Certifieringslanan (BI-P147) hittade det; jag verifierade det oberoende mot
LICENSE-filen vid respektive git-tagg 2026-09-07:
v0.208.1 Business Source License 1.1 — source-available, INTE öppen källkod
v0.209.0 Apache License 2.0
dbt Labs licensierade om MetricFlow vid 0.209.0. Den gamla pinnen låg alltså
exakt en patch under gränsen. För en självhostad plattform vars hela premiss
är att inte ha ett proprietärt runtime-beroende är det en licensdefekt, inte
en smaksak: BUSL begränsar produktionsanvändning fram till sitt change date.
Notera metodpunkten: PyPI redovisar INGET licensfält för någondera versionen,
så en metadatakontroll hade inte hittat något. Skillnaden syns bara i
LICENSE-filen vid taggen.
Ny grind: `tests/unit/metricflow-licence.test.ts` asserterar att pinnen ligger
på eller över `METRICFLOW_FIRST_OPEN_SOURCE_VERSION`, och — som negativ
kontroll — att alla tre kända BUSL-versionerna (0.207.3, 0.208.0, 0.208.1)
faktiskt förkastas av samma jämförelse. Utan den andra assertionen hade den
första kunnat passera med en jämförelse som inte diskriminerar.
Detta gör INTE MetricFlow verifierad: `providerReadiness()` returnerar
fortfarande `verified: false`, ingen supply-chain-granskning är gjord och
providern har aldrig körts (ingen Python-runtime är provisionerad). Att laga
licensen är inte samma sak som att bevisa komponenten.
typecheck rent, 2/2 tester gröna.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
BI-P029 + BI-P103: two prompts cited as done were not (#38)
The BI-P029 parity test and the BI-P103 baseline evidence were both cited in
headers and neither existed. Writing the parity test exposed metric definition
filters (BI-P028 MetricSpec.filters) being dropped by the ClickHouse compile
path, so a metric defined as "revenue excluding internal transfers" executed as
"revenue" -- 11 249 instead of 1 250 on the committed fixture.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Same shape as the BI-P029 finding in the previous commit. `bi-slo.ts` said
"evidence/bi-p103 records the first baselines". There was no evidence/bi-p103.
The catalogue and the evaluator were both real and both well covered — against
SYNTHETIC events. A synthetic event carries whatever duration the test author
typed, so that suite proves the arithmetic and nothing about the system: it
cannot tell you whether a dashboard query takes 8 ms or 8 s. BI-P103's DoD is
one sentence, "measured baselines exist", and it was the part not done.
tests/integration/bi-p103-slo-baseline.integration.test.ts runs 460 real
queries against a live ClickHouse over a 400 000-row fact table -- 120 cold
dashboard queries (each a different bucket so the BI-P020 cache genuinely
misses), the same 120 again through the same shipped cache now hitting, and
220 exploration queries, that last number chosen so explore.p99's min_samples
of 200 is MET rather than reported low-confidence. Every duration is
wall-clock around the real call, and the telemetry goes through the shipped
producer and the shipped evaluator, so the evidence is written by the code
under test.
Measured: 7 of 11 objectives produced a number, `fully_measured` false,
measured_fraction 0.64. The four that did not each say why -- dashboard
freshness is a property of the dataset, the exploration timeout is a
configured ceiling, report completion has no producer in 0pt at all, and
report delivery is N0TIFY's receipt. A baseline table listing only the rows
that worked is how an estate comes to believe it measures more than it does.
The evidence also records what is NARROWER than production, because these
numbers will be quoted: the cached path is the in-process reference cache and
not Valkey, every latency is the engine round trip with no HTTP or
authorization layer, and there is no concurrency.
The suite is adversarial about its own inputs: a "cold" sample that came from
the cache fails, a cache "hit" that missed fails, a cached p95 that is not
faster than the cold p95 fails, and dropping the exploration sample to 60
fails on explore.p99 being low-confidence rather than quietly recording a
p99 over 60 requests.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
admin
