Repository navigation
Require explicit protocol tests and reviewer documents in implementation plans - #1366
Open
mgonzalezlopezudc wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
mgonzalezlopezudc wants to merge 1 commit into
mgonzalezlopezudc wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
mgonzalezlopezudc
force-pushed
the
doc/protocol-plan-commit-tests
branch
from
October 20, 2026 17:37
a88124b to
e9b9ee7
Compare
Before this commit, an implementation plan can group several future commits into one step. It need not assign concrete protocol tests or a reviewer document to each protocol repair. After this commit, each future commit has a separate entry with dependencies, affected components, expected behavior, and verification. Each planned protocol repair or feature assigns explicit test tasks and a reviewer Markdown document. The entry connects the current gap, test assertions, and proposed code correction. The reviewer document explains each test and includes the diagrams that its scenarios need. The guide provides templates and a hypothetical IPv4 TTL example. Current content requirements apply independently of the draft approval process. The change affects contributor requirements only. It changes no simulation code, configuration, or recorded test expectation. Change: doc.project | behavior.change | -
mgonzalezlopezudc
force-pushed
the
doc/protocol-plan-commit-tests
branch
from
October 21, 2026 13:50
e9b9ee7 to
cb72147
Compare
This branch has not been deployed
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Implementation plans can group several future commits into one step without concrete protocol tests or a reviewer document for each repair. This leaves reviewers without a required connection between the protocol gap, its test assertions, and the proposed correction.
This change requires a separate entry for every future commit. Each planned protocol repair or feature must assign explicit tasks for protocol tests and a reviewer Markdown document. The document explains the test scenarios, expected results, assertions, and limits. It includes as many diagrams as the explanation needs.
The guide adds templates and a hypothetical IPv4 TTL example. Current content requirements apply independently of the draft approval process. The main risk is ambiguity about applicability, so the rules explain exclusions for refactors and other changes without a protocol gap.
One commit,
doc: change: require protocol test tasks for each planned repair, updates the rules, procedures, review checklist, and generated rule index.The PR changes only
doc/project. It changes no runtime contract, packet format, configuration, feature descriptor, or test baseline. It introduces no architecture or naming exception. The edited document units are open.Checks from the INET checkout:
git diff --check upstream/master..HEADpassed.doc/project/enforcement/check-seals.shpassed for 20 documents.doc/project/enforcement/check-source-seals.sh --base upstream/masterpassed with no affected source files.doc/project/enforcement/check-pull-request.sh --base upstream/master --head HEAD --description-file /tmp/inet-plan-docs-pr.mdpassed.The broad architecture, naming, and interface checks returned exit status 1. The same checks returned identical output on upstream base
89d600a341976f646435ed341c3f980746c7d6be, apart from line order:doc/project/enforcement/check-architecture.shdoc/project/enforcement/check-naming.sh --base upstream/masterdoc/project/enforcement/check-interfaces.shThese findings predate this documentation change. No INET build or simulation ran because this PR changes documentation only. Diagram rendering and agent behavior remain unverified.