c90ccc9c429277299fd4ecec0652cd8b6fa080be
2
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
6776cb4fc6 |
feat(reconciliation): propose the explaining voucher set for a bank row before offering Bokför (#2359)
* feat(reconciliation): propose the explaining voucher set for a bank row before offering Bokför (#2293) The bridge table said "ej matchad" and steered to Bokför when a Bankgirot aggregate was already booked as two or three unlinked vouchers. The booking doors have refused that double booking since #2300 and #2346 with detectExplainingVoucherSet; the view never ran it. - duplicate-payment-detection: split the set detector into fetch and pure steps and add detectExplainingVoucherSets, the batch form (one ledger scan, one anchor lookup, per-row verdict identical to the single detector; a voucher explains at most one row per call). ExplainingVoucher now also carries voucher_series and voucher_number. - reconciliation/covering-set-candidate (new): maps sets to proposals (0.95 same date, 0.85 within seven days), SEK accounts only, fails open. - items: open bank rows nothing explains 1:1 are searched before they land in unmatched_external; a hit lands in proposed with proposal.vouchers. - schemas: ReconciliationProposal.vouchers (optional, set proposals only). - AccountOverview: "= A57 + A58" with the legs' amounts, one Koppla that posts every voucher as a 1:N pair to the existing links route. - i18n: reconciliation.proposal_set_title and proposal_set_same_day (sv, en). Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01LvMaHcTnwAfxzgYD1fGYX1 * chore(skill): regenerate accounted-api for ReconciliationProposal.vouchers (#2293) The set proposal field added to the reconciliation items response shape flows into the generated agent skill; regenerated with `npm run apiskill:generate`, which changes one line of references/banking.md. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01LvMaHcTnwAfxzgYD1fGYX1 --------- Co-authored-by: Jakob Wennberg <311770904+jakobwennberg-oss@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
|
cce0de5704 |
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> |