A repeating period was a single row that the planner expanded into one
window per year at read time, so no year had anywhere to differ from the
others. Editing one year rewrote them all, and removing a year in the
middle had to split the wish in two. Neither survives contact with the
thing this app is for: Easter moves, and the cheapest week is not the
same week every year.
Each year is now its own row, linked by a series id. Editing one year
touches one row; editing the series re-projects the rest from it.
Removing a year is one delete. The weekday snap is worked out once, when
the rows are made, and stored, so a row now says what it means rather
than being re-derived on every read. Recurrence stops being a stored
field and becomes what it always was in practice — an instruction at
create and update time; whether a period repeats is whether it belongs
to a series.
Migration 004 rebuilds the table and expands the existing rows, keeping
each original row as its first year so the days already planned against
it still point somewhere. A Feb 29 anchor recurring into a common year
used to raise out of the allocator; it clamps now.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Ei7gCZzdd751uZtPzb1Pep
Manual entry now takes one parent's sjukpenningnivå, lägstanivå and
dubbeldagar left (plus optional reserved days) and derives the rest in
build_snapshot, shared with the scraper. The scraper also reads the
family panel and exposes a partner deduction; with two parents it is
saved as a 'deduced' snapshot (migration 002). Parent count is the single
source of entitlement: one member gets 480 days and 96 savable at age 4,
two get 240 and 48 each. Workspaces are capped at two parents.
Also lands the in-flight squash of migrations 002–011 into the initial
schema and the removal of planning_mode.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
A period shared between two parents was cut at its calendar midpoint and each
half handed over regardless of whether that parent could pay for it. A window
crossing New Year could therefore lose its entire first half to a parent whose
budget for that year was spent, while the other parent's budget for the very
same days went untouched. In the case that prompted this, eight days were
reported as unfundable when none of them were.
The cut now falls where the cost is even rather than where the calendar is,
since weekends and red days are free and spread unevenly through a period.
Whatever one parent still cannot cover is offered to the other before any of
it is written off. Each parent keeps one unbroken stretch at home.
jacobh2