objectstack-ai
diff --git a/‎.changeset/assignment-value-cel-envelope-executor.md‎
Lines changed: 71 additions & 0 deletions b/‎.changeset/assignment-value-cel-envelope-executor.md‎
Lines changed: 71 additions & 0 deletions
diff --git a/‎content/docs/automation/flows.mdx‎
Lines changed: 24 additions & 15 deletions b/‎content/docs/automation/flows.mdx‎
Lines changed: 24 additions & 15 deletions
diff --git a/‎packages/lint/src/validate-expressions.test.ts‎
Lines changed: 104 additions & 0 deletions b/‎packages/lint/src/validate-expressions.test.ts‎
Lines changed: 104 additions & 0 deletions
diff --git a/‎packages/lint/src/validate-expressions.ts‎
Lines changed: 48 additions & 1 deletion b/‎packages/lint/src/validate-expressions.ts‎
Lines changed: 48 additions & 1 deletion
@@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
+---
+"@objectstack/service-automation": minor
+"@objectstack/lint": minor
+---
+
+feat(service-automation): an `assignment` value may be a CEL envelope — evaluated at run time, validated at `registerFlow`, `objectstack validate` and the runtime publish gate (#15137, the executor half of #14149)
+
+<!-- adr-0087: not-required (no-migration-prescription) No authorable key is renamed, retired or re-typed: the `assignments` map and every value form it accepted still parse. The only newly refused shape is a malformed CEL value envelope, a spelling declared one day earlier in #15113 and offered by no authoring surface before it, so `objectstack migrate meta` has nothing to rewrite and this changeset carries no rewrite instructions for a consumer to follow. -->
+
+**BREAKING** in the accept-set sense, landing in the launch window as `minor`
+(the lockstep convention; the level also follows the 2026-09-04 bump ruling —
+this adds `AutomationEngine.evaluateValueEnvelope` to a published surface, and an
+additive widening is at least `minor`). No ADR-0087 conversion: no authorable key
+is renamed or retired, and the shape this refuses was never a shape any surface
+offered.
+
+The maintainer's 2026-09-02 ruling on #14149 made an assignment value able to be
+a CEL **value** expression, so the declared stdlib (`joinNonEmpty`, `map`, `size`
+…) is finally reachable from metadata — until now CEL was only ever asked for a
+boolean. The spec half landed the contract (PR #15113); this is the half that
+makes it do something.
+
+```yaml
+# before: written into the variable verbatim, and rendered by `notify` as
+#         {"dialect":"cel","source":"joinNonEmpty(...)"}
+# now:    evaluated — digest is "Renewal due\nInvoice overdue"
+assignments:
+  digest: { dialect: cel, source: 'joinNonEmpty(rows.map(r, r.subject), "\n")' }
+```
+
+- **Evaluated at run time.** The built-in `assignment` executor evaluates a
+  `value`-role envelope with the expression engine and assigns the result, in the
+  same CEL scope a flow predicate is evaluated in (one shared scope builder, so a
+  predicate and a value expression cannot disagree about what `rows` means). A
+  plain string keeps today's `{token}` interpolation, and every other literal is
+  still assigned as data.
+- **Refused at three doors.** A malformed envelope now stops the flow registering
+  (`registerFlow` throws, the severity a malformed predicate gets) and surfaces as
+  a located `error` finding naming the node and the author's own variable —
+  `config.assignments.digest` — both at `objectstack validate` and at the runtime
+  publish gate a Studio / REST / MCP flow write goes through
+  (`validateStackExpressions` is registered `CLI_AND_RUNTIME`, `runtimeTypes:
+  ['flow']`). Malformed is a composition, not a fixed list: whatever
+  `AssignmentValueSchema` refuses in the envelope's shape — among them a missing,
+  empty or non-string `source`, a dialect other than `cel`, a non-object `meta` —
+  and then CEL that does not parse. All three doors derive that set from the same
+  two published validators, so none refuses a shape the executor would have run,
+  and a registered flow never faults for a shape those validators judge malformed.
+  Two shapes sit outside what either validator can judge — an `ast`-only envelope
+  and a whitespace-only `source` (it passes `min(1)` and reads as "not authored"
+  to the validator, while the CEL engine parses it untrimmed) — and those fault
+  loudly at run time rather than assigning a value. Both are pinned and tracked in
+  #15430.
+- **Only the canonical map.** The ledger declares `assignment.assignments.*` and
+  nothing else, so the two legacy shapes the executor still normalizes — the
+  `assignments: [{ variable, value }]` array and the bare `{ <variable>: <value> }`
+  config — keep every meaning they had, envelope-shaped values included.
+  `AssignmentConfigSchema` is deliberately NOT wired into `parseNodeConfig` for the
+  array form: refusing it would break flows that register today, and that refusal
+  is a maintainer ruling rather than a lane's call (#15137 ask 3).
+
+**What changes silently, and how far it reaches.** A flow that today authors an
+envelope-shaped object *as data* in the canonical `assignments` map now evaluates
+it — no error on either side, a different value. The discriminator is the spec's
+own `isExpressionEnvelopeShaped`: a plain object naming a **string** `dialect`,
+in the declared map only. Data that names no `dialect`, names a non-string one,
+nests the envelope one level down, or sits in either legacy shape is untouched
+and byte-identical. The remaining overlap — a well-formed
+`{ dialect: 'cel', source: … }` written as data in the canonical map — is exactly
+the spelling the ruling reinterprets; every near-miss the two validators can
+judge now refuses loudly at registration instead of changing value in silence.
@@ -199,21 +199,30 @@ or missing-`required` violation (#4277). A node type that publishes no
 A value's **shape** selects its form — there is no mode key. A plain string is
 always `{token}` interpolation (a bare `a + b` is the literal text `a + b`, not
 CEL); an object that names a `dialect` is an expression envelope and must be a
-valid `cel` one — a missing or empty `source`, or a `template` / `cron`
-dialect, is refused at the variable's path. Numbers, booleans, arrays and plain
-objects are assigned as literals. A later `notify` node renders the variable as
-any other: `message: '{digest}'`.
-
-<Callout type="warn" title="The contract landed first; the executor half follows">
-
-The envelope form is what `@objectstack/spec` declares — the expression
-ledger's `value` entry and `AssignmentConfigSchema`, the half ruled in
-[#14149]. Until the matching `@objectstack/service-automation` change lands,
-the built-in `assignment` executor still writes an envelope object into the
-variable verbatim and `notify` renders it as JSON. For a digest body today,
-call a registered function from a `script` node.
-
-[#14149]: https://github.com/objectstack-ai/objectstack/issues/14149
+valid `cel` one — a missing, empty or non-string `source`, or a `template` /
+`cron` dialect, is refused at the variable's path. Numbers, booleans, arrays
+and plain objects are assigned as literals. A later `notify` node renders the
+variable as any other: `message: '{digest}'`, and it renders the **evaluated**
+value.
+
+<Callout type="info" title="Where a malformed envelope is refused">
+
+A malformed envelope never reaches run time silently: the same refusal runs at
+`objectstack validate` (a located finding naming the variable), at the runtime
+publish gate a Studio / REST / MCP flow write goes through, and at
+`registerFlow`, which refuses to register the flow. All three ask the same two
+questions in the same order — is it a valid `cel` envelope
+(`AssignmentValueSchema`), and does its source parse as CEL
+(`validateExpression`) — so a flow that registers is a flow whose envelopes
+those two validators accept.
+
+Two shapes sit outside what either validator can judge and fault loudly at run
+time instead of assigning a value: an `ast`-only envelope (no `source` — the
+CEL engine evaluates `source`), and a whitespace-only `source`, which passes
+`min(1)` and reads as "not authored" to the validator while the engine parses
+it untrimmed. Both are tracked in [#15430].
+
+[#15430]: https://github.com/objectstack-ai/objectstack/issues/15430
 
 </Callout>
 
 
@@ -9,6 +9,9 @@ import { SCOPE_ROOTS } from '@objectstack/formula';
 import { ExpressionInputSchema, ObjectStackSchema } from '@objectstack/spec';
 import { FieldSchema, ObjectSchema, SelectOptionSchema } from '@objectstack/spec/data';
 import { SharingRuleSchema } from '@objectstack/spec/security';
+// [#15137] The published refusal sentence a `value`-slot finding must lead
+// with — asserted from the spec's own export, never re-spelled in a test.
+import { ASSIGNMENT_VALUE_ENVELOPE_REFUSAL } from '@objectstack/spec/automation';
 
 import {
   validateStackExpressions,
@@ -2842,6 +2845,11 @@ describe('validateStackExpressions — reads only keys the spec declares (meta-t
       // here would have been excused into masking a genuine
       // `validations[].message` read.
       'verdict', 'diagnostic',
+      // [#15137] The Zod `safeParse` result for a `value`-slot envelope. Its
+      // keys are `success` / `error`, SafeParseResult's own — never metadata
+      // keys; the metadata keys it judges are `AssignmentValueSchema`'s, read
+      // by the schema and not by name here.
+      'shape',
       // [#14089] NOT a receiver at all — the tail of the `'./flow-variable-scope.js'`
       // import specifier, which this scan cannot tell from `scope.j…`. The two
       // entries above it in this set (`fields`, `guards`) are the same artefact
@@ -3621,3 +3629,99 @@ describe('cross-site unprovisioned-anchor convergence (#8405)', () => {
     }
   });
 });
+
+
+/**
+ * ── `assignment` value envelopes (#15137) ───────────────────────────────────
+ *
+ * The `objectstack validate` half of the executor card: the ledger's `value`
+ * role (`assignment.assignments.*`, #14149) reaches this pass as a LOCATED
+ * finding at `error` severity, matching what `registerFlow` throws on. Build
+ * and run time must agree about which flows are acceptable — a build that
+ * passes what registration refuses is the worst of both.
+ *
+ * The refusal notion is not re-derived here: `checkDeclaredValue` composes the
+ * same two published primitives the engine does, in the same order.
+ */
+describe('assignment value envelope — located findings (#15137)', () => {
+  const assignmentFlow = (assignments: unknown) => ({
+    flows: [{
+      name: 'nightly_digest',
+      nodes: [
+        { id: 'start', type: 'start', config: { objectName: 'crm_lead' } },
+        { id: 'set_1', type: 'assignment', config: { assignments } },
+      ],
+      edges: [],
+    }],
+  });
+  const valueIssues = (assignments: unknown) =>
+    validateStackExpressions(assignmentFlow(assignments)).filter((i) => i.where.includes('assignment value'));
+
+  it.each([
+    ['no `source` — the shape only the spec schema catches', { dialect: 'cel' }],
+    ['an empty `source`', { dialect: 'cel', source: '' }],
+    ['a non-`cel` dialect', { dialect: 'template', source: 'Hello {name}' }],
+    ['CEL that does not parse', { dialect: 'cel', source: 'rows.map(r,' }],
+    ['an unknown function', { dialect: 'cel', source: 'nosuchfn(rows)' }],
+  ] as const)('reports %s, located at the author\'s own variable name', (_label, envelope) => {
+    const issues = valueIssues({ digest: envelope });
+    expect(issues).toHaveLength(1);
+    expect(issues[0]!.severity).toBe('error');
+    expect(issues[0]!.where).toContain("flow 'nightly_digest'");
+    expect(issues[0]!.where).toContain("node 'set_1'");
+    // The `*` wildcard resolves to the variable the author named, so the
+    // finding points at the assignment, not at "somewhere in this node".
+    expect(issues[0]!.where).toContain('config.assignments.digest');
+    expect(issues[0]!.message).toContain(ASSIGNMENT_VALUE_ENVELOPE_REFUSAL);
+  });
+
+  it('passes a well-formed envelope, and every shape that is not an envelope', () => {
+    expect(valueIssues({
+      digest: { dialect: 'cel', source: 'joinNonEmpty(rows.map(r, r.subject), "\\n")' },
+      greeting: 'Hello {name}',
+      count: 3,
+      flags: { enabled: true },
+      // Envelope-SHAPED only by a non-string dialect — data, not an expression.
+      decoy: { dialect: 7, source: 'x' },
+    })).toHaveLength(0);
+  });
+
+  it('is silent on a whitespace-only `source` — the seam this pass cannot see (#15430)', () => {
+    // `ExpressionSchema.source` is `z.string().min(1)`, so `'   '` passes the
+    // shape rule, and `validateExpression` trims it to empty and answers
+    // `ok: true` ("not authored"). Build says nothing; the CEL engine parses it
+    // untrimmed and the run faults loudly (pinned in `service-automation`'s
+    // `assignment-value-envelope.test.ts`). Pinned as the BOUND of the
+    // build/run agreement, not as desired behaviour — ⛔ do not close it with a
+    // trim rule invented here: that is a third notion of "malformed", which is
+    // the defect this arm exists to avoid. The fix belongs in the shape rule.
+    expect(valueIssues({ digest: { dialect: 'cel', source: '   ' } })).toHaveLength(0);
+  });
+
+  it('says nothing about the legacy array form — it is not a declared slot', () => {
+    // The seat's ask-3 disposition, from the lint side: refusing the array form
+    // would fail builds that pass today, and that refusal is a ruling rather
+    // than a lane's call. The ledger's `*` walk returns early on an array, so
+    // there is no wiring to leave out.
+    expect(valueIssues([{ variable: 'digest', value: { dialect: 'cel' } }])).toHaveLength(0);
+  });
+
+  it('a value envelope is not shadow-checked — that diagnostic is about field reads', () => {
+    // `warnShadowedFieldReads` stays on `predicate` slots: a value envelope is
+    // evaluated in the flow-variable scope by design, so there is no field
+    // reading for a variable to displace.
+    const issues = validateStackExpressions({
+      objects: [{ name: 'crm_lead', fields: { status: { type: 'text' } } }],
+      flows: [{
+        name: 'nightly_digest',
+        variables: [{ name: 'status', type: 'text' }],
+        nodes: [
+          { id: 'start', type: 'start', config: { objectName: 'crm_lead' } },
+          { id: 'set_1', type: 'assignment', config: { assignments: { digest: { dialect: 'cel', source: 'status' } } } },
+        ],
+        edges: [],
+      }],
+    });
+    expect(issues.filter((i) => i.where.includes('assignment value'))).toHaveLength(0);
+  });
+});
@@ -80,6 +80,13 @@
 
 import { validateExpression, collectCelRootIdentifiers, parseCelToAst, SCOPE_ROOTS } from '@objectstack/formula';
 import { collectFlowGraphs, resolveFlowNodeExpressions } from '@objectstack/spec/automation';
+// [#15137] The `value`-role half. Same two published primitives the engine
+// composes at `registerFlow` (`AutomationEngine.valueEnvelopeRefusals`), in the
+// same order: the SHAPE rule lives in the spec's `AssignmentValueSchema` (it
+// refuses a non-`cel` dialect and the source-less `{ dialect: 'cel' }` that
+// `validateExpression` reads as "not authored"), the CEL rule in
+// `validateExpression('value', …)`. Neither refusal string is spelled here.
+import { AssignmentValueSchema, ASSIGNMENT_VALUE_ENVELOPE_REFUSAL } from '@objectstack/spec/automation';
 import type { FlowNodeParsed } from '@objectstack/spec/automation';
 
 import { collectFlowVariableNames, shadowedFieldReads, shadowedFieldMessage } from './flow-variable-scope.js';
@@ -1065,6 +1072,37 @@ export function validateStackExpressions(stack: AnyRec): ExprIssue[] {
     for (const w of res.warnings) issues.push({ where, message: w.message, source: w.source, severity: 'warning' });
   };
 
+  /**
+   * A declared `value` slot (#15137) — today the `assignment` node's
+   * `assignments.*`, the one slot whose job is to compute a value into a
+   * variable.
+   *
+   * The resolver emits ONLY envelope-shaped objects for this role, so anything
+   * that arrives is an author declaring an expression. `error`, matching the
+   * engine's `registerFlow` throw: build and run time must agree about what
+   * registers, and a malformed envelope used to be stored verbatim and rendered
+   * by `notify` as JSON with nothing said at any layer.
+   */
+  const checkDeclaredValue = (where: string, raw: unknown): void => {
+    if (raw == null) return;
+    // `celSourceOf` — not a second read of `.source`: the same helper every
+    // other slot in this file locates its finding with.
+    const source = celSourceOf(raw) ?? '';
+    const shape = AssignmentValueSchema.safeParse(raw);
+    if (!shape.success) {
+      // Already prefixed by the spec's own refinement — do not say it twice.
+      for (const issue of shape.error.issues) issues.push({ where, message: issue.message, source, severity: 'error' });
+      return;
+    }
+    const res = validateExpression('value', raw as { dialect?: string; source?: string });
+    for (const e of res.errors) {
+      issues.push({ where, message: `${ASSIGNMENT_VALUE_ENVELOPE_REFUSAL} ${e.message}`, source: e.source, severity: 'error' });
+    }
+    for (const w of res.warnings) {
+      issues.push({ where, message: w.message, source: w.source, severity: 'warning' });
+    }
+  };
+
   // ── Flows ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
   for (const flow of asArray(stack.flows)) {
     const flowName = typeof flow.name === 'string' ? flow.name : '(unnamed flow)';
@@ -1135,8 +1173,17 @@ export function validateStackExpressions(stack: AnyRec): ExprIssue[] {
         // reconciliation ratchet still sees the marker.
         const nodeType = typeof node.type === 'string' ? node.type : '';
         for (const found of resolveFlowNodeExpressions(nodeType, cfg)) {
-          if (found.entry.role !== 'predicate') continue;
           const slotWhere = `${at} · node '${node.id}' (${nodeType}) ${found.entry.label} at config.${found.path}`;
+          // [#15137] `value` slots are checkable too, by their own rule — see
+          // `checkDeclaredValue`. Not shadowing-checked: the shadow diagnostic is
+          // about a bare identifier resolving to a variable instead of a field,
+          // and a value envelope is evaluated in the flow-variable scope by
+          // design — there is no field reading to displace.
+          if (found.entry.role === 'value') {
+            checkDeclaredValue(slotWhere, found.value);
+            continue;
+          }
+          if (found.entry.role !== 'predicate') continue;
           checkDeclaredPredicate(slotWhere, found.value);
           // [#14288] The shadowing warning is about the SCOPE an expression is
           // evaluated in, not about which key it was authored under — so it