didericis-claude
1a4b390e8a
Addresses the review on PR #481. Self-contained wheel (review point 1): the gateway/infra/orchestrator images build from a context that must hold bot_bottle/, pyproject.toml, and the root-level Dockerfiles. Modules previously located these by walking __file__ to the repo root, so an installed wheel (package in site-packages, no repo root) passed `doctor` but failed `start`. - Add bot_bottle/resources.py: build_root() returns the repo root in a checkout (unchanged) or a staged copy from the wheel's bundled _resources/ otherwise; dockerfile()/nix_netpool_module()/ netpool_script() derive from it. - setup.py bundles the root Dockerfiles, nix module, netpool script, and pyproject.toml into bot_bottle/_resources/ at build; MANIFEST.in ships them in the sdist. - Route every _REPO_ROOT/_REPO_DIR call site (docker/macos launch, macos infra, firecracker infra_vm/infra_artifact/setup, orchestrator lifecycle/gateway) through resources. Checkout behavior is unchanged. install.sh prerequisites (review point 2): check for git when installing a git+ spec, and — before the pip fallback — that pip is usable and the interpreter isn't externally managed (PEP 668), pointing at pipx. Tests: test_resources covers checkout + staged-wheel layouts; test_wheel_install builds the wheel, installs it into an isolated venv, and asserts `doctor` runs and build_root() yields a valid context. Running `start` end-to-end still needs a Docker/KVM host (CI). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Product requirement docs
One PRD per feature: what to build, why, and how it's scoped. The PRD
is the durable spec — it should stand on its own without a Gitea issue
thread (see ../README.md for when a PRD is the right
document vs. a research note or a decision record).
Naming and numbering
New PRDs use a prd-new-<kebab-title>.md placeholder name while the PR
is open. On merge to main a CI workflow assigns the next sequential
number (0024-…, 0025-…), renames the file, and updates the title
header. Numbers are never reused; gaps are fine.
Once numbered, the filename stays fixed for the life of the doc.
Status
The Status: line near the top tracks the PRD's lifecycle:
- Draft — proposed, not yet shipped.
- Active — the design has shipped to
mainand is in effect. - Superseded by PRD NNNN — replaced by a later PRD; kept for history.
- Retargeted by PRD NNNN — folded into a later PRD's scope.
Format
# PRD prd-new: <short title> ← placeholder; CI fills in the number on merge
- **Status:** Draft
- **Author:** <who>
- **Created:** YYYY-MM-DD
- **Issue:** #<n> # optional — convenience pointer only
## Summary
One paragraph: what this builds and the pain it solves.
## Problem
The current state and why it's inadequate.
## Goals / Success Criteria
Bullets a reviewer can check the finished work against.
## Non-goals
What this explicitly does not do — and won't, to head off scope creep.
## Scope
In scope / out of scope, when the boundary needs spelling out.
## Design
How it works: schema, data flow, diagrams, algorithms as needed.
## Implementation chunks
Ordered, mergeable steps (optional; for multi-PR features).
## Open questions
Unresolved decisions — resolve or fold into Design before shipping.
Sections are a guide, not a straitjacket: drop the ones a given PRD doesn't need (a small change rarely needs Scope or Implementation chunks) and add others where they help (e.g. Testing strategy, Alternatives considered, References). Keep the rationale self-contained — inline the reasoning rather than linking out to an issue thread, so the PRD survives a move off Gitea.