Repository navigation
Add reconverge's default configuration template #149
Description
Activity
- added 3 commits that reference this issue
on Oct 5, 2026 Verification summary
- Delivery:
COMPLETE— the merged code delivers what the issue asked for. (the auditor's own verdict) - Extra changes:
NO_EXTRA_CHANGES— the merged code changed nothing beyond what the issue asked for. (the auditor's own verdict) - Defects:
NO_DEFECT— the merged pull requests left no defect of their own behind. (the auditor's own verdict)
Delivery decides whether this issue is closed or reopened. Defects widens what the follow-up filing considers. Extra changes gates nothing — it is an observation for a human; the report names what went beyond the issue.
Implementing pull requests, at the merge commits this audit read:
- Add reconverge's default configuration template (#149) #151 —
86ab32beaa2960fc2c7791e737dfbc63ac94d792(the tree the audit read)
The full report — the assessment included verbatim — stays local, at:
~/.agentcoop/runs/aicers/deploy-core/verify/MTQ5/report.mdFindings this run did not file:
Finding not filed — This finding did not meet the certainty bar for filing.
Finding (the auditor's accepted statement):
Exact template: all 633 bytes match Scope 1, including formatting, ordering, and one final newline.
Explanation (the auditor's whole response):The finding is that `templates/reconverge/default.toml:1` matches Scope 1’s supplied template exactly. Scope 1 requires “exactly this content, byte for byte, ending in a single newline.” The audit compared the file’s raw bytes against the issue’s TOML block. All 633 bytes matched, including key order, blank lines, quoting, the five placeholders, `batch_size = 500_000`, and the single final newline. The citation was validated with the supplied checker. Nothing is filed because this is evidence of successful delivery. The merged file satisfies the requirement; there is no mismatch to correct and no defect or missing work to turn into an implementable follow-up.Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
There are no competing reasonable interpretations: Scope 1 requires exact bytes, and the inspected template matches them.
Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
AMBIGUOUS was selected as the residual category because no specific reason covered successful delivery. The violation condition is not met; the evidence itself is not ambiguous.Finding not filed — This finding did not meet the certainty bar for filing.
Finding (the auditor's accepted statement):
Catalog identity and cardinality: CATALOG contains exactly one entry, reconverge/default.
Explanation (the auditor's whole response):The finding is that `CATALOG` contains exactly one entry, identified by `component: "reconverge"` and `id: "default"`, as Scope 2 requires. The audit inspected the complete catalog declaration at `src/config_template.rs:47`. It contains one `ConfigTemplate` with those exact fields. The test `reconverge_default_is_the_only_template` at `src/config_template.rs:718` also asserts the identity, sole catalog membership, and sole-entry enumeration. Both citations were validated; the supplied merge-commit CI passed the covering test suites. Nothing is filed because the required entry and cardinality are present. This is a confirmed delivery result, with no violation or corrective work to declare.Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
There are no competing reasonable interpretations: Scope 2 requires one reconverge/default catalog entry, and the inspected catalog contains exactly that entry.
Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
AMBIGUOUS was selected as the residual category because none of the specific reasons covers successful delivery. No violation was found; the evidence itself is not ambiguous.Finding not filed — This finding did not meet the certainty bar for filing.
Finding (the auditor's accepted statement):
Compiled-in body: the entry uses the required include_str! path.
Explanation (the auditor's whole response):The finding is that the catalog entry compiles in its body using exactly `include_str!("../templates/reconverge/default.toml")`, as Scope 2 requires. The audit confirmed that expression at `src/config_template.rs:58` and validated the citation. It points to the required template file. The unchanged `real_catalog_bodies_match_the_named_files` test at `src/config_template.rs:702` compares the compiled body with the named file, and the supplied merge-commit CI passed the covering suites. Nothing is filed because the required expression is present and references the correct file. This is confirmed delivery, with no discrepancy or corrective work to declare.Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
There are no competing reasonable interpretations: Scope 2 requires the exact include_str! expression, and the inspected catalog entry uses it.
Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
AMBIGUOUS was selected as the residual category because none of the specific reasons covers successful delivery. No violation was found; the evidence itself is not ambiguous.Finding not filed — This finding did not meet the certainty bar for filing.
Finding (the auditor's accepted statement):
Localized names: both names match Scope 2 exactly.
Explanation (the auditor's whole response):The finding is that the catalog’s localized names match Scope 2 exactly: `name.en` is `"Default"` and `name.ko` is `"기본"`. The audit inspected these fields at `src/config_template.rs:50` and validated the citation. The covering test, `reconverge_default_is_the_only_template` at `src/config_template.rs:718`, also asserts both exact strings. The supplied merge-commit CI passed the covering test suites. Nothing is filed because both required names are present without differences. This is a confirmed delivery result, with no incorrect text or missing work to correct.Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
There are no competing reasonable interpretations: Scope 2 requires the names Default and 기본, and the inspected entry contains those exact strings.
Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
AMBIGUOUS was selected as the residual category because none of the specific reasons covers successful delivery. No violation was found; the evidence itself is not ambiguous.Finding not filed — This finding did not meet the certainty bar for filing.
Finding (the auditor's accepted statement):
Localized descriptions: both plain-text descriptions match Scope 2 exactly.
Explanation (the auditor's whole response):The finding is that both localized descriptions match Scope 2 exactly and are plain text, as required. The audit compared the English and Korean strings at `src/config_template.rs:54` against the issue’s supplied texts. Both include the detector schedule, HTTP events, HttpUriThreat label database, required `unsupervised-default` model, and intended behavior before and after that model exists. The citation was validated. The covering test, `reconverge_default_is_the_only_template` at `src/config_template.rs:718`, also asserts both exact strings; the supplied merge-commit CI passed the covering suites. Nothing is filed because the descriptions satisfy the requirement without omissions or changes. This is confirmed delivery, with no text discrepancy or introduced misleading statement to correct.Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
There are no competing reasonable interpretations: Scope 2 requires the supplied plain-text descriptions verbatim, and both inspected strings match.
Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
AMBIGUOUS was selected as the residual category because none of the specific reasons covers successful delivery. No violation was found; the evidence itself is not ambiguous.Finding not filed — This finding did not meet the certainty bar for filing.
Finding (the auditor's accepted statement):
Lookup and enumeration: the real entry and sole-entry enumeration have the required test coverage.
Explanation (the auditor's whole response):The finding is that lookup and enumeration have the required coverage: `find("reconverge", "default")` returns the entry, and `templates_for("reconverge")` yields exactly that entry. The audit inspected `reconverge_default_is_the_only_template` at `src/config_template.rs:718`. It looks up the real entry, checks its identity and localized texts, asserts that enumeration produces `[entry]`, and asserts that `CATALOG` contains only that entry. The citation was validated, and the supplied merge-commit CI passed both covering test suites. Nothing is filed because the required lookup and enumeration behavior is implemented and covered. No missing behavior or incorrect result was found.Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
There are no competing reasonable interpretations: the issue requires successful lookup and sole-entry enumeration, and the inspected implementation and test satisfy both.
Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
AMBIGUOUS was selected as the residual category because none of the specific reasons covers successful delivery. No violation was found; the evidence itself is not ambiguous.Finding not filed — This finding did not meet the certainty bar for filing.
Finding (the auditor's accepted statement):
Complete rendering fixture: all five HostValues fields are supplied.
Explanation (the auditor's whole response):The finding is that the rendering fixture supplies all five `HostValues` fields, as Scope 3 requires. The audit inspected `VALUES` at `src/config_template.rs:291`. It supplies `Some` values for `cert_path`, `key_path`, `ca_bundle_path`, `manager_address`, and `manager_server_name`. The required test, `reconverge_default_renders_to_reconverge_config`, renders the real entry using that fixture at `src/config_template.rs:774`. Both citations were validated, and the supplied merge-commit CI passed the covering suites. Nothing is filed because the fixture is complete and used by the required test. The issue’s example paths and address are illustrative; the chosen fixture values satisfy the requirement. No missing field or corrective work was found.Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
There are no competing reasonable interpretations: Scope 3 requires fixture values for all five HostValues fields, and the inspected fixture supplies them; the issue labels its particular example values as illustrative.
Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
AMBIGUOUS was selected as the residual category because none of the specific reasons covers successful delivery. No violation was found; the evidence itself is not ambiguous.Finding not filed — This finding did not meet the certainty bar for filing.
Finding (the auditor's accepted statement):
Required render-and-parse test: the test looks up the entry, renders it, and parses the output as toml::Table.
Explanation (the auditor's whole response):The finding is that the required render-and-parse test is present and follows Scope 3’s procedure. The audit inspected `reconverge_default_renders_to_reconverge_config` at `src/config_template.rs:774`. It obtains the real entry with `find("reconverge", "default")`, renders `entry.body` using the complete `VALUES` fixture, and parses the output as `toml::Table`. The citation was validated, and the supplied merge-commit CI passed both covering test suites. Nothing is filed because the required test procedure is implemented. No omitted lookup, rendering step, or table parsing was found, so there is no corrective work to declare.Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
There are no competing reasonable interpretations: Scope 3 requires lookup, rendering with all host values, and parsing as toml::Table; the inspected test performs each step.
Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
AMBIGUOUS was selected as the residual category because none of the specific reasons covers successful delivery. No violation was found; the evidence itself is not ambiguous.Finding not filed — This finding did not meet the certainty bar for filing.
Finding (the auditor's accepted statement):
Exact recursive assertions: parsed-table equality checks every key set, TOML type, value, and array length.
Explanation (the auditor's whole response):The finding is that the rendering test asserts exact recursive key sets, TOML types, values, and array lengths, as Scope 3 requires. In `reconverge_default_renders_to_reconverge_config`, the rendered output and expected document are both parsed as `toml::Table`, then compared with `assert_eq!(output, expected)` at `src/config_template.rs:783`. Table equality compares complete key sets and recursively compares values, including their TOML variants and array contents. Extra or misspelled keys, wrong types, different values, and different array lengths therefore fail the assertion. The citation was validated, and the supplied merge-commit CI passed both covering suites. Nothing is filed because this comparison satisfies the required property. Separate assertions for each key are unnecessary; no gap in the required checks was found.Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
There are no competing reasonable interpretations: Scope 3 requires exact recursive key sets, types, values, and array lengths, and equality of the parsed TOML tables checks all of them.
Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
AMBIGUOUS was selected as the residual category because none of the specific reasons covers successful delivery. No violation was found; the evidence itself is not ambiguous.Finding not filed — This finding did not meet the certainty bar for filing.
Finding (the auditor's accepted statement):
Top-level shape: the exact required keys and integer cpus value are asserted.
Explanation (the auditor's whole response):The finding is that the rendered configuration’s top-level shape is asserted exactly as Scope 3 requires: `{auth, cpus, detectors, review}`, with `cpus` as integer `1`. The audit inspected the expected document beginning at `src/config_template.rs:739` in `reconverge_default_renders_to_reconverge_config`. It contains precisely those top-level keys. The recursive parsed-table comparison at `src/config_template.rs:783` rejects additional or missing keys and a different type or value for `cpus`. Both citations were validated, and the supplied merge-commit CI passed the covering suites. Nothing is filed because the required shape and assertion are present. No top-level discrepancy or corrective work was found.Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
There are no competing reasonable interpretations: Scope 3 requires exactly the top-level keys auth, cpus, detectors, and review, with integer cpus = 1; the inspected test asserts that shape.
Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
AMBIGUOUS was selected as the residual category because none of the specific reasons covers successful delivery. No violation was found; the evidence itself is not ambiguous.Finding not filed — This finding did not meet the certainty bar for filing.
Finding (the auditor's accepted statement):
auth shape: the exact required keys, fixture paths, and single-element CA array are asserted.
Explanation (the auditor's whole response):The finding is that the rendered `auth` table’s exact shape and values are asserted as Scope 3 requires. The audit inspected the expected table at `src/config_template.rs:741`. Its keys are exactly `{ca_certs, cert, key}`. `ca_certs` is an array containing one string, `"/enrollment/ca.pem"`; `cert` and `key` are the fixture strings `"/enrollment/cert.pem"` and `"/enrollment/key.pem"`. The recursive parsed-table comparison in `reconverge_default_renders_to_reconverge_config` at `src/config_template.rs:783` checks those keys, types, values, and array length. Both citations were validated, and the supplied merge-commit CI passed the covering suites. Nothing is filed because the required authentication shape and assertions are present. No discrepancy or missing work was found.Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
There are no competing reasonable interpretations: Scope 3 requires the exact auth keys, fixture path strings, and single-element CA array; the inspected test asserts all of them.
Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
AMBIGUOUS was selected as the residual category because none of the specific reasons covers successful delivery. No violation was found; the evidence itself is not ambiguous.Finding not filed — This finding did not meet the certainty bar for filing.
Finding (the auditor's accepted statement):
review shape: the exact required keys and fixture strings are asserted, with a valid numeric socket address.
Explanation (the auditor's whole response):The finding is that the rendered `review` table’s exact shape and fixture values are asserted as Scope 3 requires. The audit inspected the expected table at `src/config_template.rs:746`. It contains exactly `{review_rpc_srv_addr, review_name}`, with string values `"[::1]:8443"` and `"manager.example"`, matching the supplied fixture. The address uses valid numeric socket-address syntax. The recursive parsed-table comparison in `reconverge_default_renders_to_reconverge_config` at `src/config_template.rs:783` checks the exact keys, types, and values. Both citations were validated, and the supplied merge-commit CI passed the covering suites. Nothing is filed because the required review configuration and assertions are present. No incorrect key, type, fixture substitution, or address syntax was found.Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
There are no competing reasonable interpretations: Scope 3 requires the exact review keys and fixture strings, and the inspected test asserts both with valid numeric socket-address syntax.
Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
AMBIGUOUS was selected as the residual category because none of the specific reasons covers successful delivery. No violation was found; the evidence itself is not ambiguous.Finding not filed — This finding did not meet the certainty bar for filing.
Finding (the auditor's accepted statement):
detectors shape: exactly one detector table has the required keys, types, and values.
Explanation (the auditor's whole response):The finding is that the rendered `detectors` array is asserted to contain exactly one table with Scope 3’s required keys, types, and values. The audit inspected the expected detector at `src/config_template.rs:750`. Its keys are exactly `{data_source, detector_id, labeldb, period, review_model, stats, timeseries}`. It specifies integer `detector_id = 10`, booleans `timeseries = false` and `stats = false`, and strings `review_model = "unsupervised-default"` and `period = "5m"`. The recursive parsed-table comparison in `reconverge_default_renders_to_reconverge_config` at `src/config_template.rs:783` checks those fields and the array length. Both citations were validated, and the supplied merge-commit CI passed the covering suites. Nothing is filed because the detector configuration and required assertions are present. No discrepancy or missing work was found.Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
There are no competing reasonable interpretations: Scope 3 requires exactly one detector table with the specified keys, types, and values, and the inspected test asserts all of them.
Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
AMBIGUOUS was selected as the residual category because none of the specific reasons covers successful delivery. No violation was found; the evidence itself is not ambiguous.Finding not filed — This finding did not meet the certainty bar for filing.
Finding (the auditor's accepted statement):
data_source shape: the required keys and values are asserted, including integer batch_size and string start.
Explanation (the auditor's whole response):The finding is that the rendered `data_source` table’s exact shape, types, and values are asserted as Scope 3 requires. The audit inspected the expected table at `src/config_template.rs:757`. It contains exactly `{batch_size, start, type}`, with integer `batch_size = 500000`, string `start = "1970-01-01T00:00:00Z"`, and string `type = "giganto"`. In particular, `start` is quoted and therefore expected as a string rather than a TOML datetime. The recursive parsed-table comparison in `reconverge_default_renders_to_reconverge_config` at `src/config_template.rs:783` checks all these properties. Both citations were validated, and the supplied merge-commit CI passed the covering suites. Nothing is filed because the required configuration and assertions are present. The normalization of `500_000` to `500000` is expected, and no key, type, or value discrepancy was found.Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
There are no competing reasonable interpretations: Scope 3 requires the exact data_source keys, integer batch_size = 500000, and the specified start and type strings; the inspected test asserts all of them.
Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
AMBIGUOUS was selected as the residual category because none of the specific reasons covers successful delivery. No violation was found; the evidence itself is not ambiguous.Finding not filed — This finding did not meet the certainty bar for filing.
Finding (the auditor's accepted statement):
labeldb shape: the exact required keys, types, and values are asserted.
Explanation (the auditor's whole response):The finding is that the rendered `labeldb` table’s exact shape, types, and values are asserted as Scope 3 requires. The audit inspected the expected table at `src/config_template.rs:762`. Its keys are exactly `{columns, event_range, generate_unlabeled_from_outliers, limit_unlabeled_from_outliers, min_events_ratio, protocol}`. It specifies integers `event_range = 30`, `min_events_ratio = 10`, and `limit_unlabeled_from_outliers = 5`, string `protocol = "http"`, boolean `generate_unlabeled_from_outliers = true`, and the required columns array. The recursive parsed-table comparison in `reconverge_default_renders_to_reconverge_config` at `src/config_template.rs:783` checks these properties. Both citations were validated, and the supplied merge-commit CI passed the covering suites. Nothing is filed because the required table and assertions are present. No missing key, incorrect type or value, or corrective work was found.Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
There are no competing reasonable interpretations: Scope 3 requires the exact labeldb keys, types, and values, and the inspected test asserts all of them.
Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
AMBIGUOUS was selected as the residual category because none of the specific reasons covers successful delivery. No violation was found; the evidence itself is not ambiguous.Finding not filed — This finding did not meet the certainty bar for filing.
Finding (the auditor's accepted statement):
columns shape: exactly one column table has the required keys, integer array, database string, and float score.
Explanation (the auditor's whole response):The finding is that the rendered `columns` array is asserted to contain exactly one table with Scope 3’s required keys, types, and values. The audit inspected the expected column at `src/config_template.rs:769`. Its keys are exactly `{column_ids, db, min_score}`. `column_ids` contains one integer, `15`; `db` is the string `"HttpUriThreat"`; and `min_score` is the float `0.7`. The recursive parsed-table comparison in `reconverge_default_renders_to_reconverge_config` at `src/config_template.rs:783` checks these properties and both array lengths. Both citations were validated, and the supplied merge-commit CI passed the covering suites. Nothing is filed because the required column configuration and assertions are present. No discrepancy or missing work was found.Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
There are no competing reasonable interpretations: Scope 3 requires one column table with the exact keys, integer array [15], database string HttpUriThreat, and float score 0.7; the inspected test asserts all of them.
Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
AMBIGUOUS was selected as the residual category because none of the specific reasons covers successful delivery. No violation was found; the evidence itself is not ambiguous.Finding not filed — This finding did not meet the certainty bar for filing.
Finding (the auditor's accepted statement):
Every token required individually: omitting each host field produces UnresolvedToken naming the corresponding token.
Explanation (the auditor's whole response):The finding is that the template requires all five host values individually, with the token-specific error coverage requested by Scope 4. The audit inspected `reconverge_default_requires_every_host_value` at `src/config_template.rs:787`. It looks up the real entry, iterates `TemplateToken::ALL`, copies the complete fixture, sets only the corresponding field to `None`, and asserts that rendering returns `ConfigTemplateError::UnresolvedToken` naming that same token. The other four fields remain supplied. The citation was validated, and the supplied merge-commit CI passed both covering suites. Nothing is filed because the test covers every required token and checks the specified error identity. No omitted token or incorrect assertion was found.Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
There are no competing reasonable interpretations: Scope 4 requires omitting each host value individually and checking UnresolvedToken names that token; the inspected test does this for all five tokens.
Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
AMBIGUOUS was selected as the residual category because none of the specific reasons covers successful delivery. No violation was found; the evidence itself is not ambiguous.Finding not filed — This finding did not meet the certainty bar for filing.
Finding (the auditor's accepted statement):
Existing catalog invariants: the unchanged invariant checks cover the populated catalog.
Explanation (the auditor's whole response):The finding is that the existing catalog-invariant checks remain unchanged and cover the populated catalog, as Scope 5 requires. The audit inspected `check_catalog` at `src/config_template.rs:322`. It checks the id rule, identity uniqueness, membership in the required-component set, rendering with all host values supplied, and nonempty names and descriptions in both languages. `real_catalog_satisfies_invariants` at `src/config_template.rs:697` applies those checks to `CATALOG`. The combined diff leaves both unchanged. Both citations were validated, and the supplied merge-commit CI passed the covering suites. Nothing is filed because the existing checks are preserved and successfully cover the new entry. No weakened invariant, unauthorized test change, or missing coverage was found.Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
There are no competing reasonable interpretations: Scope 5 requires the existing catalog-invariant checks to pass unchanged with the new entry, and the inspected diff and supplied CI establish that they do.
Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
AMBIGUOUS was selected as the residual category because none of the specific reasons covers successful delivery. No violation was found; the evidence itself is not ambiguous.Finding not filed — This finding did not meet the certainty bar for filing.
Finding (the auditor's accepted statement):
Existing file correspondence: the unchanged test compares each compiled body with its named template file.
Explanation (the auditor's whole response):The finding is that the existing file-correspondence test remains unchanged and covers the new catalog entry, as Scope 5 requires. The audit inspected `real_catalog_bodies_match_the_named_files` at `src/config_template.rs:702`. For every catalog entry, it constructs `templates/<component>/<id>.toml`, reads that file, and asserts equality with the compiled body. The populated catalog therefore makes it compare reconverge’s `default` body with `templates/reconverge/default.toml`. The combined diff leaves this test unchanged. The citation was validated, and the supplied merge-commit CI passed both covering suites. Nothing is filed because the required correspondence check is preserved and covers the entry successfully. No body/file mismatch, unauthorized test change, or missing coverage was found.Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
There are no competing reasonable interpretations: Scope 5 requires the existing file-correspondence test to pass unchanged with the new entry, and the inspected diff and supplied CI establish that it does.
Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
AMBIGUOUS was selected as the residual category because none of the specific reasons covers successful delivery. No violation was found; the evidence itself is not ambiguous.Finding not filed — This finding did not meet the certainty bar for filing.
Finding (the auditor's accepted statement):
Existing lookup tests remain valid: no empty-catalog assumption required alteration.
Explanation (the auditor's whole response):The finding is that the existing lookup tests remain valid with the populated catalog; no empty-catalog assertion required alteration under Scope 5. The audit inspected the existing tests in `src/config_template.rs`. In `only_reconverge_requires_a_template` at `src/config_template.rs:687`, the negative lookup and empty-enumeration assertions apply to other components or differently cased names, not to `"reconverge"`. The fixture lookup tests use their own catalog. No existing test asserted that the real catalog must remain empty or that `find("reconverge", "default")` must return `None`. The citation was validated, and the supplied merge-commit CI passed both suites. Nothing is filed because Scope 5’s instruction to change incompatible assertions was conditional, and no such assertion was found. Leaving these valid tests unchanged satisfies the issue.Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
There are no competing reasonable interpretations: Scope 5 requires changes only if existing tests assume an empty real catalog or a missing reconverge/default entry; inspection found no such assumptions.
Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
AMBIGUOUS was selected as the residual category because none of the specific reasons covers successful delivery. Leaving the valid tests unchanged satisfies the issue; no violation was found.Finding not filed — This finding did not meet the certainty bar for filing.
Finding (the auditor's accepted statement):
Changelog entry: the required entry appears under Unreleased and Added, above Changed, without issue or PR references.
Explanation (the auditor's whole response):The finding is that the required changelog entry is present in the location and form specified by Scope 6. The audit inspected `CHANGELOG.md:7` and `CHANGELOG.md:11`. Under `[Unreleased]` → `Added`, above `Changed`, one entry describes reconverge’s `default` template: one detector every five minutes on the Data Store’s HTTP events, using the HttpUriThreat label database and Central Manager model `unsupervised-default`. It contains no issue or PR reference. Both citations were validated. Nothing is filed because the entry satisfies the requested content and placement. No omission, incorrect release-note text, or corrective work was found.Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
There are no competing reasonable interpretations: Scope 6 requires the described entry under Unreleased and Added, above Changed, without issue or PR references; the inspected changelog satisfies those requirements.
Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
AMBIGUOUS was selected as the residual category because none of the specific reasons covers successful delivery. No violation was found; the evidence itself is not ambiguous.Finding not filed — This finding did not meet the certainty bar for filing.
Finding (the auditor's accepted statement):
Unreleased compare link: the required link is present.
Explanation (the auditor's whole response):The finding is that the changelog’s `[Unreleased]` compare link is present. The audit inspected `CHANGELOG.md:67`, which defines `[Unreleased]` as `https://github.com/aicers/deploy-core/compare/0.1.0...main`. The citation was validated. Scope 6 requires recreating the heading and compare link if they are absent; this checkout already contains both. Nothing is filed because no heading or link restoration is needed. The changelog satisfies the requirement, with no missing link or corrective work to declare.Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
There are no competing reasonable interpretations: Scope 6 requires restoring the Unreleased heading and compare link if absent; both are already present in the inspected changelog.
Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
AMBIGUOUS was selected as the residual category because none of the specific reasons covers satisfied requirements. No violation was found; the evidence itself is not ambiguous.Finding not filed — This finding did not meet the certainty bar for filing.
Finding (the auditor's accepted statement):
No secrets or extra host-specific values: the template contains precisely the five host-value tokens and fixed configuration.
Explanation (the auditor's whole response):The finding is that the template holds no secrets and contains only the five permitted host-specific tokens, satisfying the Constraints section. The audit inspected the entire template. The authentication values at `templates/reconverge/default.toml:3` are `${ca_bundle_path}`, `${cert_path}`, and `${key_path}`; the manager values at `templates/reconverge/default.toml:8` are `${manager_address}` and `${manager_server_name}`. These are placeholders for paths and manager identity information, not embedded certificate, key, or credential material. The remaining values are the fixed configuration required by Scope 1. Both citations were validated. Nothing is filed because no secret or additional host-specific value was found. The template meets the constraint, with no corrective work to declare.Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
There are no competing reasonable interpretations: the constraint permits only the five host-value tokens and forbids secrets; the inspected template contains those placeholders and fixed configuration, with no secret material.
Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
AMBIGUOUS was selected as the residual category because none of the specific reasons covers satisfied requirements. No violation was found; the evidence itself is not ambiguous.Finding not filed — This finding did not meet the certainty bar for filing.
Finding (the auditor's accepted statement):
Immutable-template policy: the module documentation and PR description require later configuration changes to use a new file and id.
Explanation (the auditor's whole response):The finding is that the immutable-template policy is recorded as the Constraints section requires. The audit inspected the unchanged module documentation at `src/config_template.rs:40`, which states that template content never changes under an existing id and changed content receives a new id. The citation was validated. The audit also read PR #151’s description, which explicitly states that the body is immutable under `default` and that any later configuration change requires a new file and id. Nothing is filed because the required policy and PR statement are present. No current violation was found. Automated enforcement was not required, and this confirmation does not claim to guarantee future compliance.Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
There are no competing reasonable interpretations: the constraint requires the immutable-template policy and an explicit PR statement that later changes use a new file and id; both were inspected and confirmed.
Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
AMBIGUOUS was selected as the residual category because none of the specific reasons covers satisfied requirements. No current violation was found; future compliance was not claimed.Finding not filed — This finding did not meet the certainty bar for filing.
Finding (the auditor's accepted statement):
Restricted implementation scope: the complete diff contains only the catalog entry, three new tests, template, and changelog entry, with no other production logic, public API, documentation, or dependency changes.
Explanation (the auditor's whole response):The finding is that the implementation stays within issue #149’s requested scope, with no unrelated code, public API, documentation, or dependency changes. The audit inspected the complete combined diff. It adds the template at `templates/reconverge/default.toml:1`, replaces the empty catalog with the required entry at `src/config_template.rs:47`, adds three tests beginning at `src/config_template.rs:718`, and adds the changelog entry at `CHANGELOG.md:11`. Those tests cover entry identity and enumeration, rendered configuration shape, and all five required tokens. Existing production logic, public declarations, module documentation, and tests are otherwise unchanged; no dependency file is among the changed paths. The citations were validated. Nothing is filed because every change serves the issue’s requirements. No excess change or violation of the scope restriction was found.Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
There are no competing reasonable interpretations: the complete diff contains the required template, catalog entry, supporting tests, and changelog entry, with no unrelated changes.
Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
AMBIGUOUS was selected as the residual category because none of the specific reasons covers compliance with the scope restriction. No violation was found; the evidence itself is not ambiguous.Finding not filed — This finding did not meet the certainty bar for filing.
Finding (the auditor's accepted statement):
Formatting: the supplied merge-commit CI passed the required command.
Explanation (the auditor's whole response):The finding is that formatting passed the exact command required by the acceptance criteria: `cargo fmt -- --check --config group_imports=StdExternalCrate`. The audit confirmed that command in the formatting step at `.github/workflows/ci.yml:92` and validated the citation. The supplied successful merge-commit `check` result covers that step. The audit did not rerun formatting, in accordance with the instruction to rely on CI-covered checks. Nothing is filed because the required formatting check passed. No formatting failure or missing check was found.Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
There are no competing reasonable interpretations: the acceptance criteria require the specified formatting command to pass, and the inspected workflow and supplied merge-commit CI establish that it did.
Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
AMBIGUOUS was selected as the residual category because none of the specific reasons covers a passed requirement. No violation was found; the evidence itself is not ambiguous.Finding not filed — This finding did not meet the certainty bar for filing.
Finding (the auditor's accepted statement):
Default Clippy: the supplied merge-commit CI passed the required command.
Explanation (the auditor's whole response):The finding is that the default Clippy configuration passed the required command: `cargo clippy --all-targets -- -D warnings`. The audit confirmed that invocation at `.github/workflows/ci.yml:98` and validated the citation. The supplied successful merge-commit `check` result covers that step. Clippy was not rerun during the audit, as instructed. Nothing is filed because the required lint check passed. No lint failure, incorrect invocation, or missing check was found.Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
There are no competing reasonable interpretations: the acceptance criteria require the default Clippy command to pass, and the inspected workflow and supplied merge-commit CI establish that it did.
Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
AMBIGUOUS was selected as the residual category because none of the specific reasons covers a passed requirement. No violation was found; the evidence itself is not ambiguous.Finding not filed — This finding did not meet the certainty bar for filing.
Finding (the auditor's accepted statement):
Feature-enabled Clippy: the supplied merge-commit CI passed the required command.
Explanation (the auditor's whole response):The finding is that the feature-enabled Clippy configuration passed the required command: `cargo clippy --all-targets --features test-support -- -D warnings`. The audit confirmed that invocation at `.github/workflows/ci.yml:100` and validated the citation. The supplied successful merge-commit `check` result covers that step, including code enabled by `test-support`. Clippy was not rerun during the audit, as instructed. Nothing is filed because the required lint configuration passed. No missing feature coverage, incorrect invocation, or lint failure was found.Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
There are no competing reasonable interpretations: the acceptance criteria require Clippy with test-support enabled to pass, and the inspected workflow and supplied merge-commit CI establish that it did.
Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
AMBIGUOUS was selected as the residual category because none of the specific reasons covers a passed requirement. No violation was found; the evidence itself is not ambiguous.Finding not filed — This finding did not meet the certainty bar for filing.
Finding (the auditor's accepted statement):
Warning-free documentation: the supplied merge-commit CI passed the required documentation command and warning flag.
Explanation (the auditor's whole response):The finding is that the required warning-free documentation check passed. The audit inspected `.github/workflows/ci.yml:113`, which runs `cargo doc --no-deps --document-private-items --features test-support` with `RUSTDOCFLAGS: -D warnings`. The citation was validated, and the supplied successful merge-commit `check` result covers that step. Documentation generation was not rerun during the audit, as instructed. Nothing is filed because the required command, feature coverage, private-item coverage, and warning policy are present, and CI passed. No documentation-check failure or missing requirement was found.Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
There are no competing reasonable interpretations: the acceptance criteria require the specified documentation command with warnings denied, and the inspected workflow and supplied merge-commit CI establish that it passed.
Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
AMBIGUOUS was selected as the residual category because none of the specific reasons covers a passed requirement. No violation was found; the evidence itself is not ambiguous.Finding not filed — This finding did not meet the certainty bar for filing.
Finding (the auditor's accepted statement):
Default tests: the supplied merge-commit CI passed the required suite.
Explanation (the auditor's whole response):The finding is that the required default test suite passed. The audit confirmed `cargo test` at `.github/workflows/ci.yml:124` and validated the citation. The supplied successful merge-commit `test` result covers that invocation. Relevant tests in `src/config_template.rs` are `reconverge_default_is_the_only_template`, `reconverge_default_renders_to_reconverge_config`, `reconverge_default_requires_every_host_value`, `real_catalog_satisfies_invariants`, and `real_catalog_bodies_match_the_named_files`. Their implementations were inspected during the audit; the suite was not rerun, as instructed. Nothing is filed because the default-suite requirement passed and the required catalog tests are present. No test failure or missing required coverage was found.Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
There are no competing reasonable interpretations: the acceptance criteria require cargo test to pass, and the inspected workflow and supplied merge-commit CI establish that it did.
Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
AMBIGUOUS was selected as the residual category because none of the specific reasons covers a passed requirement. No violation was found; the evidence itself is not ambiguous.Finding not filed — This finding did not meet the certainty bar for filing.
Finding (the auditor's accepted statement):
Feature-enabled tests: the supplied merge-commit CI passed the required suite.
Explanation (the auditor's whole response):The finding is that the required feature-enabled test suite passed. The audit confirmed `cargo test --features test-support` at `.github/workflows/ci.yml:128` and validated the citation. The supplied successful merge-commit `test` result covers that invocation. It includes the five relevant tests in `src/config_template.rs`: `reconverge_default_is_the_only_template`, `reconverge_default_renders_to_reconverge_config`, `reconverge_default_requires_every_host_value`, `real_catalog_satisfies_invariants`, and `real_catalog_bodies_match_the_named_files`. The suite was not rerun during the audit, as instructed. Nothing is filed because the required feature configuration passed. No merge-commit test failure or missing required coverage was found.Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
There are no competing reasonable interpretations: the acceptance criteria require cargo test with test-support enabled to pass, and the inspected workflow and supplied merge-commit CI establish that it did.
Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
AMBIGUOUS was selected as the residual category because none of the specific reasons covers a passed requirement. No violation was found; the evidence itself is not ambiguous.Finding not filed — This finding did not meet the certainty bar for filing.
Finding (the auditor's accepted statement):
Platform jobs: the supplied Linux ARM test and macOS build results passed.
Explanation (the auditor's whole response):The finding is that both required Platform jobs passed: Linux ARM tests and macOS builds. The audit inspected the platform matrix at `.github/workflows/ci.yml:136`. It runs `cargo test --features test-support` on `ubuntu-24.04-arm` and `cargo build --all-targets --features test-support` on `macos-latest`. The citation was validated. The supplied merge-commit results report success for both Platform jobs. Neither command was rerun during the audit, as instructed. Nothing is filed because both required platform checks passed. No missing platform coverage, incorrect command, or failed job was found.Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
There are no competing reasonable interpretations: the acceptance criteria require the Platform jobs to pass, and the inspected matrix and supplied merge-commit results establish successful Linux ARM tests and macOS builds.
Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
AMBIGUOUS was selected as the residual category because none of the specific reasons covers passed requirements. No violation was found; the evidence itself is not ambiguous.Finding not filed — This finding did not meet the certainty bar for filing.
Finding (the auditor's accepted statement):
Recursive Markdownlint: the supplied merge-commit result passed with recursive Markdown coverage.
Explanation (the auditor's whole response):The finding is that recursive Markdownlint passed with the coverage required by the acceptance criteria. The audit inspected the Markdownlint step at `.github/workflows/ci.yml:23`, which specifies the recursive glob `**/*.md`. The citation was validated. The supplied successful merge-commit `Markdown` result covers that step. Markdownlint was not rerun during the audit, as instructed. Nothing is filed because the required recursive coverage is configured and the check passed. No missing coverage or Markdownlint failure was found.Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
There are no competing reasonable interpretations: the acceptance criteria require recursive Markdownlint over **/*.md to pass, and the inspected workflow and supplied merge-commit CI establish that it did.
Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
AMBIGUOUS was selected as the residual category because none of the specific reasons covers a passed requirement. No violation was found; the evidence itself is not ambiguous.Finding not filed — This finding did not meet the certainty bar for filing.
Finding (the auditor's accepted statement):
Instruction drift check: the supplied merge-commit result passed.
Explanation (the auditor's whole response):The finding is that the required agent-instructions drift check passed. The audit inspected the `aicers/agent-instructions/check-drift@main` step at `.github/workflows/ci.yml:77` and validated the citation. The supplied successful merge-commit `Markdown` result covers that step. The drift check was not rerun during the audit, as instructed. Nothing is filed because the required check is configured and passed. No instruction drift, missing check, or failed result was found.Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
There are no competing reasonable interpretations: the acceptance criteria require the agent-instructions drift check to pass, and the inspected workflow and supplied merge-commit CI establish that it did.
Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
AMBIGUOUS was selected as the residual category because none of the specific reasons covers a passed requirement. No violation was found; the evidence itself is not ambiguous.Finding not filed — This finding did not meet the certainty bar for filing.
Finding (the auditor's accepted statement):
Reconverge compatibility: the template fields and types agree with the inspected reconverge 0.55.0 definitions.
Explanation (the auditor's whole response):The finding is that the template’s configuration fields and TOML types agree with reconverge 0.55.0’s definitions, completing the source cross-check requested by the Test plan. The audit inspected `templates/reconverge/default.toml:1` and the expected configuration in `reconverge_default_renders_to_reconverge_config` at `src/config_template.rs:739`; both citations were validated. It compared them with reconverge commit `c924fa95ef9bdc99d68d90d565b4f81849b44e90`, reading `Config` and `DetectorConfig` in `src/analyze.rs`, authentication and manager-address configurations, the lowercase `type` input tag, Giganto’s configuration, and the label database and column configurations. The names and types agree, including `start` as a string. This was source inspection, not a runtime deserialization experiment. Nothing is filed because no incompatible field or type was found. The requested compatibility check supports the delivered template rather than identifying corrective work.Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
There are no competing reasonable interpretations: the Test plan requests a source cross-check against reconverge 0.55.0, and the inspected definitions agree with the template's fields and types.
Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
AMBIGUOUS was selected as the residual category because none of the specific reasons covers confirmed compatibility. No violation was found; a runtime deserialization experiment was neither required nor claimed.Finding not filed — This finding did not meet the certainty bar for filing.
Finding (the auditor's accepted statement):
Missing-model behavior: reconverge's periodic task logs a model-fetch failure and continues, supporting the operator description.
Explanation (the auditor's whole response):The finding is that reconverge’s missing-model behavior supports the template’s operator description: a failed model fetch is logged, and the periodic detector continues to later runs. The audit confirmed the description at `src/config_template.rs:54` and the fixed model name in `templates/reconverge/default.toml:1`; both citations were validated. It also inspected reconverge commit `c924fa95ef9bdc99d68d90d565b4f81849b44e90`’s `src/analyze.rs`: `Detector::prepare` fetches the model by name, while `Detector::periodic_task` logs an error from `run()` and continues its scheduling loop. This was source inspection, not a runtime experiment. Nothing is filed because this behavior is explicitly intended by the issue’s Context and Edge cases sections. It supports the supplied description and does not establish a defect introduced by PR #151.Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
There are no competing reasonable interpretations: the issue explicitly intends continued operation and logged retries while the model is missing, and the inspected reconverge source supports that behavior.
Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
AMBIGUOUS was selected as the residual category because none of the specific reasons covers confirmed intended behavior. No violation or misleading statement was found; the evidence itself is not ambiguous.Finding not filed — This finding did not meet the certainty bar for filing.
Finding (the auditor's accepted statement):
Stdout logging: reconverge selects stdout when log_path is omitted.
Explanation (the auditor's whole response):The finding is that omitting `log_path` selects reconverge’s intended stdout logging behavior. The audit inspected the complete template at `templates/reconverge/default.toml:1`, which contains no `log_path`. The rendering test’s expected top-level shape at `src/config_template.rs:739`, checked by recursive equality at `src/config_template.rs:783`, also excludes it. These citations were validated. The inspected reconverge 0.55.0 analysis configuration declares `log_path` optional and documents stdout logging when it is absent. This was source inspection, not a runtime logging experiment. Nothing is filed because the omission is explicitly required by the issue’s provenance description and matches Scope 1’s exact template. It is intended configuration, with no missing setting or introduced defect to correct.Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
There are no competing reasonable interpretations: the issue explicitly requires omitting log_path for stdout logging, and the inspected template omits it consistently with reconverge's documented optional configuration.
Interpretation (the auditor's accepted statement):
AMBIGUOUS was selected as the residual category because none of the specific reasons covers confirmed intended configuration. No violation was found; a runtime logging experiment was not claimed.Finding not filed — The issue specifies the property, not this means.
Finding (the auditor's accepted statement):
Separate key-by-key assertion statements were considered and set aside: recursive table equality satisfies the required property, and the issue did not require that assertion style.
Explanation (the auditor's whole response):The finding is that separate key-by-key assertion statements were considered and set aside as an implementation mechanism the issue did not require. Scope 3 requires assertions of exact key sets, TOML types, values, and array lengths. The audit inspected `reconverge_default_renders_to_reconverge_config`, whose `assert_eq!(output, expected)` at `src/config_template.rs:783` compares complete parsed TOML tables recursively. That comparison checks all the required properties. The citation was validated, and the supplied merge-commit CI passed the covering suites. Nothing is filed because the required property already holds. The issue does not prescribe separate assertions for individual keys, and their absence does not weaken this comparison. Requesting that assertion style would invent a mechanism requirement rather than correct a delivery shortfall.Finding not filed — The issue specifies the property, not this means.
Finding (the auditor's accepted statement):
Automated enforcement of template immutability was considered and set aside: the required policy is recorded, and the issue did not require a new enforcement guard.
Explanation (the auditor's whole response):The finding is that automated enforcement of template immutability was considered and set aside as a mechanism the issue did not require. The audit inspected the policy at `src/config_template.rs:40`: content never changes under an existing id, and changed content receives a new id. The surrounding documentation explicitly assigns enforcement to review. The citation was validated. PR #151’s description also states that `default` is immutable and later configuration changes require a new file and id, satisfying the issue’s explicit documentation requirement. Nothing is filed because no current immutability violation was found. The issue requires the policy and PR statement, but does not request an automated guard against future edits. Adding such a guard would impose an implementation mechanism beyond the stated requirement.- Delivery:
Dependencies
#148 (the
config_templatemodule: catalog, lookups, renderer and invariant tests). This issue adds data to it and nothing else. It blocks aicers/review#2281 (review) and aicers/roxyd#269 (roxyd), whose deploy-core pins must already hold this entry, so it should merge soon after #148 and before the deploy-core release that aicers/review#2281 pins is cut.Context
#148 added
deploy_core::config_template, a compile-time catalog of named first-install configuration templates, and shipped it empty.reconverge(the Unsupervised Engine) is the one component that requires a template, so until the catalog holds an entry for it the Central Manager (REView) refuses every reconverge install. This issue adds that first entry, whose content the product owner supplied.Provenance of the body. It is aicers/codepot
resources/conf/unsupervised.tomlat commit423dbd4e(the packaged configuration for reconverge 0.54), with these changes and no others:[auth]and[review]values replaced by the catalog's host-value tokens (${ca_bundle_path},${cert_path},${key_path},${manager_address},${manager_server_name}), which the Host Agent (roxyd) fills in at first install;log_pathdropped (reconverge then logs to stdout, i.e. the journal);descriptionkey dropped (reconverge'sConfighas no such field);review_modelrenamed from"data-store_sensor_http"to"unsupervised-default".The model name is a product owner decision.
unsupervised-defaultis a fixed name that does not tie the template to a particular Data Store, Sensor or protocol. The operator creates a model with that name in the Central Manager. reconverge fetches its model by name at every run of a periodic detector; while the model does not exist the run fails, reconverge logs an error and retries at the next period (reconverge 0.55.0src/analyze.rs,Detector::periodic_task, which logsrun()'s error and loops;Detector::preparefetches the model withModel::from_remote). So an instance installed from this template runs, and starts detecting once the model exists. The description shown to the operator says so.Scope
templates/reconverge/default.toml(repository root), with exactly this content, byte for byte, ending in a single newline:src/config_template.rs: the first (and only) element ofCATALOG, withbody: include_str!("../templates/reconverge/default.toml")and:componentreconvergeiddefaultname.enDefaultname.ko기본description.enRuns one detector every 5 minutes on the Data Store's HTTP events, using the HttpUriThreat label database. It needs a model named unsupervised-default, built on HTTP events, in the Central Manager. Until that model exists, the engine runs but detects nothing; once it is created, detection starts at the next 5-minute run.description.ko탐지기 하나가 5분마다 데이터 저장소의 HTTP 이벤트를 HttpUriThreat 레이블 데이터베이스를 사용해 분석합니다. 중앙 관리자에 HTTP 이벤트로 만든 unsupervised-default라는 이름의 모델이 있어야 합니다. 이 모델이 없는 동안에도 엔진은 실행되지만 탐지는 하지 않으며, 모델을 만들면 다음 5분 주기부터 탐지를 시작합니다.The texts are plain text (the UI shows them verbatim; no Markdown). Copy them exactly.
Test
reconverge_default_renders_to_reconverge_config(name is a suggestion) insrc/config_template.rs's test module: look the entry up withfind("reconverge", "default"), render its body with everyHostValuesfield supplied by fixture values (e.g.cert_path = "/fixture/cert.pem",key_path = "/fixture/key.pem",ca_bundle_path = "/fixture/ca-bundle.pem",manager_address = "192.0.2.10:38390",manager_server_name = "manager.fixture.internal"), parse the output as atoml::Table, and assert the shape reconverge 0.55.0's analysisConfigdeserializes. reconverge's structs do not deny unknown fields, so a misspelled key would be silently ignored at run time: assert the exact key set of every table, not only the presence of keys. Expected (key → TOML type and value; source of the field name in reconverge 0.55.0 in parentheses):{auth, cpus, detectors, review}(src/analyze.rsConfig;log_pathis optional there and absent here);cpus= integer1;auth: exactly{ca_certs, cert, key}(src/auth.rsConfig):ca_certs= array of one string, the fixture CA bundle path;cert= string, the fixture certificate path;key= string, the fixture key path;review: exactly{review_rpc_srv_addr, review_name}(src/control.rsAddressConfig; reconverge parsesreview_rpc_srv_addras aSocketAddr): the fixture manager address and server name, as strings;detectors: an array of exactly one table, whose keys are exactly{data_source, detector_id, labeldb, period, review_model, stats, timeseries}(src/analyze.rsDetectorConfig):detector_id= integer10;timeseries=false;stats=false;review_model= string"unsupervised-default";period= string"5m";detectors[0].data_source: exactly{batch_size, start, type}(src/input.rsStateConfig, internally tagged bytype, lowercase;src/input/giganto.rsStateConfig):type= string"giganto";batch_size= integer500000;start= string"1970-01-01T00:00:00Z"(not a TOML datetime: reconverge readsstartasOption<String>);detectors[0].labeldb: exactly{columns, event_range, generate_unlabeled_from_outliers, limit_unlabeled_from_outliers, min_events_ratio, protocol}(src/remake/labeldb.rsLabelDbConfig):event_range= integer30;protocol= string"http";min_events_ratio= integer10;generate_unlabeled_from_outliers=true;limit_unlabeled_from_outliers= integer5;detectors[0].labeldb.columns: an array of exactly one table with keys exactly{column_ids, db, min_score}(src/remake/labeldb.rsColumnConfig):column_ids= array of one integer15;db= string"HttpUriThreat";min_score= float0.7.Do not add a reconverge dependency (or any dependency); the assertions are on the parsed
toml::Table.Test that the entry names all five tokens: for each
TemplateTokeninTemplateToken::ALL, rendering the entry's body with that oneHostValuesfieldNone(the other four supplied) returnsConfigTemplateError::UnresolvedTokennaming that token.Existing tests. Add the configuration template catalog and its renderer #148's catalog-invariant test (id rule, uniqueness, component in the required set, body renders with all values supplied, non-empty texts in both languages) and its file-correspondence test (body equals
templates/<component>/<id>.toml) now cover this entry; they must pass unchanged. If any test from Add the configuration template catalog and its renderer #148 asserts that the real catalog is empty, or thatfind("reconverge", "default")isNone, change it to match the catalog now holding this entry; change nothing else in Add the configuration template catalog and its renderer #148's tests or code.CHANGELOG.md: under
## [Unreleased]→### Added(if a release has been cut since Add the configuration template catalog and its renderer #148 and there is no## [Unreleased], recreate the heading and its compare link; put### Addedabove any### Changed), one entry, for example: "Adefaultconfiguration template forreconverge: one detector every 5 minutes on the Data Store's HTTP events with the HttpUriThreat label database, using the Central Manager model namedunsupervised-default." No issue or PR reference.Acceptance criteria
templates/reconverge/default.tomlis byte-identical to the block in Scope 1.find("reconverge", "default")returns the entry with the exactnameanddescriptiontexts of Scope 2;templates_for("reconverge")yields exactly that one entry.CHANGELOG.mdcarries the entry.cargo fmt -- --check --config group_imports=StdExternalCrate;cargo clippy --all-targets -- -D warnings;cargo clippy --all-targets --features test-support -- -D warnings;RUSTDOCFLAGS="-D warnings" cargo doc --no-deps --document-private-items --features test-support;cargo test;cargo test --features test-support; the Platform jobs; markdownlint over**/*.md; the agent-instructions drift check.Constraints
default. A later change to reconverge's default configuration is a new file and a new id, never an edit of this one. Say so in the PR description so a reviewer can hold later changes to it.Edge cases
tomlcrate's, not the template's; that is expected and is why the test compares parsed tables, not text.batch_size = 500_000renders as500000; the test compares the integer value.unsupervised-defaultexists keeps running and logs an error every 5 minutes; that is the intended behaviour described to the operator, not a defect of the template.Test plan
cargo testruns the Scope 3 and Scope 4 tests and Add the configuration template catalog and its renderer #148's invariant and file-correspondence tests over the catalog with this entry.src/analyze.rs(Config,DetectorConfig),src/auth.rs(Config),src/control.rs(AddressConfig),src/input.rs(StateConfigtag),src/input/giganto.rs(StateConfig),src/remake/labeldb.rs(LabelDbConfig,ColumnConfig).Pointers
src/config_template.rs—CATALOG,find,templates_for,render,HostValues,TemplateToken,ConfigTemplateError, and the test module, all from Add the configuration template catalog and its renderer #148.CHANGELOG.md[Unreleased].docs/rfcs/0004-module-packaging-and-core-extraction.md§4 "Module configuration authorship" ("The first entry ... is supplied by the product owner later ... a separate one-file change"), restated above.