The owner's decision (2026-08-28): optimize is one of the two commands a
client can use to write arbitrary geometry, so it validates its candidate
against the stored document exactly as config/set does — inheritance counted
per rule (repairing a legacy plan with violations still passes; #329 AC10
already proves an honest optimization adds none, so the gate is a no-op for
legitimate flows), while a crafted payload is refused with the stable
junction_limit_<rule> code the except list has been ready for since #329.
The call lives inside the existing executor function, and a successful
optimize refreshes rt.junction_baseline with the candidate's counts so the
next config/set inherits from the cache (#330 §4.2 symmetry).
Import and backup restore stay OUTSIDE the gate on purpose — #329 §3
promises a restore is never blocked. The module docstring stops promising
more than the code does, and spec #329 §5 records the perimeter and the
trade-off explicitly: a crafted import can persist violations, but they are
inherited, never legalised as new ones.
HA tests pin AC1 (crafted spike refused, stored config and rev
byte-unchanged), AC2 (echo-optimize of a stored plan that already carries a
violation passes) and AC3 (the follow-up config/set takes its baseline from
the cache — observed through a recording wrapper). The
junction-limit-optimize-unguarded mutant turns AC1 red through the
backend-test-guard convention.
Issue: #333
User-Visible: no
Red dev caught it ninety minutes after the merge: smoke_plan_drawing_repairs
and smoke_resize_pointer_real_plan went red because the new "a 0° wedge is
always a duplicate" rule refused two ordinary edits — creating a room over
an existing partition ring (#308's legal overlay) and resizing a wall until
it lands on a neighbour's. The premise was wrong at the model level: a
shared wall of two adjacent rooms IS two co-located owner atoms on one line,
so every shared-wall node carries a legitimate 0° pair by construction.
Bisection pinned the exact cut: with only the 0° rule reverted, both smokes
are green again; keys, incidence, the iterative walk and fail-closed stay.
Spec revision 4 records the revert and returns "an exact duplicate wall is
invisible to П1" to the status of a KNOWN LIMITATION — an honest detector
needs owner identity, which is a separate decision for the owner to make.
The zero-wedge mutant is removed with its rule; the .5-tick parity unit now
observes quantisation through valence instead of the retired duplicate
visibility; changelogs drop the over-promise.
Issue: #331
User-Visible: yes
Six normative cuts, both mirrors symmetric (spec revision 3):
- §2.1 node keys quantise to 1e-7 with the repository's canonicalisation
formula (sign·floor(|v|·1e7+0.5)/1e7, -0 normalised) — toFixed(6) keys
split one node into two on floating debris and produced two false П4
refusals on a legitimate resize (reproduced: -1e-8 vs 0). Node pairs
within 2e-7 of each other (raw coordinates) are ONE node, and the
node-to-wall incidence uses the same quantum.
- §2.2 a ~0° wedge IS a violation: two rays leaving a node the same way are
a duplicated or overlaid wall (a butt joint yields 180°, never 0°) — the
worst degenerate case was invisible while 0.5° was refused.
- §2.3/§2.4 the wall run is an iterative edge walk over the collinear
component: no recursion (10 000 atoms answered, not RangeError), no
silently dropped fork (the old .find lost every branch but the first),
O(E) by construction, and collinearity is measured against the BASE
segment's axis so an arc of 0.9°-per-atom pieces cannot pose as one wall.
- §2.5 an exception while judging the CANDIDATE refuses the write with the
junction.limit_check_failed toast (fail-closed, as the #278 guard); the
baseline branch stays fail-open by design and the smoke proves the
asymmetry by breaking only the second call of the deterministic pair.
- §2.6 the python mirror narrows its except on the candidate side only:
a genuine migration bug (TypeError) surfaces as an honest WS error, while
a previous-side bug keeps the wide "no baseline" fallback — the two AC6
cases pin the asymmetry so swapped sides turn a unit red.
Parity fixtures gain the new boundary classes (debris node, duplicate wall,
collinear fork); four new mutants pin the filter, the key precision, the
dropped branch and the fail-open hole.
Issue: #331
User-Visible: yes
AC10 was asserted, never shown. Optimize runs alignAllToGrid and
repairNearAxisRoomWalls, which move nodes by fractions of a centimetre, and
none of П1-П5 carries a margin wider than the grid step in general — so
"obviously true by construction" was not available.
Two units, both counting violations the way the write barrier does (each side
through commitWallSegmentModel first):
- the owner's fixture in legacy storage — the inherited apex is there before
Optimize, and no rule's count grows after;
- the П4 boundary — two rooms exactly 5 cm apart, where snapping could have
pulled a node under the limit, stay clean.
The first test asserts the baseline actually carries a violation, so it cannot
pass by measuring an empty plan; violationsByRule fails loudly if the space or
its catalogue goes missing, for the same reason. Spec revision 7 records the
proof and the other three review answers.
Issue: #329
User-Visible: no
custom_components/houseplan/junction_limits.py repeats П1-П4 for the write
barrier in websocket_api, counting per rule so an inherited violation still
round-trips, and raises JunctionLimitError with the stable code
junction_limit_<rule>.
П5 is deliberately not mirrored — it judges the rendered wall bodies, and a
second mitre/inset pipeline in Python would drift more dangerously than the
rule it guards. Optimize stays outside the check for the same reason migration
and import do: it repairs existing geometry.
test_parity_with_the_frontend_checks feeds identical fixtures to the TS
functions and to this module and demands the same verdict, so the two
implementations cannot silently diverge.
Issue: #329
User-Visible: no
Measured what Resize itself already forbids: a room cannot be squeezed below
30 cm (two 15 cm walls), so П3 and П5 are unreachable through shrinking and
the gate merely fails closed there. П4 IS reachable on a fine grid, so the
smoke drags a real handle on a 2 cm grid: two rooms 10 cm apart, a 6 cm pull
would leave 4 cm between foreign nodes, the wall stops at 6 cm and exactly one
toast names the 5 cm rule.
Spec revision 6 records both the measurement and the two corrections it forces
on AC7a: a dimmed handle cannot express a per-step limit, and the plan is NOT
byte-unchanged — the allowed part of the gesture is a legitimate edit.
Issue: #329
User-Visible: no
П3 measures the WALL, not the catalogue atom: a short filler segment that
compensates a thickness step (owner's fixture, 5 cm = (30-20)/2) is a legal
continuation of a long same-thickness wall, so the rule walks the maximal
collinear run through the shared nodes before judging the length.
Resize stops at the last allowed position and names the broken rule instead
of the generic "geometry cannot be saved"; the Thickness dialog refuses
through its own toast. Both channels are pinned by demo/smoke_junction_limits
plus three mutants (angle threshold, write barrier, degenerate apex bevel).
Issue: #329
User-Visible: yes
Owner report: small serrations remained on the outer edges between the inner
and the outer vertex. Measured on the fixture ring: two ~4 cm steps plus four
micro-vertices at the tip. Their source was the inset contour's two-point
bevel folding into a bow-tie, and the earlier half-plane clip of that fold,
which left a 0.2 cm sliver the boolean union turned into steps. The inset now
ends in ITS own mitre point at a degenerate apex — mirroring the sharp outer
tip — so there is no fold to clip and no sliver to smear: the room ring is
exactly three vertices, every side longer than the half depth. The clip
helper and its cap plumbing are gone. The user-visible wording of this work
already stands in both changelogs from the #329 entry.
Issue: #329
User-Visible: no
Owner correction (chat, 2026-08-27): no flat chamfer at the tip — a plain
sharp apex. Proven by execution on the issue fixture: the outset contour fell
back to a two-point bevel (the 4·h mitre limit against an 87 cm reach) while
the inset contour folded into a bow-tie, and subtracting that fold carved the
V-notches — together they made the trident. Now a degenerate corner (below 15
degrees, inner faces meeting inside both walls) contributes ONE outset point
at the plan's own vertex — no bevel, no metres-long mitre needle — and its
inset is clipped at the convergence line so no fold is subtracted. Plain and
merely sharp pairs keep the full mitre of #310. The write-side limits of
П1-П5 stop new plans from creating such corners at all.
Issue: #329
User-Visible: yes
Codex