* feat(invariants): centralise shared format contracts, reconcile the org-number paths
The same format rules were written out independently across the codebase, and
where they disagreed the disagreement was invisible until a filing failed.
Worst case, now fixed: four Skatteverket- and Bolagsverket-bound export paths
each had their own idea of a valid organisationsnummer.
lib/skatteverket/format.ts strip '-' only threw on any input with a space
lib/salary/ku/ku10-generator.ts replace('-', '') first hyphen only, spaces survived
lib/salary/agi/xml-generator.ts strip non-digits stray letters passed the length check
lib/bokslut/ixbrl/validate /^\d{6}-?\d{4}$/ rejected the 12-digit form, no Luhn
A company stored with a space or in 12-digit form could file AGI all year and
then fail at the arsredovisning deadline with a message that did not say why.
lib/invariants/ now owns account number, ISO date, four-digit fiscal year and
org number, each with the rationale recorded next to the rule. normalizeOrgNumber
moves here from lib/company-lookup/ and isSaneDateString from lib/utils.ts; both
old paths re-export, so no caller changes. lib/api/schemas.ts builds its
primitives on the module, so ~100 schemas inherit any correction.
The arsredovisning check-digit verdict is a warn, not an error: a wrong Luhn
digit is almost certainly a typo worth surfacing, but whether every org number
Bolagsverket accepts satisfies Luhn is a Swedish domain question we have not
verified against a primary source, and an error there blocks Skicka in. We do
not block a statutory filing on an unverified assumption.
KU10 still passes a 12-digit stored org number through unfolded. That is
pre-existing, and whether the KU10 schema wants 10 or 12 digits is not covered
by the swedish-payroll skill, so it is pinned by a test rather than changed
silently.
Guard 8 (hand-rolled-invariant) tracks the remaining 114 inline copies as a
ratchet that may only go down, same mechanism as the roundOre guard.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
* test(ci): add an upgrade-path job that applies new migrations against real data
The pg-real job applies all 548 migrations to an EMPTY database. Empty means
zero rows, so a migration that adds a NOT NULL, adds a CHECK, creates a unique
index or backfills passes trivially in CI and can still fail on production,
where the rows exist. CI proved that a fresh install works; nothing proved that
an existing install upgrades.
The new pg-upgrade job: apply the schema as it stands at the merge base, seed a
small real company (three posted verifikat, balanced lines, one ore-level
amount), then apply ONLY the migrations this PR adds, then assert the data
survived (entries still posted, lines intact, ledger still balances, ore
unchanged, voucher numbers sequential). A PR with no migration no-ops.
Verified locally against supabase/postgres:15.8.1.060 rather than assumed, with
three deliberately bad migrations:
rescale money on posted lines empty: would pass seeded: ERROR (immutability trigger)
CHECK violating the ore row empty: exit 0 seeded: exit 3
NOT NULL on a populated column empty: exit 0 seeded: exit 3
Base migrations are read out of the merge-base git tree, not the working tree,
so a PR that edits an already-shipped migration still gets the original applied
and the edit surfaces as a failure here.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
* docs: record the invariants and upgrade-CI decisions
Two entries covering what this PR changes and, more importantly, the calls that
are not obvious from the diff: why the arsredovisning check-digit verdict is a
warning rather than an error, why KU10's 12-digit passthrough is pinned instead
of fixed, and why the ROT/RUT brf org-number schemas stay on their own rule.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
* docs(test): mark the upgrade fixture as CI-only, never a production template
The fixture writes posted journal_entries and their lines directly, bypassing
the engine and the atomic commit RPC. That is the only way to hand a migration
pre-existing posted rows to break, and it is safe against a throwaway CI
database, but it reads like a sanctioned pattern to anyone who finds it later.
Says so explicitly, with the reason it is confined here (no voucher sequence to
keep gapless, no retention obligation on a database destroyed with the job) and
a pointer back to Hard Rule 2 for anything touching a real database.
Raised by the Swedish compliance review bot on #1364.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
---------
Co-authored-by: Jakob Wennberg <311770904+jakobwennberg-oss@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Jakob Wennberg
16fbcefbbc