mirror of
https://github.com/logos-co/logos-view-module-runtime.git
synced 2026-08-31 04:51:07 +00:00
Dario Gabriel LipicarandClaude Opus 5
ef05aab5a0
All three were right.
The VIEW-module warning was streamed across << operands with embedded quotes,
and QDebug quotes every QString it is given -- so the one part of the message a
reader is meant to copy came out as logos.module(" "chat_module" "). One
formatted string with noquote(), and the reason recorded at the call site,
because the streamed form looks correct in the source. Deliberately not applied
to the sibling warnings, where << moduleName << eventName WANTS the quoting: it
is what tells an empty name from a missing one.
The "roughly 50-150 ms" arming window was measured on one machine and read as a
contract. Now described as brief and load-dependent, which keeps the two facts a
caller can act on and drops the one they cannot rely on. The advice underneath
is unchanged and is what matters: a module whose one-shot startup event matters
must also expose a method the view can call after subscribing.
The return contract listed three cases; the implementation has five. Both
missing ones are documented rather than tightened away -- "no client for the
module" is LogosAPI failing to build one at all, not the module being down, and
the id == 0 refusal is a guard whose only job is keeping two contracts in
agreement. Deleting it would remove the thing that notices when they stop
agreeing. The comment now also states what was implicit and matters more than
the list: a module that is merely unreachable is still an ACCEPTANCE.
Comment-only apart from the warning's formatting.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>