Files
accounted/lib/pending-operations/__tests__/match-batch-allocate.test.ts
T
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>
2026-09-06 18:56:36 +02:00

333 lines
14 KiB
TypeScript

/**
* Suggestion-pointer cleanup for the agent/MCP batch-allocation commit path
* (`commitMatchBatchAllocate` in lib/pending-operations/commit.ts), the second
* caller of the `match_batch_allocate` RPC next to
* POST /api/transactions/[id]/match-batch.
*
* Issue #1259: the RPC nulls potential_invoice_id /
* potential_supplier_invoice_id only on the source transaction
* (WHERE id = p_tx_id), so every OTHER transaction of the company keeps a
* pointer at an invoice the samlingsbetalning just closed. Both callers run the
* same shared cleanup (lib/invoices/clear-settled-batch-allocations.ts); the
* HTTP twin has the same test shape in
* app/api/transactions/[id]/match-batch/__tests__/route.test.ts.
*/
import { describe, it, expect, vi, beforeEach } from 'vitest'
import { eventBus } from '@/lib/events/bus'
import { createQueuedMockSupabase } from '@/tests/helpers'
import type { PendingOperation } from '@/types'
// Mocked so it consumes no slot in the queued Supabase mock; the helper's own
// query shape is pinned by
// lib/invoices/__tests__/clear-settled-invoice-suggestions.test.ts.
const { mockClearSuggestions } = vi.hoisted(() => ({ mockClearSuggestions: vi.fn() }))
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'
const INV_ID = '22222222-2222-4222-8222-222222222222'
const SI_ID = '33333333-3333-4333-8333-333333333333'
const SI_PARTIAL_ID = '44444444-4444-4444-8444-444444444444'
function makePendingOp(params: Record<string, unknown>): PendingOperation {
return {
id: 'op-1',
user_id: 'user-1',
company_id: 'company-1',
operation_type: 'match_batch_allocate',
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 REQUEST_ALLOCATIONS = [
{ kind: 'supplier_invoice', supplier_invoice_id: SI_ID, amount: 1000 },
{ kind: 'supplier_invoice', supplier_invoice_id: SI_PARTIAL_ID, amount: 400 },
]
beforeEach(() => {
vi.clearAllMocks()
eventBus.clear()
mockDetectExplaining.mockResolvedValue(null)
mockAppendProcessingHistory.mockResolvedValue('evt-1')
})
describe('commitPendingOperation: match_batch_allocate suggestion cleanup', () => {
it('retires suggestions only for the allocations that settled in full', async () => {
const { supabase, enqueue } = createQueuedMockSupabase()
enqueue({ data: { id: 'op-1' }, error: null }) // CAS claim
enqueue({
data: {
ok: true,
journal_entry_id: 'je-batch-1',
voucher_series: 'A',
voucher_number: 42,
tx_id: TX_ID,
allocations: [
{
kind: 'supplier_invoice',
supplier_invoice_id: SI_ID,
payment_id: 'sip-1',
status: 'paid',
paid_amount: 1000,
remaining_amount: 0,
amount: 1000,
},
{
kind: 'supplier_invoice',
supplier_invoice_id: SI_PARTIAL_ID,
payment_id: 'sip-2',
status: 'partially_paid',
paid_amount: 400,
remaining_amount: 600,
amount: 400,
},
],
total_allocated: 1400,
leftover: 0,
},
error: null,
}) // match_batch_allocate RPC
enqueue({ data: null, error: null }) // dispatcher finalize update
const op = makePendingOp({ transaction_id: TX_ID, allocations: REQUEST_ALLOCATIONS })
const result = await commitPendingOperation(supabase as never, 'user-1', 'company-1', op)
expect(result.status).toBe('committed')
// A partially paid invoice is still matchable, so its suggestions survive.
expect(mockClearSuggestions).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1)
expect(mockClearSuggestions).toHaveBeenCalledWith(
supabase,
'company-1',
'supplier_invoice',
SI_ID,
{ exceptTransactionId: TX_ID },
)
})
it('retires a fully settled customer invoice allocation', async () => {
const { supabase, enqueue } = createQueuedMockSupabase()
enqueue({ data: { id: 'op-1' }, error: null }) // CAS claim
enqueue({
data: {
ok: true,
journal_entry_id: 'je-batch-2',
voucher_series: 'A',
voucher_number: 43,
tx_id: TX_ID,
allocations: [
{
kind: 'customer_invoice',
invoice_id: INV_ID,
payment_id: 'ip-1',
status: 'paid',
paid_amount: 1000,
remaining_amount: 0,
amount: 1000,
},
],
total_allocated: 1000,
leftover: 0,
},
error: null,
}) // match_batch_allocate RPC
enqueue({ data: null, error: null }) // dispatcher finalize update
const op = makePendingOp({
transaction_id: TX_ID,
allocations: [{ kind: 'customer_invoice', invoice_id: INV_ID, amount: 1000 }],
})
const result = await commitPendingOperation(supabase as never, 'user-1', 'company-1', op)
expect(result.status).toBe('committed')
expect(mockClearSuggestions).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1)
expect(mockClearSuggestions).toHaveBeenCalledWith(supabase, 'company-1', 'invoice', INV_ID, {
exceptTransactionId: TX_ID,
})
})
it('retires nothing when the RPC reports a structured failure', async () => {
const { supabase, enqueue } = createQueuedMockSupabase()
enqueue({ data: { id: 'op-1' }, error: null }) // CAS claim
enqueue({ data: { ok: false, code: 'BATCH_OVER_ALLOCATED' }, error: null }) // RPC
enqueue({ data: null, error: null }) // dispatcher rejection update
const op = makePendingOp({ transaction_id: TX_ID, allocations: REQUEST_ALLOCATIONS })
const result = await commitPendingOperation(supabase as never, 'user-1', 'company-1', op)
expect(result.status).toBe('failed')
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()
})
})