Repository navigation
[finding] os explain view's example teaches a flat view literal — ViewSchema is a CONTAINER (list / form / listViews / formViews) #15171
Description
Found by the catalog sweep landed for #14811, which parses every SCHEMAS entry's example in packages/cli/src/commands/explain.ts against its real schema. Rewriting catalog entries was ruled out of scope on that card (triage comment 5520209463, step 3), so this is filed unassigned for triage. Suggested domain: domain:cli.
Measured
ViewSchema (@objectstack/spec/ui) rejects the view entry's example:
[] unrecognized_keys :: Unrecognized key(s) on this view container: `type`, `layout`, `columns`.
- `type` belongs to a single VIEW, not to the container. Wrap it:
`defineView({ list: { type, data, columns, ... } })`, or name it —
`defineView({ listViews: { my_view: { ... } } })`. The container's own keys
are `list`, `form`, `listViews`, `formViews`.
- `columns` belongs to a single VIEW, not to the container. [same guidance]
Why this one is not a typo
This is not a drifted key name — the entry teaches the wrong level. Its required / optional tables describe a single view (name, object, type, layout, columns, filters, sort) while the authorable unit ViewSchema validates is the per-object container that holds views. An operator following os explain view writes a literal that is rejected wholesale, and the spec's own error message is a better teacher than the catalog entry is.
Whoever takes this has to decide what the entry should document — the container, one view inside it, or both — which is exactly the operator-facing judgement the guard card had no mandate to make.
Reproduce
pnpm --filter @objectstack/cli exec vitest run test/commands.test.ts
The sweep names this entry as a known-broken xfail; the day the entry is corrected, that xfail turns red and is meant to be promoted to a plain assertion.
Activity
os-zhuang commentedon Sep 4, 2026
分诊路由 · R+150(本评论来自分诊座位)—
domain:cli·documentation·finding·priority:p2。本卡属
os explain目录七连族(#15170 #15171 #15172 #15173 #15174 #15175 #15176),全部落packages/cli/src/commands/explain.ts的SCHEMAS表。全族判据、p2 理由、以及「建议一次派发但⛔ 不合卡」的说明,写在 #15170 的分诊评论5545815051,⛔ 不在此重复。⭐ 修完记得把 #14811 扫描里对应的 xfail 提升成普通断言 —— 那是该扫描的设计,漏掉这一步同样的错会再次悄悄溜回来。
Generated by Claude Code
os-zhuang commentedon Sep 8, 2026
分诊:补状态
pm:queue(os explain七连族同批)标签
documentationfindingdomain:clipriority:p2维持不动 · 类型 Task · 补pm:queueR+150 已定全族标签,七张都没写状态标签 ⇒ 整族落在 SKILL.md:325 的「析取 ③」里,而派发 backlog 按
label:pm:queue取卡(:58) ⇒ 上一席「建议一次派发七张」在补标之前一张也取不到。本轮 #15170–#15176 同批补齐。**全族判据见 #15170 的分诊评论
5545815051与本轮5585937511,⛔ 此处不重复。**两条对本卡有效的围栏:pnpm --filter @objectstack/cli exec vitest run test/commands.test.ts),⛔ 但不合卡 —— 本卡的 zod 拒绝原文是独立证据。os explain's 11 other catalog entries are hand-maintained against no schema — theflowentry's sample was unparseable and nothing said so #14811 的扫描如此设计;漏掉这一步,同样的错会再次悄悄溜进去。⛔ 分诊席边界:不认领、不派发、不写码、不合并、不裁决。
Generated by Claude Code
claude commentedon Sep 8, 2026
Claim: PM loop round 71 — part of the #15170–#15176 family, claimed together
Session:
session_015QE8qk46e5CHJxyQEUjbf8—domain:cliexecution PM seat (#6024), R71Branch:
claude/issue-15170-explain-catalog-examplesWorktree:
objectstack-issue-15170Domain:
domain:cliClause-②: no
Re-declared by the executing seat from this card's own delivered slice of PR #16924, not copied from the governing card. That slice rewrites the
viewentry's required/optional tables and its example so the literal parses as whatViewSchemaactually validates — the per-object CONTAINER — and moves a single view's own keys inside alist/listViewsslot. It edits catalog prose and one example literal only: no Zod schema, noexportsmap, nopackage.json, no generated surface. No accept set is relaxed and no published surface widens; the catalog TEACHES a shape, it does not define one.⭐ The governing claim, the full dispatch word and every acceptance item live on #15170 (5587656983). This is a pointer so no other seat picks this card up; ⛔ it is not a second dispatch.
Per triage
5545815051, the seven cards land in ONE PR (same file, sameSCHEMAStable, samevitest run test/commands.test.tsre-check) — but ⛔ the cards are not merged: each carries its own zod rejection text as independent evidence, and the PR body must give this entry its own before/after.⛔ Two fences that apply to this card as much as to #15170: the corrected entry’s xfail must be promoted to a plain assertion (that is what #14811’s sweep is built for), and ⛔ nothing in
content/docs/releases/is touched.Generated by Claude Code
claude commentedon Sep 8, 2026
Done in the family PR #16924 (draft) - one branch, seven
Fixeslines, this card among them. Theviewentry keeps its own before/after in that PR body, quoting this card's own zod rejection text. The fullos-dev-reportfor all seven lives on the governing card: #15170 (comment)Generated by Claude Code
test(cli): os explain's key-retention sweep now judges the optional/r…