Classify static and smart crates

This commit is contained in:
Philip Guzman
2026-06-30 18:20:05 -07:00
parent c92d929f37
commit 35713bbbb3
15 changed files with 199 additions and 23 deletions
+33
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
# Crate Classification
## Problem
Static crates are manually maintained track lists. Smart crates are dynamic views
generated from rules, so stale-looking entries in them should not be presented as
broken manual references or given the same health-score weight.
## Architecture
Crates carry a `static`, `smart`, or `unknown` kind. Folder provenance is the
primary signal: Serato stores regular definitions in `Subcrates` and smart
definitions in `Smartcrates`. `Compatible by key.crate` is also treated as smart
when encountered in `Subcrates`, based on the original migration case study.
The library loader reads both folders. Health analysis reports all references but
scores only non-smart references. Unknown crates remain scoreable so incomplete
classification cannot silently hide potential problems.
Serato documents the folder distinction in [What is in the _Serato_ folder?](https://support.serato.com/hc/en-us/articles/204022904-What-is-in-the-Serato-folder)
and explains that smart crates are populated from rules in [Crates in Serato DJ](https://support.serato.com/hc/en-us/articles/227561407-Crates-in-Serato-DJ-Pro-Serato-DJ-Lite).
## Edge Cases
- The known `Compatible by key` dynamic crate in the `Subcrates` folder.
- Crate fixtures outside a recognized Serato folder.
- Libraries containing both static and smart references to the same track.
- Dynamic references whose current materialized paths appear missing.
## Verification
Tests cover all three kinds, both Serato folders, the known dynamic fallback, the
synthetic five-static/two-smart library, and exclusion from health scoring.
+5 -4
View File
@@ -8,10 +8,11 @@ but an opaque blended score would imply confidence the current data cannot suppo
## Architecture
The health engine produces an immutable report from the core `Library`. Its score
is only the percentage of crate references resolved by exact filename. The report
also exposes missing references, unique missing filenames, duplicate filename
groups, extra duplicate files, unused tracks, and missing references with matching
candidates.
is only the percentage of non-dynamic crate references resolved by exact filename.
Smart-crate references are counted but excluded because their contents are derived
from rules. The report also exposes missing references, unique missing filenames,
duplicate filename groups, extra duplicate files, unused tracks, and missing
references with matching candidates.
Duplicate, unused, and candidate counts are informational. They do not affect the
score until the project has a documented and validated weighting policy. An empty