bvandeusenandClaude Opus 5.5
9e1da4af3d
Milestone/step labels, record ids, the rescoped-rule date and the 296-call measurement go; each header states what the change protects. "rule 36" citations become the DROP + ADD practice they named. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
81 lines
3.4 KiB
Python
81 lines
3.4 KiB
Python
"""rules gain an edit history — rule_versions
|
|
|
|
Revision ID: 0093
|
|
Revises: 0092
|
|
Create Date: 2026-08-29
|
|
|
|
The sibling `note_versions` has had for a long time. A note's every meaningful
|
|
edit is snapshotted, and the design-system note calls that history "the
|
|
changelog". A RULE — which binds behaviour on every session that loads it —
|
|
had nothing: an edit destroyed what it used to say, with no record anywhere,
|
|
and keeping a superseded statement meant a person remembering to copy it
|
|
somewhere. The more consequential record had the weaker protection.
|
|
|
|
Three things are deliberately NOT copied from note_versions, and each is a
|
|
guard that exists there for a reason that does not hold here:
|
|
|
|
- **No pruning, and no MAX_VERSIONS.** That cap defends against note autosave
|
|
filling every slot. Rules have no autosave; every edit is a deliberate
|
|
update_rule. A rule is edited a handful of times in its life, and capping
|
|
invites losing the one edit somebody needed.
|
|
- **No pin columns.** `pin_kind`/`pin_label` exist so a note's version can
|
|
survive that pruning. With nothing pruning, a pin protects a row that was
|
|
never at risk.
|
|
- **No minimum interval.** 300 seconds between snapshots is also an autosave
|
|
defence; here it would only ever discard a second deliberate edit.
|
|
|
|
`user_id` is the ACTOR rather than the owner, and is SET NULL rather than
|
|
CASCADE: deleting a user must not erase the history of the rules they edited.
|
|
The edit still happened and the rule still binds because of it.
|
|
|
|
No CHECK constraint is involved. Nothing is backfilled — a
|
|
migration cannot invent the text a rule used to have, and inventing "the
|
|
current text, as of now" would be worse than an empty history, because it
|
|
would look like a record of an edit that never occurred.
|
|
"""
|
|
import sqlalchemy as sa
|
|
from alembic import op
|
|
|
|
revision = "0093"
|
|
down_revision = "0092"
|
|
branch_labels = None
|
|
depends_on = None
|
|
|
|
|
|
def upgrade() -> None:
|
|
op.create_table(
|
|
"rule_versions",
|
|
sa.Column("id", sa.BigInteger(), primary_key=True),
|
|
sa.Column(
|
|
"rule_id",
|
|
sa.BigInteger(),
|
|
sa.ForeignKey("rules.id", ondelete="CASCADE"),
|
|
nullable=False,
|
|
),
|
|
sa.Column(
|
|
"user_id",
|
|
sa.BigInteger(),
|
|
sa.ForeignKey("users.id", ondelete="SET NULL"),
|
|
nullable=True,
|
|
),
|
|
sa.Column("title", sa.Text(), nullable=False, server_default=""),
|
|
sa.Column("statement", sa.Text(), nullable=False, server_default=""),
|
|
sa.Column("why", sa.Text(), nullable=True),
|
|
sa.Column("how_to_apply", sa.Text(), nullable=True),
|
|
sa.Column("when_to_apply", sa.Text(), nullable=True),
|
|
sa.Column("tier", sa.Text(), nullable=True),
|
|
sa.Column("verify_with", sa.Text(), nullable=True),
|
|
sa.Column("expires_when", sa.Text(), nullable=True),
|
|
sa.Column("created_at", sa.DateTime(timezone=True), nullable=False),
|
|
)
|
|
# The only query this table serves is "the history of THIS rule, newest
|
|
# first" — unlike 0092's columns, which are read by an operator-initiated
|
|
# sweep over the whole set. Every read here is keyed on rule_id, so the
|
|
# index earns its write cost immediately rather than on a hunch.
|
|
op.create_index("ix_rule_versions_rule_id", "rule_versions", ["rule_id"])
|
|
|
|
|
|
def downgrade() -> None:
|
|
op.drop_index("ix_rule_versions_rule_id", table_name="rule_versions")
|
|
op.drop_table("rule_versions")
|