larvit/smpp-js
3
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Activity

Close the scope decision and add the last two questions for the product-owner pass

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Lilleman auf Larv
2026-09-08 18:58:46 +02:00
parent 5a0cf56754
commit 7937534677
1 changed files with 4 additions and 1 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
interop-tests/PLAN.md
+4 -1
View File
@@ -200,6 +200,8 @@ newer changes stayed consistent with them.
| `reconnect: { fromStart: true }` (#80) | `client()` resolves only once bound, and only the caller's signal ends the wait. Is that obvious enough that nobody ships a process that hangs at startup? | | `reconnect: { fromStart: true }` (#80) | `client()` resolves only once bound, and only the caller's signal ends the wait. Is that obvious enough that nobody ships a process that hangs at startup? |
| A receipt's body read as octets (#81) | `dlr.receipt` now parses for peers where it used to be garbage. Anything an application could have been relying on in the broken case? | | A receipt's body read as octets (#81) | `dlr.receipt` now parses for peers where it used to be garbage. Anything an application could have been relying on in the broken case? |
| The abortable send window (in flight) | What an aborted send returns, and whether it counts as `unanswered` — the field an application reads to decide whether resending risks a duplicate. | | The abortable send window (in flight) | What an aborted send returns, and whether it counts as `unanswered` — the field an application reads to decide whether resending risks a duplicate. |
| The named messaging mode (#92) | A caller may now name the `esm_class` messaging mode. Two values are refused — the forward mode outright, and a delivery report asked for under datagram mode. Are those refusals discoverable before they happen, and is refusing better than letting the operator refuse? |
| An empty entry in `smsIds` (#93) | The SMSC took a segment but named no id for it, so the array carries a gap. It is documented now rather than accidental, but is an array with holes the right thing to hand an application reconciling against later receipts? |
| The held-message cap against a peer's window (phase 7) | A peer whose window is wider than the 1000 messages this library will hold unanswered makes it evict, so the peer is never answered for those and re-sends or times out. The cap is deliberate and on a constant an application cannot raise, but it is the peer's window that decides whether it is ever reached. Does an application learn it is happening in time to slow down? | | The held-message cap against a peer's window (phase 7) | A peer whose window is wider than the 1000 messages this library will hold unanswered makes it evict, so the peer is never answered for those and re-sends or times out. The cap is deliberate and on a constant an application cannot raise, but it is the peer's window that decides whether it is ever reached. Does an application learn it is happening in time to slow down? |
| All of them together | `sessionError` now carries refused PDUs, lost reassembly groups and failed hooks. Is one channel carrying too many meanings for an application to act on any of them? | | All of them together | `sessionError` now carries refused PDUs, lost reassembly groups and failed hooks. Is one channel carrying too many meanings for an application to act on any of them? |
@@ -247,7 +249,8 @@ defect; each is a claim resting on the specification and on Node rather than on
| 7 | done | [07-load.md](findings/07-load.md) | | 7 | done | [07-load.md](findings/07-load.md) |
| 8 | dropped | [Untested](#untested) | | 8 | dropped | [Untested](#untested) |
| 9 | done | [09-operator-fixtures.md](findings/09-operator-fixtures.md) | | 9 | done | [09-operator-fixtures.md](findings/09-operator-fixtures.md) |
| 10–11 | not started | — | | 10 | done | Targets 2, 3 and 4 fixed; target 5 answered by the `messagingMode` send option, maintainer's call 2026-09-06 |
| 11 | not started | — |
Phases 1 to 5 were graded before `run.py` learned to fail an empty capture, so a run whose capture Phases 1 to 5 were graded before `run.py` learned to fail an empty capture, so a run whose capture
never started would have scored green on the wire checks while its own assertions carried it. Every never started would have scored green on the wire checks while its own assertions carried it. Every