bvandeusenandClaude Opus 5
9810a75564
CI & Build / Build now, or wait for Android? (push) Successful in 3s
CI & Build / Python lint (push) Successful in 3s
CI & Build / TypeScript typecheck (push) Successful in 6s
CI & Build / Python tests (push) Successful in 10s
CI & Build / integration (push) Successful in 17s
CI & Build / Build & push image (push) Successful in 19s
Step 1 made new saves lift; this does the ones already on disk, so a note stops showing its tag twice without having to be opened. Same rule, and a FROZEN copy of it — `split_body_tags` is deliberately not imported, on 0027's principle that a migration has to keep producing what it produced the day it ran. If the app's rule is ever loosened, this file must not loosen with it and start eating prose it previously left alone. `_display_title` is inlined for the same reason, and recomputed only for a note whose body actually moved: a note named after its `#todo` line needs a new name. The label rows graduate in the same transaction, and that is not cosmetic. A `via_tag` row claims "backed by text still in the body", and reconcile detaches any row it cannot find a `#tag` for — so leaving them true would lose every lifted tag on the note's next save. Flipping them to false is also what makes the chip's × appear, which is now the only way to remove a tag whose text is gone. `updated_at` is left alone so a client holding an unpushed edit still wins under LWW. The `sync_revision` trigger does fire, which is wanted here: unlike 0027 the clients do NOT yet apply this rule locally, so the server's copy is the only correct one until step 3. The downgrade is empty and says why. It cannot restore the deleted lines — nothing distinguishes one this migration removed from one that was never there — and flipping the rows back would be actively harmful, since the text that flag claims backs them is gone and the next save would then detach the label for real. Tested on the ten cases that matter, three of which are prose that must come back byte-identical. The test pins the frozen copy against fixed expectations rather than against the app's rule — they are allowed to diverge later, which is the whole point of freezing one. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>