Review public API boundaries, locked exposure, and transitive imports — Connect the previous skills

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

Connect imports to release review

A dependency graph explains where code and visible names come from. It does not transfer an author’s privileges or remove checks on a downstream operation. Follow the path to the actual host action, then evaluate that action using the current execution’s authority.

Exercise graph: screen imports report; report imports catalog and exportHelper. catalog performs a read; exportHelper requests an export. Current caller’s grants allow reading Public, deny reading Staff and do not include export. Module names are host-contract labels, not extra standard libraries or executable import syntax.

Supplied case: A dependency update preserves the public read name but adds optional telemetry export to an external destination.

Worked reasoning: The API signature may look compatible while host effects changed. Inventory the destination, requested data and required authority. Keep optional telemetry refused or disabled unless the execution’s contract explicitly permits it; do not equate opt-out text with a grant.

Contrast and diagnosis: Compatibility review that checks only function names can miss new data movement.

Worked reasoning and supplied artifact

// Disposable exercise fixture / host-contract notes; not executable API syntax.
// Supplied input: A dependency update preserves the public read name but adds optional telemetry export to an external destination.
// Worked prediction: The API signature may look compatible while host effects changed. Inventory the destination, requested data and required authority. Keep optional telemetry refused or disabled unless the execution’s contract explicitly permits it; do not equate opt-out text with a grant.
// Rejected alternative: Compatibility review that checks only function names can miss new data movement.

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.

Draft a release-review note separating unchanged names, new host actions, required grant and a no-grant acceptance case.

What to produce

Draft a release-review note separating unchanged names, new host actions, required grant and a no-grant acceptance case. 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.

• Connect imports to release review
• 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 “Connect imports to release review” 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.