The calendar mixed two kinds of truth in one table. `planned_leave_day` was
simultaneously the allocator's output cache, the user's override store
(`is_pinned`, plus ad-hoc rows with no `wish_id`), and the resource ledger that
analytics and the age-4 maths read. The planner therefore had to ask "am I
allowed to touch this row?" on every sync, and got it wrong at the edges.
Every user assertion is now one `day_assertion` row — a concrete `day_type`
replaces a pinned day, a row with no `wish_id` replaces an ad-hoc day, and
`day_type='none'` replaces `planned_day_exclusion`. `planned_leave_day` becomes
purely derived with a single writer, and `PlanningService.pinned_keys()` is the
single answer to "is this day pinned", used by the allocator's loader, by
`sync_plan` and by the read router alike.
On top of that, every calendar band is now a real event: an ad-hoc band opens
the same full editor as a wish-backed one and saving it promotes it to a
`LeaveWish`, so it can be named, repeated yearly, assigned to either or both
parents, and handed to the planner. "Planering" is a `moveable` toggle plus a
from/to month bound plus a separate lock/unlock action on the days themselves,
replacing a three-rung ladder whose "planner decides" rung set a search window
equal to the drawn dates and so could never move anything.
Bugs found and fixed along the way:
- The plan erased its own history. Fixed windows clip to today, so an elapsed
auto-placed day fell into `stale_keys` and was deleted on the next sync —
and a background sync runs on every workspace load. Past rows are now frozen
and counted as spent.
- Migration 010's downgrade silently destroyed every pinned day and exclusion
(`is_pinned` returned as DEFAULT 0, the exclusion table came back empty,
exit 0, no warning). It now reconstructs both from `day_assertion`, and 009
itemises what it cannot recover before dropping the table.
- Deleting a period left its assertions behind, locking those dates forever
with no UI path to clear them. Wish deletion now clears them by `wish_id`.
- `DayAssertionService` and `LeaveWishService` committed multi-statement writes
without a transaction; a crash mid-write diverged the tables or half-deleted
a series. Both now run in a unit of work.
- A sibling year's shortfall was never surfaced: the toast only inspected the
edited occurrence's outcome, so a fully unfunded later year rendered as an
empty band with no warning.
- A flexible window whose bound had entirely elapsed was dropped from the
proposal with no outcome at all. It now reports as `unplaced`.
- Unlocking a period deleted its days instead of returning them to the planner.
- The e2e global setup posted to a route deleted in this change, which would
have failed the whole suite before its first test.
Gates: backend 938 tests / 91% coverage, frontend 1351 / 97.4 | 92.2 | 94.37 |
97.4. Migrations 009 and 010 audited against a hand-built realistic database:
the upgrade reconciles exactly and a constraint violation fails safe, leaving
the schema at 008.
Not complete. Step 4's toggle, month picker and lock/unlock action are verified
by browser walk and unit tests, but the partial-lock readout was not exercised.
`ideas.md` §7 adds a full plan for the vacation-forfeiture defect (the planner
detects expiring days and then does nothing about them) — not implemented here.
Remaining smaller items are listed in the session's restructure notes.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01T4wjgbVL4HAC5Rdaw75VbV
The page opened with generic tiles and a bar reading forty-eight of ninety-six
weeks, which was neither weeks nor connected to the age-four ceiling it appeared
to describe. It is replaced by one headline and a bar per parent, in days,
against each parent's own savable limit as the server reports it.
The headline has two framings on the same arithmetic. Before anything is
planned it says what there is to plan and what will be lost without a plan,
because on the first day almost the whole entitlement is technically at risk
and saying so bluntly reads as an accusation. Once a plan exists it warns about
the days genuinely at stake.
A timeline of the years to the fourth birthday answers what the next four years
look like, which a month-at-a-time calendar cannot. Shortfalls, surplus advice
and balances sit below the fold, read-only: applying is automatic now, so a
second apply button would be a way to get two different answers.
Rejection messages move to one shared place that resolves a parent's name, so
an identifier can no longer surface in their place.
jacobh2