cce0de5704
* 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>
440 lines
17 KiB
TypeScript
440 lines
17 KiB
TypeScript
import { describe, it, expect, beforeEach, vi } from 'vitest'
|
|
import {
|
|
createMockRequest,
|
|
createMockRouteParams,
|
|
parseJsonResponse,
|
|
createQueuedMockSupabase,
|
|
} from '@/tests/helpers'
|
|
|
|
const { supabase: mockSupabase, enqueue, reset } = createQueuedMockSupabase()
|
|
vi.mock('@/lib/supabase/server', () => ({
|
|
createClient: () => Promise.resolve(mockSupabase),
|
|
}))
|
|
|
|
vi.mock('@/lib/events/bus', () => ({
|
|
eventBus: { emit: vi.fn().mockResolvedValue(undefined) },
|
|
}))
|
|
|
|
vi.mock('@/lib/init', () => ({
|
|
ensureInitialized: vi.fn(),
|
|
}))
|
|
|
|
// Issue #1259: each fully settled allocation retires the suggestion pointers
|
|
// at its invoice. 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 (BATCH_TX_POSSIBLE_DUPLICATE) runs before the
|
|
// RPC. Mocked so it consumes no slot in the queued Supabase mock; the
|
|
// detector's own query shape is pinned by
|
|
// lib/invoices/__tests__/duplicate-payment-detection.test.ts.
|
|
const { mockDetectExplaining } = vi.hoisted(() => ({ mockDetectExplaining: vi.fn() }))
|
|
vi.mock('@/lib/invoices/duplicate-payment-detection', () => ({
|
|
detectExplainingVoucherSetForTransaction: mockDetectExplaining,
|
|
}))
|
|
|
|
// An honoured force override is written to behandlingshistorik after the RPC
|
|
// succeeds (issue #2294). Mocked so it never touches a service client here.
|
|
const { mockAppendProcessingHistory } = vi.hoisted(() => ({ mockAppendProcessingHistory: vi.fn() }))
|
|
vi.mock('@/lib/processing-history/append', () => ({
|
|
appendProcessingHistory: mockAppendProcessingHistory,
|
|
}))
|
|
|
|
vi.mock('@/lib/company/context', () => ({
|
|
requireCompanyId: vi.fn().mockResolvedValue('company-1'),
|
|
getActiveCompanyId: vi.fn().mockResolvedValue('company-1'),
|
|
}))
|
|
|
|
vi.mock('@/lib/auth/require-write', () => ({
|
|
requireWritePermission: vi.fn().mockResolvedValue({ ok: true }),
|
|
}))
|
|
|
|
import { POST } from '../route'
|
|
|
|
const TX_UUID = '11111111-1111-4111-8111-111111111111'
|
|
const INV_UUID = '22222222-2222-4222-8222-222222222222'
|
|
const SI_UUID = '33333333-3333-4333-8333-333333333333'
|
|
const SI_PARTIAL_UUID = '44444444-4444-4444-8444-444444444444'
|
|
|
|
describe('POST /api/transactions/[id]/match-batch', () => {
|
|
const mockUser = { id: 'user-1', email: 'test@test.se' }
|
|
|
|
beforeEach(() => {
|
|
vi.clearAllMocks()
|
|
reset()
|
|
mockSupabase.auth.getUser.mockResolvedValue({ data: { user: mockUser } })
|
|
mockDetectExplaining.mockResolvedValue(null)
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
it('returns 400 when allocations is missing', async () => {
|
|
const request = createMockRequest(`/api/transactions/${TX_UUID}/match-batch`, {
|
|
method: 'POST',
|
|
body: {},
|
|
})
|
|
const response = await POST(request, createMockRouteParams({ id: TX_UUID }))
|
|
expect(response.status).toBe(400)
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
it('returns 400 when allocations mix customer and supplier kinds', async () => {
|
|
const request = createMockRequest(`/api/transactions/${TX_UUID}/match-batch`, {
|
|
method: 'POST',
|
|
body: {
|
|
allocations: [
|
|
{ kind: 'customer_invoice', invoice_id: INV_UUID, amount: 500 },
|
|
{ kind: 'supplier_invoice', supplier_invoice_id: SI_UUID, amount: 500 },
|
|
],
|
|
},
|
|
})
|
|
const response = await POST(request, createMockRouteParams({ id: TX_UUID }))
|
|
expect(response.status).toBe(400)
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
it('returns 200 with the RPC result on the happy path', async () => {
|
|
// RPC returns success envelope
|
|
// document_type pre-check for the customer allocations (before the RPC)
|
|
enqueue({ data: [{ id: INV_UUID, document_type: 'invoice' }], error: null })
|
|
enqueue({
|
|
data: {
|
|
ok: true,
|
|
journal_entry_id: 'je-batch-1',
|
|
voucher_series: 'A',
|
|
voucher_number: 12,
|
|
tx_id: TX_UUID,
|
|
allocations: [
|
|
{
|
|
kind: 'customer_invoice',
|
|
invoice_id: INV_UUID,
|
|
payment_id: 'ip-1',
|
|
status: 'paid',
|
|
paid_amount: 1000,
|
|
remaining_amount: 0,
|
|
amount: 1000,
|
|
},
|
|
],
|
|
total_allocated: 1000,
|
|
leftover: 0,
|
|
},
|
|
error: null,
|
|
})
|
|
// tx fetch for event payload
|
|
enqueue({ data: { id: TX_UUID, amount: 1000, currency: 'SEK' }, error: null })
|
|
// invoice fetch for event payload
|
|
enqueue({ data: { id: INV_UUID, currency: 'SEK', status: 'paid' }, error: null })
|
|
|
|
const request = createMockRequest(`/api/transactions/${TX_UUID}/match-batch`, {
|
|
method: 'POST',
|
|
body: {
|
|
allocations: [{ kind: 'customer_invoice', invoice_id: INV_UUID, amount: 1000 }],
|
|
},
|
|
})
|
|
const response = await POST(request, createMockRouteParams({ id: TX_UUID }))
|
|
const { status, body } = await parseJsonResponse<{
|
|
data: {
|
|
journal_entry_id: string
|
|
voucher_number: number
|
|
allocations: Array<{ payment_id: string }>
|
|
total_allocated: number
|
|
}
|
|
}>(response)
|
|
expect(status).toBe(200)
|
|
expect(body.data.journal_entry_id).toBe('je-batch-1')
|
|
expect(body.data.voucher_number).toBe(12)
|
|
expect(body.data.allocations).toHaveLength(1)
|
|
expect(body.data.total_allocated).toBe(1000)
|
|
// Issue #1259: the allocation settled the invoice in full, so every OTHER
|
|
// transaction still pointing at it as a suggestion is retired.
|
|
expect(mockClearSuggestions).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1)
|
|
expect(mockClearSuggestions).toHaveBeenCalledWith(
|
|
mockSupabase,
|
|
'company-1',
|
|
'invoice',
|
|
INV_UUID,
|
|
{ exceptTransactionId: TX_UUID },
|
|
)
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
it('retires suggestions only for the allocations that settled in full', async () => {
|
|
enqueue({
|
|
data: {
|
|
ok: true,
|
|
journal_entry_id: 'je-batch-2',
|
|
voucher_series: 'A',
|
|
voucher_number: 13,
|
|
tx_id: TX_UUID,
|
|
allocations: [
|
|
{
|
|
kind: 'supplier_invoice',
|
|
supplier_invoice_id: SI_UUID,
|
|
payment_id: 'sip-1',
|
|
status: 'paid',
|
|
paid_amount: 1000,
|
|
remaining_amount: 0,
|
|
amount: 1000,
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
kind: 'supplier_invoice',
|
|
supplier_invoice_id: SI_PARTIAL_UUID,
|
|
payment_id: 'sip-2',
|
|
status: 'partially_paid',
|
|
paid_amount: 400,
|
|
remaining_amount: 600,
|
|
amount: 400,
|
|
},
|
|
],
|
|
total_allocated: 1400,
|
|
leftover: 0,
|
|
},
|
|
error: null,
|
|
})
|
|
enqueue({ data: { id: TX_UUID, amount: -1400, currency: 'SEK' }, error: null }) // tx fetch
|
|
enqueue({ data: { id: SI_UUID, currency: 'SEK', status: 'paid' }, error: null })
|
|
enqueue({ data: { id: SI_PARTIAL_UUID, currency: 'SEK', status: 'partially_paid' }, error: null })
|
|
|
|
const request = createMockRequest(`/api/transactions/${TX_UUID}/match-batch`, {
|
|
method: 'POST',
|
|
body: {
|
|
allocations: [
|
|
{ kind: 'supplier_invoice', supplier_invoice_id: SI_UUID, amount: 1000 },
|
|
{ kind: 'supplier_invoice', supplier_invoice_id: SI_PARTIAL_UUID, amount: 400 },
|
|
],
|
|
},
|
|
})
|
|
const response = await POST(request, createMockRouteParams({ id: TX_UUID }))
|
|
expect(response.status).toBe(200)
|
|
|
|
// Only the fully settled one: a partially paid invoice is still matchable.
|
|
expect(mockClearSuggestions).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1)
|
|
expect(mockClearSuggestions).toHaveBeenCalledWith(
|
|
mockSupabase,
|
|
'company-1',
|
|
'supplier_invoice',
|
|
SI_UUID,
|
|
{ exceptTransactionId: TX_UUID },
|
|
)
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
it('maps an RPC structured failure to errorResponseFromCode', async () => {
|
|
// document_type pre-check for the customer allocations (before the RPC)
|
|
enqueue({ data: [{ id: INV_UUID, document_type: 'invoice' }], error: null })
|
|
enqueue({
|
|
data: {
|
|
ok: false,
|
|
code: 'BATCH_OVERSHOOT',
|
|
details: { invoice_id: INV_UUID, requested: 2000, remaining: 1000 },
|
|
},
|
|
error: null,
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
const request = createMockRequest(`/api/transactions/${TX_UUID}/match-batch`, {
|
|
method: 'POST',
|
|
body: {
|
|
allocations: [{ kind: 'customer_invoice', invoice_id: INV_UUID, amount: 2000 }],
|
|
},
|
|
})
|
|
const response = await POST(request, createMockRouteParams({ id: TX_UUID }))
|
|
const { status, body } = await parseJsonResponse<{ error: { code: string } }>(response)
|
|
expect(status).toBe(400)
|
|
expect(body.error.code).toBe('BATCH_OVERSHOOT')
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
it('maps a raw RPC error to BATCH_RPC_FAILED', async () => {
|
|
// document_type pre-check for the customer allocations (before the RPC)
|
|
enqueue({ data: [{ id: INV_UUID, document_type: 'invoice' }], error: null })
|
|
enqueue({ data: null, error: { message: 'connection dropped' } })
|
|
|
|
const request = createMockRequest(`/api/transactions/${TX_UUID}/match-batch`, {
|
|
method: 'POST',
|
|
body: {
|
|
allocations: [{ kind: 'customer_invoice', invoice_id: INV_UUID, amount: 1000 }],
|
|
},
|
|
})
|
|
const response = await POST(request, createMockRouteParams({ id: TX_UUID }))
|
|
const { status, body } = await parseJsonResponse<{ error: { code: string } }>(response)
|
|
expect(status).toBe(500)
|
|
expect(body.error.code).toBe('BATCH_RPC_FAILED')
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
it('refuses a quote in the allocation list before the RPC runs', async () => {
|
|
enqueue({ data: [{ id: INV_UUID, document_type: 'quote' }], error: null })
|
|
|
|
const request = createMockRequest(`/api/transactions/${TX_UUID}/match-batch`, {
|
|
method: 'POST',
|
|
body: {
|
|
allocations: [{ kind: 'customer_invoice', invoice_id: INV_UUID, amount: 1000 }],
|
|
},
|
|
})
|
|
const response = await POST(request, createMockRouteParams({ id: TX_UUID }))
|
|
const { status, body } = await parseJsonResponse<{ error: { code: string } }>(response)
|
|
expect(status).toBe(400)
|
|
expect(body.error.code).toBe('MATCH_INVOICE_NOT_INVOICE_TYPE')
|
|
expect(mockSupabase.rpc).not.toHaveBeenCalled()
|
|
})
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
describe('POST /api/transactions/[id]/match-batch: already-explained guard', () => {
|
|
const mockUser = { id: 'user-1', email: 'test@test.se' }
|
|
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,
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
function enqueueHappyRpc() {
|
|
enqueue({ data: [{ id: INV_UUID, document_type: 'invoice' }], error: null })
|
|
enqueue({
|
|
data: {
|
|
ok: true,
|
|
journal_entry_id: 'je-batch-9',
|
|
voucher_series: 'A',
|
|
voucher_number: 59,
|
|
tx_id: TX_UUID,
|
|
allocations: [
|
|
{ kind: 'customer_invoice', invoice_id: INV_UUID, payment_id: 'ip-9', status: 'paid', paid_amount: 88250, remaining_amount: 0, amount: 88250 },
|
|
],
|
|
total_allocated: 88250,
|
|
leftover: 0,
|
|
},
|
|
error: null,
|
|
})
|
|
enqueue({ data: { id: TX_UUID, amount: 88250, currency: 'SEK' }, error: null })
|
|
enqueue({ data: { id: INV_UUID, currency: 'SEK', status: 'paid' }, error: null })
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
beforeEach(() => {
|
|
vi.clearAllMocks()
|
|
reset()
|
|
mockSupabase.auth.getUser.mockResolvedValue({ data: { user: mockUser } })
|
|
mockDetectExplaining.mockResolvedValue(null)
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
it('refuses with 409 and the vouchers when unlinked vouchers already sum to the row', async () => {
|
|
mockDetectExplaining.mockResolvedValue(explainingSet)
|
|
// document_type pre-check runs before the guard.
|
|
enqueue({ data: [{ id: INV_UUID, document_type: 'invoice' }], error: null })
|
|
|
|
const request = createMockRequest(`/api/transactions/${TX_UUID}/match-batch`, {
|
|
method: 'POST',
|
|
body: { allocations: [{ kind: 'customer_invoice', invoice_id: INV_UUID, amount: 88250 }] },
|
|
})
|
|
const response = await POST(request, createMockRouteParams({ id: TX_UUID }))
|
|
const { status, body } = await parseJsonResponse<{
|
|
error: { code: string; details: { vouchers: Array<{ voucher_label: string }>; total: number; force_rejected: boolean } }
|
|
}>(response)
|
|
|
|
expect(status).toBe(409)
|
|
expect(body.error.code).toBe('BATCH_TX_POSSIBLE_DUPLICATE')
|
|
expect(body.error.details.vouchers.map((v) => v.voucher_label)).toEqual(['A57', 'A58'])
|
|
expect(body.error.details.total).toBe(88250)
|
|
expect(body.error.details.force_rejected).toBe(false)
|
|
expect(mockDetectExplaining).toHaveBeenCalledWith(mockSupabase, 'company-1', TX_UUID)
|
|
// The RPC was never reached.
|
|
expect(mockSupabase.rpc).not.toHaveBeenCalled()
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
it('books anyway when force=true echoes exactly the reviewed voucher ids', async () => {
|
|
mockDetectExplaining.mockResolvedValue(explainingSet)
|
|
enqueueHappyRpc()
|
|
|
|
const request = createMockRequest(`/api/transactions/${TX_UUID}/match-batch`, {
|
|
method: 'POST',
|
|
body: {
|
|
allocations: [{ kind: 'customer_invoice', invoice_id: INV_UUID, amount: 88250 }],
|
|
force: true,
|
|
// Order must not matter.
|
|
expected_journal_entry_ids: [JE_B, JE_A],
|
|
},
|
|
})
|
|
const response = await POST(request, createMockRouteParams({ id: TX_UUID }))
|
|
expect(response.status).toBe(200)
|
|
expect(mockSupabase.rpc).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1)
|
|
// Never silent: the honoured override leaves a behandlingshistorik
|
|
// record naming the vouchers it booked over (issue #2294).
|
|
expect(mockAppendProcessingHistory).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1)
|
|
expect(mockAppendProcessingHistory.mock.calls[0][0]).toMatchObject({
|
|
companyId: 'company-1',
|
|
aggregateType: 'BankTransaction',
|
|
aggregateId: TX_UUID,
|
|
eventType: 'BankTransactionDuplicateDismissed',
|
|
actor: { type: 'user', id: 'user-1' },
|
|
payload: { dismissed_journal_entry_ids: [JE_A, JE_B], via: 'dashboard_force' },
|
|
})
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
it('refuses force=true whose ids do not match the set it re-detects', async () => {
|
|
mockDetectExplaining.mockResolvedValue(explainingSet)
|
|
enqueue({ data: [{ id: INV_UUID, document_type: 'invoice' }], error: null })
|
|
|
|
const request = createMockRequest(`/api/transactions/${TX_UUID}/match-batch`, {
|
|
method: 'POST',
|
|
body: {
|
|
allocations: [{ kind: 'customer_invoice', invoice_id: INV_UUID, amount: 88250 }],
|
|
force: true,
|
|
expected_journal_entry_ids: [JE_A],
|
|
},
|
|
})
|
|
const response = await POST(request, createMockRouteParams({ id: TX_UUID }))
|
|
const { status, body } = await parseJsonResponse<{ error: { code: string; details: { force_rejected: boolean } } }>(response)
|
|
expect(status).toBe(409)
|
|
expect(body.error.code).toBe('BATCH_TX_POSSIBLE_DUPLICATE')
|
|
expect(body.error.details.force_rejected).toBe(true)
|
|
expect(mockSupabase.rpc).not.toHaveBeenCalled()
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
it('rejects force=true without expected_journal_entry_ids at the schema (400)', async () => {
|
|
const request = createMockRequest(`/api/transactions/${TX_UUID}/match-batch`, {
|
|
method: 'POST',
|
|
body: {
|
|
allocations: [{ kind: 'customer_invoice', invoice_id: INV_UUID, amount: 88250 }],
|
|
force: true,
|
|
},
|
|
})
|
|
const response = await POST(request, createMockRouteParams({ id: TX_UUID }))
|
|
expect(response.status).toBe(400)
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
it('fails open when the detector throws: the RPC still decides', async () => {
|
|
mockDetectExplaining.mockRejectedValue(new Error('ledger scan timed out'))
|
|
enqueueHappyRpc()
|
|
|
|
const request = createMockRequest(`/api/transactions/${TX_UUID}/match-batch`, {
|
|
method: 'POST',
|
|
body: { allocations: [{ kind: 'customer_invoice', invoice_id: INV_UUID, amount: 88250 }] },
|
|
})
|
|
const response = await POST(request, createMockRouteParams({ id: TX_UUID }))
|
|
expect(response.status).toBe(200)
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
it('refuses force=true when the detector throws: an override that cannot be re-verified is never honoured', async () => {
|
|
mockDetectExplaining.mockRejectedValue(new Error('ledger scan timed out'))
|
|
enqueue({ data: [{ id: INV_UUID, document_type: 'invoice' }], error: null })
|
|
|
|
const request = createMockRequest(`/api/transactions/${TX_UUID}/match-batch`, {
|
|
method: 'POST',
|
|
body: {
|
|
allocations: [{ kind: 'customer_invoice', invoice_id: INV_UUID, amount: 88250 }],
|
|
force: true,
|
|
expected_journal_entry_ids: [JE_A, JE_B],
|
|
},
|
|
})
|
|
const response = await POST(request, createMockRouteParams({ id: TX_UUID }))
|
|
const { status, body } = await parseJsonResponse<{
|
|
error: { code: string; details: { reason: string; force_rejected: boolean } }
|
|
}>(response)
|
|
expect(status).toBe(409)
|
|
expect(body.error.code).toBe('BATCH_TX_EXPLAINED_CHECK_FAILED')
|
|
expect(body.error.details).toEqual({ reason: 'detector_failed', force_rejected: true })
|
|
expect(mockSupabase.rpc).not.toHaveBeenCalled()
|
|
expect(mockAppendProcessingHistory).not.toHaveBeenCalled()
|
|
})
|
|
})
|