docs(events): record that the broker refactor is not planned - #199
Merged
Conversation
At-most-once delivery with no durability is permanent. Ten places across six files still described it as temporary -- "the NATS capstone", "deferred to a capstone phase", "explicitly in scope", "until the transactional outbox arrives" -- promising a fix that is not coming. The gap is a deliberate teaching exhibit, and reading it as unfinished work misreads the design. RFC-0001 and ADR-0002 are amended in place with notes recording the original wording, the pattern already used at RFC-0001:448 (Renovate) and :513 (MailHog -> Mailpit). Both keep the NATS name, since they are the documents that chose it and later dropped it; the amendment notes quote what they used to say. Section 10's bullet and ADR-0002's Context/Alternatives/Consequences carry the full note. Sites that already pointed at Section 10 take the short "(Section 10, amended)" form rather than repeating it five times. The phase table keeps row 7 and gains a note: phase 7 never happened as written, and the arc after Phase 6 is RFC-0003 with authentication as the capstone (RFC-0004). The four consuming documents drop the forward reference entirely and state the limitation as accepted and permanent. Exercise 03's second discussion question keeps asking students to sketch a transactional outbox -- that is still a good question about a design this system deliberately does not have. Behaviour is unchanged; so is every claim about what the system does today.
|
Note Currently processing new changes in this PR. This may take a few minutes, please wait... ⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (6)
✨ Finishing Touches📝 Generate docstrings
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@docs/adr/0002-grpc-direction-streaming-buf.md`:
- Around line 10-11: Preserve accepted records as immutable historical documents
and move all revised decisions into new superseding records. In
docs/adr/0002-grpc-direction-streaming-buf.md lines 10-11, 31-34, and 46-49,
restore the original broker-scope, alternative, and consequences wording, then
append or reference the amendment in the superseding ADR. In
docs/rfc/0001-polyglot-platform.md lines 46, 127, 202-203, 212-216, 542-546, and
557-562, restore the original scope, analytics, teaching rationale, limitation,
delivery plan, and future-work text, documenting each revised decision in the
superseding RFC instead.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Organization UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro Plus
Run ID: 1d86417f-bbac-4480-b744-3f0b010f2f3d
📒 Files selected for processing (6)
docs/adr/0002-grpc-direction-streaming-buf.mddocs/architecture.mddocs/exercises/03-break-the-event-stream.mddocs/rfc/0001-polyglot-platform.mdservices/backend/README.mdservices/backend/app/events.py
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
At-most-once delivery with no durability is permanent. Ten places across six files still described it as temporary - "the NATS capstone", "deferred to a capstone phase", "explicitly in scope", "until the transactional outbox arrives" - promising a fix that is not coming. The gap is a deliberate teaching exhibit, and reading it as unfinished work misreads the design.
RFC-0001 and ADR-0002 are amended in place with notes recording the original wording, the pattern already used at RFC-0001:448 (Renovate) and :513 (MailHog -> Mailpit). Both keep the NATS name, since they are the documents that chose it and later dropped it; the amendment notes quote what they used to say. Section 10's bullet and ADR-0002's Context/Alternatives/Consequences carry the full note. Sites that already pointed at Section 10 take the short "(Section 10, amended)" form rather than repeating it five times.
The phase table keeps row 7 and gains a note: phase 7 never happened as written, and the arc after Phase 6 is RFC-0003 with authentication as the capstone (RFC-0004).
The four consuming documents drop the forward reference entirely and state the limitation as accepted and permanent. Exercise 03's second discussion question keeps asking students to sketch a transactional outbox -- that is still a good question about a design this system deliberately does not have.
Behaviour is unchanged; so is every claim about what the system does today.
Summary by CodeRabbit