All three are my own drift — the exact failure this session criticised in other
repos' ADRs and then reproduced.
1. ADR-271 §2 still listed "`iss` matches the configured issuer verbatim" in the
accept-rule. That rule was removed from the code in 12635a85 because Cognitum
issues no `iss` and it rejected every real token. The ADR's own "Facts about
the tokens" section 30 lines above already said tokens carry no `iss` — the
document contradicted itself for a day. Also removed a claim that tests cover
"issuer mismatch including a trailing-slash-only difference"; that test was
deleted with the rule and no longer exists.
2. `ruview-auth/src/lib.rs:59` said "**No login flow.** ... this crate only
verifies" — 15 lines above `pub mod login;`. Now states the accurate thing:
the login flow is behind the non-default `login` feature, so a verifying
server never compiles it.
3. ADR-271's scope table still described the old prefix-denylist admin set.
Replaced with the fail-closed rule that actually ships, including why:
`/api/v1/adaptive/train` was reachable with `sensing:read`.
Also records a KNOWN INCOMPLETE that the ADRs previously implied was done: the
browser cannot obtain an OAuth token at all. `wifi-densepose login` writes
~/.ruview/credentials.json, which a browser cannot read; the UI reads
localStorage['ruview-api-token'], populated only by the manual-paste
QuickSettings panel. `grep -ril "oauth|cognitum|pkce" ui/` returns nothing.
So the WebSocket ticket mechanism ADR-272 introduces "for browsers" is today
only exercisable with the legacy static shared secret OAuth was meant to
replace. Server-side gating is correct and complete; the browser half of the
story these ADRs tell is not built. Recorded rather than left implied.
Co-Authored-By: Ruflo & AQE
The ADR said the login flow was "not in this crate". It is now, gated behind a
non-default `login` feature. The original line existed to keep the sensing
server lean; a feature gate achieves that without forcing the Tauri desktop app
to grow a second copy of a PKCE + rotating-refresh implementation — the kind of
duplication that drifts and then disagrees about something subtle.
Recording the change rather than letting the ADR quietly go stale, which is the
exact failure this session hit twice in other repos' ADRs.
Co-Authored-By: Ruflo & AQE
The previous commit referenced ADR-271 in five places without the ADR existing.
This writes it.
Records the decision and, more importantly, the direction — RuView verifies
tokens users present, it does not obtain tokens to call Cognitum. Every other
Cognitum OAuth integration in the org is the client side of a plane RuView does
not have; the sole relevant precedent is meta-llm's oauthBearer.ts.
Covers: why offline verification is a requirement rather than an optimisation
(Pi-class hosts lose WAN, and no introspection endpoint exists); why the
accept-rule is a port and not a design; why long-lived setup/workload
credentials are refused (no database to check revocation); why scope — not
`aud`, not `client_id` — is the capability boundary; and the alternatives,
including the `cog_`-minting approach that was tried org-wide and found broken
against production.
Co-Authored-By: Ruflo & AQE
Dragan Spiridonov