yolo/arr
3
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 12 Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

DESIGN.md §9.5 restates the pre-#226 decision bar #240

New Issue
Closed
opened 2026-08-25 10:30:19 +01:00 by naps62-yolo · 1 comment
naps62-yolo commented 2026-08-25 10:30:19 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link
Copy Source

§9.5 still states the pre-#226 rule:

Needs a decision → to the operator alone. Entered the no-PT-source queue,
or hard-failed twice on different releases.

No window. #226 amended §5.7 but left this restatement of the same rule alone,
so the document now gives the bar two different ways. §5.7 wins by the
CLAUDE.md rule, but a session that reads §9.5 first will implement the wrong
thing — which is precisely how this milestone's #226 came to cite §5.2 for a
rule that lives in §5.7.

Also from the same review: the §7.4 sentence #236 added at DESIGN.md:505 is a
single ~450-character unwrapped line in a document hard-wrapped at ~78 columns,
and is the only such line in the file.

Scope: make §9.5 defer to §5.7 rather than restate it, and rewrap the §7.4
line. Documentation only, no code.

§9.5 still states the pre-#226 rule: > **Needs a decision** → to the operator alone. Entered the no-PT-source queue, > or hard-failed twice on different releases. No window. #226 amended §5.7 but left this restatement of the same rule alone, so the document now gives the bar two different ways. §5.7 wins by the CLAUDE.md rule, but a session that reads §9.5 first will implement the wrong thing — which is precisely how this milestone's #226 came to cite §5.2 for a rule that lives in §5.7. Also from the same review: the §7.4 sentence #236 added at `DESIGN.md:505` is a single ~450-character unwrapped line in a document hard-wrapped at ~78 columns, and is the only such line in the file. Scope: make §9.5 defer to §5.7 rather than restate it, and rewrap the §7.4 line. Documentation only, no code.
naps62-yolo added this to the Feedback pass 2 milestone 2026-08-25 10:30:19 +01:00
naps62-yolo added the difficulty/easytype/chore labels 2026-08-25 10:30:19 +01:00
naps62-yolo commented 2026-08-25 11:14:56 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link
Copy Source

One more for this issue, from the second integration review — same class of
problem, one document saying a thing two ways.

DESIGN.md:405-411 says a season "is queued while at least one of its episodes
is still wanted and still without a file". Both readers implement
e.wanted = 1 AND e.state != 'available'
(crates/arr-api/src/movies.rs:906-909, crates/arr-daemon/src/attention.rs:293-297).
Those coincide today, but the sentence describes a media_files existence check
while the code is a state check — and §5.7's own preceding sentence uses
"wanted and not available" for the movie and episode lanes. Two phrasings for
one predicate, in one paragraph. Pick the state phrasing, since that is what
both readers do.

Also stylistic, same section: "The count and the window are one rule seen twice
… and this is its third face" is arithmetically confusing — twice, then third.

Otherwise §5.7 reads as one coherent rule despite three sessions having amended
it, which was the thing worth checking.

One more for this issue, from the second integration review — same class of problem, one document saying a thing two ways. `DESIGN.md:405-411` says a season "is queued while at least one of its episodes is still wanted and **still without a file**". Both readers implement `e.wanted = 1 AND e.state != 'available'` (`crates/arr-api/src/movies.rs:906-909`, `crates/arr-daemon/src/attention.rs:293-297`). Those coincide today, but the sentence describes a `media_files` existence check while the code is a state check — and §5.7's *own preceding sentence* uses "wanted and not `available`" for the movie and episode lanes. Two phrasings for one predicate, in one paragraph. Pick the state phrasing, since that is what both readers do. Also stylistic, same section: "The count and the window are one rule seen twice … and this is its third face" is arithmetically confusing — twice, then third. Otherwise §5.7 reads as one coherent rule despite three sessions having amended it, which was the thing worth checking.
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
area/api
arr-api
 area/ci
CI and test harness
 area/compat
arr-compat
 area/core
arr-core
 area/daemon
arr-daemon
 area/db
arr-db
 area/dl
arr-dl
 area/indexer
arr-indexer
 area/infra
workspace and tooling
 area/meta
arr-meta
 area/parse
arr-parse
 area/probe
arr-probe
 area/subs
arr-subs crate: providers, extraction, translation, sync
 area/web
web/
 difficulty/easy
bounded, obvious approach, few files
 difficulty/hard
subtle correctness or cross-cutting
 difficulty/moderate
multiple files, judgement, an interface to design
 difficulty/trivial
one file, mechanical, no design decisions
 phase/1-skeleton
workspace, CI, config, database, empty API and SPA
 phase/2-logic
parsing and policy engine, pure, no network
 phase/3-sourcing
TMDB and Prowlarr, read-only
 phase/4-movies
movies end to end
 phase/5-ui
search, buckets, library views, queues
 phase/6-tv
seasons, episodes, tracking, derived status
 phase/7-people
owner tags and notifications
 phase/8-compat
Jellyseerr shim
 phase/9-subtitles
build order: subtitles, DESIGN.md §15
 type/bug
type/chore
type/feature
type/test
No labels difficulty/easy type/chore
Milestone
No items
No Milestone Feedback pass 2
Projects
Clear projects
No projects
Assignees
Clear assignees
hermes (Hermes (agent)) naps62 (Miguel Palhas) naps62-yolo (naps62-yolo (agent))
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: yolo/arr#240