The publishability gate caught internal tooling names and developer paths but
nothing site-specific, so roughly sixty leaks reached the wiki: the site name in
ten documents, real fleet hostnames in the collector and GE-Enforce examples, an
internal database name through the whole import guide, imaging-share paths, and
a maintainer's username as the Deciders line of every ADR and inside a generated
curl example.
None of it is a security matter on an air-gapped fleet. It matters because these
pages are read by engineers at other plants, and a document that names one site
throughout reads as that site's notes rather than a product's documentation -
which is exactly what it then gets treated as.
Examples now use neutral hostnames, the site is "the reference site" where the
distinction carries meaning, and ADRs are decided by "ShopDB maintainers". The
gate carries all of these patterns, so the next one fails a build.
Two documents leave docs/ because they were never written for an outside reader.
PROJECT-REVIEW.md is an internal health memo pinned to a commit from July, whose
headline finding (an untracked playbook) has since been fixed - it is history,
and git holds it. PILOT-DEPLOY.md is one site's own cutover runbook, complete
with a "re-measure before publishing" placeholder; it moves next to the loader
it belongs to, in scripts/site_imports/wjf/.
ADR-015 is AMENDED rather than rewritten. Its enforcement section still said
report-only and its backlog still listed hardcodes that are now cleared, which
left the record contradicting itself. The amendment says what changed and why
the report-only period ended; the original text stays, because what the decision
looked like when it was taken is the part worth keeping.
Also corrects llms.txt's response envelope, which had errors at the top level
and pagination at meta.total. Both are nested one deeper, so anything written
against that description read undefined on every error it tried to handle.
Wave one of the dashboard proposal, built as a vertical slice so the contract
is proven by something real before the other five cards follow.
GET /api/geenforce/dashboard/failures lists entries that FAILED on their PC's
most recent enforcement cycle. Per ENTRY, not per report: "three PCs failed" is
a number, while "Install OpenText failed with exit 1603 on WJSF1234" is
something a person can act on. Only current reports count, so a failure that
has since been fixed clears itself instead of needing dismissing. Hostnames
resolve to computerids in one query so each row links to the PC, and a PC
shopdb does not know still appears - the failure is real even when the
inventory is behind, and that is the bay most likely to be misconfigured.
The data has been there all along. The only way to see any of it was to open
one PC's report modal, one PC at a time.
The widget declaration is the contract change. The old shape named a Vue
component per widget, which cannot survive a lean build where a plugin's
component may never be staged into the bundle - which is exactly why five
plugins declare widgets pointing at components nobody ever wrote. This declares
data, a generic renderer, a permission and a link template, the way ADR-010
already does for asset panels. A test asserts no 'component' key, so the old
shape cannot creep back.
empty: hide is part of the contract, not decoration. A card reporting "nothing
wrong" daily teaches people to stop reading the page, which is how a fleet log
reached 3,234 lines with 17 that mattered.
Frontend rendering comes next; the endpoint and declaration stand alone and
change nothing that exists.
The dashboard reports totals that are true every day and actionable on none of
them. Meanwhile a bay returned 500 to every collector report for a day and a
half, eleven markers' backups overwrote each other for weeks, and GE-Enforce
records failures, stale manifests and repeated self-heals that surface nowhere.
Every one of those was found by someone going to look.
Two things found while writing this shaped it. The plugin mechanism already
exists - get_dashboard_widgets, an endpoint that aggregates across enabled
plugins and isolates failures, and five plugins declaring widgets. And nothing
consumes it: the frontend never calls the endpoint and not one of the declared
components was ever written. So this finishes a half-built feature rather than
starting one.
It also proposes fixing the contract while it is still unused. Naming a
component per widget does not survive a lean build, where a plugin's component
may not be staged into the bundle at all. ADR-010 already solved this for asset
panels - declare data and a render mode, let a generic core component draw it -
and the same three renderers cover every card listed.
The rest is principles that came out of this week: empty cards shrink, because a
card that says "nothing wrong" daily trains people to stop reading, which is how
a log reached 3,234 lines with 17 that mattered; every row links to the thing;
cards declare a permission so the dashboard cannot become a way around RBAC;
thresholds are settings with neutral defaults.
Wave one is six cards whose data is already reliable. Wave two is the valuable
one: diffing what a manifest says a PC should have against what it reports
having, which nothing answers today and which is what GE-Enforce exists to
guarantee.
