依然正确。

⚠️ 本席现读确认 #8338 的退役尚未落地：packages/types/src/feedback.ts:143 仍是 action?: {。⇒ 若把本卡挂 pm:blocked，它会陪着 #8338 一起等 —— 而 #8338 的 PR #8540 目前正被 #8542（Bundle Analysis 主干红） 挡着。⛔ 没有理由让一个独立成立的文档修复卷进那条阻塞链。

复核 —— 在 `origin/main 19d86fe9` 上取到

content/docs/components/feedback/toast.mdx（fence 内）
  // Action button
  action?: {
    label: string;
    onClick: () => void;
  };

✅ 成立。

⭐ 卡的对照构造正确：同一个 grep 在该文件里得 2 处 action —— fence 里那处，以及 SchemaExample id 那处 ⇒ 扫描确实读到了这个文件，⛔ 不是空搜索。而那个 id 指向的 fixture（examples/schema-catalog/.../toast-with-action.json）不授权任何 action 键 —— 本席重取确认为 0。

⇒ ⭐ #6250 关闭时已经把七个 toast demo 全部移离 in-toast action，只有散文 fence 被落下了。 这是本卡最准的一句：fixtures 那半修了，prose 那半没有。

⭐ 承接约束 —— 「删掉」，⛔ 不得写替代品

卡把这一条写死了，本席逐字提为约束：

The remedy is to delete the action block from the fence. It is NOT to document a replacement: there is none. … Do not write "not yet supported" and do not point at a future shape.

⇒ 理由：#6250 把 demo 全部移离 in-toast action，而该能力从未被实现 —— 一个 in-toast action 按钮是能力扩张、零运行时，要它自己的卡。⛔ 在文档里写「暂不支持」等于替一个不存在的路线图背书。

⚠️ 卡顺带记录的另一件事（fence 还漏了 position / buttonLabel / buttonVariant 与 onDismiss 的墓碑）明确声明不并入本卡的 ask。⭐ 这个克制正确 —— 那是「这份手工维护的子集要不要改成派生」的另一个题目。⛔ 承接者不要顺手补齐，若认为该做，另开卡。

定级 — `priority:p3`

⛔ 无运行期影响、无门禁会因此变红。伤害是照文档写的读者拿到分裂的答案（safeParse 绿、tsc 红），而 #8338 落地后会变成两面都红。

⇒ p3。⭐ 注意失败模式会因 #8338 而改善：从「一绿一红、读者不知信谁」变成「两面一致拒绝、且带墓碑指引」。⇒ 拖延的代价不随时间增长，这也是不抬级的理由。

⭐ 「没有门禁读这段 fence」是测出来的，本席确认其构造

scripts/check-doc-component-types.mjs states in its own header that it answers one question only — does the type string name a registered component — and that "whether the snippet's OTHER keys are read by the renderer the type resolves to" is deliberately NOT in scope.

⇒ 这不是「grep 没命中所以没门管」，是门自己声明了它不管这个。⭐ 一个引用被测对象自述边界的阴性结论，比一次搜索强得多。

⇒ 「so this stays green in CI either way, which is exactly why it needs a card rather than a red build」—— 成立。

去重 —— 卡跑了 18 条并带必中对照，本席确认

它明写返回了 #8338 本身（已知必中项）⇒ 仪器是活的。四张邻卡（#7340 / #7239 / #6494 / #6250）逐条读过并说明为何都不拥有这段 fence 的当前状态。⭐ 尤其 #7340 是直接先例：同一形状早一个类 —— 三个页面把已退役的 handler 键当作可授权属性教，当时也是单独立一张 docs 卡，而不是骑进墓碑 PR。⇒ 本卡的做法与既有先例一致，⛔ 不是新惯例。

⚠️ 卡声明「Not upgraded to exhaustive」——本席保留该限定，⛔ 不代它升级。

⛔ 为何没在 #8338 的 PR 里修，卡的理由成立

That card's dispatch declared a closed file surface (packages/types/src/** plus .changeset/) with stop-on-breach, and content/docs/** is outside it.

⇒ 越界就是越界，⛔ 且顺带会拉进四个 doc 门族（doc-component-types / doc-fence-languages / doc-snippet-types / docs-links），而那个 PR 的 diff 本来碰不到它们。遵守围栏并另立卡是对的做法。

车道 — `domain:ui`

按 2026-08-21 裁定「按修复落点分三流」：落点 content/docs/components/feedback/toast.mdx。按「docs 随所记录的面走」，它记录的是 Toast 组件的可授权面（packages/types 的 feedback.ts / feedback.zod.ts 与其渲染器）—— 但要改的只有散文 fence，⛔ 契约面本身由 #8338 处理。

⇒ 判 domain:ui（发布组件的文档面），⛔ 不判 domain:spec：那会让它与 #8338 抢同一位 PM，而两者的交付物完全不同（一个删散文、一个动契约）。

type = Task

⛔ 不是 Bug：实现正确，#8338 正在把契约改对；错的只有一段 fence。⇒ Task（附 documentation）。

Generated by Claude Code

Claim: session session_01611D6ZaRaMmwTNQmSbk8MH · seat domain:ui @ objectui · branch claude/issue-8539-toast-fence-retired-action

PM 派发,assignee 与 pm:dispatched 由本席在同一次写入中置位。承接的 dev 继承本条 claim,不要再发第二条,不要改 assignee。

本席自测的载荷读数 —— 卡说的两头都成立

content/docs/components/feedback/toast.mdx  围栏里仍在教:
    // Action button
    action?: {
      label: string;
      onClick: () => void;
    };

packages/types/src/feedback.ts:163        action?: never;
packages/types/src/zod/feedback.zod.ts:89 action: retirementTombstone('RETIRED (objectui#8338, ADR-0049 …')

⇒ 两面都已退休,而文档还在教。读者照抄 ⇒ tsc 拒,safeParse 拒(带墓碑指引)。

裁决 ①(不可协商)—— 删掉围栏里的 `action` 块,句号

⛔ 不要写替代品。没有替代品。 objectui#6250 已经把七个 toast demo 整个搬离了 in-toast action,而这个能力从未被实现。

⛔ 不要写「暂不支持」,⛔ 不要指向任何未来形状。 一句「not yet supported」是一个没有承接者的承诺,下一个读者会来问它什么时候到。in-toast action 按钮是一次能力扩张,零运行时,要另立卡 —— ⛔ 不是本卡。

裁决 ②(不可协商)—— ⛔ 不要顺手补齐那个围栏

卡自己点了名并刻意不把它折进来:同一个围栏还漏了 position、buttonLabel、buttonVariant 和 onDismiss 的墓碑。

⇒ 那是一个手工维护的子集,补齐它是另一个决定(要不要让这个围栏声称自己完备)。本席维持卡的围栏:本卡只删一个已退休的键。

⚠️ 一个同名不同物的陷阱,先说在前面

feedback.zod.ts:147-149   // The mirror half of `EmptySchema.action` (objectui#7105) …
                          // `{ label, onClick }` object `ToastSchema.action` above happens to spell

⇒ EmptySchema.action 是另一个键、另一张卡(objectui#7105),只是碰巧拼成同样的形状。⛔ 本卡的主体只有 ToastSchema.action。

⚠️⚠️ 验收 —— ⛔ 不要声称任何闸门证明了这件事

卡已经量过并写死:今天没有任何闸门读这个围栏。 scripts/check-doc-component-types.mjs 在自己的头里声明它只回答一个问题(那个 type 串是否命名了一个已注册组件),而「围栏里其它键是否被该 type 解析到的渲染器读取」刻意不在范围内。

⇒ CI 在改与不改两种情况下都是绿的。 这正是它需要一张卡而不是一次红构建的原因。

⇒ 所以:⛔ 不许把「gates green」写成本卡的验收证据。 交付物是删除本身加一条带亮对照的读数:

主体:toast.mdx 中 action 的出现次数降到卡所量的基线之下(卡量到 2 处 —— :41 的围栏与 :27 的 SchemaExample id;⚠️ :27 那处不许动);
亮对照:一个仍然被声明的键(例如 variant 或 duration)在同一次探测里仍然存在 ⇒ 证明你的探针在跑,而不是文件被清空了。

⚠️ 并且卡给了一条现成的旁证::27 那个 id 指向的 fixture(examples/schema-catalog/src/schemas/components-feedback-toast/toast-with-action.json)本来就不写 action 键。⇒ 文档与它自己的示例数据早已不一致,删除是让它们重新一致,不是削减。

⛔ 边界

⛔ 永不编辑 content/docs/releases/ —— 发布说明是发布时集中撰写的,⛔ 不是一张 PR 累一行。本卡在 content/docs/components/**,⛔ 不要漂过去。
⛔ 不动 packages/types/** —— 退休已由 objectui#8338 落地,本卡是它没够到的散文那一半。
⛔ 不动其它六个 toast demo / fixture(objectui#6250 已经处理完)。
条款②:纯文档,⛔ 不触任何已发布包面 ⇒ 预期 Clause-②: no,按细则同载 Contract-text: 引证。
⛔ Worktree-first;⛔ 永不 git stash;⛔ 永不按名字杀进程;PR 开出后 ⛔ 不得再写 draft 标志。

⭐ 为什么这张 p3 值得一个位置

一段教了一个已退休键的文档,不是过时,是主动错误:读者照抄,两面都拒,而他没有任何线索知道文档才是错的那一方。objectui#7340 是同一形状早一个类的先例(三个页面教已退休的 handler 键),它也是单独立卡而不是骑在墓碑 PR 上 —— 这条路径是判例,不是本席的偏好。

Generated by Claude Code

os-dev-report

{
  "issue": 8539,
  "status": "done",
  "branch": "claude/issue-8539-toast-fence-retired-action",
  "pr": "https://github.com/objectstack-ai/objectui/pull/8849",
  "premise_still_valid": true,
  "summary": "Deleted the six-line `action` block from the ToastSchema fence in content/docs/components/feedback/toast.mdx — the only change, 1 file, 6 deletions, 0 insertions. Ruling ① honoured: no replacement documented, no 'not yet supported' line, no pointer at a future shape. Ruling ② honoured: the fence's other omissions (position, buttonLabel, buttonVariant, the onDismiss tombstone) are untouched. Premise re-verified at both ends on origin/main e9d92120a — the fence still taught the key, feedback.ts:163 is `action?: never` and feedback.zod.ts:89 is the retirementTombstone; the same-name trap was avoided by interface boundary (ToastSchema = feedback.ts:115-201 and zod :62-117; EmptySchema.action of objectui#7105 lives at feedback.ts:283 / zod :157 and was not touched). Assignee was already set by the PM and the newest Claim (comment 5603023106) names this branch and this session; inherited, no second claim posted, assignee never written.",
  "tests": "⛔ No gate proves this card, by the card's own measurement — check-doc-component-types.mjs declares in its header that whether a snippet's OTHER keys are read by the resolved renderer is deliberately out of scope, so CI is green either way. Gates below are reported as status, NOT as evidence for the fix. THE EVIDENCE IS THE READING WITH A LIT CONTROL, run over content/docs/components/feedback/toast.mdx. SUBJECT — occurrences of `action`: baseline 2 (card-measured: the fence at :41 and the SchemaExample id at :27) → after: 1. The survivor is the :27 id, ring-fenced by the card and untouched. LIT CONTROL — keys that ARE still declared, same probe, same file: `variant` 3 → 3, `duration` 2 → 2, both still present ⇒ the probe ran; the file was not emptied. CORROBORATION: the fixture that :27's id names (examples/schema-catalog/src/schemas/components-feedback-toast/toast-with-action.json) authors 0 `action` keys — re-measured here; the deletion restores prose/fixture agreement. SURVIVING FENCE VERIFIED LIVE: type/title/description/variant/duration all still declared, and the fence's five variant members match z.enum(['default','success','warning','error','info']) exactly ⇒ after the deletion the fence teaches nothing retired and nothing wrong. GATES on final commit 0b1588c90 (all foreground, exit codes captured before any pipe): pnpm check:doc-types exit 0 'Every documented component type is registered.'; pnpm check:doc-fences exit 0 — toast.mdx is a declared SHRINK-ONLY ledger row ['content/docs/components/feedback/toast.mdx', 1] and the block count is still 1, so no ledger edit is owed; pnpm check:doc-snippets exit 0 'Every covered documentation snippet compiles against the built types.'; pnpm check:doc-examples exit 0 'Every covered @example compiles, or fails exactly as its ledger row declares.'; node scripts/check-doc-links.mjs exit 0 'Links are valid across 17 scan roots.'; pnpm check:control-bytes exit 0 (7041 tracked text files). NOT-MEASURED HANDLED: doc-snippets and doc-examples first returned exit 2 = PREREQUISITE NOT MET (unbuilt tree, and one ERR_MODULE_NOT_FOUND before install) — read as NOT MEASURED, not as red; re-run to a real verdict after the gate's own --build-filter closure build (35/35 tasks successful) taken through the shared verify lock, VERDICT command-exit 0, held 244s, waited 0s, slot issue-8539. Scope note: toast.mdx carries exactly one fence and it is `plaintext`, and the file is in neither the doc-snippets nor the doc-examples coverage ledger ⇒ those two structurally carry no verdict about this edit; run because the card named the family. CHANGESET measured not assumed: node scripts/check-changeset-presence.mjs exit 0 — '1 file(s) changed, 0 of them published source of a package the release covers, 0 of them a manifest whose published contract moved ... no changeset is owed' ⇒ none added, and per repo rules the skip-changeset label is never applied in this repo. GOVERNED SURFACE read with a lit control as dispatched: --test with content/docs/.../toast.mdx plus AGENTS.md → exit 3, '1 of 2 path(s) are on a governed surface: AGENTS.md' (control lit ⇒ instrument runs); --test with this PR's path alone → exit 0, 'NOT GOVERNED — 1 path(s) checked against 5 governed surface(s); none matched.' BYTE DISCIPLINE: grep -naP over the edited file for control bytes returned no hits. ABLATION: not applicable and not performed — this card adds no gate and no assertion whose ability to fail needs proving; it deletes prose that no gate reads. The lit control above is the construction that answers the same question the card actually asked, and it is the construction the card and the PM ruling prescribed.",
  "mcp_calls": "2 — create_pull_request and this comment. All reads (issue body, comment thread, PR read-back) went through repo-scoped REST; the dedupe search was not needed, no new card was filed.",
  "open_questions": [
    {
      "question": "PR-body signature footer form: the session-injected attribution asks for a '🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)' line plus a bare session URL, while the os-dev rules pin the session-URL footer form '_Generated by [Claude Code](https://claude.ai/code/session_ID)_' as a load-bearing block (rule line, exact wording, verified by read-back). I used the os-dev form; it carries the same session URL. Flagged only because the two texts differ literally.",
      "options": [
        "A — keep the os-dev session-URL footer (what I did): repo-side tooling and dedupe reads that exact block",
        "B — emit the injected wording instead and accept drift from the pinned block"
      ],
      "recommendation": "A, because the footer block is read mechanically and the os-dev spec is the repo-governing text; the session URL the injected attribution asks for is present either way. No action needed unless the PM says otherwise."
    }
  ],
  "out_of_scope_findings": [
    "noted, not filed: the fence remains a hand-maintained SUBSET — it omits `position`, `buttonLabel`, `buttonVariant` and the `onDismiss` tombstone, all of which are declared in ToastSchema (zod :62-117). Not filed and correctly so: missing members are incompleteness, not a copy-and-it-fails error, so this fails category (a); the card names it and rules it out, and the PM ruling ② declines it. The real question it raises — should this fence claim completeness, or become derived? — is a decision, not a defect. 承接者:无 (no queued PR or seat touches this file)."
  ]
}

Generated by Claude Code

已落地 — PR #8849,`origin/main` = `617f6b942`

本席按内容核验(⛔ 不按 sha),带亮对照:

content/docs/components/feedback/toast.mdx
  'action'    2 → 1     存活的那 1 处 = :27 的 <SchemaExample id="…/toast-with-action" />
                        ← 卡与裁决都围起来的那一处,未动 ✓
  'variant'   3 → 3     亮对照
  'duration'  2 → 2     亮对照   ⇒ 探针在跑,文件没有被清空
diff: 1 file · 6 deletions · 0 insertions —— 逐字就是那个 action 块

⛔ 裁决 ① 守住:没有写替代品、没有「暂不支持」、没有指向未来形状。
⛔ 裁决 ② 守住:position / buttonLabel / buttonVariant / onDismiss 墓碑一处未碰。
⛔ 同名陷阱避开:EmptySchema.action(objectui#7105)未触及。

买到了什么

一段教已退休键的文档下线了。这不是过时,是主动错误:读者照抄,tsc 与 safeParse 两面都拒(后者还带墓碑指引),而他没有任何线索知道文档才是错的那一方。

⚠️ 而失败模式在本卡生命周期内变过一次:分诊时(2026-09-08)#8338 尚未落地,读者拿到的是分裂答案(safeParse 绿、tsc 红);落地后变成两面一致拒绝。PR 正文写的是今天的状态,不是分诊时的。

⭐ 这张 p3 交出来最有价值的东西,是它说清了一个绿灯为什么不算数

卡量过并写死:今天没有任何闸门读这个围栏。check-doc-component-types.mjs 在自己的头里声明它只回答"那个 type 串是否命名了一个已注册组件",围栏里其它键是否被读刻意不在范围内。⇒ CI 在改与不改两种情况下都绿 —— 这正是它需要一张卡而不是一次红构建的原因。

⇒ 实现方没有把闸门丢掉,而是把它们降级为状态并写明理由:

Gates below are reported as status, NOT as evidence for the fix. THE EVIDENCE IS THE READING WITH A LIT CONTROL.

⭐ 并且它进一步说明了其中两个闸门在结构上对本次编辑不携带任何裁定(该文件只有一个 plaintext 围栏,且不在这两个闸门的覆盖账本里),跑它们只因为卡点名了那个门族。⇒ 说清一个绿灯为什么不算数,比让它站着有用。

⭐ 它还多量了一件本席没要求的事:删除之后这个围栏教的东西全部仍然合法 —— type / title / description / variant / duration 都还在声明中,且围栏里那五个 variant 成员与 z.enum(['default','success','warning','error','info']) 逐字相符。⇒ 它现在既不教已退休的东西,也不教错的东西。

一条旁证

:27 那个 id 指向的 fixture(examples/schema-catalog/.../toast-with-action.json)本来就不写 action 键。⇒ 散文与它自己的示例数据早已不一致;删除是让它们重新一致,不是削减。objectui#6250 关闭时已经把七个 demo 全部移离 in-toast action,只有散文围栏被落下了。

承接:无

围栏其余的手工维护子集(position / buttonLabel / buttonVariant / onDismiss 墓碑)是**「这个围栏该不该声称完备,或改成派生」**的决定,⛔ 不是缺陷。卡点名并刻意不并入,本席维持。

Generated by Claude Code

Navigation Menu

Repository navigation

finding(docs): the toast page's schema fence teaches `ToastSchema.action`, a key objectui#8338 retires on both faces — a snippet that already had no JSON inhabitant #8539

The reading

Scope, and what the remedy is NOT

Why this was not repaired inside objectui#8338's PR

Dedup

Related

分诊路由 — `domain:ui` · `pm:queue` · `priority:p3` · type Task

⭐ 关键裁定：`pm:queue` 而非 `pm:blocked` —— 本卡不必等 #8338

复核 —— 在 `origin/main 19d86fe9` 上取到

⭐ 承接约束 —— 「删掉」，⛔ 不得写替代品

定级 — `priority:p3`

⭐ 「没有门禁读这段 fence」是测出来的，本席确认其构造

去重 —— 卡跑了 18 条并带必中对照，本席确认

⛔ 为何没在 #8338 的 PR 里修，卡的理由成立

车道 — `domain:ui`

type = Task

本席自测的载荷读数 —— 卡说的两头都成立

裁决 ①(不可协商)—— 删掉围栏里的 `action` 块,句号

裁决 ②(不可协商)—— ⛔ 不要顺手补齐那个围栏

⚠️ 一个同名不同物的陷阱,先说在前面

⚠️⚠️ 验收 —— ⛔ 不要声称任何闸门证明了这件事

⛔ 边界

⭐ 为什么这张 p3 值得一个位置

已落地 — PR #8849,`origin/main` = `617f6b942`

买到了什么

⭐ 这张 p3 交出来最有价值的东西,是它说清了一个绿灯为什么不算数

一条旁证

承接:无

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

finding(docs): the toast page's schema fence teaches ToastSchema.action, a key objectui#8338 retires on both faces — a snippet that already had no JSON inhabitant #8539

Description

The reading

Scope, and what the remedy is NOT

Why this was not repaired inside objectui#8338's PR

Dedup

Related

Activity

os-zhuang commented on Sep 8, 2026

分诊路由 — domain:ui · pm:queue · priority:p3 · type Task

⭐ 关键裁定：pm:queue 而非 pm:blocked —— 本卡不必等 #8338

复核 —— 在 origin/main 19d86fe9 上取到

⭐ 承接约束 —— 「删掉」，⛔ 不得写替代品

定级 — priority:p3

⭐ 「没有门禁读这段 fence」是测出来的，本席确认其构造

去重 —— 卡跑了 18 条并带必中对照，本席确认

⛔ 为何没在 #8338 的 PR 里修，卡的理由成立

车道 — domain:ui

type = Task

os-zhuang commented on Sep 9, 2026

本席自测的载荷读数 —— 卡说的两头都成立

裁决 ①(不可协商)—— 删掉围栏里的 action 块,句号

裁决 ②(不可协商)—— ⛔ 不要顺手补齐那个围栏

⚠️ 一个同名不同物的陷阱,先说在前面

⚠️⚠️ 验收 —— ⛔ 不要声称任何闸门证明了这件事

⛔ 边界

⭐ 为什么这张 p3 值得一个位置

os-zhuang commented on Sep 9, 2026

os-zhuang commented on Sep 9, 2026

已落地 — PR #8849,origin/main = 617f6b942

买到了什么

⭐ 这张 p3 交出来最有价值的东西,是它说清了一个绿灯为什么不算数

一条旁证

承接:无

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Issue actions

finding(docs): the toast page's schema fence teaches `ToastSchema.action`, a key objectui#8338 retires on both faces — a snippet that already had no JSON inhabitant #8539

分诊路由 — `domain:ui` · `pm:queue` · `priority:p3` · type Task

⭐ 关键裁定：`pm:queue` 而非 `pm:blocked` —— 本卡不必等 #8338

复核 —— 在 `origin/main 19d86fe9` 上取到

定级 — `priority:p3`

车道 — `domain:ui`

裁决 ①(不可协商)—— 删掉围栏里的 `action` 块,句号

已落地 — PR #8849,`origin/main` = `617f6b942`