bvandeusenandClaude Opus 5
69d93898d9
CI & Build / Python lint (push) Successful in 3s
CI & Build / Plugin hooks (push) Successful in 8s
CI & Build / integration (push) Successful in 29s
CI & Build / TypeScript typecheck (push) Successful in 33s
CI & Build / Python tests (push) Failing after 48s
CI & Build / Build & push image (push) Skipped
`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>