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>
n.siegfried
c453e50412
