* 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>
311 lines
12 KiB
TypeScript
311 lines
12 KiB
TypeScript
/**
|
|
* The already-explained guards (lib/invoices/already-explained-guard.ts):
|
|
* one decision on top of the detectors, shared by the dashboard route, the
|
|
* MCP staging tools and the pending-operation commit (issue #2294). The
|
|
* detectors themselves are pinned by duplicate-payment-detection.test.ts;
|
|
* these tests cover the binding rules, the fail-open contract and the
|
|
* behandlingshistorik record an honoured override leaves.
|
|
*/
|
|
import { describe, it, expect, vi, beforeEach } from 'vitest'
|
|
|
|
const { mockDetectSet, mockDetectCandidate, mockAppend } = vi.hoisted(() => ({
|
|
mockDetectSet: vi.fn(),
|
|
mockDetectCandidate: vi.fn(),
|
|
mockAppend: vi.fn(),
|
|
}))
|
|
vi.mock('../duplicate-payment-detection', () => ({
|
|
detectExplainingVoucherSetForTransaction: mockDetectSet,
|
|
detectDuplicatePaymentVoucher: mockDetectCandidate,
|
|
}))
|
|
vi.mock('@/lib/processing-history/append', () => ({
|
|
appendProcessingHistory: mockAppend,
|
|
}))
|
|
|
|
import {
|
|
alreadyExplainedDetails,
|
|
bindDuplicateCandidateOverride,
|
|
bindExplainedOverride,
|
|
describeExplainingSet,
|
|
guardAlreadyExplained,
|
|
guardDuplicatePaymentVoucher,
|
|
recordDuplicateCandidateOverride,
|
|
recordExplainedOverride,
|
|
} from '../already-explained-guard'
|
|
|
|
const JE_A = 'aaaaaaaa-aaaa-4aaa-8aaa-aaaaaaaaaaaa'
|
|
const JE_B = 'bbbbbbbb-bbbb-4bbb-8bbb-bbbbbbbbbbbb'
|
|
const JE_C = 'cccccccc-cccc-4ccc-8ccc-cccccccccccc'
|
|
const TX_ID = '11111111-1111-4111-8111-111111111111'
|
|
|
|
const set = {
|
|
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 candidate = {
|
|
journal_entry_id: JE_A,
|
|
voucher_label: 'A12',
|
|
entry_date: '2026-05-15',
|
|
description: 'Inbetalning faktura',
|
|
amount: 1000,
|
|
bank_account_number: '1930',
|
|
reason: 'exact_amount_same_date' as const,
|
|
amount_verified: true,
|
|
unverified_reason: null,
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
const supabase = {} as never
|
|
|
|
beforeEach(() => {
|
|
vi.clearAllMocks()
|
|
mockAppend.mockResolvedValue('evt-1')
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
describe('bindExplainedOverride (1:N set)', () => {
|
|
it('is clear when nothing explains the row, whatever the override says', () => {
|
|
expect(bindExplainedOverride(null, {})).toEqual({ status: 'clear' })
|
|
expect(bindExplainedOverride(null, { force: true, expected_journal_entry_ids: [JE_A] })).toEqual({ status: 'clear' })
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
it('blocks a set without force, and says force was not attempted', () => {
|
|
expect(bindExplainedOverride(set, {})).toEqual({ status: 'blocked', set, force_rejected: false })
|
|
// force without ids is no binding at all.
|
|
expect(bindExplainedOverride(set, { force: true })).toEqual({ status: 'blocked', set, force_rejected: true })
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
it('honours force only for exactly the detected ids, in any order', () => {
|
|
expect(bindExplainedOverride(set, { force: true, expected_journal_entry_ids: [JE_B, JE_A] })).toEqual({
|
|
status: 'overridden',
|
|
set,
|
|
})
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
it('refuses a subset, a superset and a swapped id: a stale review cannot wave the guard away', () => {
|
|
for (const ids of [[JE_A], [JE_A, JE_B, JE_C], [JE_A, JE_C]]) {
|
|
expect(bindExplainedOverride(set, { force: true, expected_journal_entry_ids: ids })).toEqual({
|
|
status: 'blocked',
|
|
set,
|
|
force_rejected: true,
|
|
})
|
|
}
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
it('never honours the ids without force', () => {
|
|
expect(bindExplainedOverride(set, { expected_journal_entry_ids: [JE_A, JE_B] })).toMatchObject({
|
|
status: 'blocked',
|
|
force_rejected: false,
|
|
})
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
it('hands every door the same details block', () => {
|
|
const outcome = bindExplainedOverride(set, { force: true, expected_journal_entry_ids: [JE_A] })
|
|
expect(outcome.status).toBe('blocked')
|
|
expect(alreadyExplainedDetails(outcome as Extract<typeof outcome, { status: 'blocked' }>)).toEqual({
|
|
vouchers: set.vouchers,
|
|
total: 88250,
|
|
bank_account_number: '1930',
|
|
same_date: true,
|
|
force_rejected: true,
|
|
})
|
|
})
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
describe('describeExplainingSet', () => {
|
|
it('names the vouchers, the account, the date and the SEK total', () => {
|
|
// sv-SE thousands separator is a (narrow) no-break space: match any space.
|
|
expect(describeExplainingSet(set)).toMatch(/^A57 \+ A58 \(1930, 2026-07-31, 88\s250,00 kr\)$/)
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
it('spells out a date range when the vouchers are spread', () => {
|
|
const spread = {
|
|
...set,
|
|
same_date: false,
|
|
vouchers: [set.vouchers[0], { ...set.vouchers[1], entry_date: '2026-08-02' }],
|
|
}
|
|
expect(describeExplainingSet(spread)).toContain('2026-07-31 till 2026-08-02')
|
|
})
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
describe('guardAlreadyExplained', () => {
|
|
it('passes the transaction (id or row) straight to the one detector', async () => {
|
|
mockDetectSet.mockResolvedValue(null)
|
|
const row = { id: TX_ID, date: '2026-07-31', amount: 88250, currency: 'SEK', cash_account_id: 'ca-1' }
|
|
await guardAlreadyExplained(supabase, 'company-1', row, {})
|
|
expect(mockDetectSet).toHaveBeenCalledWith(supabase, 'company-1', row)
|
|
await guardAlreadyExplained(supabase, 'company-1', TX_ID, {})
|
|
expect(mockDetectSet).toHaveBeenLastCalledWith(supabase, 'company-1', TX_ID)
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
it('binds the override to the detected set', async () => {
|
|
mockDetectSet.mockResolvedValue(set)
|
|
await expect(guardAlreadyExplained(supabase, 'company-1', TX_ID, {})).resolves.toMatchObject({ status: 'blocked' })
|
|
await expect(
|
|
guardAlreadyExplained(supabase, 'company-1', TX_ID, { force: true, expected_journal_entry_ids: [JE_A, JE_B] }),
|
|
).resolves.toMatchObject({ status: 'overridden' })
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
it('fails open when the detector throws without force, and reports the miss to the caller', async () => {
|
|
const boom = new Error('ledger scan timed out')
|
|
mockDetectSet.mockRejectedValue(boom)
|
|
const onDetectError = vi.fn()
|
|
await expect(guardAlreadyExplained(supabase, 'company-1', TX_ID, {}, { onDetectError })).resolves.toEqual({
|
|
status: 'clear',
|
|
})
|
|
expect(onDetectError).toHaveBeenCalledWith(boom)
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
it('refuses a forced override it cannot re-verify: a detector failure under force is never a pass', async () => {
|
|
const boom = new Error('ledger scan timed out')
|
|
mockDetectSet.mockRejectedValue(boom)
|
|
const onDetectError = vi.fn()
|
|
await expect(
|
|
guardAlreadyExplained(
|
|
supabase,
|
|
'company-1',
|
|
TX_ID,
|
|
{ force: true, expected_journal_entry_ids: [JE_A, JE_B] },
|
|
{ onDetectError },
|
|
),
|
|
).resolves.toEqual({ status: 'unverifiable', error: boom })
|
|
expect(onDetectError).toHaveBeenCalledWith(boom)
|
|
})
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
describe('recordExplainedOverride', () => {
|
|
it('writes a PII-free BankTransactionDuplicateDismissed record naming the vouchers', async () => {
|
|
await recordExplainedOverride('company-1', TX_ID, set, {
|
|
actor: { type: 'user', id: 'user-1' },
|
|
via: 'dashboard_force',
|
|
})
|
|
expect(mockAppend).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1)
|
|
const input = mockAppend.mock.calls[0][0]
|
|
expect(input).toMatchObject({
|
|
companyId: 'company-1',
|
|
correlationId: TX_ID,
|
|
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',
|
|
same_date: true,
|
|
via: 'dashboard_force',
|
|
},
|
|
})
|
|
// Descriptions can carry counterparty names: they never enter the record.
|
|
expect(JSON.stringify(input.payload)).not.toContain('kundfaktura')
|
|
expect(input.occurredAt).toBeInstanceOf(Date)
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
it('is best-effort: a failed append is reported, never thrown', async () => {
|
|
const boom = new Error('insert failed')
|
|
mockAppend.mockRejectedValue(boom)
|
|
const onError = vi.fn()
|
|
await expect(
|
|
recordExplainedOverride('company-1', TX_ID, set, { actor: { type: 'user', id: 'user-1' }, via: 'x' }, onError),
|
|
).resolves.toBeUndefined()
|
|
expect(onError).toHaveBeenCalledWith(boom)
|
|
})
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
describe('bindDuplicateCandidateOverride (1:1 candidate)', () => {
|
|
it('is clear with no candidate and no force', () => {
|
|
expect(bindDuplicateCandidateOverride(null, {})).toEqual({ status: 'clear' })
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
it('blocks a candidate without force', () => {
|
|
expect(bindDuplicateCandidateOverride(candidate, {})).toEqual({ status: 'blocked', candidate })
|
|
expect(bindDuplicateCandidateOverride(candidate, { expected_journal_entry_id: JE_A })).toEqual({
|
|
status: 'blocked',
|
|
candidate,
|
|
})
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
it('honours force only for the exact candidate echoed back', () => {
|
|
expect(bindDuplicateCandidateOverride(candidate, { force: true, expected_journal_entry_id: JE_A })).toEqual({
|
|
status: 'overridden',
|
|
candidate,
|
|
})
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
it('treats a stale id, a missing id and a vanished candidate as a mismatch (the dashboard contract)', () => {
|
|
expect(bindDuplicateCandidateOverride(candidate, { force: true, expected_journal_entry_id: JE_B })).toEqual({
|
|
status: 'mismatch',
|
|
expected_journal_entry_id: JE_B,
|
|
detected_journal_entry_id: JE_A,
|
|
})
|
|
expect(bindDuplicateCandidateOverride(candidate, { force: true })).toEqual({
|
|
status: 'mismatch',
|
|
expected_journal_entry_id: null,
|
|
detected_journal_entry_id: JE_A,
|
|
})
|
|
expect(bindDuplicateCandidateOverride(null, { force: true, expected_journal_entry_id: JE_A })).toEqual({
|
|
status: 'mismatch',
|
|
expected_journal_entry_id: JE_A,
|
|
detected_journal_entry_id: null,
|
|
})
|
|
})
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
describe('guardDuplicatePaymentVoucher', () => {
|
|
const tx = { id: TX_ID, date: '2026-05-15', amount: 1000, currency: 'EUR', amount_sek: 11500, exchange_rate: 11.5 }
|
|
|
|
it('feeds the SEK conversion fields to the detector', async () => {
|
|
mockDetectCandidate.mockResolvedValue(null)
|
|
await expect(guardDuplicatePaymentVoucher(supabase, 'company-1', tx, {})).resolves.toEqual({ status: 'clear' })
|
|
expect(mockDetectCandidate).toHaveBeenCalledWith(supabase, {
|
|
companyId: 'company-1',
|
|
transactionId: TX_ID,
|
|
transactionDate: '2026-05-15',
|
|
transactionAmount: 1000,
|
|
transactionCurrency: 'EUR',
|
|
transactionAmountSek: 11500,
|
|
transactionExchangeRate: 11.5,
|
|
})
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
it('fails open without force, but refuses an override it cannot re-verify', async () => {
|
|
const boom = new Error('scan failed')
|
|
mockDetectCandidate.mockRejectedValue(boom)
|
|
const onDetectError = vi.fn()
|
|
await expect(guardDuplicatePaymentVoucher(supabase, 'company-1', tx, {}, { onDetectError })).resolves.toEqual({
|
|
status: 'clear',
|
|
})
|
|
await expect(
|
|
guardDuplicatePaymentVoucher(supabase, 'company-1', tx, { force: true, expected_journal_entry_id: JE_A }, { onDetectError }),
|
|
).resolves.toEqual({ status: 'mismatch', expected_journal_entry_id: JE_A, detected_journal_entry_id: null })
|
|
expect(onDetectError).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(2)
|
|
})
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
describe('recordDuplicateCandidateOverride', () => {
|
|
it('writes the singular dismissal shape categorize-core uses', async () => {
|
|
await recordDuplicateCandidateOverride('company-1', TX_ID, candidate, {
|
|
actor: { type: 'user', id: 'user-1' },
|
|
via: 'pending_operation_force',
|
|
})
|
|
expect(mockAppend.mock.calls[0][0]).toMatchObject({
|
|
eventType: 'BankTransactionDuplicateDismissed',
|
|
aggregateId: TX_ID,
|
|
payload: {
|
|
transaction_id: TX_ID,
|
|
dismissed_journal_entry_id: JE_A,
|
|
dismissed_voucher_label: 'A12',
|
|
amount_ore: 100000,
|
|
entry_date: '2026-05-15',
|
|
amount_verified: true,
|
|
via: 'pending_operation_force',
|
|
},
|
|
})
|
|
})
|
|
})
|