Review public API boundaries, locked exposure, and transitive imports — Change one requirement

PART I

Warm-up

Reconnect with a useful idea before starting review public api boundaries, locked exposure, and transitive imports. 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

Change exposure without granting new resources

The source names lck/ulck exposure policy, but a lesson must not invent an executable policy format or assume visibility equals permission. Use explicit plain tables to reason about which surface the host exposes, then carry resource-specific capability checks into every visible operation.

Exercise policy table: Viewer profile exposes catalog.listTitles; Maintainer profile additionally exposes maintenance.rebuild. Both profiles remain limited to project P. Project Q is outside their grant scope. The profile labels and table are exercise-host documentation; exact lck/ulck configuration syntax must come from an authoritative host contract.

Supplied case: Host adds catalog.summary to Viewer’s exposed surface; resource scope remains project P only.

Worked reasoning: Viewer may request the new summary for P if its resource permission permits that operation. Q remains out of scope. Review the new operation’s required grant separately instead of assuming all catalog operations share authority.

Contrast and diagnosis: Adding a visible name cannot silently expand the project set.

Worked reasoning and supplied artifact

// Disposable exercise fixture / host-contract notes; not executable API syntax.
// Supplied input: Host adds catalog.summary to Viewer’s exposed surface; resource scope remains project P only.
// Worked prediction: Viewer may request the new summary for P if its resource permission permits that operation. Q remains out of scope. Review the new operation’s required grant separately instead of assuming all catalog operations share authority.
// Rejected alternative: Adding a visible name cannot silently expand the project set.

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: Approved API inventory. Build a small, understandable change around review public api boundaries, locked exposure, and transitive imports.

Write a before/after exposure map and P/Q request matrix for the new summary. Mark any unspecified operation grant as a host question.

What to produce

Write a before/after exposure map and P/Q request matrix for the new summary. Mark any unspecified operation grant as a host question. 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 wdb;
domain Inventory {
    const lowStock = wdb.query({
        from: products,
        select: [id, name, stock],
        where: [[ stock < 10 ]],
        order: { by: stock, direction: ascending }
    });
}

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.

• Change exposure without granting new resources
• 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 “Change exposure without granting new resources” 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.