MAP Commands -- Phase 4 — Implement TypeScript MAP Commands transport wrapper

[evomimic]

---

name: Enhancement Proposal
about: Suggest an improvement or new feature for the Memetic Activation Platform
title: "[Enhancement] Phase 4 — Implement TypeScript MAP Commands transport wrapper"
labels: enhancement
assignees:

1. Summary (Required)

What is the enhancement?
Implement a minimal TypeScript module that provides exactly one function:

• invokeMapCommand(request: MapRequest): Promise<MapResponse>

This layer does transport only (Tauri invoke), with zero business logic.

---

2. Problem Statement (Required)

Why is this needed?
We want a strict separation:

• TS “transport” layer: IPC only
• TS SDK layer: ergonomic functions that emit commands

Without this separation, SDK semantics and IPC concerns get entangled.

---

3. Dependencies (Required)

Does this depend on other issues or features?

• Phase 3 single Tauri command exists (invoke_map_command)
• Phase 2.1 contract types are available to TS (generated types or hand-mirrored)

---

4. Proposed Solution (Required)

How would you solve it?

• Create a small TS package/module (e.g., map-commands)
• Implement:
  • invokeMapCommand(req) which:
    • validates minimally (optional: runtime schema validation)
    • calls Tauri invoke
    • returns the response

Constraints:

• no retries
• no sequencing
• no transaction policy
• no auto-binding of references (TS never resolves references)

---

5. Scope and Impact (Required)

What does this impact?

• Adds a thin TS layer used by the SDK
• Becomes the single integration point to IntegrationHub IPC

---

6. Testing Considerations (Required)

How will this enhancement be tested?

• Unit tests with mocked Tauri invoke
• Contract tests for representative request/response shapes
• Optional: runtime schema validation tests if adopted

---

7. Definition of Done (Required)

When is this enhancement complete?

• invokeMapCommand exists and is the only IPC call site for MAP operations in TS
• No policy/logic beyond transport is present
• Tests cover basic request/response behavior

---

Optional Details (Expand if needed)

8. Alternatives Considered

• Implement SDK directly over Tauri without a transport layer
  Rejected: couples SDK semantics to IPC details.

9. Risks or Concerns

• Type drift between Rust contracts and TS typings (mitigate via generation where possible)

10. Additional Context

This is intentionally “thin”; ergonomics belong in the SDK (Phase 5).