ce2d008897b3598af58e43ea42278e13d95ddfc0
3 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3bc3abe209 |
T5.7 - CR-016: Assets off for Micron EUV, by configuration
Asset content duplicates the database Clinton's team maintains, and that
integration is deferred, so the section comes out in the interim.
This is a configuration task, and the wave file says so - "Surface:
configuration". There is no Micron EUV SOP in this repository; it is data on a
running system. What the repository holds are two representations of the Micron
configuration, and both now carry the toggle:
wp-creation-app.js SAMPLE_SOP what the standalone creator shows when
there is no project SOP to read
work-package-suite-app.js loadSample the Micron FMCS SOP the wizard loads
For a real project the mechanism is step 12 and needs no code: untick Assets,
complete the SOP. That is what T5.5 built and what "another SOP can enable
Assets and it works" means.
Both write a PARTIAL map - {assets:false} - rather than a full one.
WPSections.normalize fills the rest in as ON, so a section added after today is
not silently off for this SOP. The probe checks that specifically: exactly one
key is false, not nine true and one false frozen at today's list.
html/wp-creation-app.js SAMPLE_SOP.sections
html/work-package-suite-app.js loadSampleData sets state.sections
tests/sections_check.py +13 checks (75 -> 88)
Done when
[x] Assets does not render for Micron EUV in the form, detail view or export -
and not in the section chip strip either, which is the form's contents page
[x] the section and its model remain in the codebase - #asset-card and
pkgAssets are both still there, checked in the browser rather than assumed
[x] another SOP can enable Assets and it works - the fixture project renders it
seed_demo.py was deliberately NOT changed. Its SOP row stores a bare
{governance: ...} blob rather than the {sop, state} shape pullProject reads, so
its data never reaches the creator's SOP object at all - adding sections there
would be a toggle nothing consults. That shape mismatch is BL-018 and it should
be fixed as one thing, not worked around here.
What the probe caught
The first run reported on "Job A" while claiming Micron. activeProjectId falls
back to ProjectData.getActiveId(), so a project left in localStorage by an
earlier navigation sent bootSOP() down the real-project branch and the sample
was never loaded - every CR-016 assertion was then measuring the wrong SOP and
four of them happened to fail, which is the only reason it was noticed. The
probe clears storage first and says why.
Verified one at a time
sections_check 88/88 (75 + 13 for CR-016)
browser_check 71/71
f_items F1-F5 FIXED, F6 REPRODUCES (T7.2)
Question for the PR, per CLAUDE.md: CR-009's decision also says Kitting ships
toggled off for Micron EUV via these same toggles. That is wave 8's to apply
(CR-009/CR-010/CR-012), so the sample still has Kitting on. If the intent was
for both to go off together, the second line is one word.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
|||
| c453e50412 |
T5.6 - CR-002: Acumatica cost code and task, hidden by toggle
The team concluded these two are noise on a field work package: cost codes are
effectively constant on a job and the Acumatica task mapping is a PM concern.
The cost visibility they actually want is by building and floor, which is CR-004
and CR-018.
Hidden, not removed. CLAUDE.md: "Removed fields are hidden, not deleted (CR-002,
CR-016). Retain the data and the model." So this is a second, narrower toggle
list beside T5.5's sections - two fields inside General Information rather than
two more sections, because a section is a block of the document and these are
two rows in one.
no migration the values live in the work package's JSON data blob,
which nothing here writes to. The probe greps every
migration for a drop_column touching either.
no model change server/models.py is untouched by this task
no code change to the toggles are SOP data. Another project turns them
re-enable back on from step 12 and both fields return, values
included
A field is on only if its own toggle is on AND the section holding it is. Asked
as one question (WPSections.fieldOn) so no caller has to remember to ask both -
a field showing inside a hidden section is not a state worth reasoning about,
and the probe checks that case explicitly.
html/wp-sections.js FIELDS, fieldOn, normalizeFields
html/work-package-suite-app.js field rows nested under their section
html/work-package-suite-styles.css .field-toggle
html/wp-creation-index.html ids on the two .field wrappers
html/wp-creation-app.js WP_FIELD_NODES; both document rows conditional
tests/sections_check.py +22 checks (53 -> 75)
Done when
[x] neither field appears in the form, detail view or PDF export when off
[x] existing records still hold their values - a package EDITED while both are
off comes back through collectPackage() with both intact
[x] the fields can be re-enabled for another SOP without a code change
[x] no schema migration drops data - checked against every migration in the
tree, not just the ones this wave added
The whole .field wrapper is hidden, not the input: a bare label over nothing is
worse than either state.
Raised, not fixed
BL-019 A cost code that has left COST_CODES is silently blanked on edit.
wp_cost is a <select>, and setting .value to something with no matching
<option> does nothing at all - so opening such a package clears the
field and the next save writes the blank back. The same bug was fixed
once already for gov_wosize (work-package-suite-app.js:490-495) by
adding the stored value as an option; cost code never got it.
Found the honest way: a probe here used an invented cost code to prove
hiding a field does not delete its value, and the value came back
empty. That looked exactly like the toggle eating data. It was not, and
the probe now uses a real code and says why in a comment - a probe that
fails for a reason other than the one it names is worse than no probe.
Verified one at a time
sections_check 75/75 (53 + 22 for CR-002)
browser_check 71/71
stepper_check 70/70
a11y 22/22
url_state 23/23
autosave 34/34
locations_check 58/58
Question for the PR, per CLAUDE.md: BL-000b asks whether General Information
wants per-field toggles generally. This is not that - it is the two fields
CR-002 names, and the list is deliberately closed. If a third field wants one,
that is the general question and it needs the product answer BL-000b is holding.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
|||
| ae30c58337 |
T5.5 - CR-006: section toggles, and X4 resolved rather than deferred
X4 first, because the brief asks for it explicitly.
IMPLEMENTATION.md sequences CR-006 after B7 on the grounds that the toggles must
suppress sections inside the creator, which is an iframe child until T7.1. The
wave file puts it in wave 5 anyway, and its last done-when is written to
accommodate exactly that: "toggle state propagates into the creator, OR the PR
documents exactly where it does not and why".
It propagates. Both ways, by two separate paths, because they fail differently:
ON THE CREATOR'S OWN BOOT the flags ride on the SOP, which the creator already
reads - ProjectData.pullProject hydrates it from the server. Nothing crosses
the frame boundary at all, so this path is unaffected by B7 either way. It
covers a reload, a fresh tab, the standalone creator page, and a colleague
opening the project on another machine.
WHILE THE FRAME IS OPEN the wizard hands the change straight across
(pushSectionsToCreator -> cw.applySopSections), the same shape T5.3 used for
the dashboard filter. Without it, flipping a toggle would appear to do nothing
until a reload.
T7.1 removes the second path, not the first. That is the whole of the X4
exposure and it is one function, commented as such. Building CR-006 after B7
would not have made the SOP-borne path any different; it would only have saved
writing the hand-off.
What it does
Ten sections, one shared list (html/wp-sections.js) read by the wizard, the
creator's form and the creator's rendered document. Three surfaces meant three
chances to drift, which is how "Assets is off, except in the export" happens.
Off means NOT RENDERED - form, detail view and PDF export. It never means
deleted. renderPackage() was rebuilt from one long string into a list of
(section, html) blocks so a suppressed section leaves no empty heading and the
survivors renumber 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 instead of leaving a hole. The print window
reuses that same HTML, so the export needed no separate change.
Absent means ON. A SOP saved before today mentions no sections, and reading
that as "all off" would blank every project in the estate the moment this
shipped. WPSections.normalize is the one place that decision lives.
html/wp-sections.js new - the shared list, defaults, normalize
html/work-package-suite.html step 12, a 12th rail button
html/work-package-suite-app.js the toggles, state.sections, the hand-off
html/work-package-suite-styles.css the toggle rows
html/wp-creation-index.html stable ids on the five unnamed cards
html/wp-creation-app.js WP_SECTION_NODES, applySopSections,
renderPackage rebuilt as blocks
tests/sections_check.py new - 53 checks
Done when
[x] all 10 sections are toggleable - each one driven off and back on
[x] a section toggled off is absent from the form, the detail view and the
PDF export - checked by content marker, not by heading, so "the section
is gone" and "the section was empty" cannot be confused
[x] toggling off then on restores prior data with no loss - and the sharper
version: a package EDITED while Assets is off still carries its assets
through collectPackage(), which is what Save uses
[x] new SOPs default to all sections on
[x] toggle state propagates into the creator - both paths, separately
Two things worth arguing with
General Information is toggleable, because CR-006 enumerates it. Turning it
off leaves nothing to identify a package by. The row says so in its own note
rather than being quietly excluded from the list.
Location has no card of its own - it is a field inside General Information's
grid, and its toggle governs that one row. CR-004 gives it structured
building/floor/sector fields in wave 6, at which point one line of
WP_SECTION_NODES changes. Written down because "the toggle does nothing" and
"the toggle governs one row" look identical from outside.
Approvals & Sign-offs is NOT toggleable and is not one of the ten. A package
nobody signed is not a shorter package.
Verified one at a time
sections_check 53/53 new
stepper_check 70/70 (STEP_COUNT 11 -> 12)
locations_check 58/58 (its "step 11 is last" check now asserts the thing that
is actually invariant - the wizard's navigation follows)
browser_check 71/71
a11y 22/22
url_state 23/23
autosave 34/34
aggregates 16/16
pipeline 43/43
launcher 58/58
f_items F1-F5 FIXED, F6 REPRODUCES (T7.2)
No colour literal added: still 0 across all page sheets and inline blocks. Each
toggle says its state three ways - the checkbox, the words "In use" / "Not used",
and the rule down its left edge (C1).
Question for the PR, per CLAUDE.md: the toggles are SOP-wide, so a project
cannot use Kitting on install packages and not on BIM ones. BL-000b already
records the field-level version of this question; the per-WP-type version is the
same shape and is not recorded anywhere yet.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
