Module project — Cancelable workflow design

PART I

Warm-up

Reconnect with a useful idea before starting write a cancellation contract. In one or two sentences, describe the input, output or host boundary from the previous exercise that this lesson builds on. If you are arriving directly, skim the worked example first; there is no locked prerequisite.

A rough note is enough. You can revise it after the example.

PART II

Instruction & guided example

Deliver the cancelable workflow contract

Cancellation is a request to stop or detach work according to a host contract. It is not automatically rollback, instant interruption or successful completion. Define accepted states and side-effect boundaries before selecting syntax; the source leaves exact cancellation signatures and delivery rules unresolved.

Exercise jobJ builds a read-only report through states requested→admitted→working→ready→published. Cancellation before published prevents publication; after published it does not erase the already accepted result. Host-owned cleanup still has an accountable owner. These are explicit exercise requirements, not asserted standard WillowScript cancellation semantics.

Supplied case: Review needs precise stop, detach, publish and resource-release decisions without invented cancellation methods.

Worked reasoning: Package the state diagram with race ordering and owner/quota rules. State exact syntax/API signatures as unresolved. A later implementation can then be tested against these decisions without retroactively redefining cancel to match its output.

Contrast and diagnosis: An unsupported cancel() call would make the lesson look runnable while hiding the hard semantics.

Worked reasoning and supplied artifact

// Disposable exercise fixture / host-contract notes; not executable API syntax.
// Supplied input: Review needs precise stop, detach, publish and resource-release decisions without invented cancellation methods.
// Worked prediction: Package the state diagram with race ordering and owner/quota rules. State exact syntax/API signatures as unresolved. A later implementation can then be tested against these decisions without retroactively redefining cancel to match its output.
// Rejected alternative: An unsupported cancel() call would make the lesson look runnable while hiding the hard semantics.

Illustrative example from the proposed WillowScript design. The language and WUIX/WMATH/WDB/WAUDIO/WTMP services are not implemented in the supplied source. This site has no interpreter, VM or native host and does not execute or certify the snippet.

Try the guided change

Reconstruct the supplied worked case first: list its inputs, intermediate decisions and final artifact. Compare each row with the explanation and identify exactly where the rejected alternative fails. Then use the changed inputs in Part IV for independent work.

• Write the supplied inputs and initial state before following the example.
• Reconstruct each intermediate calculation or host decision, then compare with the worked artifact.
• Explain why the contrasting alternative fails before attempting the changed inputs in Part IV.

PART III

Take a breather

Step back after the guided example. Look away from the screen, stretch, or reread your prediction. This is an optional learning pause, not a timer or an assessment gate.

When you return, try to name the lesson’s key idea without copying its wording. If that feels difficult, return to Part II and trace one line rather than restarting the entire lesson.

PART IV

Independent practice

Project context: Cancelable workflow design. Build a small, understandable change around write a cancellation contract.

Submit a five-state diagram, six cancellation fixtures anda host-question list covering signaling, interruption, terminal ordering and cleanup.

What to produce

Submit a five-state diagram, six cancellation fixtures anda host-question list covering signaling, interruption, terminal ordering and cleanup. Include input → intermediate decision/state → predicted outcome, with any required host rule stated explicitly.

• State the intended behavior in a sentence before editing.
• Use only source-backed syntax and the host services whose contract you have been given.
• Record a normal case and a boundary or unavailable-resource case.
• Label hand predictions separately from anything actually measured in a supplied toolchain.

Syntax colors are a reading aid, not a compiler. The line you are editing stays uncolored until you move to a different line; capitalization is never changed. Drafts stay on this browser and code is not executed.

import wuix.widget;
import app;
domain Workspace {
    const application = Application({
        name: "Workspace",
        window: { title: "Dashboard", size: [1280, 800] },
        events: {
            "app.ready": fnc() -> void { console.log("Ready"); }
        }
    });
}

PART V

Self-check

Use this check to notice what to revisit. It does not award a private course grade, block another page or claim to verify compiled code. Every answer has a learning explanation.

You may keep exploring even if you are unsure. Use the hint, compare the trace, and revise your explanation.

PART VI

Recap & small task

Bring the idea back to the mod feature you are building. A useful recap connects the mechanism to a decision you can make in your own code.

• Deliver the cancelable workflow contract
• Explain the decision for the supplied case, then independently work the changed fixture.
• Separate source-backed behavior, host requirements and untested predictions.

One small recap task

In one or two sentences, name the decisive rule in “Deliver the cancelable workflow contract” and predict the outcome of one changed input from your independent fixture. State which host behavior still needs real verification.

This marks your personal practice record only. It is not a certification or an official workspace assessment.