feat(registry): add CustomerPoolAssociation, parallel to RepoPoolAssociation

[glorydavid03023]

Closes #7679

Summary

Wave 5's "two demographics" (#4778) includes customer-funded pools — a paying customer, not necessarily a Bittensor subnet — which still pay out to gittensor-registered contributors as emissions (same payout mechanism, different funding source). RepoPoolAssociation requires a subnetId, which is meaningless for a non-subnet customer, so a customer-funded pool has no data-model representation today. This is purely that representation gap.

Adds a separate CustomerPoolAssociation = { poolId; funderAccount }, parallel to RepoPoolAssociation rather than overloading it with an optional subnetId, so the two funding models stay structurally distinct. It's threaded through exactly the sites RepoPoolAssociation touches, mirroring #6320's precedent (the checklist the issue points to).

What changed (2 files, the #6320 footprint)

• src/types.ts — the CustomerPoolAssociation type + an optional customerPoolAssociation?: CustomerPoolAssociation | null on RegistryRepoConfig, with the same null-safety convention poolAssociation uses. Absent = a repo with no customer-funded pool, byte-identical to today.
• src/registry/normalize.ts — parseCustomerPoolAssociation reads the registry's flat pool_id / funder_account fields (both required; a partial one collapses to null, exactly as parsePoolAssociation treats a half-specified subnet association), threaded into normalizeRepo beside parsePoolAssociation; a getCustomerPoolAssociation accessor mirrors getRepoPoolAssociation.

The two associations are independent: a subnet-funded repo (pool_id + subnet_id, no funder_account) parses to a poolAssociation but a null customerPoolAssociation, and a customer-funded repo the reverse. Type-and-plumbing only — no economics or payout logic (the issue confirms the payout mechanism is unchanged; this is a data-representation gap).

Scope

• The PR title follows type(scope): short summary Conventional Commit format.
• This PR is focused and does not mix unrelated backend, UI, MCP, docs, dependency, and deploy changes.
• This follows CONTRIBUTING.md and does not reintroduce GitHub Pages, VitePress, site/, or CNAME.
• I linked a currently open issue this PR resolves — see the closing reference at the top of this body.

Validation

• git diff --check
• npm run typecheck (zero new errors vs base)
• npm run test:coverage locally; codecov/patch ≥99% of changed lines AND branches
• npm run ui:openapi:check
• npm run docs:drift-check
• npm audit --audit-level=moderate
• New or changed behavior has unit/integration tests for new branches, fallback paths, and sanitizer boundaries

Patch coverage: 100% (5/5 executable changed lines, both present and absent branches of the new field).

Tests in test/unit/registry.test.ts mirror #6320's poolAssociation test exactly: a full customer association; a subnet-funded repo confirmed to carry no customer association (proving the two stay distinct); an organic repo (null); a partial pool-only and a partial funder-only (both null); plus the getCustomerPoolAssociation accessor over present / null / undefined / key-absent configs. All existing registry tests pass unchanged.

If any required check was skipped, explain why:

• None skipped.

Safety

• No secrets, wallet details, hotkeys, coldkeys, user PATs, private keys, raw trust scores, private rankings, or private maintainer evidence are exposed.
• Public GitHub text stays sanitized, low-noise, and does not imply compensation guarantees or optimization tactics.
• Auth, cookie, CORS, GitHub App, Cloudflare, or session changes include negative-path tests.
• API/OpenAPI/MCP behavior is updated and tested where needed (no API/OpenAPI surface change — internal registry type; ui:openapi:check confirms no drift).
• UI changes use live API data or real empty/error/loading states, not production mock/demo fallbacks.
• Visible UI changes include a UI Evidence section. Not applicable — backend type + parser only.
• Public docs/changelogs are updated where needed; changelogs are only edited for release-prep PRs.

UI Evidence

Not applicable — a backend type addition plus its registry parser. No UI, frontend, docs, or extension surface is touched.

Notes

• Optional field, defaults to absent → pure additive change: git diff shows only additions to existing constructs, no change to how any current repo normalizes.
• funderAccount names the paying customer's account (the funding-source analogue of subnetId); getCustomerPoolAssociation is exported-but-unconsumed for now, exactly as getRepoPoolAssociation was when Extend the repo-registry data model to support subnet-funded pool association #6320 landed — the read seam later Wave-5 pool work consumes.

[superagent-security]

Superagent didn't find any vulnerabilities or security issues in this PR.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 88.53%. Comparing base (8bcf5be) to head (f7f3e24).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #7683      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   88.54%   88.53%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         725      725              
  Lines       76170    76175       +5     
  Branches    22671    22673       +2     
==========================================
- Hits        67446    67440       -6     
- Misses       7680     7687       +7     
- Partials     1044     1048       +4     

Flag	Coverage Δ
shard-1	33.27% <40.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
shard-2	36.21% <40.00%> (-0.02%)	⬇️
shard-3	35.96% <40.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
shard-4	40.72% <40.00%> (-0.10%)	⬇️
shard-5	29.41% <40.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
shard-6	31.94% <100.00%> (-0.11%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/registry/normalize.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/types.ts	100.00% <ø> (ø)

... and 2 files with indirect coverage changes

[loopover-orb]

Tip

✅ LoopOver review result - approve/merge recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-21 08:11:02 UTC}

3 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · readiness 100/100 · CI green · clean

✅ Suggested Action - Approve/Merge

• safe to merge

Review summary
The AI review returned non-blocking notes for this change but did not include a separate narrative summary. Review the nits below before deciding this PR.

Nits — 5 non-blocking

• src/registry/normalize.ts: both `parsePoolAssociation` and `parseCustomerPoolAssociation` read `config.pool_id`, so a repo with `pool_id` + `funder_account` but no `subnet_id` would get a customer association but not a subnet one, and vice versa — worth double-checking this shared-field overlap is intentional per the registry's actual field semantics rather than an accidental collision.
• src/types.ts: the JSDoc comments on the new type/field are quite long relative to the existing `poolAssociation` doc comment one line above it — could be trimmed for consistency with the surrounding style.
• The magic issue-number references (Add separate type for customer-funded (non-subnet) pools, parallel to RepoPoolAssociation #7679) embedded in comments are fine per this repo's existing convention (e.g. Design spec: subnet-level onboarding & registration flow (extends #4789's individual-customer pattern) #6099, Extend the repo-registry data model to support subnet-funded pool association #6320 elsewhere) but flagged by the external brief as 'magic numbers' — not an actual defect, just a heuristic false positive.
• Consider adding a test case where a repo has `pool_id` + `subnet_id` + `funder_account` all present, to explicitly document/verify that both associations populate simultaneously from the shared `pool_id` field.
• If `pool_id` is meant to be pool-type-specific (subnet pool vs customer pool), consider a comment clarifying that the same registry `pool_id` field is intentionally shared between both association kinds.

Decision drivers

• ✅ Code review — No blockers (1 reviewer)
• ✅ Gate result — Passing (No configured blocker found.)

Context & advisory signals — never blocks the verdict

Signal	Result	Evidence
Linked issue	✅ Linked	#7679
Related work	✅ No active overlap found	No same-issue or scoped active PR overlap found.
Change scope	✅ 20/20	Low review scope from cached public metadata (1 linked issue).
Validation posture	✅ 25/25	PR body includes validation/test evidence.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 210 registered-repo PR(s), 123 merged, 15 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	glorydavid03023; Gittensor profile; 210 PR(s), 15 issue(s).
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: clean · value: minor

Linked issue satisfaction

Addressed
The PR adds a distinct CustomerPoolAssociation type (poolId/funderAccount) parallel to RepoPoolAssociation rather than overloading it, and threads it through the same normalize.ts call sites (parse function, normalizeRepo, accessor) mirroring the RepoPoolAssociation/#6320 pattern, with tests confirming optional/absent behavior stays byte-identical. This satisfies both deliverables and respects the

Review context

• Author: glorydavid03023
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: not available
• Official Gittensor activity: 210 PR(s), 15 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Keep the PR focused and include validation evidence before maintainer review.

Signal definitions

• Related work = same linked issue, overlapping active PRs, or title/path similarity.
• Change scope = cached public metadata such as size labels, draft state, and review-burden hints.
• Validation posture = whether the PR provides enough public validation/test evidence for maintainer review.
• Contributor workload = public contributor activity and cleanup pressure, not a repo-wide quality failure.
• Contributor context = public GitHub/Gittensor identity context; non-Gittensor status is not a blocker.

🧪 Chat with LoopOver

Ask LoopOver a question about this PR directly in a comment — grounded only in the same cached, public-safe facts shown above, never a new claim.

• @loopover ask <question> answers contribution-quality Q&A with source citations and freshness.
• @loopover chat <question> answers in natural prose from cached decision-pack facts via local inference (maintainer/collaborator; read-only).
• A plain-language @loopover mention with a real question is routed to the closest matching read-only command automatically — no exact syntax required.

Full command reference: https://loopover.ai/docs/loopover-commands

🧪 Experimental — new and may change.

_{🟩 Safe / merged · 🟦 Advisory · 🟨 Held for review · 🟥 Blocked / closed}

---

💰 Earn for open-source contributions like this. Gittensor lets GitHub contributors earn for the work they already do — register to start earning →.

Checked by LoopOver, a quiet PR intelligence layer for OSS maintainers.

• Re-run LoopOver review

[loopover-orb]

LoopOver approves — the gate is satisfied and CI is green.