Two reactions do not match the approved vocabulary, and the boundary mark fires on no boundary #446

New issue

Closed

opened 2026-08-13 13:20:19 +00:00 by coilyco-ops · 0 comments

coilyco-ops commented

2026-08-13 13:20:19 +00:00

Member

Slice of #111, the shared state vocabulary half. Not the rich element — Kai's decision is that the two are one design problem, which is the reason to make the state model correct before adding a second surface that renders it.

Two defects

The emoji drifted from the approved set.

approved	was
❌ error	⚠️
🚫 content boundary blocked	⛔

Close enough to look right in a comment and wrong on a member's screen. TestEveryHarnessCaseHasADistinctReaction asserted only that the four differ from each other, which is exactly how two of them drifted while a test passed.

The boundary mark fires on no boundary. reactionRefused exists for "a message a boundary turned away" and fires on access refusals. It does not fire when the content gate blocks a turn, so the state most specifically about a content boundary was silent on the only content boundary in the harness. That gate landed today and I never connected it.

Scope

both emoji corrected to the approved codepoints
the content gate emits the boundary mark when it blocks
a test pins each reaction to its approved codepoint, which is what was missing

Acceptance

Each of the four reactions equals the codepoint Kai approved.
A blocked turn is marked.
The distinctness test still holds, since it is still worth having.

**Slice of** https://forgejo.coilysiren.me/coilyco-gaming/sirens-echo/issues/111, the shared state vocabulary half. **Not the rich element** — Kai's decision is that the two are one design problem, which is the reason to make the state model correct before adding a second surface that renders it. ## Two defects **The emoji drifted from the approved set.** | approved | was | | --- | --- | | ❌ error | ⚠️ | | 🚫 content boundary blocked | ⛔ | Close enough to look right in a comment and wrong on a member's screen. `TestEveryHarnessCaseHasADistinctReaction` asserted only that the four differ from each other, which is exactly how two of them drifted while a test passed. **The boundary mark fires on no boundary.** `reactionRefused` exists for *"a message a boundary turned away"* and fires on access refusals. It does not fire when the content gate blocks a turn, so the state most specifically about a content boundary was silent on the only content boundary in the harness. That gate landed today and I never connected it. ## Scope - both emoji corrected to the approved codepoints - the content gate emits the boundary mark when it blocks - a test pins each reaction to its approved codepoint, which is what was missing ## Acceptance - Each of the four reactions equals the codepoint Kai approved. - A blocked turn is marked. - The distinctness test still holds, since it is still worth having.

coilyco-ops referenced this issue from a commit

2026-08-13 13:20:29 +00:00

fix(reactions): match the approved vocabulary, and mark the boundary that blocks

coilyco-ops referenced this issue from a pull request that will close it,

2026-08-13 13:20:54 +00:00

fix(reactions): match the approved vocabulary, and mark the boundary that blocks #447

coilyco-ops referenced this issue

2026-08-13 13:20:58 +00:00

Make long replies generate a discord rich element describing the reply progress #111

coilyco-ops closed this issue

2026-08-13 13:22:19 +00:00

coilyco-ops referenced this issue