bvandeusenandClaude Opus 5
6fa66f202b
CI & Build / Python lint (push) Successful in 4s
CI & Build / Plugin hooks (push) Successful in 13s
CI & Build / integration (push) Failing after 33s
CI & Build / TypeScript typecheck (push) Successful in 42s
CI & Build / Python tests (push) Successful in 1m9s
CI & Build / Build & push image (push) Successful in 30s
`update_rule` now snapshots the rule's text before it writes. Rescoping rule 79 meant hand-copying the superseded statement into a task log to keep it (#3237); the history is that, done by the write path instead of by somebody remembering. The snapshot is taken BEFORE the field loop, which is the one ordering that matters. `update_rule` drops `verified_at` when `verify_with` changes, and rewriting a check is exactly the edit whose history is worth most — a snapshot taken afterwards would file the NEW check against the OLD wording. Taking it up front also covers `clear`, which is a separate argument from the field loop and is how a rule that stops being a constraint loses its check entirely. Session-bound rather than opening its own like note_versions.create_version: the version and the edit that caused it commit together, so a failed update cannot leave a history entry for an edit that never happened. Two guards from the sibling are deliberately absent, and both are now pinned by tests rather than only by comments — "make it consistent with note_versions" is a plausible-sounding change that would silently start dropping history: - No MIN_VERSION_INTERVAL_SECONDS. That 300-second gate exists because note autosave fires every 60. Every version here comes from a deliberate update_rule, so three edits in one second are three edits. - No MAX_VERSIONS and no pruning. A rule is edited a handful of times in its life; a cap could only ever discard the one edit somebody went looking for. Kept from the sibling: the identical-content skip. Both doors resend every field, so without it a form saved twice would file an identical snapshot. `order_index` is excluded from the snapshot fields for the same reason — reordering a rulebook is not an edit to what any rule says. No delete-time snapshot, against the task's original scope and on the operator's call. A delete goes through trash_svc and is SOFT: the rule row keeps its full text and restores untouched, so there is nothing for a snapshot to preserve. Anything that survived a purge would be data the operator explicitly asked to be gone. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>