3 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
bvandeusenandClaude Opus 5	69d93898d9	fix(tasks): a task's kind is correctable — the Kind select stops lying (#3129) ... `kind` was accepted at CREATE on both doors and dropped at UPDATE on both: update_task had no such parameter, and the REST PATCH allow-list never read the field. So a task filed under the wrong kind could never be corrected. The frontend made it worse by looking like it worked. TaskEditorView binds a Kind select, marks the form dirty, and HAS ALWAYS SENT `kind` in the update payload — the store even types it. The route ignored it, returned 200, the view optimistically updated, the toast said "Task saved", and the old value came back on reload. Silent success, same class as #2709. Found by trying to re-file #3126 as a spike after deploying 0091. It could not be done; the task had to be recreated as #3128 and the original cancelled. One seam, not two doors. `minted_kind()` lives in services/notes.py because the REST route cannot import an MCP tool module and a second spelling of the list is how the doors would come to disagree. Both create and update route through it, so a bogus kind is now a readable error rather than a CheckViolationError surfacing as a 500. TaskKind joins TaskStatus and TaskPriority as a real enum, and update_note validates task_kind exactly as it already validated those two — the field had been reaching setattr through the hasattr guard with no validation at all, unnoticed only because no door ever offered it. The `-> plan` question #3129 raised is answered in code rather than left implicit: MINTABLE_KINDS is work/issue/spike, deliberately NARROWER than the column's CHECK. `plan` stays a valid stored value because historical plan-tasks carry it and must stay writable; it is simply not a value any door hands out, and the refusal names start_planning because a caller reaching for it wants a plan. The whitelist and the policy answer different questions and are not the same list. Every new test reads the value BACK. One that only asserted the call succeeded would have passed against the broken code — the route returned 200 while dropping the field, which is how this survived long enough to be found by hand. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-08-27 15:55:04 -04:00
bvandeusenandClaude Opus 5	15659e2c57	fix(tests): a Note's is_task cannot be set — status is what makes one (#3099) ... The spike CHECK tests constructed Note(is_task=True). `is_task` is a derived read-only property — `status is not None` — so SQLAlchemy raised "property 'is_task' of 'Note' object has no setter" before any row reached the database. All three failed for that, not for anything about migration 0091; the other 80 integration tests passed, including 0090's. status="todo" is what makes a note a task. Noted inline, since the field appears in to_dict output and reads like an ordinary column from there. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-08-27 12:05:07 -04:00
bvandeusenandClaude Opus 5	88e9c0b0bd	feat(tasks): task_kind gains 'spike' — the investigation, not the change (#3099, milestone 312 step 5) ... A spike is a shape the other kinds cannot hold. `work` ships a change; `issue` fixes something broken. A spike is time-boxed and its output is KNOWLEDGE — it succeeds by producing an answer, and nothing ships at the end of it. Filing one as `work` makes a finished investigation look like an abandoned change, which is why the distinction earns a value rather than a convention. It is also the record a failed check asks for. This milestone gave rules a verify_with; when one fails the rule is wrong, and the next move is often to go and find out what replaced it. notes.arose_from_id already exists (0065), so constraint -> spike provenance needed no schema at all — only a docstring saying it is there. Rule 36: the value and the widened CHECK land in the same migration, DROP then ADD, exactly as 0065 did for 'issue'. The two whitelists live in one tuple each so upgrade and downgrade cannot disagree about what the list was on either side. The downgrade demotes existing spikes to 'work' first — lossy, deliberately, because the alternative is a downgrade that fails on real data, and one that says what it did beats one that cannot run. 'plan' stays whitelisted though retired: historical plan-tasks carry it, and a row that cannot be rewritten cannot be edited, restored or migrated. The integration test asserts both halves. A test that only proved 'spike' is accepted would pass just as happily against a table whose CHECK had been dropped and never re-added — which is the other way rule 36's failure happens — so an unknown kind is asserted to still raise. Not in scope, deliberately: any special lifecycle, time-box enforcement, or gating relationship. It is a kind, not a workflow. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-08-27 12:02:41 -04:00