Problem
A composition is exempt from the composed-content opt-in when deciding whether to consolidate a default-slot fill into its own layout — composed content is the entire reason a composition exists. The same exemption is missing when deciding whether to record a slot-content reference at all.
The result, with the convention declared and the opt-in off:
- the composition's default-slot content consolidates into its layout, as intended
- every non-default slot fill on a nested instance is dropped — no entry, no reference, no warning
So a screen keeps the content that flattens and silently loses the content that does not. Turning the opt-in on restores it.
Measured on a composition whose nested instance has both kinds of slot filled:
| Opt-in |
Nesting |
Slot-content entries |
| off |
yes |
0 |
| on |
yes |
1 |
The second column proves the nesting exemption works. The third is the gap.
Potential solution(s)
- Exempt a composition from the opt-in when recording slot-content references, exactly as it is already exempt when deciding to consolidate
- Or, if the opt-in is meant to govern a composition's references, say so — because the two halves currently disagree and neither surface explains why
Acceptance criteria
Case data
- Fixture: Composition Slots
- Workspace: specs-testing
- Territory: specs-from-figma
- Size: s
Notes
Found by walking the gate matrix in #671 — the composition rows were the last cells never exercised, and this is what they turned up.
The two decisions are made in different places. One consults the host kind and exempts a frame; the other reads the setting alone. The exemption's own rationale applies verbatim to both.
This is the same defect class as #677: content captured, registered, and never referenced, so it does not survive into the spec and nothing says it was dropped.
Implementation details are tracked internally.
Problem
A composition is exempt from the composed-content opt-in when deciding whether to consolidate a default-slot fill into its own layout — composed content is the entire reason a composition exists. The same exemption is missing when deciding whether to record a slot-content reference at all.
The result, with the convention declared and the opt-in off:
So a screen keeps the content that flattens and silently loses the content that does not. Turning the opt-in on restores it.
Measured on a composition whose nested instance has both kinds of slot filled:
The second column proves the nesting exemption works. The third is the gap.
Potential solution(s)
Acceptance criteria
Case data
Notes
Found by walking the gate matrix in #671 — the composition rows were the last cells never exercised, and this is what they turned up.
The two decisions are made in different places. One consults the host kind and exempts a frame; the other reads the setting alone. The exemption's own rationale applies verbatim to both.
This is the same defect class as #677: content captured, registered, and never referenced, so it does not survive into the spec and nothing says it was dropped.