Skip to content

docs(planning): T1.6 scoping correction — @blockcast/mmt-transport second package - #9

Merged
kkroo merged 2 commits into
blo-4020-m4-t1from
blo-4020-m4-t1.6-scoping-correction
Jun 1, 2026
Merged

docs(planning): T1.6 scoping correction — @blockcast/mmt-transport second package#9
kkroo merged 2 commits into
blo-4020-m4-t1from
blo-4020-m4-t1.6-scoping-correction

Conversation

@kkroo

@kkroo kkroo commented Jun 1, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Corrects the T1.6 scoping doc, which found only the ssm-transport collision and missed a second existing transport package: @blockcast/mmt-transport (libmmt/packages/transport) — a high-level mode manager (WT↔multicast↔AMT promotion, ABR, FEC).

Key point: mmt-transport/src/transport-manager.ts has no new WebTransport/serverCertificateHashes/.ready — it orchestrates modes, doesn't own the connect dance. So a new @blockcast/moq-transport is still correct (the factory is a missing primitive, not a dup), with a clean 3-layer story (moq-transport ← mmt-transport ← ssm-transport).

Mirrors the recommendation posted on BLO-8646. Follow-up to the scoping docs merged in #8.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

The scoping pass found only the ssm-transport collision; there are TWO existing
"transport" packages. Add @blockcast/mmt-transport (libmmt/packages/transport),
a high-level mode manager that does NOT own the WT connect dance — so a new
@blockcast/moq-transport is still the right call (the factory is a missing
primitive, not a dup). Adds the 3-layer naming story + ssm-transport hygiene note.

Mirrors the recommendation posted on BLO-8646.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

@blockcast-ci-packages blockcast-ci-packages Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ally — Consolidated PR Review

Lenses: pr-review-toolkit (code, tests, comments, errors, types) + gstack/review + gstack/codex.

Looks good. Docs-only planning correction (single file, +31/-0, no code). The code/test/error/type and SQL/trust-boundary/side-effect lenses have no surface to act on here; the substantive review is factual accuracy of the added "CORRECTION (2026-06-01)" section, which I verified independently against the live repos:

  • @blockcast/mmt-transport is the real package name of libmmt/packages/transportconfirmed (package.json#name).
  • libmmt/packages/transport/src/transport-manager.ts contains none of new WebTransport / serverCertificateHashes / .readyconfirmed (grep over the file returns zero matches). The PR's load-bearing argument ("new factory is a missing primitive, not a dup of mmt-transport") holds.
  • mmt-transport's index.ts header still self-labels @blockcast/transportconfirmed.
  • Table row 1 (@blockcast/transportpackages/ssm-transport) — confirmed; that package lives in pim-multicast-gateway (code search).

Critical Issues (0)

None.

Important Issues (0)

None.

Suggestions (1)

  • [comments] .planning/m4-scoping/T1.6-transport-factory.md (added comparison table) — The two dirs cited (libmmt/packages/transport, packages/ssm-transport) live in different repos (Blockcast/libmmt and Blockcast/pim-multicast-gateway), not in moq-rs where this planning doc resides. The "(VERIFIED against HEAD)" note doesn't say which repo's HEAD. A one-word repo qualifier per row would let a future reader landing in moq-rs find the sources without guessing.

Strengths

  • The 3-layer framing (moq-transport ← mmt-transport ← ssm-transport) is clear and correctly distinguishes a low-level connect primitive from a mode manager — the distinction is borne out by the actual transport-manager.ts contents.
  • Correctly scopes the @blockcast/transportssm-transport rename as a separate, out-of-T1.6 ticket rather than smuggling a migration into this pass.

Recommended Action

  1. No blockers — safe to merge.
  2. Consider the repo-qualifier suggestion opportunistically.

Codex adversarial lens: skipped for this docs-only diff (no code surface; running it on a 31-line markdown add is low-value). Factual claims were instead verified directly against the referenced repos, above.

Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
@blockcast-ci-packages

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Addressed, thanks. I pushed a follow-up commit adding explicit repo qualifiers to the correction table and clarifying verification scope as "each repo HEAD":\n\n- Added column with and \n- Updated wording from "VERIFIED against HEAD" to "VERIFIED against each repo HEAD"\n\nCommit: 270cf21

@blockcast-ci-packages

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Addressed, thanks. I pushed a follow-up commit adding explicit repo qualifiers to the correction table and clarifying verification scope as "each repo HEAD".

  • Added a Repo column with Blockcast/pim-multicast-gateway and Blockcast/libmmt
  • Updated wording from "VERIFIED against HEAD" to "VERIFIED against each repo HEAD"

Commit: 270cf21

@kkroo
kkroo merged commit b9fa568 into blo-4020-m4-t1 Jun 1, 2026
@kkroo
kkroo deleted the blo-4020-m4-t1.6-scoping-correction branch June 1, 2026 17:20
kkroo added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 13, 2026
…cond package (#9)

* docs(planning): T1.6 scoping correction — second transport package

The scoping pass found only the ssm-transport collision; there are TWO existing
"transport" packages. Add @blockcast/mmt-transport (libmmt/packages/transport),
a high-level mode manager that does NOT own the WT connect dance — so a new
@blockcast/moq-transport is still the right call (the factory is a missing
primitive, not a dup). Adds the 3-layer naming story + ssm-transport hygiene note.

Mirrors the recommendation posted on BLO-8646.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* docs(planning): qualify cross-repo transport table sources

Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>

---------

Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: kkroo <60861014+kkroo@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants