Treat an absent verified field as unknown, not as unverified - #18
Merged
Conversation
The n8n session measured `/requests` listings that omit `verified`. It is present on this project — checked, every model in the listing carries it — so the finding does not reproduce here. It still exposes a real fragility: the check read the field with `.get()`, so an absent one counted as a failure. That is the wrong direction to be wrong in. "The API did not say" would have been reported as "your source is accepting forgeries", sending someone to re-paste a signing secret that was never the problem, on the one check whose whole job is telling them what is actually true. Requests are now judged only where they report themselves, counts are over what was judged rather than what was returned, and a listing that reports nothing is called unconfirmed. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
From the n8n session's live-testing notes, which report
/requestslistings that omitverified.The finding does not reproduce here — checked against the live project, every model in the listing carries the field. But it exposes a real fragility in the check I added in #16: it read the field with
.get(), so an absent one counted as a failure.That is the wrong direction to be wrong in. "The API did not say" would be reported as "your source is accepting forgeries", sending someone to re-paste a signing secret that was never the problem — on the one check whose entire job is telling them what is true.
Requests are now judged only where they report themselves, counts are over what was judged rather than what was returned, and a listing that reports nothing is called unconfirmed rather than failed.
Two tests, mutation-checked: reverting to
.get()fails both. 321 tests, ruff clean.