noe/arthur
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Regenerate the base, keep the hand work, and say when you cannot

Browse source 
The loop the layer design exists for, tested for the first time: correct a
generated channel by hand, turn the generator's knob, and get the new base with
the correction still on it. `replace-feature` already carried `:over` across —
somebody anticipated this — so the feature path needed a test and not a fix.
The head path needed a fix, and there was a second fault of my own making.

`regenerate-head` leaves the head's authored channels alone once somebody has
placed it by hand, and decided that by `(= (:channels old) (:measured old))`.
Sound, until a correction exists: an `:over` layer makes those unequal, so the
FIRST correction anyone made would have stopped the head following
re-measurement for good — the exact opposite of what a layer is for. It compares
the channels without their layers now. The test fails against the old guard,
which is how I know the bug was real and not a story about one.

The other fault was mine, from the commit before this one. An `:offset` whose
shape does not match its base threw, which is right for authored data — the
validator catches it — but WRONG for the case the model actually names: turn the
mouth's `:verts` knob and the re-freeze gives it a different number of points,
so a correction that was correct when it was made stops fitting through nobody's
error, and a throw in the read path takes the stage down.

So a base that has outgrown a correction is a CONFLICT, and a conflict is the
third thing beside applied and discarded. The regeneration records `:conflict`
on the layer; the layer stays exactly where it is; `over-at` skips it, so the
picture is the base meanwhile; and `clip/conflicts` lists them for a view to
offer. A later regeneration that restores the shape clears the mark, so
resolving one can be as simple as putting the knob back.

Deliberately NOT `problems`. A document with a conflict loads, evaluates and
saves — it contains a decision nobody has made yet, and refusing to open it
would be the persistence layer taking a side in an editing question. The
distinction in the validator is one line: a shape mismatch nobody has recorded
is an authoring bug, and one a regeneration recorded is a conflict.

`channel/conflict-with` is the single rule for "can this layer apply to this
base", used by the validator, by `conflicts`, and by the regeneration that marks
them. Only `:offset` can conflict, since `:replace` states a whole value and has
nothing to agree with; a shape that cannot be read yet — an empty key map — is
not a disagreement. `value-shape` answers it without sampling anything.

414 tests, 5,696 assertions, and `:verts` in the test is a real topology change
rather than a synthetic one.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
Your Name 2026-09-30 16:22:02 -04:00
parent 94c0a21de1
commit 72b57e3786
7 changed files with 297 additions and 11 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

16
docs/animation-model.md
View file

@ -268,6 +268,22 @@ This is what `docs/design.md` means by an override layer, and it is why
re-freezing is safe: the base is regenerated, the layers are untouched. It is
Blender's NLA blending and AE's effect stack at one property.
WHEN THE BASE OUTGROWS A CORRECTION it is a CONFLICT, which is neither a dropped
layer nor an applied one. Turning `:verts` gives the mouth a different number of
points, and an `:offset` is a row of components that has to match: so the
regeneration records `:conflict` on the layer, the layer stays in the document,
the picture is the base meanwhile, and `clip/conflicts` is the list a view
offers to resolve. Deliberately not `problems` — the document loads and saves
fine, it just contains a decision nobody has made yet. A later regeneration
that restores the shape clears the mark. Only `:offset` can conflict; `:replace`
states a whole value and has nothing to agree with.
A correction is NOT a hand placement. `regenerate-head` leaves the head's
authored channels alone once somebody has placed it by hand, and it compares the
channels WITHOUT their layers to decide: otherwise the first correction anyone
made would stop the head following re-measurement forever, which is the opposite
of what a layer is for.
Layers are what "set it by hand" means for anything measured, and the measured
channel does not need to know. A hand-set gaze is an `:over` on
`[:xform :pos]` of the iris; a hand-set mouth shape is an `:over` on

20
docs/lane-model.md
View file

@ -488,13 +488,27 @@ on the girl's lane reaches across the drawing boundary beneath it and leaves
every frame outside its support identical, and a correction owned by one
exposure travels with that exposure when a hold before it grows.
Regeneration keeps them, which is the obligation the layer design exists to
meet: `rebased` replaces a base and carries its corrections across, and a
correction the new base no longer fits is MARKED rather than dropped or
misapplied — `clip/conflicts` lists those for a view to offer, separately from
`problems`, because a conflict is a decision nobody has made yet and not a
document that will not load. Turning the mouth's `:verts` knob is a real
topology change and is what the test uses. Two latent faults turned up there and
are fixed: `regenerate-head` compared authored channels to measured ones
directly, so the first correction on the head would have stopped it following
re-measurement for good; and an incompatible offset threw in the read path,
which would have taken the stage down on exactly the case the model says to
report.
What is NOT implemented is a command that produces a layer — the doc's Constant
adjustment, Ramp and Return motion — and with it the question of how a view
offers those three over a selected range. Overwrite, the range and retiming
offers those three over a selected range, and how it offers a conflict for
resolution. Overwrite, the range and retiming
commands (blank, trim, move, slip source, retime) and the exposure-sheet view
are also not implemented; a refusal is the current behavior where the model
demands an explicit choice nobody has made yet. The suite stands at 408 tests
and 5,655 assertions, with `frontend/test/browser/sequence.mjs` driving the
demands an explicit choice nobody has made yet. The suite stands at 414 tests
and 5,696 assertions, with `frontend/test/browser/sequence.mjs` driving the
editor through create, hold, overflow, undo, reuse, make unique, duplicate,
split and insert. Rewrite tests that encode superseded behavior rather than
preserving behavior to keep them green.