Files

T

jacobh2 014503e89b Spend vacation on the days worth having, and name the ones about to expire

The planner knew exactly how many semesterdagar a parent was about to
forfeit and never placed a single day to prevent it. It also had no
weekend-wrap logic at all: REASON_VACATION_WRAP_WEEKEND was stamped on
every tier-3 interior vacation day, including a lone Tuesday in February.

Two changes.

Spend better. A workday adjacent to a free stretch, or in the middle of a
gap of three or fewer fenced by free days, now takes vacation --
_vacation_bridge_reason, consulted for every parent type. This departs
from spec 6.1's "wrapping suppressed for hourly": the FP-preservation
argument is salary-type independent, only the pay argument was hourly-moot.
In a both-parents window, both now take vacation on such a date rather
than one paying with FP. After funding, reallocate_vacation_by_value swaps
vacation onto higher-ranked dates 1-for-1 with FP days, so which dates hold
vacation improves while how many never drops -- greedy first, re-timed
after, never withheld. An invariant test asserts the count can only rise.

Name the losses. A new pass proposes concrete dates for vacation that would
otherwise expire, current year only, ranked red-day bridge then weekend
bridge then interior, later dates first. They ride on
PlanProposal.rescue_days, kept off `days` so nothing downstream commits
them, and surface on the Dashboard with accept-one, accept-all (one
batched /api/plan/apply, not N) and dismiss. Dismissal reuses the
tip_dismissal table, keyed on (parent, year) identity rather than the
group's dates -- those are recomputed from the whole plan's residual on
every propose, so date-hashing made dismissal self-defeating. Dismiss does
not bump the plan version; it changes no data and must not trigger a write.

Measured on the seeded demo: 12 forfeiting days for one parent now yield 12
proposed dates, all Fridays or Mondays. Total vacation placed is unchanged
at 203 days, confirming the reallocation only re-times.

Three defects here were found by driving a browser, while 2273 unit tests
passed -- all three lived in the seam between layers that unit tests mock
away. Adds API-level tests over the real request sequence. Rate limiting is
now off in tests (one file consumed the whole registration budget) with the
suite's first real 429 assertion.

PROPOSE_VS_SYNC_BUG.md documents a pre-existing, unfixed issue found along
the way: Dashboard figures swing on the first sync with no user action.

Backend 946 tests, frontend 1341, coverage above all gates.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01YZaX6xbuMEMXuyKA1fq2Mm

2026-09-21 07:00:18 +02:00

3.8 KiB

Raw Blame History

Bug: Dashboard figures swing on the first plan sync

Status: open, not fixed. Found 2026-09-20 during browser verification of the vacation-rescue feature. Pre-existing — not introduced by that work.

Symptom

The vacation figures on the Dashboard change substantially the first time POST /api/plan/sync runs, with zero user interaction — an ordinary page reload is enough.

Measured on a freshly seeded demo workspace (backend/scripts/seed_demo.py), 2026-09-20:

Figure	Before sync	After sync
Total "vacation at risk of being lost"	178	24
Sam 2026 — vacation left	23	17
Sam 2026 — expiring	18	12
Sam 2027 — expiring	20	2
Sam 2028 — expiring	20	3

Cause

Two different numbers are both correct, for different questions, and the UI shows them in sequence without saying which is which:

usePlanProposal (frontend/src/hooks/usePlanProposal.ts) initially renders the result of POST /api/plan/propose — a read-only projection that writes nothing.
PlanSyncProvider (frontend/src/context/PlanSyncProvider.tsx) then runs POST /api/plan/sync, which persists the proposed days via PlanningService.sync_plan (backend/app/services/planning_service.py).
Once those days exist in planned_leave_day, AllocationInputLoader counts them as committed usage when it builds vacation_forfeiting, so the next forecast is much smaller.
usePlanProposal permanently prefers PlanSyncProvider.latestProposal once any sync has completed, so the post-sync figure is what sticks.

So the pre-sync figure answers "what would be lost if nothing were planned?" and the post-sync figure answers "what will be lost given the plan we just wrote?". Only the second is what the user means by "days I'm about to lose".

Why it matters

It reads as a bug in whatever the user just did. During verification, the vacation-rescue dismiss action was initially blamed for it — dismiss was the first Dashboard control to call bumpPlanVersion(), so it triggered the sync and appeared to move the numbers.

Dismiss was exonerated by capturing figures immediately before and after the click: with dismiss no longer bumping the plan version, the figures are byte-identical across a dismiss (178 / 23 / 18 before and after). The swing only ever came from the sync.

Suggested direction (not decided)

Options, roughly in increasing order of effort:

Don't render vacation figures until the first sync has completed — show the existing loading skeleton instead. Smallest change; makes the transient state invisible rather than explained.
Have the Dashboard sync before first paint rather than propose-then-sync, so only one number is ever shown.
Reconsider whether sync_plan should write on a plain page load at all. It is a persisting write triggered by navigation, which is what makes a read of the Dashboard change stored data.

Option 3 is the real question and is the largest; 1 is a stopgap that would stop the user seeing a figure that is about to change by 7x.

Reproduction

Seed a fresh demo workspace and log in as demo@example.com.
Open the Dashboard and read the "vacation at risk" total immediately, before the background sync completes (it is quick — capture it fast, or throttle the network).
Reload the page and read it again.

Chrome's network panel reports POST /api/plan/rescue-days/dismiss as 503 while uvicorn's own access log shows 204 No Content for the same call, with one log line per click and no retries reaching the server. Server behaviour is verifiably correct. Looks like an artifact of the browser extension's request tracking, possibly around React 18 dev-mode effect double-invocation. Recorded only so it isn't re-investigated from scratch.

3.8 KiB Raw Blame History