Files
accounted/tests/pg/match-batch-allocate.pg.test.ts
T
Jakob WennbergandClaude Opus 4.7 fc7a46c3f2 fix(match-batch): cross-currency allocations + widened tolerance (#607)
* fix(match-batch): cross-currency allocations + widened tolerance

Reported by jakob testing PR #603's MatchAllocationDialog with a SEK
bank tx + a mix of SEK and USD invoices:

1. Tally rendered "1 USD + 1 SEK = 2 kr" — summing different currencies
   as if they were the same.
2. The 0.005 SEK tolerance blocked confirm on any FX rounding delta.

## What changed

**UI (MatchAllocationDialog.tsx)**
- Per-row amount input is explicitly in TRANSACTION currency (SEK for a
  Swedish bank import). Cross-currency rows show an "≈ X.XX (invoice
  currency)" hint under the input so the user can verify the FX result.
- Default amount for a cross-currency allocation is
  `invoice.remaining × invoice.exchange_rate` (booked SEK), so the user
  doesn't have to mental-math the FX.
- Overshoot tolerance widened from 0.005 SEK to `max(1 SEK, 0.5% × tx)`
  so bank-side FX rounding doesn't block confirm. A 2 400 kr tx now
  accepts ~12 kr of tolerance, a 100 kkr transfer accepts 500 kr.

**RPC (match_batch_allocate cross_currency migration)**
- BATCH_CURRENCY_MISMATCH dropped per-allocation. Mixed currencies now
  accepted with the convention that the cross-currency row pays the
  FULL invoice remaining (matches the single-tx match-supplier-invoice
  behavior). Partial cross-currency is out of scope for v1.
- AR/AP line is booked at `invoice.remaining × invoice.exchange_rate`
  (the SEK that was originally on 1510/2440). FX residual is posted
  to 7960 (Valutakursförluster) or 3960 (Valutakursvinster) per BAS.
- Sign conventions per direction documented inline:
    Customer: bank > booked → Cr 3960 (gain); bank < booked → Dr 7960
    Supplier: bank < booked → Cr 3960 (gain); bank > booked → Dr 7960
- New BATCH_FX_RATE_MISSING when the cross-currency invoice has no
  exchange_rate on file (would otherwise silently book at 0).
- New BATCH_FX_DEVIATION_TOO_LARGE when the user-entered amount
  deviates more than 10% from booked SEK — catches typos like "140"
  (USD invoice currency) when they meant "1390" (SEK equivalent)
  without rejecting genuine rate-day FX movement.

RPC patched on remote via Supabase MCP. Same-currency path is
byte-identical to the previous behavior.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* fix(match-batch): PR review — strict sum, bank line = tx_abs, FX validation

Round-1 review fixes on the cross-currency batch allocation flow:

UI (MatchAllocationDialog):
- Tighten tolerance to 0.005 SEK so the "balanced ✓" indicator matches
  what the server will accept. The previous widened tolerance (max 1 SEK
  or 0.5% × tx) created a reconciliation gap where the JE's bank line
  could legitimately disagree with the actual bank receipt.
- Require balanced before confirm — undershoot is now a blocking state
  with an explicit warning, not a silent "leave unallocated".
- Cross-currency default no longer caps at remainingTxBudget. Capping a
  USD invoice's default to the leftover SEK budget could silently
  trigger BATCH_FX_DEVIATION_TOO_LARGE on submit. The user re-balances
  the other rows to fit.
- Add explicit FX-rate validation (bound check 0 < rate < 100000).
- When a cross-currency invoice has no usable exchange_rate on file,
  leave the amount blank and surface a warning instead of guessing.

RPC (match_batch_allocate):
- New code BATCH_AMOUNT_BELOW_TX. Strict sum check on both sides means
  the server can't be coaxed by a direct API caller into the same
  broken state the UI now blocks.
- Bank line credit/debit = v_tx_abs (the actual bank movement) instead
  of sum-of-allocations. Same value within rounding under the strict
  sum check, but it makes intent legible and lets per-row FX diff lines
  absorb rounding.
- Defense-in-depth company_id filter on all re-queries / UPDATEs in
  the line-build + payment-row passes.
- Drop the v_booked_sek-aliasing-for-invoice.total foot-gun. Use a
  dedicated v_inv_total var.
- Truncate invoice_number to 32 chars in line_description.

Tests:
- pg-real: cross-currency happy path (USD invoice paid by SEK tx with
  FX loss to 7960, bank line = tx_abs).
- pg-real: BATCH_AMOUNT_BELOW_TX rejection on undershoot.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* fix(match-batch): PR review round 2 - caller user_id verification + FX bound

Compliance-swarm + swedish-compliance findings on round 1:

- CC6.3 (HIGH): p_user_id was caller-supplied and written into
  journal_entries.user_id / payment-row user_id without verifying it
  equals auth.uid(). Membership covered the company; nothing covered
  the user attribution. Two-layer fix: explicit guard rejects when
  p_user_id <> auth.uid(), and all writes now resolve v_caller =
  auth.uid() directly so the guard cant be silently bypassed.
- A.8.28 (MED): server-side FX upper-bound (0 < rate < 100000) matches
  the UI. Previously RPC only checked > 0, allowing the UI guard to
  diverge.
- V1.2.5 (LOW): truncate v_tx.date when concatenated into
  line_description (defense alongside round 1s invoice_number trunc).
- Symmetry: populate supplier_invoice_payments.exchange_rate (column
  existed, INSERT omitted it). Customer side already populated. Matches
  swedish-compliances traceability note on AP rorelseskulder.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* fix(match-batch): PR review round 3 - drop p_user_id, CHECK constraints, payment-day rate

Genuine round-2 review findings (compliance-swarm + swedish-compliance):

- V4.5: p_user_id dropped from RPC signature entirely. Round-2 added a
  guard; this removes the attack surface at the API boundary. Caller is
  resolved via auth.uid() inside the function. Route updated.
- V2.2: CHECK constraint on invoices.exchange_rate and
  supplier_invoices.exchange_rate (0 < rate < 100000). Three layers now
  enforce the bound: schema, RPC, UI.
- swedish-compliance traceability gap: payment_exchange_rate column on
  both invoice_payments and supplier_invoice_payments. Populated as
  v_alloc_amount / v_inv_remaining for cross-currency rows so FX diffs
  are reconstructible from the payment record alone (BFL 7 kap
  behandlingshistorik). NULL for same-currency. The existing
  exchange_rate column continues to store the invoicing rate.
- CC6.1: extract isValidExchangeRate() to lib/utils.ts. UI's three
  inline bound checks now share one validator.
- Dead code: drop unused leftover_note i18n key (sv + en).

Tests:
- pg-real signature updated (4-arg -> 3-arg) across all 9 call sites.
- Added payment_exchange_rate assertion to cross-currency happy path
  (invoicing rate 10.0 stays, payment-day rate stored as 10.5).

Migration applied to remote.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* fix(test): missed 4th arg in BATCH_UNAUTHORIZED pg-real test

Round-3 dropped p_user_id from match_batch_allocate. The replace_all
caught the userId/companyId pattern but missed the BATCH_UNAUTHORIZED
test which uses outsiderId instead of userId. CI failed with
"bind message supplies 4 parameters, but prepared statement requires 3".

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

---------

Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-05-29 16:30:42 +02:00

614 lines
24 KiB
TypeScript
Raw Blame History

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters
This file contains Unicode characters that might be confused with other characters. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.
import { randomUUID } from 'node:crypto'
import { describe, expect, it } from 'vitest'
import {
insertAuthUser,
insertCompany,
insertCompanyMember,
insertFiscalPeriod,
} from '@/tests/pg/fixtures'
import { getPool, withUserContext } from '@/tests/pg/setup'
/**
* Covers 20260529120100_match_batch_allocate:
* - 1 bank tx → N supplier invoices: builds ONE combined verifikat with
* N × Dr 2440 + 1 × Cr 1930, inserts N supplier_invoice_payments rows
* all pointing at the same JE.
* - Per-invoice paid_amount/remaining_amount/status advance correctly.
* - Overshoot guard returns BATCH_OVERSHOOT cleanly (no partial state).
* - Already-booked tx rejection.
* - Direction mismatch rejection.
* - Mixed customer + supplier kinds rejection.
*
* These tests bypass RLS by writing through the superuser pool — they
* exercise the RPC logic + DB constraints, not the policy layer.
*/
async function insertSupplier(params: {
userId: string
companyId: string
name?: string
}): Promise<string> {
const id = randomUUID()
await getPool().query(
`INSERT INTO public.suppliers
(id, user_id, company_id, name, supplier_type, country, default_payment_terms, default_currency)
VALUES ($1, $2, $3, $4, 'swedish_business', 'SE', 30, 'SEK')`,
[id, params.userId, params.companyId, params.name ?? 'Leverantör AB'],
)
return id
}
async function insertSupplierInvoice(params: {
userId: string
companyId: string
supplierId: string
total: number
status?: string
invoiceDate?: string
dueDate?: string
}): Promise<string> {
const id = randomUUID()
// Arrival numbers are generated per-company by get_next_arrival_number,
// but for an isolated test we can hardcode a unique value via current time
// millis modulo a wide range. The unique constraint allows that.
const arrivalNumber = (Date.now() % 1_000_000_000) + Math.floor(Math.random() * 10_000)
await getPool().query(
`INSERT INTO public.supplier_invoices
(id, user_id, company_id, supplier_id, arrival_number, supplier_invoice_number,
invoice_date, due_date, received_date, status, currency,
subtotal, vat_amount, total, paid_amount, remaining_amount,
vat_treatment, reverse_charge, is_credit_note)
VALUES ($1, $2, $3, $4, $5, $6, $7, $8, $7, $9, 'SEK',
$10, 0, $10, 0, $10, 'standard_25', false, false)`,
[
id,
params.userId,
params.companyId,
params.supplierId,
arrivalNumber,
`LF-${arrivalNumber}`,
params.invoiceDate ?? '2026-06-01',
params.dueDate ?? '2026-07-01',
params.status ?? 'approved',
params.total,
],
)
return id
}
async function insertTransaction(params: {
userId: string
companyId: string
amount: number
date?: string
currency?: string
}): Promise<string> {
const id = randomUUID()
await getPool().query(
`INSERT INTO public.transactions
(id, user_id, company_id, date, description, amount, currency, category)
VALUES ($1, $2, $3, $4, $5, $6, $7, 'uncategorized')`,
[
id,
params.userId,
params.companyId,
params.date ?? '2026-06-05',
'Bank transfer',
params.amount,
params.currency ?? 'SEK',
],
)
return id
}
async function seedTenant(opts: { isClosed?: boolean } = {}) {
const userId = await insertAuthUser()
const companyId = await insertCompany({ createdBy: userId })
await insertCompanyMember({ companyId, userId, role: 'owner' })
const fiscalPeriodId = await insertFiscalPeriod({
userId,
companyId,
periodStart: '2026-01-01',
periodEnd: '2026-12-31',
isClosed: opts.isClosed,
})
return { userId, companyId, fiscalPeriodId }
}
interface RpcResult {
ok: boolean
code?: string
details?: Record<string, unknown>
journal_entry_id?: string
voucher_number?: number
allocations?: Array<{
kind: string
supplier_invoice_id?: string
invoice_id?: string
payment_id: string
status: string
paid_amount: number
remaining_amount: number
amount: number
}>
total_allocated?: number
leftover?: number
}
describe('match_batch_allocate', () => {
it('builds a single combined verifikat for 1 tx → 3 supplier invoices', async () => {
const { userId, companyId } = await seedTenant()
const supplier = await insertSupplier({ userId, companyId })
const si1 = await insertSupplierInvoice({
userId, companyId, supplierId: supplier, total: 2000,
})
const si2 = await insertSupplierInvoice({
userId, companyId, supplierId: supplier, total: 3000,
})
const si3 = await insertSupplierInvoice({
userId, companyId, supplierId: supplier, total: 1500,
})
const txId = await insertTransaction({
userId, companyId, amount: -6500, date: '2026-06-05',
})
const allocations = [
{ kind: 'supplier_invoice', supplier_invoice_id: si1, amount: 2000 },
{ kind: 'supplier_invoice', supplier_invoice_id: si2, amount: 3000 },
{ kind: 'supplier_invoice', supplier_invoice_id: si3, amount: 1500 },
]
// withUserContext sets request.jwt.claim.sub so the RPC's auth.uid()
// membership check (PR #603 round 2) resolves the seeded owner.
// ALL assertions about post-RPC state must run inside this block since
// it rolls back at the end.
await withUserContext(userId, async (client) => {
const r = await client.query<{ match_batch_allocate: RpcResult }>(
`SELECT match_batch_allocate($1, $2::jsonb, $3)`,
[txId, JSON.stringify(allocations), companyId],
)
const result = r.rows[0]!.match_batch_allocate
expect(result.ok).toBe(true)
expect(result.journal_entry_id).toBeTruthy()
expect(result.voucher_number).toBeGreaterThan(0)
expect(result.total_allocated).toBe(6500)
expect(result.leftover).toBe(0)
expect(result.allocations).toHaveLength(3)
// Verify one verifikat with N+1 lines (3 × Dr 2440 + 1 × Cr 1930).
const lines = await client.query<{
account_number: string
debit_amount: string
credit_amount: string
}>(
`SELECT account_number, debit_amount, credit_amount
FROM public.journal_entry_lines
WHERE journal_entry_id = $1
ORDER BY sort_order`,
[result.journal_entry_id],
)
expect(lines.rows).toHaveLength(4)
const apLines = lines.rows.filter((l) => l.account_number === '2440')
const bankLines = lines.rows.filter((l) => l.account_number === '1930')
expect(apLines).toHaveLength(3)
expect(bankLines).toHaveLength(1)
expect(Number(bankLines[0]!.credit_amount)).toBe(6500)
const apSum = apLines.reduce((s, l) => s + Number(l.debit_amount), 0)
expect(apSum).toBe(6500)
// Verify all 3 supplier invoices flipped to 'paid'.
const inv1 = await client.query<{ status: string; paid_amount: string; remaining_amount: string }>(
`SELECT status, paid_amount, remaining_amount FROM public.supplier_invoices WHERE id = $1`,
[si1],
)
expect(inv1.rows[0]!.status).toBe('paid')
expect(Number(inv1.rows[0]!.paid_amount)).toBe(2000)
expect(Number(inv1.rows[0]!.remaining_amount)).toBe(0)
// Verify 3 supplier_invoice_payments rows all reference the same JE.
const payments = await client.query<{ journal_entry_id: string; supplier_invoice_id: string }>(
`SELECT journal_entry_id, supplier_invoice_id
FROM public.supplier_invoice_payments WHERE transaction_id = $1`,
[txId],
)
expect(payments.rows).toHaveLength(3)
const jeIds = new Set(payments.rows.map((p) => p.journal_entry_id))
expect(jeIds.size).toBe(1)
expect(jeIds.has(result.journal_entry_id!)).toBe(true)
// Verify tx.journal_entry_id is set + supplier_invoice_id left NULL (multi).
const txRow = await client.query<{
journal_entry_id: string | null
supplier_invoice_id: string | null
is_business: boolean
}>(
`SELECT journal_entry_id, supplier_invoice_id, is_business
FROM public.transactions WHERE id = $1`,
[txId],
)
expect(txRow.rows[0]!.journal_entry_id).toBe(result.journal_entry_id)
expect(txRow.rows[0]!.supplier_invoice_id).toBeNull()
expect(txRow.rows[0]!.is_business).toBe(true)
// Verify samlingsverifikat carries the supplier-side source_type
// (PR #603 compliance fix — was previously 'invoice_paid' for both
// directions which mis-routed behandlingshistorik filters).
const je = await client.query<{ source_type: string }>(
`SELECT source_type FROM public.journal_entries WHERE id = $1`,
[result.journal_entry_id],
)
expect(je.rows[0]!.source_type).toBe('supplier_invoice_paid')
})
})
it('rejects with BATCH_OVERSHOOT when allocation exceeds invoice remaining', async () => {
const { userId, companyId } = await seedTenant()
const supplier = await insertSupplier({ userId, companyId })
const si = await insertSupplierInvoice({
userId, companyId, supplierId: supplier, total: 1000,
})
const txId = await insertTransaction({ userId, companyId, amount: -5000 })
const allocations = [
{ kind: 'supplier_invoice', supplier_invoice_id: si, amount: 5000 },
]
await withUserContext(userId, async (client) => {
const r = await client.query<{ match_batch_allocate: RpcResult }>(
`SELECT match_batch_allocate($1, $2::jsonb, $3)`,
[txId, JSON.stringify(allocations), companyId],
)
const result = r.rows[0]!.match_batch_allocate
expect(result.ok).toBe(false)
expect(result.code).toBe('BATCH_OVERSHOOT')
expect(result.details).toMatchObject({ supplier_invoice_id: si, requested: 5000 })
// No journal entry should have been created.
const txRow = await client.query<{ journal_entry_id: string | null }>(
`SELECT journal_entry_id FROM public.transactions WHERE id = $1`,
[txId],
)
expect(txRow.rows[0]!.journal_entry_id).toBeNull()
const inv = await client.query<{ paid_amount: string; remaining_amount: string }>(
`SELECT paid_amount, remaining_amount FROM public.supplier_invoices WHERE id = $1`,
[si],
)
expect(Number(inv.rows[0]!.paid_amount)).toBe(0)
expect(Number(inv.rows[0]!.remaining_amount)).toBe(1000)
})
})
it('rejects with BATCH_UNAUTHORIZED when caller is not a member of the company', async () => {
const { userId, companyId } = await seedTenant()
const supplier = await insertSupplier({ userId, companyId })
const si = await insertSupplierInvoice({
userId, companyId, supplierId: supplier, total: 1000,
})
const txId = await insertTransaction({ userId, companyId, amount: -1000 })
// Different user — never added to company_members for companyId. The
// SECURITY DEFINER check (PR #603 compliance) refuses any access.
const outsiderId = await insertAuthUser()
await withUserContext(outsiderId, async (client) => {
const r = await client.query<{ match_batch_allocate: RpcResult }>(
`SELECT match_batch_allocate($1, $2::jsonb, $3)`,
[
txId,
JSON.stringify([{ kind: 'supplier_invoice', supplier_invoice_id: si, amount: 1000 }]),
companyId,
],
)
const result = r.rows[0]!.match_batch_allocate
expect(result.ok).toBe(false)
expect(result.code).toBe('BATCH_UNAUTHORIZED')
})
})
it('rejects with BATCH_TX_ALREADY_BOOKED when tx already has a JE', async () => {
const { userId, companyId, fiscalPeriodId } = await seedTenant()
const supplier = await insertSupplier({ userId, companyId })
const si = await insertSupplierInvoice({
userId, companyId, supplierId: supplier, total: 1000,
})
// Pre-book the tx by linking it to a manual posted JE.
const existingJeId = randomUUID()
await getPool().query(
`INSERT INTO public.journal_entries
(id, user_id, company_id, fiscal_period_id, voucher_number, voucher_series,
entry_date, description, source_type, status)
VALUES ($1, $2, $3, $4, 1, 'A', '2026-06-05', 'Manual', 'manual', 'draft')`,
[existingJeId, userId, companyId, fiscalPeriodId],
)
await getPool().query(
`INSERT INTO public.journal_entry_lines (journal_entry_id, account_number, debit_amount, credit_amount)
VALUES ($1, '1930', 0, 1000), ($1, '4010', 1000, 0)`,
[existingJeId],
)
await getPool().query(`UPDATE public.journal_entries SET status = 'posted' WHERE id = $1`, [existingJeId])
const txId = await insertTransaction({ userId, companyId, amount: -1000 })
await getPool().query(
`UPDATE public.transactions SET journal_entry_id = $1 WHERE id = $2`,
[existingJeId, txId],
)
const allocations = [
{ kind: 'supplier_invoice', supplier_invoice_id: si, amount: 1000 },
]
await withUserContext(userId, async (client) => {
const r = await client.query<{ match_batch_allocate: RpcResult }>(
`SELECT match_batch_allocate($1, $2::jsonb, $3)`,
[txId, JSON.stringify(allocations), companyId],
)
const result = r.rows[0]!.match_batch_allocate
expect(result.ok).toBe(false)
expect(result.code).toBe('BATCH_TX_ALREADY_BOOKED')
})
})
it('rejects with BATCH_DIRECTION_MISMATCH for supplier allocation against income tx', async () => {
const { userId, companyId } = await seedTenant()
const supplier = await insertSupplier({ userId, companyId })
const si = await insertSupplierInvoice({
userId, companyId, supplierId: supplier, total: 1000,
})
// Positive tx (income) — wrong direction for supplier_invoice allocation.
const txId = await insertTransaction({ userId, companyId, amount: 1000 })
await withUserContext(userId, async (client) => {
const r = await client.query<{ match_batch_allocate: RpcResult }>(
`SELECT match_batch_allocate($1, $2::jsonb, $3)`,
[
txId,
JSON.stringify([{ kind: 'supplier_invoice', supplier_invoice_id: si, amount: 1000 }]),
companyId,
],
)
const result = r.rows[0]!.match_batch_allocate
expect(result.ok).toBe(false)
expect(result.code).toBe('BATCH_DIRECTION_MISMATCH')
})
})
it('rejects BATCH_DUPLICATE_ALLOCATION when the same supplier invoice appears twice', async () => {
const { userId, companyId } = await seedTenant()
const supplier = await insertSupplier({ userId, companyId })
const si = await insertSupplierInvoice({
userId, companyId, supplierId: supplier, total: 1000,
})
const txId = await insertTransaction({ userId, companyId, amount: -800 })
// Same supplier_invoice_id listed twice. Per-allocation amounts (400 each)
// do not individually overshoot the 1 000 remaining, but their sum would
// insert two payment rows for one invoice. The dedupe guard catches
// this in the validation loop before any write.
const allocations = [
{ kind: 'supplier_invoice', supplier_invoice_id: si, amount: 400 },
{ kind: 'supplier_invoice', supplier_invoice_id: si, amount: 400 },
]
await withUserContext(userId, async (client) => {
const r = await client.query<{ match_batch_allocate: RpcResult }>(
`SELECT match_batch_allocate($1, $2::jsonb, $3)`,
[txId, JSON.stringify(allocations), companyId],
)
const result = r.rows[0]!.match_batch_allocate
expect(result.ok).toBe(false)
expect(result.code).toBe('BATCH_DUPLICATE_ALLOCATION')
expect(result.details?.id).toBe(si)
})
})
it('rejects BATCH_MIXED_KINDS_UNSUPPORTED on customer + supplier in same batch', async () => {
const { userId, companyId } = await seedTenant()
const supplier = await insertSupplier({ userId, companyId })
const si = await insertSupplierInvoice({
userId, companyId, supplierId: supplier, total: 1000,
})
// Insert a customer + invoice for the customer-side allocation.
const customerId = randomUUID()
await getPool().query(
`INSERT INTO public.customers
(id, user_id, company_id, name, customer_type, country)
VALUES ($1, $2, $3, 'Kund AB', 'swedish_business', 'SE')`,
[customerId, userId, companyId],
)
const invoiceId = randomUUID()
await getPool().query(
`INSERT INTO public.invoices
(id, user_id, company_id, customer_id, invoice_number, invoice_date, due_date, status,
currency, subtotal, vat_amount, total, paid_amount, remaining_amount, vat_treatment)
VALUES ($1, $2, $3, $4, 'F-001', '2026-06-01', '2026-07-01', 'sent', 'SEK',
1000, 0, 1000, 0, 1000, 'standard_25')`,
[invoiceId, userId, companyId, customerId],
)
// Negative tx — direction makes both sides individually plausible, but
// we reject mixed kinds outright. Actually negative=supplier and we need
// either income or expense; the mixed check fires before the direction
// check, so the result code is MIXED_KINDS regardless.
const txId = await insertTransaction({ userId, companyId, amount: -2000 })
await withUserContext(userId, async (client) => {
const r = await client.query<{ match_batch_allocate: RpcResult }>(
`SELECT match_batch_allocate($1, $2::jsonb, $3)`,
[
txId,
JSON.stringify([
{ kind: 'supplier_invoice', supplier_invoice_id: si, amount: 1000 },
{ kind: 'customer_invoice', invoice_id: invoiceId, amount: 1000 },
]),
companyId,
],
)
const result = r.rows[0]!.match_batch_allocate
expect(result.ok).toBe(false)
expect(result.code).toBe('BATCH_MIXED_KINDS_UNSUPPORTED')
})
})
// PR #607 — cross-currency happy path. One USD supplier invoice paid by
// a single SEK bank transaction. The RPC must book the AP line at the
// invoice's original SEK value (booked_sek = remaining × exchange_rate)
// and post the difference between booked_sek and the actual bank
// withdrawal to 7960 (loss) or 3960 (gain). Bank line is the full tx_abs.
it('books cross-currency supplier invoice with FX diff line and tx_abs bank line', async () => {
const { userId, companyId } = await seedTenant()
const supplier = await insertSupplier({ userId, companyId })
// USD invoice for $100, booked at 10.0 SEK/USD = 1000 SEK on 2440 at
// creation time. (We use the standard insertSupplierInvoice and patch
// the currency/exchange_rate after so we don't have to thread params
// through the helper.)
const si = await insertSupplierInvoice({
userId, companyId, supplierId: supplier, total: 100,
})
await getPool().query(
`UPDATE public.supplier_invoices
SET currency = 'USD', exchange_rate = 10.0, remaining_amount = 100
WHERE id = $1`,
[si],
)
// Bank actually withdrew 1050 SEK — rate moved to ~10.5 SEK/USD on
// payment day. Loss of 50 SEK lands on 7960.
const txId = await insertTransaction({
userId, companyId, amount: -1050, date: '2026-06-05', currency: 'SEK',
})
await withUserContext(userId, async (client) => {
const r = await client.query<{ match_batch_allocate: RpcResult }>(
`SELECT match_batch_allocate($1, $2::jsonb, $3)`,
[
txId,
JSON.stringify([
{ kind: 'supplier_invoice', supplier_invoice_id: si, amount: 1050 },
]),
companyId,
],
)
const result = r.rows[0]!.match_batch_allocate
expect(result.ok).toBe(true)
expect(result.allocations).toHaveLength(1)
expect(result.allocations![0]!.cross_currency).toBe(true)
expect(result.allocations![0]!.status).toBe('paid')
const lines = await client.query<{
account_number: string
debit_amount: string
credit_amount: string
}>(
`SELECT account_number, debit_amount, credit_amount
FROM public.journal_entry_lines
WHERE journal_entry_id = $1
ORDER BY sort_order`,
[result.journal_entry_id],
)
// Expected lines:
// Dr 2440 1000 (booked SEK at original rate)
// Dr 7960 50 (FX loss = bank tx — booked SEK)
// Cr 1930 1050 (actual bank withdrawal)
expect(lines.rows).toHaveLength(3)
const ap = lines.rows.find((l) => l.account_number === '2440')!
expect(Number(ap.debit_amount)).toBe(1000)
expect(Number(ap.credit_amount)).toBe(0)
const fxLoss = lines.rows.find((l) => l.account_number === '7960')!
expect(Number(fxLoss.debit_amount)).toBe(50)
expect(Number(fxLoss.credit_amount)).toBe(0)
const bank = lines.rows.find((l) => l.account_number === '1930')!
expect(Number(bank.debit_amount)).toBe(0)
expect(Number(bank.credit_amount)).toBe(1050)
// Round-1 fix: bank line credit must equal tx_abs, not the AR/AP
// total. With FX diff lines this distinction matters — verify it.
expect(Number(bank.credit_amount)).toBe(1050)
// Supplier invoice settled in full and stored in invoice currency.
const inv = await client.query<{
status: string; paid_amount: string; remaining_amount: string
}>(
`SELECT status, paid_amount, remaining_amount FROM public.supplier_invoices WHERE id = $1`,
[si],
)
expect(inv.rows[0]!.status).toBe('paid')
expect(Number(inv.rows[0]!.paid_amount)).toBe(100) // USD value, not SEK
expect(Number(inv.rows[0]!.remaining_amount)).toBe(0)
// Round-3: payment row stores the effective payment-day rate
// (v_alloc_amount / v_inv_remaining = 1050/100 = 10.5) alongside
// the invoicing rate (10.0). swedish-compliance traceability fix.
const pay = await client.query<{
exchange_rate: string | null; payment_exchange_rate: string | null
}>(
`SELECT exchange_rate, payment_exchange_rate
FROM public.supplier_invoice_payments
WHERE supplier_invoice_id = $1`,
[si],
)
expect(Number(pay.rows[0]!.exchange_rate)).toBe(10) // invoicing rate
expect(Number(pay.rows[0]!.payment_exchange_rate)).toBe(10.5) // payment-day rate
// Sum of debits = sum of credits (balanced verifikat).
const balance = await client.query<{ debits: string; credits: string }>(
`SELECT
COALESCE(SUM(debit_amount), 0) AS debits,
COALESCE(SUM(credit_amount), 0) AS credits
FROM public.journal_entry_lines
WHERE journal_entry_id = $1`,
[result.journal_entry_id],
)
expect(Number(balance.rows[0]!.debits)).toBe(Number(balance.rows[0]!.credits))
})
})
// PR #607 round-1 — strict undershoot rejection. The RPC previously
// accepted sum(allocations) < tx_abs and silently underbooked the bank
// line, breaking reconciliation. Now it must reject with
// BATCH_AMOUNT_BELOW_TX.
it('rejects BATCH_AMOUNT_BELOW_TX when allocations sum below tx_abs', async () => {
const { userId, companyId } = await seedTenant()
const supplier = await insertSupplier({ userId, companyId })
const si = await insertSupplierInvoice({
userId, companyId, supplierId: supplier, total: 1000,
})
const txId = await insertTransaction({ userId, companyId, amount: -1500 })
await withUserContext(userId, async (client) => {
const r = await client.query<{ match_batch_allocate: RpcResult }>(
`SELECT match_batch_allocate($1, $2::jsonb, $3)`,
[
txId,
JSON.stringify([
{ kind: 'supplier_invoice', supplier_invoice_id: si, amount: 1000 },
]),
companyId,
],
)
const result = r.rows[0]!.match_batch_allocate
expect(result.ok).toBe(false)
expect(result.code).toBe('BATCH_AMOUNT_BELOW_TX')
expect(result.details).toMatchObject({ allocated: 1000, tx_amount_abs: 1500 })
const txRow = await client.query<{ journal_entry_id: string | null }>(
`SELECT journal_entry_id FROM public.transactions WHERE id = $1`,
[txId],
)
expect(txRow.rows[0]!.journal_entry_id).toBeNull()
})
})
})