docs(server): clarify testController JSDoc — bridge is for upstream-proxy sellers only#1787
Merged
Merged
Conversation
…roxy sellers only Names the audience explicitly so state-local sellers don't wire the bridge unnecessarily, and upstream-proxy sellers know to wire it. Cross-links the upstream taxonomy proposal at adcontextprotocol/adcp#4593 and the leaderboard policy at #1782. Also collapses a duplicate trust-boundary blurb (added in #1779 alongside the security-review note in #1786) into a single coherent section. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This was referenced May 16, 2026
bokelley
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 16, 2026
…n model (#1795) * docs: align bridge framing with revised single-dimension certification model Maintainer walked back the two-badge proxy-vs-state-local split from #1782 and proposed a single-dimension framing (Wire Conformance / Live Integration Verified) where every seller faces the same verifiability gap, and the bridge is one of two mechanisms for closing the seed→read loop, not a special path for one seller class. JSDoc on AdcpServerConfig.testController: - Drops "only upstream-proxy sellers" as primary framing - "Pick by where your read handlers fetch from, not by seller class" - "Either path earns wire-conformance credit; it is *not* a separate certification category" skills/build-seller-agent/SKILL.md: - New "Test surfaces" section frames the verifiability gap as universal - Names the two implementations (state-local store vs TestControllerBridge) - Hedges on certification names while #1782 settles No SDK behavior change. Marker contract, trust-boundary docs, and dual-emit warn from #1786/#1787/#1788 all stay as-is — they describe mechanism without committing to certification taxonomy. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> * docs(skill): fold docs-expert feedback — tighten Test surfaces section + in-repo JSDoc link --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <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.
Summary
Doc-only follow-up to #1786. Two small JSDoc fixes on
AdcpServerConfig.testController:Names the audience explicitly. The bridge is test mode's adapter for upstream-proxy sellers (DSPs proxying to Meta/Snap/TikTok, retail-media networks reading retailer catalogs, signals agents brokering third-party data marketplaces). State-local sellers — most SSPs, most creative agents — shouldn't wire it.
comply_test_controlleralone covers them because their seed→read loop closes naturally (seed writes to their DB, handler reads from their DB). Today's JSDoc reads like "this is the test pattern for AdCP," which two failure modes follow from: state-local sellers wire unnecessary code, and upstream-proxy sellers discoverseed_productis a dead write mid-conformance-run.Collapses a duplicate trust-boundary blurb added in docs(bridge): trust-boundary + multi-tenant adopter responsibility #1779 (the line referencing the top-of-file
TestControllerBridgeJSDoc) alongside the security-review note added in feat(testing): bridge participation marker (#1775) #1786. The two said the same thing; merged into one coherent section.Cross-links the upstream taxonomy proposal at
adcontextprotocol/adcp#4593(spec docs naming the bridge / test-mode relationship) and the leaderboard policy atadcp-client#1782(two-badge model: Wire Conformance / Adapter Health).Test plan
tsc --noEmitcleanprettier --checkclean🤖 Generated with Claude Code