"""Real-Postgres tests for `rules.kind` and its CHECK (0098, #3849 step 1).

Rule 36 exists because a value and its constraint drift apart: the code
starts writing a new kind while the database still refuses it, and nothing
catches it until a write fails in front of someone. A mock cannot show that —
it has no CHECK — so the constraint gets a real-DB test, exactly as 0091's
`spike` did.

THREE HALVES, not one. The positive (a preference writes), the negative (a
typo is refused — without it every other assertion here would pass just as
happily against a table whose CHECK was dropped and never re-added), and the
DEFAULT.

The default is the one worth spelling out, because it is the half that has no
obvious failure. `kind` is NOT NULL with a server default, and the entire
safety argument for this migration is that every existing row keeps the force
it had. A row written without a kind must read back as `rule` — if the server
default did not apply, an upgraded install gets a NOT NULL violation on its
next rule write, or worse, a column that reads as something other than what
every rule in it has always been.
"""
import pytest
import pytest_asyncio
from sqlalchemy import select
from sqlalchemy.exc import IntegrityError

from scribe.models import async_session
from scribe.models.rulebook import Rule, Rulebook
from scribe.services import rulebooks as rulebooks_svc
from tests.helpers import ensure_user

pytestmark = [pytest.mark.integration, pytest.mark.usefixtures("_dispose_engine")]

OWNER_USERNAME = "rule_kind_owner"


@pytest_asyncio.fixture
async def topic_id():
    """A topic to hang rules on.

    CLEANED UP AT SETUP, NOT TEARDOWN, for the reason spelled out in
    test_integration_rule_versions: the rule write path fires a detached
    embedding task that opens its own connection and UPDATEs the row, and a
    teardown deleting the rulebook deadlocks against it. Purging at setup runs
    on a fresh loop, after the previous test's loop cancelled whatever it left
    in flight.
    """
    async with async_session() as s:
        owner = await ensure_user(s, OWNER_USERNAME)
        uid = owner.id
        await s.commit()
        for book in (await s.execute(
            select(Rulebook).where(Rulebook.owner_user_id == uid)
        )).scalars().all():
            await s.delete(book)
        await s.commit()

    book = await rulebooks_svc.create_rulebook(uid, "Kind fixtures")
    topic = await rulebooks_svc.create_topic(book.id, uid, "conventions")
    return uid, topic.id


async def _write_raw(topic: int, **kw) -> int:
    """Straight to the model, bypassing `_valid_kind`.

    The service coerces an unrecognised kind to `rule`, which is right for
    callers and useless for testing the CHECK — it means no service call can
    ever reach the database with a bad value. These tests are about the
    constraint, so they go around the coercion.
    """
    async with async_session() as s:
        rule = Rule(topic_id=topic, title="t", statement="s", **kw)
        s.add(rule)
        await s.commit()
        return rule.id


async def test_a_preference_can_be_written(topic_id):
    _uid, topic = topic_id
    rule_id = await _write_raw(topic, kind="preference")
    async with async_session() as s:
        assert (await s.get(Rule, rule_id)).kind == "preference"


async def test_a_rule_still_writes(topic_id):
    """0098 widens nothing — it adds a column — but it must not narrow either."""
    _uid, topic = topic_id
    rule_id = await _write_raw(topic, kind="rule")
    async with async_session() as s:
        assert (await s.get(Rule, rule_id)).kind == "rule"


async def test_an_unknown_kind_is_refused(topic_id):
    """The half that proves the constraint is there at all.

    Without this, every other assertion in this file would pass against a
    table whose CHECK had been dropped — the exact failure rule 36 is written
    against.
    """
    _uid, topic = topic_id
    with pytest.raises(IntegrityError):
        await _write_raw(topic, kind="suggestion")


async def test_a_rule_written_without_a_kind_defaults_to_rule(topic_id):
    """The migration's whole safety claim, asserted rather than assumed.

    Every row that existed before 0098 was a rule and must stay one. This is
    the closest a test can get to that: write the way code predating the
    column would, and read back the force it should have.
    """
    _uid, topic = topic_id
    rule_id = await _write_raw(topic)
    async with async_session() as s:
        assert (await s.get(Rule, rule_id)).kind == "rule"


async def test_a_rule_can_become_a_preference_after_the_fact(topic_id):
    """The read-back is the whole test.

    A version asserting only that the update call succeeded would pass against
    code that accepted `kind` and dropped it — which is how the same bug
    survived on `task_kind` long enough to be found by hand (#3129).

    This is also the migration path the always-on triage needs: the rules that
    turn out to be preferences change one column and keep their id, history
    and relations.
    """
    uid, topic = topic_id
    rule_id = await _write_raw(topic)
    await rulebooks_svc.update_rule(rule_id, uid, kind="preference")
    async with async_session() as s:
        assert (await s.get(Rule, rule_id)).kind == "preference"


async def test_an_unrecognised_kind_falls_back_rather_than_raising(topic_id):
    """`_valid_kind` coerces, matching `_valid_tier`, and the direction matters.

    Deliberately NOT the `task_kind` behaviour, which raises a readable
    ValueError. A rule's kind falls back to the binding value, because between
    a reader who is too careful and one who is not careful enough, a typo
    should produce the first. Asserted here so a later "make it consistent
    with task_kind" change has to argue with a test rather than a comment.
    """
    uid, topic = topic_id
    rule_id = await _write_raw(topic, kind="preference")
    await rulebooks_svc.update_rule(rule_id, uid, kind="prefrence")
    async with async_session() as s:
        assert (await s.get(Rule, rule_id)).kind == "rule"


async def test_kind_reaches_both_read_shapes(topic_id):
    """`to_dict` and `rule_brief` both carry it, unconditionally.

    Force must never be inferred from an ABSENT key: "no kind field" and
    "kind is rule" would be the same payload, and a reader would have to
    assume one. Both shapes say it outright, so pin both — the two dicts are
    built in different modules and have diverged before.
    """
    _uid, topic = topic_id
    rule_id = await _write_raw(topic, kind="preference")
    async with async_session() as s:
        rule = await s.get(Rule, rule_id)
        assert rule.to_dict()["kind"] == "preference"
        assert rulebooks_svc.rule_brief(rule)["kind"] == "preference"