Files
accounted/lib/invoices/__tests__/already-explained-guard.test.ts
T
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>
2026-09-06 21:03:42 +02:00

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', voucher_series: 'A', voucher_number: 57, 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', voucher_series: 'A', voucher_number: 58, 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',
},
})
})
})