The inventory is hand-maintained, and should stay that way - its value is the
prose, and what an endpoint is FOR cannot be derived from the code. An audit of
all 372 documented operations found zero phantom routes and zero wrong parameter
names, so the maintenance is in good order.
What hand-maintenance cannot do is notice a route somebody added. Twenty-two
were undocumented: the entire backups plugin surface, every one of the dashboard
card endpoints added with contract 0.19.0, the GE-Enforce publish preflight, the
employee SSO resolver, the protocol update verbs, and the four /api/docs routes -
so the spec did not describe how to fetch the spec.
Coverage is now a test. It walks the live url_map and fails when a served route
has no entry, which means adding an endpoint includes describing it, in the same
commit, while the author still knows what it is for. The reverse direction is
checked too: a documented route that no longer exists sends a reader to a 404.
Writing that test found one more thing. The inventory writes multi-verb routes
as "PUT|PATCH", and neither the parity check nor the generator split on the pipe
- so those operations were absent from the published spec entirely, with nothing
reporting it. The spec now carries all 394 operations the code serves, which is
the first time the two numbers have matched.
The generator's own docstring claimed the inventory could be regenerated. It
cannot; nothing generates it. That sentence is why nobody noticed it was falling
behind.
ad335cfc9e