feat(mcp): already-explained voucher guard at stage and commit for match_batch_allocate (#2294) (#2346)
* feat(mcp): already-explained voucher guard at stage and commit for match_batch_allocate The dashboard match-batch route refused BATCH_TX_POSSIBLE_DUPLICATE when posted, unlinked vouchers already summed to the bank row (PR #2300), but the MCP door (gnubok_match_batch_allocate staging + commitMatchBatchAllocate) called the RPC with no guard, so an agent could book a Bankgirot aggregate a second time. The detector existed once; the guard lived in one door. One shared decision helper, lib/invoices/already-explained-guard.ts, now sits on top of the existing detectors (no fork) and is called by the dashboard route, the MCP staging tools and the commit executors: - gnubok_match_batch_allocate refuses to stage, coded BATCH_TX_POSSIBLE_DUPLICATE, naming the vouchers, the reconcile_match / link_transaction_to_journal_entry call that resolves the row, and the exact force + expected_journal_entry_ids binding. - commitMatchBatchAllocate runs the same guard before the RPC and re-validates a staged force binding against the set detected at commit, so a stale approval cannot book a duplicate; 409 auto-rejects with the vouchers in result_data. - force + expected_journal_entry_ids on the tool mirror MatchBatchSchema; an honoured override stages with a compliance_warning and, after the booking succeeds, writes BankTransactionDuplicateDismissed to behandlingshistorik (dashboard route included; it only logged before). - gnubok_match_transaction_to_invoice and commitMatchTransactionInvoice get the dashboard's 1:1 soft-duplicate guard (MATCH_INVOICE_POSSIBLE_DUPLICATE / MATCH_INVOICE_FORCE_CANDIDATE_MISMATCH) with force + expected_journal_entry_id; at commit it runs before the storno. - Registry: both duplicate codes gain retryable: false and a remediation. Catalog payload held under the 60K ceiling by trimming the two tools' own descriptions (59 988 measured, ledger entry in payload-size.bench.test.ts). Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_019SaJfqNi4VmsG8FMKq99G6 * docs(decisions): record the 2026-09-06 ten-issue batch's first-principles choices Carries the DECISIONS.md lines for PRs #2337 #2339 #2340 #2341 #2342 #2343 #2344 #2345 #2346 #2347 in one place so the ten branches do not conflict on this file. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_019SaJfqNi4VmsG8FMKq99G6 * fix(mcp): refuse an unverifiable forced override, surface a failed duplicate check, validate the binding (#2294 review) Review round on PR #2346 (CodeRabbit + compliance): - guardAlreadyExplained returned 'clear' when the detector threw even with force=true, so a forced 1:N override could book without re-validating expected_journal_entry_ids and left no behandlingshistorik record. It now returns a distinct 'unverifiable' outcome under force (mirrors guardDuplicatePaymentVoucher); the dashboard route, the MCP staging tool and the commit executor all refuse it with the new registry code BATCH_TX_EXPLAINED_CHECK_FAILED (409, retryable, remediation). Regression tests on every caller. - A detector failure without force still fails open at stage time, but no longer silently: the tools track onDetectError and stage a complianceNote, so preview_data.compliance_warning is set on both match_batch_allocate (GenericPreview renders it) and match_transaction_invoice (MatchTransactionInvoicePreview now renders data.compliance_warning through AttnLine). - expected_journal_entry_ids / expected_journal_entry_id are validated at the MCP boundary (array of 1 to 10 non-empty strings / non-empty string) and refused with VALIDATION_ERROR instead of being silently filtered. No schema description text added: catalog payload unchanged. - RoPA: .compliance/ropa.yaml gains bookkeeping.duplicate_dismissal_history for the BankTransactionDuplicateDismissed record (Art. 6(1)(c), BFNAR 2013:2 p. 9.16, retention per BFL 7 kap, stored in processing_history). Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com> --------- Co-authored-by: Jakob Wennberg <311770904+jakobwennberg-oss@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
Jakob Wennberg
co-authored by
Claude Fable 5.1
Jakob Wennberg
Claude Fable 5.1
Jakob Wennberg
parent
39d409d257
commit
cce0de5704
@@ -44,6 +44,14 @@ vi.mock('@/lib/bookkeeping/engine', async () => {
|
||||
}
|
||||
})
|
||||
|
||||
// The soft-duplicate guard runs before the storno (issue #2294). Mocked clean
|
||||
// so it consumes no slot in the queued Supabase mock; its behaviour is pinned
|
||||
// by match-transaction-invoice-duplicate-guard.test.ts.
|
||||
vi.mock('@/lib/invoices/duplicate-payment-detection', () => ({
|
||||
detectDuplicatePaymentVoucher: vi.fn(async () => null),
|
||||
detectExplainingVoucherSetForTransaction: vi.fn(async () => null),
|
||||
}))
|
||||
|
||||
import { commitPendingOperation } from '../commit'
|
||||
|
||||
function makePendingOp(overrides: Partial<PendingOperation>): PendingOperation {
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -25,6 +25,22 @@ vi.mock('@/lib/invoices/clear-settled-invoice-suggestions', () => ({
|
||||
clearSettledInvoiceSuggestions: mockClearSuggestions,
|
||||
}))
|
||||
|
||||
// The already-explained guard runs before the RPC (issue #2294). The detector
|
||||
// is mocked so it consumes no slot in the queued Supabase mock (its query
|
||||
// shape is pinned by lib/invoices/__tests__/duplicate-payment-detection.test.ts);
|
||||
// the binding logic on top of it is real.
|
||||
const { mockDetectExplaining, mockAppendProcessingHistory } = vi.hoisted(() => ({
|
||||
mockDetectExplaining: vi.fn(),
|
||||
mockAppendProcessingHistory: vi.fn(),
|
||||
}))
|
||||
vi.mock('@/lib/invoices/duplicate-payment-detection', () => ({
|
||||
detectExplainingVoucherSetForTransaction: mockDetectExplaining,
|
||||
detectDuplicatePaymentVoucher: vi.fn(async () => null),
|
||||
}))
|
||||
vi.mock('@/lib/processing-history/append', () => ({
|
||||
appendProcessingHistory: mockAppendProcessingHistory,
|
||||
}))
|
||||
|
||||
import { commitPendingOperation } from '../commit'
|
||||
|
||||
const TX_ID = '11111111-1111-4111-8111-111111111111'
|
||||
@@ -61,6 +77,8 @@ const REQUEST_ALLOCATIONS = [
|
||||
beforeEach(() => {
|
||||
vi.clearAllMocks()
|
||||
eventBus.clear()
|
||||
mockDetectExplaining.mockResolvedValue(null)
|
||||
mockAppendProcessingHistory.mockResolvedValue('evt-1')
|
||||
})
|
||||
|
||||
describe('commitPendingOperation: match_batch_allocate suggestion cleanup', () => {
|
||||
@@ -170,3 +188,145 @@ describe('commitPendingOperation: match_batch_allocate suggestion cleanup', () =
|
||||
expect(mockClearSuggestions).not.toHaveBeenCalled()
|
||||
})
|
||||
})
|
||||
|
||||
/**
|
||||
* Issue #2294: commit is the last gate. The same explaining-set detector the
|
||||
* dashboard route runs (PR #2300) refuses the RPC when posted, unlinked
|
||||
* vouchers already sum to the row, and a force binding staged earlier is
|
||||
* re-validated against the set detected NOW.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
describe('commitPendingOperation: match_batch_allocate already-explained guard', () => {
|
||||
const JE_A = '55555555-5555-4555-8555-555555555555'
|
||||
const JE_B = '66666666-6666-4666-8666-666666666666'
|
||||
const explainingSet = {
|
||||
vouchers: [
|
||||
{ journal_entry_id: JE_A, voucher_label: 'A57', entry_date: '2026-07-31', description: 'Inbetalning kundfaktura 063', source_type: 'invoice_paid', amount: 62500, bank_account_number: '1930' },
|
||||
{ journal_entry_id: JE_B, voucher_label: 'A58', entry_date: '2026-07-31', description: 'Inbetalning kundfaktura 064', source_type: 'invoice_paid', amount: 25750, bank_account_number: '1930' },
|
||||
],
|
||||
total: 88250,
|
||||
bank_account_number: '1930',
|
||||
same_date: true,
|
||||
}
|
||||
const allocations = [{ kind: 'customer_invoice', invoice_id: INV_ID, amount: 88250 }]
|
||||
const rpcOk = {
|
||||
ok: true,
|
||||
journal_entry_id: 'je-batch-9',
|
||||
voucher_series: 'A',
|
||||
voucher_number: 59,
|
||||
tx_id: TX_ID,
|
||||
allocations: [
|
||||
{ kind: 'customer_invoice', invoice_id: INV_ID, payment_id: 'ip-9', status: 'paid', paid_amount: 88250, remaining_amount: 0, amount: 88250 },
|
||||
],
|
||||
total_allocated: 88250,
|
||||
leftover: 0,
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
it('auto-rejects (409) with the vouchers when unlinked vouchers already sum to the row, without reaching the RPC', async () => {
|
||||
mockDetectExplaining.mockResolvedValue(explainingSet)
|
||||
const { supabase, enqueue } = createQueuedMockSupabase()
|
||||
enqueue({ data: { id: 'op-1' }, error: null }) // CAS claim
|
||||
enqueue({ data: null, error: null }) // dispatcher rejection update
|
||||
|
||||
const op = makePendingOp({ transaction_id: TX_ID, allocations })
|
||||
const result = await commitPendingOperation(supabase as never, 'user-1', 'company-1', op)
|
||||
|
||||
expect(result.status).toBe('rejected')
|
||||
expect(result.http_status).toBe(409)
|
||||
expect(result.code).toBe('BATCH_TX_POSSIBLE_DUPLICATE')
|
||||
expect(result.error).toContain('A57 + A58')
|
||||
const details = result.data as { vouchers: Array<{ voucher_label: string }>; force_rejected: boolean }
|
||||
expect(details.vouchers.map((v) => v.voucher_label)).toEqual(['A57', 'A58'])
|
||||
expect(details.force_rejected).toBe(false)
|
||||
expect(mockDetectExplaining).toHaveBeenCalledWith(supabase, 'company-1', TX_ID)
|
||||
expect(supabase.rpc).not.toHaveBeenCalled()
|
||||
expect(mockAppendProcessingHistory).not.toHaveBeenCalled()
|
||||
})
|
||||
|
||||
it('books when the staged force binding names exactly the set detected now, and records the override', async () => {
|
||||
mockDetectExplaining.mockResolvedValue(explainingSet)
|
||||
const { supabase, enqueue } = createQueuedMockSupabase()
|
||||
enqueue({ data: { id: 'op-1' }, error: null }) // CAS claim
|
||||
enqueue({ data: rpcOk, error: null }) // match_batch_allocate RPC
|
||||
enqueue({ data: null, error: null }) // dispatcher finalize update
|
||||
|
||||
const op = makePendingOp({
|
||||
transaction_id: TX_ID,
|
||||
allocations,
|
||||
force: true,
|
||||
// Order must not matter.
|
||||
expected_journal_entry_ids: [JE_B, JE_A],
|
||||
})
|
||||
const result = await commitPendingOperation(supabase as never, 'user-1', 'company-1', op)
|
||||
|
||||
expect(result.status).toBe('committed')
|
||||
expect(supabase.rpc).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1)
|
||||
// Never silent: the override leaves a behandlingshistorik record naming
|
||||
// the vouchers it booked over (BFNAR 2013:2 p. 9.16).
|
||||
expect(mockAppendProcessingHistory).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1)
|
||||
expect(mockAppendProcessingHistory.mock.calls[0][0]).toMatchObject({
|
||||
companyId: 'company-1',
|
||||
aggregateType: 'BankTransaction',
|
||||
aggregateId: TX_ID,
|
||||
eventType: 'BankTransactionDuplicateDismissed',
|
||||
actor: { type: 'user', id: 'user-1' },
|
||||
payload: {
|
||||
transaction_id: TX_ID,
|
||||
dismissed_journal_entry_ids: [JE_A, JE_B],
|
||||
dismissed_voucher_labels: ['A57', 'A58'],
|
||||
total_ore: 8825000,
|
||||
bank_account_number: '1930',
|
||||
via: 'pending_operation_force',
|
||||
},
|
||||
})
|
||||
})
|
||||
|
||||
it('refuses a stale force binding: the set detected at commit is not the one the approval named', async () => {
|
||||
mockDetectExplaining.mockResolvedValue(explainingSet)
|
||||
const { supabase, enqueue } = createQueuedMockSupabase()
|
||||
enqueue({ data: { id: 'op-1' }, error: null }) // CAS claim
|
||||
enqueue({ data: null, error: null }) // dispatcher rejection update
|
||||
|
||||
// Staged when only A57 existed; A58 was posted before approval.
|
||||
const op = makePendingOp({ transaction_id: TX_ID, allocations, force: true, expected_journal_entry_ids: [JE_A] })
|
||||
const result = await commitPendingOperation(supabase as never, 'user-1', 'company-1', op)
|
||||
|
||||
expect(result.status).toBe('rejected')
|
||||
expect(result.http_status).toBe(409)
|
||||
expect(result.code).toBe('BATCH_TX_POSSIBLE_DUPLICATE')
|
||||
expect((result.data as { force_rejected: boolean }).force_rejected).toBe(true)
|
||||
expect(supabase.rpc).not.toHaveBeenCalled()
|
||||
expect(mockAppendProcessingHistory).not.toHaveBeenCalled()
|
||||
})
|
||||
|
||||
it('auto-rejects a forced approval when the detector throws at commit: the binding cannot be re-verified', async () => {
|
||||
mockDetectExplaining.mockRejectedValue(new Error('ledger scan timed out'))
|
||||
const { supabase, enqueue } = createQueuedMockSupabase()
|
||||
enqueue({ data: { id: 'op-1' }, error: null }) // CAS claim
|
||||
enqueue({ data: null, error: null }) // dispatcher rejection update
|
||||
|
||||
const op = makePendingOp({ transaction_id: TX_ID, allocations, force: true, expected_journal_entry_ids: [JE_A, JE_B] })
|
||||
const result = await commitPendingOperation(supabase as never, 'user-1', 'company-1', op)
|
||||
|
||||
expect(result.status).toBe('rejected')
|
||||
expect(result.http_status).toBe(409)
|
||||
expect(result.code).toBe('BATCH_TX_EXPLAINED_CHECK_FAILED')
|
||||
expect(result.data).toEqual({ reason: 'detector_failed', force_rejected: true })
|
||||
expect(supabase.rpc).not.toHaveBeenCalled()
|
||||
expect(mockAppendProcessingHistory).not.toHaveBeenCalled()
|
||||
})
|
||||
|
||||
it('fails open when the detector throws without force: the RPC still decides', async () => {
|
||||
mockDetectExplaining.mockRejectedValue(new Error('ledger scan timed out'))
|
||||
const { supabase, enqueue } = createQueuedMockSupabase()
|
||||
enqueue({ data: { id: 'op-1' }, error: null }) // CAS claim
|
||||
enqueue({ data: rpcOk, error: null }) // match_batch_allocate RPC
|
||||
enqueue({ data: null, error: null }) // dispatcher finalize update
|
||||
|
||||
const op = makePendingOp({ transaction_id: TX_ID, allocations })
|
||||
const result = await commitPendingOperation(supabase as never, 'user-1', 'company-1', op)
|
||||
|
||||
expect(result.status).toBe('committed')
|
||||
expect(supabase.rpc).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1)
|
||||
expect(mockAppendProcessingHistory).not.toHaveBeenCalled()
|
||||
})
|
||||
})
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,233 @@
|
||||
/**
|
||||
* Soft-duplicate guard on the agent/MCP match-transaction-to-invoice commit
|
||||
* path (`commitMatchTransactionInvoice` in lib/pending-operations/commit.ts),
|
||||
* issue #2294.
|
||||
*
|
||||
* The dashboard and v1 match-invoice routes refuse with
|
||||
* MATCH_INVOICE_POSSIBLE_DUPLICATE when a manual verifikation already books
|
||||
* the receipt, and bind force to that candidate. This path bypassed the guard
|
||||
* entirely. It now runs the same guard BEFORE the irreversible storno, and
|
||||
* re-binds a staged force to the candidate detected at commit.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
import { describe, it, expect, vi, beforeEach } from 'vitest'
|
||||
import { eventBus } from '@/lib/events/bus'
|
||||
import { createQueuedMockSupabase } from '@/tests/helpers'
|
||||
import type { PendingOperation } from '@/types'
|
||||
|
||||
const mockReverseEntry = vi.fn()
|
||||
const mockFindFiscalPeriod = vi.fn()
|
||||
const mockCreateJournalEntry = vi.fn()
|
||||
vi.mock('@/lib/bookkeeping/engine', async () => {
|
||||
const actual = await vi.importActual<typeof import('@/lib/bookkeeping/engine')>('@/lib/bookkeeping/engine')
|
||||
return {
|
||||
...actual,
|
||||
reverseEntry: (...args: unknown[]) => mockReverseEntry(...args),
|
||||
findFiscalPeriod: (...args: unknown[]) => mockFindFiscalPeriod(...args),
|
||||
createJournalEntry: (...args: unknown[]) => mockCreateJournalEntry(...args),
|
||||
}
|
||||
})
|
||||
|
||||
const { mockDetectCandidate, mockAppendProcessingHistory } = vi.hoisted(() => ({
|
||||
mockDetectCandidate: vi.fn(),
|
||||
mockAppendProcessingHistory: vi.fn(),
|
||||
}))
|
||||
vi.mock('@/lib/invoices/duplicate-payment-detection', () => ({
|
||||
detectDuplicatePaymentVoucher: mockDetectCandidate,
|
||||
detectExplainingVoucherSetForTransaction: vi.fn(async () => null),
|
||||
}))
|
||||
vi.mock('@/lib/processing-history/append', () => ({
|
||||
appendProcessingHistory: mockAppendProcessingHistory,
|
||||
}))
|
||||
vi.mock('@/lib/invoices/clear-settled-invoice-suggestions', () => ({
|
||||
clearSettledInvoiceSuggestions: vi.fn(async () => undefined),
|
||||
}))
|
||||
|
||||
import { commitPendingOperation } from '../commit'
|
||||
|
||||
const JE_MANUAL = '55555555-5555-4555-8555-555555555555'
|
||||
const JE_OTHER = '66666666-6666-4666-8666-666666666666'
|
||||
|
||||
function makePendingOp(params: Record<string, unknown>): PendingOperation {
|
||||
return {
|
||||
id: 'op-1',
|
||||
user_id: 'user-1',
|
||||
company_id: 'company-1',
|
||||
operation_type: 'match_transaction_invoice',
|
||||
status: 'pending',
|
||||
title: 'test',
|
||||
params,
|
||||
preview_data: {},
|
||||
result_data: null,
|
||||
actor_type: 'user',
|
||||
actor_id: null,
|
||||
actor_label: null,
|
||||
risk_level: 'medium',
|
||||
created_at: '2026-05-03T00:00:00Z',
|
||||
resolved_at: null,
|
||||
updated_at: '2026-05-03T00:00:00Z',
|
||||
} as PendingOperation
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
const transaction = {
|
||||
id: 'tx-1',
|
||||
company_id: 'company-1',
|
||||
amount: 1000,
|
||||
currency: 'SEK',
|
||||
amount_sek: null,
|
||||
exchange_rate: null,
|
||||
date: '2026-05-15',
|
||||
invoice_id: null,
|
||||
// A prior categorization: the storno must never run before the guard.
|
||||
journal_entry_id: 'je-old',
|
||||
cash_account_id: null,
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
const invoice = {
|
||||
id: 'inv-1',
|
||||
invoice_number: 'F-2026001',
|
||||
status: 'sent',
|
||||
total: 1000,
|
||||
remaining_amount: 1000,
|
||||
paid_amount: 0,
|
||||
currency: 'SEK',
|
||||
exchange_rate: null,
|
||||
journal_entry_id: null,
|
||||
credited_invoice_id: null,
|
||||
customer: { name: 'Kund AB' },
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
const candidate = {
|
||||
journal_entry_id: JE_MANUAL,
|
||||
voucher_label: 'A12',
|
||||
entry_date: '2026-05-15',
|
||||
description: 'Inbetalning faktura',
|
||||
amount: 1000,
|
||||
bank_account_number: '1930',
|
||||
reason: 'exact_amount_same_date',
|
||||
amount_verified: true,
|
||||
unverified_reason: null,
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/** CAS claim + the two reads that precede the guard. */
|
||||
function enqueuePreGuard(enqueue: (r: { data?: unknown; error?: unknown }) => void) {
|
||||
enqueue({ data: { id: 'op-1' }, error: null }) // CAS claim
|
||||
enqueue({ data: transaction, error: null }) // transaction fetch
|
||||
enqueue({ data: invoice, error: null }) // invoice fetch
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
beforeEach(() => {
|
||||
vi.clearAllMocks()
|
||||
eventBus.clear()
|
||||
mockDetectCandidate.mockResolvedValue(null)
|
||||
mockAppendProcessingHistory.mockResolvedValue('evt-1')
|
||||
mockReverseEntry.mockResolvedValue({ id: 'je-storno' })
|
||||
mockFindFiscalPeriod.mockResolvedValue('fp-1')
|
||||
mockCreateJournalEntry.mockResolvedValue({ id: 'je-pay' })
|
||||
})
|
||||
|
||||
describe('commitPendingOperation: match_transaction_invoice soft-duplicate guard', () => {
|
||||
it('auto-rejects (409) with the candidate before the storno when a manual voucher already books the receipt', async () => {
|
||||
mockDetectCandidate.mockResolvedValue(candidate)
|
||||
const { supabase, enqueue } = createQueuedMockSupabase()
|
||||
enqueuePreGuard(enqueue)
|
||||
enqueue({ data: null, error: null }) // dispatcher rejection update
|
||||
|
||||
const result = await commitPendingOperation(
|
||||
supabase as never,
|
||||
'user-1',
|
||||
'company-1',
|
||||
makePendingOp({ transaction_id: 'tx-1', invoice_id: 'inv-1' }),
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
expect(result.status).toBe('rejected')
|
||||
expect(result.http_status).toBe(409)
|
||||
expect(result.code).toBe('MATCH_INVOICE_POSSIBLE_DUPLICATE')
|
||||
expect(result.error).toContain('A12')
|
||||
expect((result.data as { candidate: { journal_entry_id: string } }).candidate.journal_entry_id).toBe(JE_MANUAL)
|
||||
// Nothing irreversible happened: no storno, no payment voucher.
|
||||
expect(mockReverseEntry).not.toHaveBeenCalled()
|
||||
expect(mockCreateJournalEntry).not.toHaveBeenCalled()
|
||||
expect(mockAppendProcessingHistory).not.toHaveBeenCalled()
|
||||
})
|
||||
|
||||
it('books when the staged force echoes the candidate detected now, and records the override after the booking', async () => {
|
||||
mockDetectCandidate.mockResolvedValue(candidate)
|
||||
const { supabase, enqueue } = createQueuedMockSupabase()
|
||||
enqueuePreGuard(enqueue)
|
||||
enqueue({ data: { accounting_method: 'accrual', entity_type: 'aktiebolag' }, error: null }) // settings
|
||||
enqueue({ data: [], error: null }) // resolveSettlementAccount: no enabled cash accounts -> 1930
|
||||
enqueue({ data: null, error: null }) // transactions unlink after storno
|
||||
enqueue({ data: [{ id: 'inv-1' }], error: null }) // invoice CAS update
|
||||
enqueue({ data: { id: 'ip-1' }, error: null }) // invoice_payments insert
|
||||
enqueue({ data: null, error: null }) // transactions update (link)
|
||||
enqueue({ data: null, error: null }) // dispatcher finalize update
|
||||
|
||||
const result = await commitPendingOperation(
|
||||
supabase as never,
|
||||
'user-1',
|
||||
'company-1',
|
||||
makePendingOp({ transaction_id: 'tx-1', invoice_id: 'inv-1', force: true, expected_journal_entry_id: JE_MANUAL }),
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
expect(result.status).toBe('committed')
|
||||
expect(mockCreateJournalEntry).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1)
|
||||
expect(mockAppendProcessingHistory).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1)
|
||||
expect(mockAppendProcessingHistory.mock.calls[0][0]).toMatchObject({
|
||||
companyId: 'company-1',
|
||||
aggregateType: 'BankTransaction',
|
||||
aggregateId: 'tx-1',
|
||||
eventType: 'BankTransactionDuplicateDismissed',
|
||||
actor: { type: 'user', id: 'user-1' },
|
||||
payload: {
|
||||
transaction_id: 'tx-1',
|
||||
dismissed_journal_entry_id: JE_MANUAL,
|
||||
dismissed_voucher_label: 'A12',
|
||||
via: 'pending_operation_force',
|
||||
},
|
||||
})
|
||||
})
|
||||
|
||||
it('refuses a stale force id as MATCH_INVOICE_FORCE_CANDIDATE_MISMATCH, still before the storno', async () => {
|
||||
mockDetectCandidate.mockResolvedValue(candidate)
|
||||
const { supabase, enqueue } = createQueuedMockSupabase()
|
||||
enqueuePreGuard(enqueue)
|
||||
enqueue({ data: null, error: null }) // dispatcher rejection update
|
||||
|
||||
const result = await commitPendingOperation(
|
||||
supabase as never,
|
||||
'user-1',
|
||||
'company-1',
|
||||
makePendingOp({ transaction_id: 'tx-1', invoice_id: 'inv-1', force: true, expected_journal_entry_id: JE_OTHER }),
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
expect(result.status).toBe('rejected')
|
||||
expect(result.http_status).toBe(409)
|
||||
expect(result.code).toBe('MATCH_INVOICE_FORCE_CANDIDATE_MISMATCH')
|
||||
expect(result.data).toEqual({ expected_journal_entry_id: JE_OTHER, detected_journal_entry_id: JE_MANUAL })
|
||||
expect(mockReverseEntry).not.toHaveBeenCalled()
|
||||
expect(mockCreateJournalEntry).not.toHaveBeenCalled()
|
||||
})
|
||||
|
||||
it('fails open when the detector throws without force: the match proceeds', async () => {
|
||||
mockDetectCandidate.mockRejectedValue(new Error('scan failed'))
|
||||
const { supabase, enqueue } = createQueuedMockSupabase()
|
||||
enqueuePreGuard(enqueue)
|
||||
enqueue({ data: { accounting_method: 'accrual', entity_type: 'aktiebolag' }, error: null }) // settings
|
||||
enqueue({ data: [], error: null }) // resolveSettlementAccount
|
||||
enqueue({ data: null, error: null }) // transactions unlink after storno
|
||||
enqueue({ data: [{ id: 'inv-1' }], error: null }) // invoice CAS update
|
||||
enqueue({ data: { id: 'ip-1' }, error: null }) // invoice_payments insert
|
||||
enqueue({ data: null, error: null }) // transactions update (link)
|
||||
enqueue({ data: null, error: null }) // dispatcher finalize update
|
||||
|
||||
const result = await commitPendingOperation(
|
||||
supabase as never,
|
||||
'user-1',
|
||||
'company-1',
|
||||
makePendingOp({ transaction_id: 'tx-1', invoice_id: 'inv-1' }),
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
expect(result.status).toBe('committed')
|
||||
expect(mockAppendProcessingHistory).not.toHaveBeenCalled()
|
||||
})
|
||||
})
|
||||
@@ -65,6 +65,14 @@ vi.mock('@/lib/invoices/clear-settled-invoice-suggestions', () => ({
|
||||
clearSettledInvoiceSuggestions: mockClearSuggestions,
|
||||
}))
|
||||
|
||||
// The soft-duplicate guard runs before the storno (issue #2294). Mocked clean
|
||||
// so it consumes no slot in the queued Supabase mock; its behaviour is pinned
|
||||
// by match-transaction-invoice-duplicate-guard.test.ts.
|
||||
vi.mock('@/lib/invoices/duplicate-payment-detection', () => ({
|
||||
detectDuplicatePaymentVoucher: vi.fn(async () => null),
|
||||
detectExplainingVoucherSetForTransaction: vi.fn(async () => null),
|
||||
}))
|
||||
|
||||
import { commitPendingOperation } from '../commit'
|
||||
|
||||
function makePendingOp(overrides: Partial<PendingOperation>): PendingOperation {
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -94,6 +94,15 @@ import {
|
||||
import { linkInvoiceToVoucher, type LinkInvoiceToVoucherResult } from '@/lib/invoices/voucher-matching'
|
||||
import { planInvoicePayment } from '@/lib/invoices/apply-invoice-payment'
|
||||
import { findDuplicatePaymentCandidatesForInvoice } from '@/lib/invoices/duplicate-payment-candidates'
|
||||
import {
|
||||
alreadyExplainedDetails,
|
||||
describeExplainingSet,
|
||||
guardAlreadyExplained,
|
||||
guardDuplicatePaymentVoucher,
|
||||
recordDuplicateCandidateOverride,
|
||||
recordExplainedOverride,
|
||||
type ExplainedOverride,
|
||||
} from '@/lib/invoices/already-explained-guard'
|
||||
import {
|
||||
linkSupplierInvoiceToVoucher,
|
||||
type LinkSupplierInvoiceToVoucherResult,
|
||||
@@ -3306,6 +3315,45 @@ async function commitMatchTransactionInvoice(
|
||||
return { error: 'Invoice is not in a matchable state', status: 409 }
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// Soft-duplicate guard: parity with the dashboard and v1 match routes
|
||||
// (MATCH_INVOICE_POSSIBLE_DUPLICATE), which this path bypassed. A manual
|
||||
// verifikation that already books this receipt means the approved match
|
||||
// would double-book it. Runs BEFORE the irreversible storno below, and
|
||||
// re-binds force to the candidate detected NOW: an approval staged before
|
||||
// the manual voucher was posted cannot slip through (issue #2294).
|
||||
const duplicate = await guardDuplicatePaymentVoucher(
|
||||
supabase,
|
||||
companyId,
|
||||
transaction,
|
||||
{
|
||||
force: params.force === true,
|
||||
expected_journal_entry_id:
|
||||
typeof params.expected_journal_entry_id === 'string' ? params.expected_journal_entry_id : undefined,
|
||||
},
|
||||
{ onDetectError: (err) => log.warn('match_transaction_invoice: duplicate detection failed (continuing)', err) },
|
||||
)
|
||||
if (duplicate.status === 'blocked') {
|
||||
const entry = getErrorEntry('MATCH_INVOICE_POSSIBLE_DUPLICATE')
|
||||
return {
|
||||
error: `${entry?.message_sv ?? 'Det finns redan en bokförd verifikation på samma belopp och datum.'} (verifikat ${duplicate.candidate.voucher_label}, ${duplicate.candidate.entry_date})`,
|
||||
errorCode: 'MATCH_INVOICE_POSSIBLE_DUPLICATE',
|
||||
status: 409,
|
||||
data: { candidate: duplicate.candidate },
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
if (duplicate.status === 'mismatch') {
|
||||
const entry = getErrorEntry('MATCH_INVOICE_FORCE_CANDIDATE_MISMATCH')
|
||||
return {
|
||||
error: entry?.message_sv ?? 'Verifikationen som dubblettkontrollen visade matchar inte längre.',
|
||||
errorCode: 'MATCH_INVOICE_FORCE_CANDIDATE_MISMATCH',
|
||||
status: 409,
|
||||
data: {
|
||||
expected_journal_entry_id: duplicate.expected_journal_entry_id,
|
||||
detected_journal_entry_id: duplicate.detected_journal_entry_id,
|
||||
},
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// FX resolution: parity with the dashboard and v1 match routes. paidAmount
|
||||
// MUST be denominated in the INVOICE's currency (the unit of
|
||||
// invoices.paid_amount / remaining_amount and invoice_payments.amount).
|
||||
@@ -3583,6 +3631,18 @@ async function commitMatchTransactionInvoice(
|
||||
})
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// The override was acted on: durable behandlingshistorik record (BFNAR
|
||||
// 2013:2 p. 9.16), same event the categorize guard writes.
|
||||
if (duplicate.status === 'overridden') {
|
||||
await recordDuplicateCandidateOverride(
|
||||
companyId,
|
||||
transactionId,
|
||||
duplicate.candidate,
|
||||
{ actor: { type: 'user', id: userId }, via: 'pending_operation_force' },
|
||||
(err) => log.warn('match_transaction_invoice: failed to record override behandlingshistorik', err),
|
||||
)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// The invoice is now settled, so every OTHER transaction still carrying a
|
||||
// suggestion pointer at it is dead: retire them (issue #1259). This
|
||||
// operation's own row is cleared by the update just below.
|
||||
@@ -6638,6 +6698,47 @@ async function commitMatchBatchAllocate(
|
||||
if (!Array.isArray(allocations) || allocations.length === 0) {
|
||||
return { error: 'allocations is required (non-empty array)', status: 400 }
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// Already-explained guard: the RPC only knows the invoices in the request,
|
||||
// so posted vouchers that already book this bank row (each invoice marked
|
||||
// paid by hand, a Bankgirot aggregate) are invisible to it and the money
|
||||
// gets booked a second time. Same detector + force binding as the
|
||||
// dashboard route and the staging tool (lib/invoices/already-explained-
|
||||
// guard.ts). Commit is the last gate: the binding is re-validated against
|
||||
// the set detected NOW, so an approval staged before a voucher was posted
|
||||
// cannot slip through (issue #2294). 409 auto-rejects the op with the
|
||||
// vouchers in result_data.
|
||||
const override: ExplainedOverride = {
|
||||
force: params.force === true,
|
||||
expected_journal_entry_ids: Array.isArray(params.expected_journal_entry_ids)
|
||||
? (params.expected_journal_entry_ids as unknown[]).filter((v): v is string => typeof v === 'string')
|
||||
: undefined,
|
||||
}
|
||||
const explained = await guardAlreadyExplained(supabase, companyId, txId, override, {
|
||||
onDetectError: (err) => log.warn('match_batch_allocate: explaining-voucher detection failed (continuing)', err),
|
||||
})
|
||||
if (explained.status === 'blocked') {
|
||||
const entry = getErrorEntry('BATCH_TX_POSSIBLE_DUPLICATE')
|
||||
return {
|
||||
error: `${entry?.message_sv ?? 'Transaktionen ser redan ut att vara bokförd.'} (${describeExplainingSet(explained.set)})`,
|
||||
errorCode: 'BATCH_TX_POSSIBLE_DUPLICATE',
|
||||
status: 409,
|
||||
data: alreadyExplainedDetails(explained) as unknown as Record<string, unknown>,
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
if (explained.status === 'unverifiable') {
|
||||
// force=true but the check could not run at commit: the staged binding
|
||||
// cannot be re-verified, so the op is refused (auto-rejected), never
|
||||
// waved through on the strength of an earlier review.
|
||||
const entry = getErrorEntry('BATCH_TX_EXPLAINED_CHECK_FAILED')
|
||||
return {
|
||||
error: entry?.message_sv ?? 'Dubblettkontrollen kunde inte köras, så "bokför ändå" avvisades.',
|
||||
errorCode: 'BATCH_TX_EXPLAINED_CHECK_FAILED',
|
||||
status: 409,
|
||||
data: { reason: 'detector_failed', force_rejected: true },
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
const { data, error } = await supabase.rpc('match_batch_allocate', {
|
||||
p_tx_id: txId,
|
||||
p_allocations: allocations,
|
||||
@@ -6673,6 +6774,18 @@ async function commitMatchBatchAllocate(
|
||||
// (app/api/transactions/[id]/match-batch/route.ts) so the two cannot drift.
|
||||
await clearSettledBatchAllocationSuggestions(supabase, companyId, result.allocations ?? [], txId)
|
||||
|
||||
// The override was acted on: durable behandlingshistorik record (BFNAR
|
||||
// 2013:2 p. 9.16), same event the categorize guard writes.
|
||||
if (explained.status === 'overridden') {
|
||||
await recordExplainedOverride(
|
||||
companyId,
|
||||
txId,
|
||||
explained.set,
|
||||
{ actor: { type: 'user', id: userId }, via: 'pending_operation_force' },
|
||||
(err) => log.warn('match_batch_allocate: failed to record override behandlingshistorik', err),
|
||||
)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// Structured audit-trail entry on success (compliance-swarm V16). Tx
|
||||
// count + JE id + the source tx id only: no amounts, no
|
||||
// counterparty identifiers, no descriptions. txId is included
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user