[Decision] environmentType on POST /cloud/environments: refuse the values the wire cannot honour, honour all seven, or leave the silent default? (work card: objectstack-ai/cloud#2041) #17427

Raised by the review of objectstack-ai/cloud#2037 (step 1 of the #16325 chain) and measured on cloud 9b85d761. The work card is objectstack-ai/cloud#2041, which carries the full measurement; it is pm:blocked on this one. Filed here because the maintainer's inbox is this repo.

⚠️ cloud#2041 was mis-graded pm:queue. Both routes it offers are wire-behaviour changes on a published control-plane route, which is the manual floor — dispatching it would have bounced. Corrected in the same pass as this filing.

What is measured

POST /api/v1/cloud/environments accepts a key called environmentType that no declaration owns, and two layers fold it silently.

• Route (packages/service-cloud/src/routes/environment-lifecycle.ts → normalizeEnvironmentType in plan-entitlements.ts): honours five spellings — production|prod ⇒ production, development|dev|sandbox ⇒ development — and turns everything else into undefined, which then count-defaults (production if the org has none yet, else development). No error, no warning.
• Service (packages/service-tenant/src/environment-provisioning.ts): reads environmentType off the RAW request — the request schema never declared it, so z.object strips it — honours the same five, and defaults the rest to isDefault ? production : development. Also silent.

The published vocabulary is wider than either layer honours: the framework's EnvironmentTypeSchema declares seven members — production, sandbox, development, test, staging, preview, trial.

Failure scenario, concrete. POST /api/v1/cloud/environments with environmentType: "staging" — a value the platform's own published enum calls legal — on an org that already has a production env: the route normalises it to undefined, count-defaults to development, and the service provisions a development environment with a dev- system host prefix. The caller's value is discarded and nothing reports it. Identical for test, preview, trial, and for any typo such as prodction.

The resolved type drives sys_environment.environment_type and the opaque host prefix, so this is not cosmetic: the caller gets a different kind of environment than it asked for.

Why cloud#2037 did not settle it

That PR was a relocation. Its first push declared the key as z.string().optional() on the relocated accept gate — widening the accept surface without adding a refusal — and was reworked to drop it: the relocated schema keeps upstream's key set verbatim, the service keeps the raw read, and both tests now pin that the gate STRIPS the key. Declaring it means choosing a vocabulary, and that is a wire decision, not a relocation detail.

The options

• A — refuse at the gate. Declare the honoured subset on the route's normaliser and on ProvisionEnvironmentRequestSchema, and answer everything else with the ADR-0112 envelope (VALIDATION_ERROR, 400) instead of a silent default. ⚠️ A behaviour change for any caller sending staging today and getting an environment back.
• B — honour the seven. Route and service accept the published enum and map each member to something the control plane can actually provision. ⚠️ A wire change for the Console and @objectstack/client, and the control plane can only really provision two kinds today, so five members would fold — declaring seven while folding to two reproduces the same defect one level up.
• C — leave it. The silent default stays; the published enum keeps promising members the wire discards.

⚠️ Either A or B is only observable at the route: the route normalises unknown values to undefined before the service sees them, so a service-level refusal alone can never be reached with a non-canonical value.

• ① 项目长远合理性（权重 ≥50%，领起推荐） —— 今天这条线上有三套互不相同的词汇:已发布的枚举七个成员、路由认五个拼写、控制面实际只能开两种环境。Prime Directive Add comprehensive test suite for Zod schema validation #12 要的是「契约即那一份声明」,而这里没有任何一份声明是真的。①指向 A:让声明等于线上真正兑现的那个集合,其余响亮拒绝。⛔ 不指向 B —— B 让声明去追一个「七个成员映射到两种实现」的形状,那是把同一个 declared≠enforced 挪高一层,不是消除它。
• ② 实际业务拉动 —— ⚠️ 这一棱是本卡最大的空洞,且方向由它决定:今天到底有没有调用方在发 staging / test / preview / trial?仓内零消费(CLI 与 Console 都只发 production/development),但这是公开路由,仓外调用方我测不到。若为零,A 的"行为变更"代价是零 —— 没人在依赖那个被丢弃的值;若非零,A 会把今天能拿到环境的调用方变成 400。⇒ ②不改变 A 的方向,但决定 A 该不该带一个过渡期。
• ③ 防 AI 犯错 —— 最锋利,且两个选项都比现状好。今天的形状是教科书级的静默错误:调用方发一个平台自己公开声明为合法的值,拿回一个不同类型的环境,全程无提示。AI 写集成代码时读到七成员枚举、发了 staging、拿到一个 dev- 环境 —— 它没有任何办法知道自己错了。「声明即强制,绝不让 AI 声明一个运行时不兑现的能力」正是这条。A 让错误在结构上响亮;B 让它消失但代价是实现要真的兑现七种。
• ④ 创业阶段不扩散 —— 明确反对 B。B 要求控制面新增五种环境类型的真实实现(或者假装实现),而没有任何拉动指向它。A 是收窄:把接受集缩到已经兑现的那个,零新增能力。C 是不动,但它把一个已知的静默错误留在已发布路由上,而这个错误的修复窗口只会随调用方增加而变贵。

推荐:A —— 声明已兑现的子集,其余按 ADR-0112 响亮拒绝。 ①领起(三套词汇收敛成一套真的);③让静默错误在结构上不可能;④零能力新增。②不反对,但它决定 A 的施工形状:见下。
若 ② 测出仓外确有调用方在发更宽的值,A 仍是方向,但施工应带一个明确的过渡窗口(先记录并告警、再拒绝),⛔ 这与「创业阶段不渐进」不冲突 —— 那条纪律管的是废弃别名与能力退役,不管「把一个静默丢弃改成显式拒绝」这种对调用方可见的行为收紧。
⛔ 不荐 B。 七成员映射到两种实现,是把 declared≠enforced 挪高一层保存。⛔ 不荐 C。 它把一个可复现的、用户可达的缺陷留在已发布面上。

Governing text: AGENTS.md Prime Directive #12（contract-first）;ADR-0049 enforce-or-remove;ADR-0112 错误信封。

维护者速读

这是什么事 —— 我们的云 API 有个创建环境的接口，它收一个「环境类型」字段。平台自己公开声明这个字段有七种合法值（production、sandbox、development、test、staging、preview、trial），但线上实际只认其中五种拼写、并且只映射成两种环境。

发一个我们自己说合法的值（比如 staging）会怎样？它被静默丢弃，系统按"这个组织有没有生产环境"猜一个给你，然后返回成功。你拿到的环境类型和你要的不一样，而且没有任何提示。

为什么现在拿到你面前 —— 这个字段在上一步的搬迁 PR 里差点被随手声明成"任意字符串"，那样等于把这个洞写进契约。我们把它拦下来了，改成单独立卡，因为要声明它就必须先决定它到底认哪些值——那是线上行为决定，不是搬家的细节。

选项 —— A：只认线上真正兑现的那几个，其余明确报错 400（我推荐）。B：让线上真的支持全部七种（代价：控制面今天只能开两种环境，要么真去实现五种，要么假装实现——那还是同一个病）。C：不动（那个静默丢弃继续留在已发布接口上）。

我的意见 —— 推荐 A。现在这条线上有三套互不相同的词汇（公开枚举七个、路由认五个、实现只有两种），没有一套是真的；A 把它们收敛成一套真的，而且零新增能力。

⚠️ 一个我测不到、但会改变 A 施工形状的事：今天有没有仓外的调用方真的在发 staging 这类值？仓内是零（我们自己的 CLI 和控制台都只发两种），但这是公开接口，外面我看不见。如果为零，A 没有任何代价；如果非零，A 会把今天能成功的调用变成报错，那就该带一个过渡期（先告警、后拒绝）。你若知道有外部调用方，说一声。

你要做的 —— 选一个：A / B / C。