Module project — Shared pricing rules

PART I

Warm-up

Reconnect with a useful idea before starting import only the public apis you use. 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

Integrate a shared pricing workspace

An import names a dependency; it does not implement or authorize it. Import only the public surfaces the script actually uses. The source describes Library → Module → Submodule → API → Parameters. Read that hierarchy to identify the required surface while keeping host resources and capability grants separate. Import syntax cannot prove a service exists at runtime or that the script may use every resource behind it.

Project contract: a preview and a batch report share subtotal+delivery pricing. Inputs are (9,1), (0,0), (25,5). Preview has a permitted display target; batch has no UI host. No audio or database service is needed.

Build a dependency inventory with required symbol, public provider, purpose and host requirement. Remove unused dependencies only after checking transitive behavior and the stated contract. For unresolved API signatures, document what must be supplied rather than inventing a convenient method. Worked case: A coherent design exposes one pure Pricing contract and lets both consumers pass explicit values. Predicted totals are 10, 0 and 30. Preview separately requests an authorized display update; batch records a report artifact through a separately supplied host contract. Neither consumer imports unrelated services.

Compare the tempting alternative: Copying the preview’s native UI dependencies into batch breaks its host assumptions; embedding price constants in both consumers invites policy drift.

Worked reasoning and supplied artifact

// Paper trace / supplied exercise-host contract; no execution claimed.
// Project contract: a preview and a batch report share subtotal+delivery pricing. Inputs are (9,1), (0,0), (25,5). Preview has a permitted display target; batch has no UI host. No audio or database service is needed.
// A coherent design exposes one pure Pricing contract and lets both consumers pass explicit values. Predicted totals are 10, 0 and 30. Preview separately requests an authorized display update; batch records a report artifact through a separately supplied host contract. Neither consumer imports unrelated services.

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: Shared pricing rules. Build a small, understandable change around import only the public apis you use.

Produce the shared rule/domain/dependency design with eight cases: three numeric cases, invalid negative input, denied display, unavailable display, batch without UI and a future fee-policy change. Label unverified syntax and host gaps.

What to produce

One shared rule contract, dependency graph, eight acceptance rows and explicit implementation limits.

• 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.

fnc add(a: i32, b: i32) -> i32 {
    return a + b;
}
fnc main() -> i32 {
    return add(2, 3);
}

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.

• Integrate a shared pricing workspace
• Produce the shared rule/domain/dependency design with eight cases: three numeric cases, invalid negative input, denied display, unavailable display, batch without UI and a future fee-policy change. Label unverified syntax and host gaps.
• Separate source-backed behavior, host requirements and untested predictions.

One small recap task

Name the single shared promise both consumers must preserve.

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