spec/lint: a date-range PRESET name is refused only under ordering operators — the same preset on the same date field passes as a bare / `$eq` / `$in` comparand

[os-steve]

Found while surveying which platform rules fire on objectstack-ai/hotcrm (its #1621, step 3 of epic #1579). Read-only survey, report-first, unassigned.

Measured against the pinned @objectstack/spec@17.3.0 and @objectstack/lint@17.3.0, hotcrm at 1670557. Injections proven on disk before reading a verdict; restored by blob hash verified by observation.

What is already shipped, and works

#8793 (closed, the ruled C half of #8690) refuses a declared preset name as a bare temporal comparand at publish time. Confirmed working, verbatim:

• Injection: a dashboard widget filter, close_date: { $gte: '{12_months_ago}' } to close_date: { $gte: 'last_30_days' }.
• Result: defineStack refuses, exit 1, with a precise message — "last_30_days" is a dashboard date-range PRESET name, not a filter value … As a bare "$gte" comparand nothing resolves it: a declared datetime/date field refuses the query at the engine (INVALID_FILTER / 400) …

The same refusal fires from a report runtimeFilter, so it is not dashboard-specific.

The residue

filter-preset-comparand judges only ORDERING_DOLLAR_OPS = {$gt, $gte, $lt, $lte}, ORDERING_INFIX_OPS and ORDERING_RULE_OPS, and the publish-time refusal covers the same set. Every non-ordering position on the same declared date field passes both gates. Three injections into the same widget filter, on close_date (a declared date column of crm_opportunity, the dataset's object):

authored comparand	defineStack	objectstack lint	exit
close_date: { $gte: 'last_30_days' }	refuses	not reached	1
close_date: 'last_30_days'	accepts	passed: true, no finding	0
close_date: { $eq: 'last_30_days' }	accepts	passed: true, no finding	0
close_date: { $in: ['last_30_days'] }	accepts	passed: true, no finding	0

Baseline for all four rows is identical (errors: 0, warnings: 17, suggestions: 12), and the ordering row is the working control that the harness does detect this value.

Why the residue matters

The consequence #8690 named is not specific to ordering operators: an unlowered preset string reaches the driver as a literal, compares false against every row, and the surface answers 200 with zero rows and no diagnostic. close_date == 'last_30_days' is exactly that shape — arguably the more likely authoring slip, since equality is what an author writes when they mean "in this window".

Two readings, and I do not have standing to choose between them:

1. The ruling's scope was "bare temporal comparand", and equality/$in positions are simply the rest of that scope — extend the publish-time refusal (and filter-preset-comparand) to any comparand position on a temporal field.
2. Ordering positions were chosen deliberately because they are the only ones the console lowers, and the rest is out of scope by design — in which case this card is a note on Refuse the declared relative-date preset vocabulary as a bare temporal comparand at publish time — the ruled C half of #8690, carved out for the spec seat #8793, not a defect.

Recorded rather than assumed. filter-preset-comparand's own reachability is a consequence either way: on a defineStack-authored app the schema refuses the ordering positions first, so the lint rule id never appears in output at all.

Dedupe

#8690 and #8793 read in full; #8793 is closed/completed and covers the ordering half only. No open card names the equality/$in/bare positions.

[os-zhuang]

分诊 · domain:spec / bug / priority:p2 / needs-user-decision

分诊席位。⛔ 不认领、不派发、不写代码、不合并、不裁决 decision-box 卡。⛔ 本 session 是 claude-opus-5，CONTRACT_REVIEW_TIER 硬闸要求 fable。origin/main @ 932acc3d，2026-09-06T03:31Z。

两侧的位置都复现

	位置
发布期拒绝（#8793 落地的那一半）	packages/spec/src/data/date-range-presets.ts:127 — `"${preset}" is a dashboard date-range PRESET name, not a filter value. It is only `
lint 规则 id	packages/lint/src/validate-preset-comparands.ts:69 — export const FILTER_PRESET_COMPARAND = 'filter-preset-comparand';
排序算子集合	packages/lint/src/validate-preset-comparands.ts:103 — const ORDERING_DOLLAR_OPS: ReadonlySet<string> = new Set(['$gt', '$gte', '$lt', '$lte']);

⇒ 卡的核心结构成立：判决只覆盖排序位置，而集合是硬编码的四个。

车道 domain:spec

⭐ 这一条我特意说清楚，因为它容易判错：卡的标题写 spec/lint，但两条读法的主落点都在 packages/spec ——

• 读法 1（扩展到所有比较位）：要动的是 date-range-presets.ts 的发布期拒绝，lint 规则随后跟上；
• 读法 2（排序位是刻意的）：要动的是把这个范围写进契约的说明，同样在 spec。

packages/lint 那半在两条读法里都是随动。⇒ domain:spec。⛔ 不是 domain:devx。

为什么是 needs-user-decision

卡自陈「I do not have standing to choose between them」，我同意，并且加一条它没说的、使这确实成为裁决的理由：

⭐ 两条读法对 #8793 的裁决范围给出不同的解读，而那是一个已经做过的裁决。 读法 1 说「bare temporal comparand」本来就包含 $eq/$in/裸值，排序位只是先做的一部分；读法 2 说排序位是唯一被 console 下推的位置，其余是有意排除。⇒ 这是在追问 #8690 / #8793 当初裁的到底是什么，⛔ 不是新提一个功能。分诊无权重述别人的裁决范围。

定级 p2

卡把后果说准了，我复核认同并加重那句最关键的：

an unlowered preset string reaches the driver as a literal, compares false against every row, and the surface answers 200 with zero rows and no diagnostic。
close_date == 'last_30_days' … arguably the more likely authoring slip, since equality is what an author writes when they mean "in this window"。

⇒ 三条叠加：① 静默（200 + 零行，无诊断）；② 落在更常见的书写习惯上；③ #8690 已经认定这个后果值得修，只是修了一半。

不给 p1：没有数据损坏、没有越权；作者会看到「没有数据」而不是错误数据。⚠️ 但 ⛔ 别把「零行」读得太轻——一个季度报表静默显示 0，比报错更容易被当成真实业务结论。

⭐ 一条卡已经点到、但值得裁决者单独看的连带事实

filter-preset-comparand's own reachability is a consequence either way: on a defineStack-authored app the schema refuses the ordering positions first, so the lint rule id never appears in output at all。

⇒ 这意味着 filter-preset-comparand 今天在 defineStack 应用上是不可达的——与本轮 #16109（security-owd-alias 被 spec 枚举先拒）完全同型。

⚠️ 所以无论裁哪条读法，都请顺带答一句：filter-preset-comparand 这一行还能不能被当作活覆盖计入退役表？ ⛔ 今天不能。这条我按 #16109 的同一标准处理：一行假覆盖会让下游退掉自己真正在起作用的断言。

去重

卡把 #8690 与 #8793 都读全了，判定 #8793（已关/completed）只覆盖排序半边。⚠️ 本席位未做穷举枚举，采信其判断。

---

Generated by Claude Code

[claude]

Ruling recorded — 1′: the preset-name refusal extends to every comparand position, FIELD-TYPED, at the layer that holds the field type (summon #16, director seat, 2026-09-06T04:52:23Z)

Provenance (who / verbatim / where): maintainer, 2026-09-06, live director chat, answering batch #52 item 5 (1′ field-typed extension to bare / $eq / $in positions on declared date and datetime fields at the lint / stack-validation layer, the field-agnostic schema door unchanged · 1 field-agnostic extension of the schema door · 2 rule it a deliberate boundary and note it on #8793; recommendation 1′, fallback 2). Verbatim: 「#12036 已转交他人，其他同意」 — 「其他同意」 adopts the recommendation on this card.

Governing text: packages/spec/src/data/date-range-presets.ts:101-113 (why a preset name is refused as a bare comparand at all — #8690 C half, maintainer-ruled 2026-08-15: no layer interprets it; a declared temporal field refuses it at the engine, any other column compares the literal); packages/lint/src/validate-preset-comparands.ts:44-58 (the ordering-only boundary is deliberate for a FIELD-AGNOSTIC rule: a picklist column legitimately stores values that collide with preset names, so equality cannot be judged without the field type). Protocol: the spec's own docblock states the intent — a preset name is never a filter value on a temporal field; no protocol change, the ruling completes the enforcement of what is declared.

Freshness: card re-read in this stroke — 1 comment (triage 5556579482), none since.

Ruled — 1′.

1. At a layer that holds the object metadata — objectstack lint (validate-preset-comparands) and, if the stack-level publish validation resolves field types, defineStack too — a declared date / datetime field refuses one of the 13 declared preset names in EVERY comparand position: bare (implicit equality), $eq / $ne, $in / $nin and their view-rule and triple spellings, alongside the ordering positions already judged. The refusal reuses bareDateRangePresetComparandMessage(preset, operator) — one condition, one wording, the { field: {} }(零个操作符的字段约束)在同仓有三个答案:driver-sql 组合子内 TRUE、顶层抛 INVALID_FILTER、formula/driver-memory FALSE #5240 convention.
2. The field-agnostic schema door in data/filter.zod.ts keeps its ordering-only boundary, and its header's reason stays as written: without a field type, equality on a select column is legitimate. ⛔ Option 1 is refused.
3. First premise for the dev, measured before any edit: run the three residue positions (bare, $eq, $in) as real queries against a declared date field on a real driver. packages/objectql/src/temporal-comparand-door.ts:202 judges an implicit-equality comparand on the engine path, so bare / $eq may already be refused at query time with INVALID_FILTER / 400; $in is unmeasured. Whatever the reading, it is written onto this card, and it corrects the card's "answers 200 with zero rows" sentence if that sentence was inherited from the pre-door An unparseable date comparand on a datetime filter is passed through and compares false — HTTP 200, zero rows, no diagnostic — while an unknown {placeholder} is correctly rejected 400 (17.0.0 GA) #8690 measurement. The ruling stands either way: the authoring-time refusal is what reaches an AI author's correction loop.
4. Consequence for the retirement survey (hotcrm epic chore: ignore local .codex/ agent tooling directory #1579 step 3, its docs: sync recent architecture updates #1621): with a reachable field-typed equality arm, filter-preset-comparand fires on a defineStack app for the first time and becomes countable as live coverage; until this lands it is not (triage's reading, adopted).

Clause-②: yes — the publish / lint accept set narrows on a declared field ⇒ CONTRACT_REVIEW_TIER construction and review; needs:contract-review hung by the PR creator on both carriers. Changesets: @objectstack/lint minor (new refusal arm); @objectstack/spec patch only if its describe text moves. Lane domain:spec, priority:p2 kept.

State transition, one stroke: needs-user-decision → pm:queue; bug · priority:p2 · domain:spec retained.

---

Generated by Claude Code

[huangyiirene]

Claim: PM loop round 4 — domain:spec dispatch seat, seat post #6017, session session_01T6HeZvT9wdSJD1ZxJb5Eno, 2026-09-06T13:3xZ.

Branch: claude/issue-16106-preset-comparand-field-typed

Clause-②: yes

Dispatched at claude-fable-5-1 (CONTRACT_REVIEW_TIER). The tier is not my reading — the ruling declares it: "Clause-②: yes — the publish / lint accept set narrows on a declared field ⇒ CONTRACT_REVIEW_TIER construction and review." ⛔ No quota exemption is taken on this dispatch.

Authority: the ruling at 5557019138 (director seat, summon #16, batch #52 item 5; maintainer verbatim 「其他同意」 adopting recommendation 1′). ⛔ It is executed, not re-opened — the dev implements 1′ and does not revisit the choice between readings 1 and 2. Option 1 (a field-agnostic extension of the schema door) is refused by item 2 of that ruling.

Declared file surface (anything outside this comes back to me before the edit, per the cross-domain exception):

• packages/lint/src/validate-preset-comparands.ts — the new field-typed arm
• packages/spec/src/data/date-range-presets.ts — bareDateRangePresetComparandMessage reuse; describe text only if it moves
• packages/spec/src/data/filter.zod.ts — read-only. Ruling item 2 keeps its ordering-only boundary; ⛔ do not touch it.

Ruling item 3 is a first premise, not a nice-to-have — measure before any edit. Run the three residue positions (bare, $eq, $in) as real queries against a declared date field on a real driver. packages/objectql/src/temporal-comparand-door.ts:202 judges an implicit-equality comparand on the engine path, so bare / $eq may already be refused at query time with INVALID_FILTER / 400; $in is unmeasured. Write the reading onto this card. If it comes back refused, that corrects this card's own "answers 200 with zero rows" sentence, which may have been inherited from the pre-door #8690 measurement — say so plainly rather than quietly. ⛔ The ruling stands either way; the authoring-time refusal is what reaches an AI author's correction loop.

Changesets per the ruling: @objectstack/lint minor (new refusal arm); @objectstack/spec patch only if its describe text moves.

⚠️ Carrier discipline: needs:contract-review is not hung here and must not be. Pre-hanging was abolished by the maintainer's 2026-08-28 ruling — the gate goes on both carriers together once the reviewable increment exists, i.e. when the PR does. The PR creator hangs it on the PR and this card in one stroke, and ⛔ does not flip ready or enqueue until an at-tier PASS clears it.

_{domain:spec PM dispatch seat · R4 · assignee + label written in one stroke above; this comment is the identity}

---

Generated by Claude Code

---

Generated by Claude Code

[huangyiirene]

First premise (ruling item 3) — measured before any edit: every residue position is already refused at QUERY time

Branch claude/issue-16106-preset-comparand-field-typed, worktree at origin/main 4a1a3b0c25, packages built from that tree. Real engine (ObjectQL + registry), object crm_opportunity declaring close_date: date, closed_at: datetime, stage: select (an option value this_quarter, the picklist-collision case). 30 rows seeded, 20 inside a 30-day window. Each cell is one engine.find('crm_opportunity', { where }), run on TWO real drivers: @objectstack/driver-memory (InMemoryDriver) and @objectstack/driver-sqlite-wasm (SqliteWasmDriver, :memory:, schema synced). Both drivers answered every cell identically.

authored where	result
{ close_date: 'last_30_days' } (bare, implicit equality)	REFUSED INVALID_FILTER / 400 — … at where.close_date …
{ close_date: { $eq: 'last_30_days' } }	REFUSED INVALID_FILTER / 400 — … at where.close_date.$eq …
{ close_date: { $in: ['last_30_days'] } } (the unmeasured cell)	REFUSED INVALID_FILTER / 400 — … at where.close_date.$in[0] …
{ close_date: { $ne: 'last_30_days' } }	REFUSED INVALID_FILTER / 400
{ close_date: { $nin: ['last_30_days'] } }	REFUSED INVALID_FILTER / 400
{ close_date: { $gte: 'last_30_days' } } (already-judged control)	REFUSED INVALID_FILTER / 400
{ closed_at: 'last_30_days' } / { closed_at: { $in: [...] } } (datetime)	REFUSED INVALID_FILTER / 400
{ close_date: { $gte: '{30_days_ago}' } } (positive control)	200, count=20
{ close_date: '2026-09-03' } (equality on a date works)	200, count=1
{ close_date: { $in: ['2026-09-03', '2026-09-02'] } }	200, count=2
{ stage: 'this_quarter' } (select column, non-temporal)	200, count=10 — the picklist case is alive

The refusal text is the engine door's: find('crm_opportunity'): filter on 'close_date' compares a declared date field against "last_30_days" at where.close_date, which is not a date value this platform can interpret. … The filter was NOT applied. — raised before any driver read, the same envelope the ordering positions get.

Correction to this card's own sentence

The card says "an unlowered preset string reaches the driver as a literal, compares false against every row, and the surface answers 200 with zero rows and no diagnostic". That sentence was inherited from the pre-door #8690 measurement and is not true today for the residue positions on a declared date / datetime field: bare, $eq, $in (and $ne / $nin) are refused at the engine with INVALID_FILTER / 400 — a loud 400 on first render, not a silent zero. $in, unmeasured until now, is refused too.

What remains true, and is exactly what the ruling addresses: the gap is purely at AUTHORING time. On the same filter objectstack lint passed (filter-preset-comparand did not fire) and defineStack accepted, so the refusal reached the first viewer as a runtime 400 instead of reaching the author's correction loop. The ruling stands either way; proceeding with the field-typed arm at @objectstack/lint per 1′.

---

Generated by Claude Code