pub type SeedOf<F> = SeededCase<WorkflowOf<F>, <F as ExecutorFactory>::Executor>;Expand description
The SeededCase an ExecutorFactory produces.
Aliased Type§
pub struct SeedOf<F> {
pub executor: <F as ExecutorFactory>::Executor,
pub actor: ActorContext,
pub case_ref: CaseRef,
pub first: <<F as ExecutorFactory>::Workflow as WorkflowDefinition>::Command,
pub second: <<F as ExecutorFactory>::Workflow as WorkflowDefinition>::Command,
pub refused: <<F as ExecutorFactory>::Workflow as WorkflowDefinition>::Command,
}Fields§
§executor: <F as ExecutorFactory>::ExecutorThe executor under test, holding exactly one case.
actor: ActorContextThe actor every envelope runs as. Its account owns the seeded case.
case_ref: CaseRefThe seeded case, at the revision the seed left it.
first: <<F as ExecutorFactory>::Workflow as WorkflowDefinition>::CommandA command that applies from the seeded state.
It must not be naturally idempotent: applying it twice has to leave a state different from applying it once (append a line, do not assign a field). A suite that used an assignment could not tell a replay from a second execution, which is the whole point of half the checks here.
second: <<F as ExecutorFactory>::Workflow as WorkflowDefinition>::CommandA command that applies after first and serializes
differently from it.
refused: <<F as ExecutorFactory>::Workflow as WorkflowDefinition>::CommandA command the domain refuses, both from the seeded state and from the
state first leaves behind.
The refusal must come from the domain — ExecutionError::Rejected —
and not from a revision or an idempotency rule, because the checks that
use it are about what a refusal leaves behind.