PART I
Warm-up
Reconnect with a useful idea before starting filter and order a result. 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
Adapt the threshold requirement
For a W developer moving into proposed WS, translate the intended data operation rather than native storage mechanics. The query DSL, object literals and bound-expression forms are proposed extensions. Collections and field names are explicit exercise-host inputs; importing a service neither supplies those resources nor grants access.
Supplied bridge fixture: Warning changes from below10 to at-most10; fixture stocks9,10,11.
The mathematical result changes from [9] to [9,10];11 remains excluded. Shared grammar comparison concepts do not establish every proposed DSL spelling, so write the changed predicate requirement explicitly and verify syntax only in a future supplied implementation.
Record the request, intermediate decisions and final artifact separately. These are paper derivations and platform-contract exercises; .ws and its native services are not implemented or executed by this school. Shared fnc/domain/import vocabulary does not certify parser support for proposed extensions or prove runtime security enforcement.
Worked reasoning and supplied artifact
// PAPER FIXTURE — Adapt the threshold requirement
// Manual worked artifact; comments below are not executable source.
// INPUT / CONTRACT: Supplied bridge fixture: Warning changes from below10 to at-most10; fixture
// stocks9,10,11.
// DERIVATION / EXPECTED ARTIFACT: The mathematical result changes from [9] to [9,10];11 remains excluded.
// Shared grammar comparison concepts do not establish every proposed DSL spelling, so write the changed
// predicate requirement explicitly and verify syntax only in a future supplied implementation.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.
Walk through the example, one line at a time
// PAPER FIXTURE — Adapt the threshold requirementThis comment explains intent for a reader. It is not an operation and should not be counted as an executed result.
// Manual worked artifact; comments below are not executable source.This comment explains intent for a reader. It is not an operation and should not be counted as an executed result.
// INPUT / CONTRACT: Supplied bridge fixture: Warning changes from below10 to at-most10; fixtureThis comment explains intent for a reader. It is not an operation and should not be counted as an executed result.
// stocks9,10,11.This comment explains intent for a reader. It is not an operation and should not be counted as an executed result.
// DERIVATION / EXPECTED ARTIFACT: The mathematical result changes from [9] to [9,10];11 remains excluded.This comment explains intent for a reader. It is not an operation and should not be counted as an executed result.
// Shared grammar comparison concepts do not establish every proposed DSL spelling, so write the changedThis comment explains intent for a reader. It is not an operation and should not be counted as an executed result.
// predicate requirement explicitly and verify syntax only in a future supplied implementation.This comment explains intent for a reader. It is not an operation and should not be counted as an executed result.
Try the guided change
Guided exercise: reproduce this exact fixture, annotate each native-versus-script responsibility, then explain why the rejected answer “stock9” fails.
- 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: Inventory review workspace. Build a small, understandable change around filter and order a result.
Make old/new membership tables for a below20→at-most20 change. Supply different fixture identities/values from the worked case, a complete predicted result or allow/deny artifact, a stepwise trace, one contrasting failure and the required host contract.
What to produce
Make old/new membership tables for a below20→at-most20 change. Preserve source/implementation status and separate manual predictions from future toolchain evidence.
- 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.
Need a hint?
The mathematical result changes from [9] to [9,10];11 remains excluded. Shared grammar comparison concepts do not establish every proposed DSL spelling, so write the changed predicate requirement explicitly and verify syntax only in a future supplied implementation.
The rejected conclusion “stock9” crosses an unprovided boundary or contradicts the supplied fixture. The mathematical result changes from [9] to [9,10];11 remains excluded. Shared grammar comparison concepts do not establish every proposed DSL spelling, so write the changed predicate requirement explicitly and verify syntax only in a future supplied implementation.
Original learning-path task and reference
Use your Willow knowledge to implement the .ws host integration, explaining which work remains native and which belongs in the script. In a racing checkpoint editor, demonstrate filter and order a result. Adapt the task to a second host-neutral application context without changing the imported API contract. Include .ws source and a host-resource contract; compare at least one normal case and one edge case.
import wdb;
domain Inventory {
const lowStock = wdb.query({
from: products,
select: [id, name, stock],
where: [[ stock < 10 ]],
order: { by: stock, direction: ascending }
});
}Where the original task needs a host API that is not supplied here, write the contract and predictions. Do not invent a runtime result.
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.
- Adapt the threshold requirement
- Warning changes from below10 to at-most10; fixture stocks9,10,11.
- Separate source-backed behavior, host requirements and untested predictions.
One small recap task
Change one field,resource scope,lifetime or input value in the bridge fixture. State the new intermediate decisions and final result without assuming a running WS host.
This marks your personal practice record only. It is not a certification or an official workspace assessment.
