fix(spec): register sys_environment_credential in CLOUD_PROVIDED_OBJECT_NAMES

.changeset/spec-cloud-provided-environment-credential.md

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+---
+"@objectstack/spec": minor
+---
+
+`CLOUD_PROVIDED_OBJECT_NAMES` (`@objectstack/spec/system`) gains a member:
+`sys_environment_credential`. `isPlatformProvidedObjectName('sys_environment_credential')`
+now returns `true`, so a reference to that name resolves instead of being
+diagnosed as a platform-prefixed name nothing registers (#18309).
+
+This widens an accept set. The list is a closed set and the name was not in it,
+so the object-reference ladder now accepts a value it used to warn on, and the
+widening reaches every surface that consults the predicate: a dataset `object`,
+an action parameter `reference`, a field `reference`, a dashboard
+`optionsFrom.object`, a navigation `requiresObject` and a translation
+`objects.<name>` subtree naming `sys_environment_credential` all stop being
+diagnosed.
+
+Why this name: as read in the cloud repository at `cb8ee7ff60`,
+`@objectstack/service-tenant` registers it on exactly the path the list's
+existing `sys_package`, `sys_package_version` and `sys_package_installation`
+members take — `objects/sys-environment-credential.object.ts` exported through
+`objects/index.ts`, listed in `tenantObjects`, spread into
+`manifestService.register({ objects })` by `tenant-plugin.ts`. That reading is
+the cloud repository's and is carried here on its filer's name; per this list's
+header it cannot be conformance-tested from this repo, and this change does not
+claim to have re-taken it.
+
+Unlike the earlier additions, this one fixes no diagnostic that fires today: no
+`*.object.ts` in this repository references the name, so nothing shipped was
+being mis-diagnosed. What was wrong is the registry's own claim about the name.
+This repository's governed records already treat the object as real — ADR-0007's
+inventory table lists it as existing, and ADR-0131 cites a measured cross-tenant
+read of its rows — while the list that decides whether a reference resolves said
+no package registers it. The first author to write the reference would have been
+told it looked like a typo.
+
+One entry is added; no other member moves and nothing is removed or narrowed.
+The cloud-side half of the contract — that `@objectstack/service-tenant`
+registers the table — is owned by the cloud repository per the list's header and
+is not asserted from here.

packages/spec/src/system/constants/platform-object-names.test.ts

@@ -184,4 +184,32 @@ describe('platform-object predicates', () => {
       expect(CLOUD_PROVIDED_OBJECT_NAMES, name).toContain(name);
     }
   });
+
+  it('resolves the tenant credential store the cloud runtime registers', () => {
+    // The cloud-side registration is a READING TAKEN IN THE CLOUD REPOSITORY,
+    // at `cb8ee7ff60`, and carried here on its filer's name — like every other
+    // member of this list, it is not re-checkable from this repo, which is what
+    // the list's own header means by "they cannot be conformance-tested from
+    // this repo". As read there, `@objectstack/service-tenant` registers the
+    // name on the same path as the `sys_package*` family above: declared in
+    // `objects/sys-environment-credential.object.ts`, exported through
+    // `objects/index.ts`, listed in `tenantObjects` in `manifest.ts`, and spread
+    // into `manifestService.register({ objects })` by `tenant-plugin.ts`.
+    //
+    // Unlike `sys_license` and `sys_package_version`, no `*.object.ts` in THIS
+    // repository references it today, so nothing here was being mis-diagnosed
+    // while it was absent. What was wrong is the registry's own claim: this
+    // repo's governed records already treat the object as real — ADR-0007's
+    // inventory table lists it as `✅ exists`, and ADR-0131 §1.1 cites a
+    // measured cross-tenant read of its rows — while the list that decides
+    // whether a reference to it resolves said no package registers that name.
+    // So the first author to write the reference would have been told it looked
+    // like a typo. Pinned by name, beside `sys_license` and the package family,
+    // for the same reason: dropping it fails one readable assertion instead of
+    // nothing. What this test asserts is the objectstack half alone — that the
+    // list carries the name and the predicate resolves it. The cloud half is
+    // owned by the cloud repository and is not asserted here.
+    expect(isPlatformProvidedObjectName('sys_environment_credential')).toBe(true);
+    expect(CLOUD_PROVIDED_OBJECT_NAMES).toContain('sys_environment_credential');
+  });
 });

packages/spec/src/system/constants/platform-object-names.ts

@@ -149,6 +149,7 @@ export const PLATFORM_OBJECTS_BY_PACKAGE: Readonly<Record<string, readonly strin
 export const CLOUD_PROVIDED_OBJECT_NAMES: readonly string[] = [
   'sys_app',
   'sys_environment',
+  'sys_environment_credential',
   'sys_environment_member',
   'sys_license',
   'sys_package',