Skip to content

Data Contracts

Data contracts in bijux-canon-ingest include schemas, structured models, and any stable payload shape that neighboring systems are expected to understand.

This page keeps data shape changes reviewable. If a record or payload matters to another package, another process, or a replay path, it deserves to be described as a contract rather than left implicit in implementation details.

Treat the interfaces pages for bijux-canon-ingest as the bridge between implementation detail and caller expectation. They should show what the package is prepared to defend before a dependency forms.

Visual Summary

flowchart TB
    page["Data Contracts<br/>clarifies: identify contracts | see caller impact | review compatibility"]
    classDef page fill:#dbeafe,stroke:#1d4ed8,color:#1e3a8a,stroke-width:2px;
    classDef positive fill:#dcfce7,stroke:#16a34a,color:#14532d;
    classDef caution fill:#fee2e2,stroke:#dc2626,color:#7f1d1d;
    classDef anchor fill:#ede9fe,stroke:#7c3aed,color:#4c1d95;
    classDef action fill:#fef3c7,stroke:#d97706,color:#7c2d12;
    surface1["CLI entrypoint in src/bijux_canon_ingest/interfaces/cli/entrypoint.py"]
    surface1 --> page
    surface2["HTTP boundaries under src/bijux_canon_ingest/interfaces"]
    surface2 --> page
    surface3["configuration modules under src/bijux_canon_ingest/config"]
    surface3 --> page
    proof1["apis/bijux-canon-ingest/v1/schema.yaml"]
    page --> proof1
    proof2["normalized document trees"]
    page --> proof2
    proof3["chunk collections and retrieval-ready records"]
    page --> proof3
    review1["tests/e2e for package boundary coverage"]
    review1 -.raises compatibility pressure on.-> page
    review2["tests/invariants for long-lived repository promises"]
    review2 -.raises compatibility pressure on.-> page
    review3["tests/unit for module-level behavior across processing, retrieval, and interfaces"]
    review3 -.raises compatibility pressure on.-> page
    class page page;
    class surface1,surface2,surface3 positive;
    class proof1,proof2,proof3 anchor;
    class review1,review2,review3 caution;

Contract Anchors

  • apis/bijux-canon-ingest/v1/schema.yaml

Artifact Anchors

  • normalized document trees
  • chunk collections and retrieval-ready records
  • diagnostic output produced during ingest workflows

Concrete Anchors

  • CLI entrypoint in src/bijux_canon_ingest/interfaces/cli/entrypoint.py
  • HTTP boundaries under src/bijux_canon_ingest/interfaces
  • configuration modules under src/bijux_canon_ingest/config
  • apis/bijux-canon-ingest/v1/schema.yaml

Use This Page When

  • you need the public command, API, import, schema, or artifact surface
  • you are checking whether a caller can safely rely on a given entrypoint or shape
  • you want the contract-facing side of the package before building on it

Decision Rule

Use Data Contracts to decide whether a caller-facing surface is explicit enough to depend on. If the surface cannot be tied back to concrete code, schemas, artifacts, examples, and tests, treat it as unstable until that evidence is visible.

What This Page Answers

  • which public or operator-facing surfaces bijux-canon-ingest is really asking readers to trust
  • which schemas, artifacts, imports, or commands behave like contracts
  • what compatibility pressure a change to this surface would create

Reviewer Lens

  • compare commands, schemas, imports, and artifacts against the documented surface one by one
  • check whether a seemingly local change actually needs compatibility review
  • confirm that examples still point to real entrypoints and not to stale habits

Honesty Boundary

This page can identify the intended public surfaces of bijux-canon-ingest, but real compatibility depends on code, schemas, artifacts, examples, and tests staying aligned. If those disagree, the prose is wrong or incomplete.

Next Checks

  • move to operations when the caller-facing question becomes procedural or environmental
  • move to quality when compatibility or evidence of protection becomes the real issue
  • move back to architecture when a public-surface question reveals a deeper structural drift

Purpose

This page explains which structured shapes deserve compatibility review.

Stability

Keep it aligned with tracked schemas, stable models, and durable artifacts.