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.
Three changes that together unblock treating a calendar period as one
editable object.
Migration 008 adds `planned_leave_day.wish_id` (nullable, ON DELETE SET NULL)
so a persisted day knows which `leave_wish` produced it, `is_pinned` to mark a
day the user hand-edited, and `leave_wish.target_days` so a period drawn on a
calendar need not be a whole number of weeks. Apply-time identity still keys on
day_type/is_dubbeldag only, so a wish_id-only difference is a metadata update
rather than a collision.
The age-4 savable ceiling was applying the per-child figure of 96 to each
parent's pool, modelling a two-parent family as able to save 192 days past the
child's fourth birthday. `resolve_age4_savable_cap` is now the single place
that decides 48 (couple with two parents) versus 96 (everyone else), and both
AnalyticsService and the allocator read it.
Migration 009 drops `workspace.planning_goal` and `leave_wish.goal_override`.
The allocator's tier-3 policy collapses to one rule; `salary_type` still
branches, since that reflects what a vacation day actually costs a parent
rather than a user preference.
Both screens showed an "expiring at age 4" number under near-identical
labels, and they disagreed -- 143 on the Dashboard versus 100 on the Plan
tab for the same parent. Both were correct: the Dashboard reflects the
saved plan, the Plan tab a proposal that has not been applied and which
simulates future recurring wishes.
The numbers are left untouched; forcing them to agree would make one of
them wrong. Instead each label now states its own basis ("om nuvarande
plan följs" / "om detta förslag tillämpas"), and the Plan tab's intro
says outright that the saved plan may differ, and why.
Tests assert the distinguishing copy on both screens so the two cannot
silently drift back to indistinguishable labels.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01RXMhc9nT6sNz1SL4j8dznL
sv.ts/en.ts were single 602-line files that every feature had to edit,
making concurrent work on unrelated screens collide constantly. Split
both into per-domain modules (common, auth, calendar, dashboard,
settings, plan, wishEditor, tips) composed by an index that preserves
the existing `import { sv } from './sv'` specifier, so no consumer
changes.
Typing still catches drift in both directions: each en module is checked
against TranslationKey, and the composed catalogue must satisfy
Record<TranslationKey, string>.
All 433 keys and their values are byte-identical to the originals,
verified by diffing the parsed catalogues against the pre-split files.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01RXMhc9nT6sNz1SL4j8dznL
jacobh2