Observability and Diagnostics¶
Diagnostics should make it easier to explain what bijux-canon-runtime did, not merely that it ran.
Good diagnostics shorten both incidents and reviews. They give maintainers a way to connect visible outputs back to the package behavior that produced them.
Treat the operations pages for bijux-canon-runtime as the package's explicit operating memory. They should make common tasks repeatable without relearning the workflow from logs or oral history.
Visual Summary¶
flowchart LR
page["Observability and Diagnostics<br/>clarifies: repeat workflows | find diagnostics | release safely"]
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;
step1["CLI entrypoint in src/bijux_canon_runtime/interfaces/cli/entrypoint.py"]
step1 --> page
step2["HTTP app in src/bijux_canon_runtime/api/v1"]
step2 --> page
step3["packages/bijux-canon-runtime/pyproject.toml"]
step3 --> page
run1["tests/unit for api, contracts, core, interfaces, model, and runtime"]
page --> run1
run2["tests/e2e for governed flow behavior"]
page --> run2
run3["tests/regression and tests/smoke for replay and storage protection"]
page --> run3
release1["README.md"]
run1 --> release1
release2["CHANGELOG.md"]
run2 --> release2
release3["pyproject.toml"]
run3 --> release3
class page page;
class step1,step2,step3 positive;
class run1,run2,run3 anchor;
class release1,release2,release3 action;
Diagnostic Anchors¶
- execution store records
- replay decision artifacts
- non-determinism policy evaluations
Supporting Modules¶
src/bijux_canon_runtime/modelfor durable runtime modelssrc/bijux_canon_runtime/runtimefor execution engines and lifecycle logic
Concrete Anchors¶
packages/bijux-canon-runtime/pyproject.tomlfor package metadatapackages/bijux-canon-runtime/README.mdfor local package framingpackages/bijux-canon-runtime/testsfor executable operational backstops
Use This Page When¶
- you are installing, running, diagnosing, or releasing the package
- you need repeatable operational anchors rather than architectural framing
- you are responding to package behavior in local work, CI, or incident pressure
Decision Rule¶
Use Observability and Diagnostics to decide whether a maintainer can repeat the package workflow from checked-in assets instead of memory. If a step works only because someone already knows the trick, the workflow is not documented clearly enough yet.
What This Page Answers¶
- how
bijux-canon-runtimeis installed, run, diagnosed, and released in practice - which checked-in files and tests anchor the operational story
- where a maintainer should look first when the package behaves differently
Reviewer Lens¶
- verify that setup, workflow, and release statements still match package metadata and current commands
- check that operational guidance still points at real diagnostics and validation paths
- confirm that maintainer advice still works under current local and CI expectations
Honesty Boundary¶
This page explains how bijux-canon-runtime is expected to be operated, but it does not replace package metadata, actual runtime behavior, or validation in a real environment. A workflow is only trustworthy if a maintainer can still repeat it from the checked-in assets named here.
Next Checks¶
- move to interfaces when the operational path depends on a specific surface contract
- move to quality when the question becomes whether the workflow is sufficiently proven
- move back to architecture when operational complexity suggests a structural problem
Purpose¶
This page points readers toward the package's observable output and diagnostic support.
Stability¶
Keep it aligned with the package modules and artifacts that currently support diagnosis.