Skip to content

docs(editing): define structural query edit boundary - #266

Closed
627150795 wants to merge 1 commit into
openpi-dev:mainfrom
627150795:docs/issue-165-structural-edit
Closed

docs(editing): define structural query edit boundary#266
627150795 wants to merge 1 commit into
openpi-dev:mainfrom
627150795:docs/issue-165-structural-edit

Conversation

@627150795

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Problem

Text search and ordinary editing cannot reliably distinguish syntax from comments or strings, while structural rewrites would introduce a new multi-file mutation authority.

Value

Define separate read-only structural query and preview-first mutation contracts with stale-file fail-closed behavior.

Approach

  • Add docs/design/STRUCTURAL_QUERY_PREVIEW_EDIT_CONTRACT.md.
  • Separate query, preview, and future apply capabilities.
  • Define proposal identity, parser and limit partiality, path and child authority, multi-file recovery, and hash verification.
  • Keep the first step design-only; do not add an AST parser, dependency, or runtime mutation.

Validation

  • git diff --check
  • bun run lint
  • bun run typecheck

Impact

Documentation only. This is a focused design slice for #165 and does not implement an AST query or edit runtime.

Addresses #165

@tt-a1i

tt-a1i commented Aug 29, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Thank you for writing down this candidate. We are closing it under the future-capability disposition in #277. The PR remains the preserved research source, but OpenPI will not promote a protocol-only or candidate design into a repository contract before there is an active implementation or experiment with a fixed owner, revision, verifier, and acceptance evidence. This is not a content rejection, and no rebase is requested. Restart the work from the linked source Issue when that evidence frontier is ready.

@tt-a1i tt-a1i closed this Aug 29, 2026
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