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>
72b57e3786