@7365admin1/layer-common 3.2.2-staging.191 → 3.2.2-staging.192

package/package.json

@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
   "name": "@7365admin1/layer-common",
   "license": "MIT",
   "type": "module",
-  "version": "3.2.2-staging.191",
+  "version": "3.2.2-staging.192",
   "author": "7365admin1",
   "main": "./nuxt.config.ts",
   "//files": "What a consumer extending this layer actually loads. Without this npm ships the whole working tree - the changesets, the CI workflows, the render harness in tools/ and any scratch directory that happened to exist at publish time. Nuxt resolves a layer by directory, so every runtime directory below has to stay listed; adding a new top-level runtime directory means adding it here too.",

package/utils/data.test.ts

@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+import assert from "node:assert/strict";
+import { test } from "node:test";
+
+import { findServiceProviderIdBySite } from "./data.ts";
+
+const SITE = "68f05fcc0c11062938dadada";
+const OTHER_SITE = "68f05fcc0c11062938d00001";
+const PROVIDER = "68f05fcc0c11062938d00002";
+
+test("returns the provider that covers this site", () => {
+  assert.equal(
+    findServiceProviderIdBySite(
+      "service-provider",
+      [{ _id: PROVIDER, siteId: SITE }],
+      SITE
+    ),
+    PROVIDER
+  );
+});
+
+test("a non-service-provider account is not scoped by provider at all", () => {
+  assert.equal(findServiceProviderIdBySite("customer", [], SITE), null);
+  assert.equal(findServiceProviderIdBySite("", undefined, SITE), null);
+});
+
+/**
+ * Returning null here would drop the provider filter and show the whole site -
+ * another provider's work orders included. Refusing is the correct behaviour.
+ */
+test("refuses rather than falling back to an unscoped request", () => {
+  assert.throws(() =>
+    findServiceProviderIdBySite(
+      "service-provider",
+      [{ _id: PROVIDER, siteId: OTHER_SITE }],
+      SITE
+    )
+  );
+});
+
+/**
+ * The thrown message is rendered verbatim in a toast on six applications, so it
+ * is part of the user interface. Assert what it SAYS, not that it throws: the
+ * old message passed a "throws" assertion while quoting a raw ObjectId at a
+ * security officer and naming no action.
+ */
+test("the message names an action and never quotes an internal id", () => {
+  for (const providers of [[{ _id: PROVIDER, siteId: OTHER_SITE }], [], undefined]) {
+    let message = "";
+    try {
+      findServiceProviderIdBySite("service-provider", providers, SITE);
+      assert.fail("expected it to refuse");
+    } catch (error: any) {
+      message = error.message;
+    }
+    assert.doesNotMatch(message, /[0-9a-f]{24}/i, `leaks an id: ${message}`);
+    assert.doesNotMatch(message, /siteId/i, `internal wording: ${message}`);
+    assert.match(message, /not linked to this site/i);
+    assert.match(message, /administrator/i);
+  }
+});
+
+/**
+ * An account with no serviceProviders field at all used to die on
+ * `undefined.find(...)` - a TypeError, which the toast renders as a raw
+ * JavaScript error instead of the sentence above.
+ */
+test("an account with no provider list still gets the sentence, not a TypeError", () => {
+  assert.throws(
+    () => findServiceProviderIdBySite("service-provider", undefined, SITE),
+    (error: any) => error.constructor === Error && !/undefined/.test(error.message)
+  );
+});

package/utils/data.ts

@@ -30,17 +30,40 @@ export const errorConverter = (data: any): string => {
   return error;
 };
 
+/**
+ * A service-provider account can only be shown ITS OWN work orders, feedbacks
+ * and key logs, so every one of those screens scopes its request by the
+ * provider record that links this account to the site currently in the URL.
+ *
+ * When that link does not exist there is nothing to scope by, and returning
+ * null instead would drop the filter and show the WHOLE site - another
+ * provider's work orders included. So this still refuses, deliberately.
+ *
+ * What it refuses WITH is the part that matters. The message is thrown straight
+ * into a toast on six applications, so it is written for the person reading it:
+ * it says what is missing and what to do about it. It used to read
+ * "Service provider with siteId 68f0...dadada not found", which quotes an
+ * internal identifier at a security officer and names no action - the screen
+ * looked broken when the truth was simply that this site is not one of theirs.
+ *
+ * The site list in the sidebar offers EVERY site in the organisation, not only
+ * the ones this account covers, so an officer can walk into this by picking a
+ * neighbouring site. That is why the wording assumes an ordinary mistake and
+ * not a fault.
+ */
 export const findServiceProviderIdBySite = (
   type: string,
   serviceProviders: any,
   siteId: string
 ) => {
   if (type === "service-provider") {
-    const result = serviceProviders.find(
+    const result = serviceProviders?.find(
       (item: Record<string, any>) => item.siteId === siteId
     );
     if (!result?._id) {
-      throw new Error(`Service provider with siteId ${siteId} not found`);
+      throw new Error(
+        "Your service provider account is not linked to this site, so there is nothing to show here. Choose a site your company covers, or ask your administrator to link your company to this one."
+      );
     }
     return result?._id;
   }