Merge branch 'folio-spec-attribution' into trial-merge

This commit is contained in:
pj committed 2026-08-15 23:03:50 +05:30
commit 6a7764eac7
5 files changed
+169 -12

No files matched your search

@@ -107,6 +107,7 @@ function run(steps: { route: string | null; cards: CardReading[]; lastAction: un
const idle = { kind: "Tap", on: "testTag:AccountCard" };
const doubleSubmit = { kind: "DoubleTap", on: "testTag:AddTransactionScreen > testTag:TxnSubmit" };
const submit = { kind: "Tap", on: "testTag:AddTransactionScreen > testTag:TxnSubmit" };
test("an un-laid-out Home no longer kills the counting invariant", () => {
const trace = run([
@@ -157,3 +158,45 @@ test("an un-laid-out Home does not close the counting window", () => {
true,
);
});
// What keeps a healthy submit from ever arriving as a rise nobody paid for. The
// reading banked here also resets the submit window, so a Home card list drawn
// before the store caught up with a commit would bank stale counts, start the
// next window empty, and leave the rise turning up with no budget to cover it.
// The app cannot put that frame in front of the spec: submit() pops one entry,
// so a commit lands back on the ledger it came from and the first Home reading
// is a whole action later, with the submit still in the window when the rise
// does show up.
test("a submit landing on the ledger is still in the window when Home reads it", () => {
const trace = run([
{ route: "home", cards: [card("Checking", 0, "3")], lastAction: idle },
{ route: "ledger", cards: [], lastAction: submit },
{ route: "home", cards: [card("Checking", 5000, "4")], lastAction: idle },
]);
assert.equal(trace[2]?.submits, 1);
assert.equal(
committedTransactionsExceedSubmits({
countsBefore: trace[1]?.counts ?? null,
countsAfter: trace[2]?.counts ?? null,
submitsInWindow: trace[2]?.submits ?? 0,
}),
false,
);
});
test("and a double submit down that same path still convicts", () => {
const trace = run([
{ route: "home", cards: [card("Checking", 0, "3")], lastAction: idle },
{ route: "ledger", cards: [], lastAction: doubleSubmit },
{ route: "home", cards: [card("Checking", 10000, "5")], lastAction: idle },
]);
assert.equal(trace[2]?.submits, 1);
assert.equal(
committedTransactionsExceedSubmits({
countsBefore: trace[1]?.counts ?? null,
countsAfter: trace[2]?.counts ?? null,
submitsInWindow: trace[2]?.submits ?? 0,
}),
true,
);
});
@@ -521,6 +521,67 @@ test("a submit the runner could not confirm demands no balance move", () => {
);
});
// The write finishes before AddTransactionViewModel navigates, but nothing
// establishes that Home's total has re-rendered by the time the frame is read:
// the store's flow re-emits on its own schedule and the destination composes off
// whatever value it has. A total that has not caught up has not moved at all,
// and an equality reads that as the app having ignored the amount.
test("a commit the Home total has not caught up with is not a violation", () => {
assert.equal(
submitChangesBalanceByTypedAmount({
route: "home",
lastAction: { kind: "Tap", on: submitOn, applied: true },
submitsInWindow: 1,
typedAmount: 19600,
prevTotalBalance: 220900,
currTotalBalance: 220900,
}),
true,
);
});
// What the bound gives up, and it is a real bug class: an app that moves the
// balance by LESS than the amount typed. Nothing in this spec judges that any
// more. It cannot be told apart from a total that has not caught up, and a check
// that fires on both is not evidence about either.
test("an under-move is no longer judged, which is the trade", () => {
assert.equal(
submitChangesBalanceByTypedAmount({
route: "home",
lastAction: { kind: "Tap", on: submitOn, applied: true },
submitsInWindow: 1,
typedAmount: 19600,
prevTotalBalance: 0,
currTotalBalance: 10000,
}),
true,
);
});
// The witness measured on four recorded android runs, all four of which convict
// here and nowhere else: the double tap moved the total by 6400 against 3200
// typed. The bound has to keep every one of them.
test("the measured double submit still fires under the bound", () => {
for (const [prev, curr] of [
[17952800, 17959200],
[19796100, 19802500],
[200000032904800, 200000032911200],
]) {
assert.equal(
submitChangesBalanceByTypedAmount({
route: "home",
lastAction: { kind: "DoubleTap", on: submitOn, applied: true },
submitsInWindow: 1,
typedAmount: 3200,
prevTotalBalance: prev ?? null,
currTotalBalance: curr ?? null,
}),
false,
`the double submit at ${prev} -> ${curr} stopped firing`,
);
}
});
// relaunched: true is the runner saying its foreground guard restarted the app
// after this action. The tap landed, so the window still counts it, but nobody
// can promise the process lived long enough for the write to reach sqlite. A
+19 -1
View File
@@ -131,7 +131,11 @@ test("the measured android transition chain no longer convicts at delta 0", () =
);
// What the reset bought the old spec: the same landing, judged against a
// window of one and a total the transition frame had already banked.
// window of one and a total the transition frame had already banked. It
// convicted on a delta of zero, and that shape cannot convict any more even
// with the window reset back to one, because the property is a bound rather
// than an equality. A balance that did not move is under any typed amount,
// whether nothing was submitted or the total has not caught up yet.
assert.equal(
submitChangesBalanceByTypedAmount({
route: "home",
@@ -141,6 +145,20 @@ test("the measured android transition chain no longer convicts at delta 0", () =
prevTotalBalance: 8691100,
currTotalBalance: 8691100,
}),
true,
);
// The double tap it was always meant to catch is untouched by that: two
// 33900 debits against one action still exceed the amount typed for it.
assert.equal(
submitChangesBalanceByTypedAmount({
route: "home",
lastAction: { ...phantomSubmit, kind: "DoubleTap" },
submitsInWindow: 1,
typedAmount: 33900,
prevTotalBalance: 8691100,
currTotalBalance: 8691100 - 67800,
}),
false,
);
});