dohertj2/mxaccessgw
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests 1 Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Resolve Contracts-002 code-review finding

Browse Source 
MxCommandReply.payload has no by-name ack case: MX_COMMAND_KIND_ACKNOWLEDGE_
ALARM_BY_NAME reuses the acknowledge_alarm reply payload. Verified the worker
(MxAccessCommandExecutor.ExecuteAcknowledgeAlarmByName) and gateway
(WorkerAlarmRpcDispatcher) already implement this correctly — the gap was
purely undocumented contract asymmetry. Documented the reuse on the proto
oneof case and the AcknowledgeAlarmReplyPayload message comment (regenerating
the .NET contract), and in docs/AlarmClientDiscovery.md. Added
ProtobufContractRoundTripTests.MxCommandReply_AcknowledgeAlarmByName_Reuses
AcknowledgeAlarmPayloadCase to pin the contract.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
Joseph Doherty
2026-05-18 21:50:57 -04:00
parent 6a4833bd32
commit 1f546c46ee
5 changed files with 107 additions and 15 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
code-reviews/Contracts/findings.md
+3 -3
View File
@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
| Review date | 2026-05-18 |
| Commit reviewed | `6c64030` |
| Status | Reviewed |
| Open findings | 8 |
| Open findings | 7 |
## Checklist coverage
@@ -48,13 +48,13 @@
| Severity | Medium |
| Category | Error handling & resilience |
| Location | `src/MxGateway.Contracts/Protos/mxaccess_gateway.proto:384-385`, `:95` |
| Status | Open |
| Status | Resolved |
**Description:** `MxCommandKind` includes `MX_COMMAND_KIND_ACKNOWLEDGE_ALARM_BY_NAME = 29` and `MxCommand.payload` carries `AcknowledgeAlarmByNameCommand acknowledge_alarm_by_name_command = 38`, but `MxCommandReply.payload` has only `acknowledge_alarm = 34` and `query_active_alarms = 35` — there is no by-name reply case. The by-name ack must reuse `AcknowledgeAlarmReplyPayload` or rely on the top-level `hresult`. The command/reply payload asymmetry is undocumented and easy to dispatch incorrectly.
**Recommendation:** Either add an explicit comment to `MxCommandReply` stating that by-name ack reuses the `acknowledge_alarm` payload case, or add a dedicated payload case for symmetry, and document the chosen contract in `docs/Contracts.md` / `AlarmClientDiscovery.md`.
**Resolution:** _(open)_
**Resolution:** _(2026-05-18)_ Verified against both the `.proto` and the dispatch code. The asymmetry is intentional and the code is correct: the worker's `MxAccessCommandExecutor.ExecuteAcknowledgeAlarmByName` builds `reply.AcknowledgeAlarm = new AcknowledgeAlarmReplyPayload { NativeStatus = rc }` — deliberately reusing the `acknowledge_alarm` payload case — and the gateway's `WorkerAlarmRpcDispatcher.AcknowledgeAsync` only reads the top-level `hresult`/`protocol_status`, so both ack arms work. The gap was documentation only. Took the finding's preferred option (a) — comment-only, no wire-format or generated-type change: added explicit comments to the `acknowledge_alarm` reply-payload case and to the `AcknowledgeAlarmReplyPayload` message in `mxaccess_gateway.proto` stating both ack kinds reuse this case and consumers must dispatch on `MxCommandReply.kind`, and documented the contract in `docs/AlarmClientDiscovery.md` section 4. Added regression test `ProtobufContractRoundTripTests.MxCommandReply_AcknowledgeAlarmByName_ReusesAcknowledgeAlarmPayloadCase` pinning the by-name-ack → `acknowledge_alarm` reuse and asserting no by-name-specific reply oneof case exists.
### Contracts-003