Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Why
Issue #438 shows that the current documentation exposes individual planner stages without first defining the supported end-to-end integration workflow. Callers cannot easily tell which inputs are required, when lifecycle planning is necessary, or whether
PlanSpace, a ranked group, or a materialized DAG is the final output. Related terminology and API-surface ambiguity is tracked in #427, and #428.Before this PR
A caller could discover
search_workload*,cost_sorted,global_selection, and lifecycle APIs independently and reasonably conclude that each was a separate valid end state. For example, a recurring summary could be structurally selected without making clear that this does not establish that maintaining it is cheaper than exact recomputation. Window semantics, summary frameworks, physical layouts, window edges, and physical handoffs were also easy to conflate.After this PR
The design documentation starts from one outer workflow: canonical roots and requirements enter ASAPPlanner, and
PlanSpaceis the canonical logical output. It then explicitly documents:PlanSpace, ranked views, materialized DAGs, and lifecycle-aware outputs;The lifecycle-aware workflow is identified as the recommended path before claiming that maintained summary state is preferable to raw execution. Physical binding, deployment, transitions, and execution remain downstream responsibilities. The document also states that public Rust visibility does not automatically make a type part of the recommended integration surface.
Validation
git diff --checkCloses #438
Related to #427 and #428
Related to ProjectASAP/ASAPQuery-backend#734