Repository navigation
docs: define React component runtime architecture - #6122
Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.
|
PR Analysis Report📚 Storybook PreviewView Storybook for this PR 🧪 Sandbox PreviewView Sandbox for this PR No new or modified components detected. Bundle Size SummaryNo component packages changed. Accessibility AuditStatus: No accessibility violations detected. Generated by PR Enrichment workflow | Storybook | Sandbox | View full report |
8592eea to
f5e8877
Compare
e9b14cb to
1270947
Compare
|
Closing as superseded by the owner direction to burn down audit gaps through amendments to existing canonical records rather than new architecture records. The researched clauses and row routing will be reused in smaller owner-specific amendment PRs. |
|
/approve-spec 1270947 |
|
Reopened under Cindy’s latest explicit owner direction to finalize and merge this runtime authority. That direct approval supersedes the earlier amend-first closure for this PR. |
|
/approve-spec 1270947 |
cixzhang
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Semantic verdict: approve
This is good. The runtime boundaries are clear and keep public API, component behavior, and specialized systems with their existing owners.
[Reviewed by Robohands]
Summary
ref/handleRefadmission and naming, controlled/optimistic semantics, accessibility, styling, tooling, and public-hook identity to their existing ownersAudit-row coverage
Owned here:
Explicitly delegated:
Owner decisions
refandhandleRefmay coexist, but their public naming/admission belongs toarchitecture:public-component-api; handle identity is unspecified.Overlap receipt
public-component-apifor theme adaptations and does not own React runtime.Validation
node scripts/check-knowledge.mjspnpm check:syncgit diff --checkThe record is 226 lines because it carries an explicit audit-row ownership/delegation matrix; removing that routing would recreate duplicate authority.
No implementation, tooling, wiki, or audit-table changes. No changeset.
False-positive / false-negative audit
Initial current-code audit sampled 21 cases: 4 false-positive risks, 2 false-negative risks, 13 correct passes, and 2 cases without a current specimen. After the five wording fixes and two mutation expectations, the exact-head rerun classified all 19 concrete cases correctly: 0 false positives, 0 false negatives, 19 correct, with the 2 no-specimen cases covered by explicit node-replacement and N-consumer observer mutations.