didericis
bff06bcedf
Replaces the BB_TEST_PREREQS env toggle with the two subcommands the macOS
harness established, so the two repos read the same:
test A bare host — prerequisites NOT set up (the default state of a
stock cloud image). Exercises install.sh's own prerequisite-guard
logic. SOUND (PASS) when install.sh either installs cleanly or
declines with one of its own recognized, actionable errors; a
crash or unrecognized failure fails.
test-ready Prerequisites satisfied — the harness installs python3/git/pipx
first, then runs install.sh, which must actually land: entry point
runnable, doctor reporting a usable python and config.
Structure now mirrors scripts/macos-install-test.sh: a shared _test_cycle
driving up -> (prereqs) -> run -> verdict -> down, thin cmd_test / cmd_test_ready
wrappers setting _STEPS / _PASS_CLAIM / _REQUIRE_INSTALL, a standalone `prereqs`
subcommand, and a _test_teardown that prints the PASS/FAIL claim.
The doctor check is now the macOS-style classifier rather than a bare exit-code
read: a Traceback is an install defect (fail), a missing `ok: python:` /
`ok: config:` line is a fail, and a not-ready backend is reported, not fatal
(BB_TEST_REQUIRE_BACKEND=1 makes it fatal for a nested-virt host). This is where
Linux diverges from macOS test-ready — a plain VM has no nested KVM for
Firecracker and the harness doesn't provision the Docker backend, so backend
readiness is never the Linux criterion.
test-all now runs every distro × {test, test-ready}. Research note updated.
Validated with `bash -n` and `shellcheck`.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Research notes
Investigations into a question or a design space — landscape surveys,
tradeoff analyses, "should we do X or Y," assessments of an approach
before (or instead of) committing it to a PRD. A research note is where
the thinking lives; a PRD is where a decided feature lives, and a
decision record is where a settled choice lives (see
../README.md for picking between them).
Notes are opinionated. They reach a conclusion rather than dumping a neutral survey — the point is to move a decision forward and leave a durable record of why it went the way it did.
Naming
kebab-case-topic.md, named by subject and not numbered (unlike
PRDs and decision records). Pick a name that says what was
investigated: bash-vs-python-vs-go.md, pipelock-assessment.md,
issue-tracking-vs-in-repo-decision-history.md.
Shape (freeform)
There's no fixed template — use whatever structure fits the question. In practice most notes share a loose shape:
- Open with the question — a sentence or two on what's being investigated and why it came up.
- Lead with the verdict — a
## Summarynear the top stating the conclusion, so a reader gets the answer without reading the whole thing. - Then the analysis — whatever the argument needs: comparison tables, per-option sections, failure-mode walkthroughs, the axes that actually matter.
- End with a recommendation when the note exists to drive a decision.
Keep the reasoning self-contained and grounded: cite sources, link files and PRDs, and prefer concrete evidence from this repo over generic claims — a note should stand on its own without a chat log or a Gitea thread. When a note's recommendation gets acted on, capture the resulting decision in a PRD or a decision record; the note stays as the "why we looked into it," not the system of record for the choice.