Defend version compatibility, capability policy, and migration decisions — Connect the previous skills

PART I

Warm-up

Reconnect with a useful idea before starting defend version compatibility, capability policy, and migration decisions. 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

Keep denied UI behavior truthful

Permission migration changes who may perform an operation, not merely which names are visible. Keep the identity, operation, resource and decision together in every example. A new capability should be explicitly granted through the host policy; existing public API exposure cannot silently supply it.

Exercise policy: profile.read permits reading the caller’s own display name; profile.export is a separate grant for exporting the caller’s own profile. Version 1 clients have only profile.read. Version 2 adds export as an optional operation. The source does not define a manifest schema, so the artifacts here are plain policy tables, not executable permission syntax.

Supplied case: The export action is visible, but caller Bo lacks export. Design allows either a disabled action with explanation or an enabled request with safe refusal.

Worked reasoning: Both designs can preserve the boundary if the host still enforces permission. The UI should state the actual condition, such as export permission required, and must not announce a download that was never produced.

Contrast and diagnosis: Hiding a button is useful presentation but cannot replace authorization: another exposed path could request the same operation.

Worked reasoning and supplied artifact

// Disposable exercise fixture / host-contract notes; not executable API syntax.
// Supplied input: The export action is visible, but caller Bo lacks export. Design allows either a disabled action with explanation or an enabled request with safe refusal.
// Worked prediction: Both designs can preserve the boundary if the host still enforces permission. The UI should state the actual condition, such as export permission required, and must not announce a download that was never produced.
// Rejected alternative: Hiding a button is useful presentation but cannot replace authorization: another exposed path could request the same operation.

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: Extension compatibility portfolio. Build a small, understandable change around defend version compatibility, capability policy, and migration decisions.

Specify visible states for allowed, denied and temporarily unavailable export. Include the server decision and user message for each.

What to produce

Specify visible states for allowed, denied and temporarily unavailable export. Include the server decision and user message for each. 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;
const button = widget.Button({
    text: "Continue",
    events: {
        click: fnc() -> void {
            navigator.open("dashboard");
        }
    }
});

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.

• Keep denied UI behavior truthful
• 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 “Keep denied UI behavior truthful” 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.