@stalfh233/omc-fake-platform 0.4.71 → 0.4.72

package/dist/rule-lifecycle.js

@@ -23,29 +23,42 @@ function selfCheckProblems(state, model) {
     catch {
         return [];
     }
-    const known = new Set();
+    const publishedBySchema = new Map();
     for (const [key, field] of state.fields) {
         const [schema, code] = key.split("#");
-        if (schema === schemaCode && field.published)
-            known.add(String(code));
+        if (!field.published)
+            continue;
+        if (!publishedBySchema.has(schema))
+            publishedBySchema.set(schema, new Set());
+        publishedBySchema.get(schema).add(String(code));
     }
+    const known = publishedBySchema.get(schemaCode) ?? new Set();
     const problems = [];
     for (const node of nodes) {
         const actions = Array.isArray(node.dataActions) ? node.dataActions : [];
+        // UPDATE/CREATE nodes write into `targetObjectCode`; its fields are a
+        // DIFFERENT model's published set. Checking every dataAction against the
+        // rule's own schema made every cross-model UPDATE look broken (550018) —
+        // exactly the false positive the platform's checkBizRuleIsEnable does not
+        // produce.
+        const targetSchema = String(node.nodeType ?? "").toUpperCase() === "UPDATE" && node.targetObjectCode
+            ? String(node.targetObjectCode)
+            : schemaCode;
+        const targetKnown = targetSchema === schemaCode ? known : (publishedBySchema.get(targetSchema) ?? new Set());
         const missing = actions
             .map((action) => String(action.targetDataItem ?? ""))
-            .filter((code) => code !== "" && !known.has(code));
+            .filter((code) => code !== "" && !targetKnown.has(code));
         if (missing.length > 0) {
             problems.push({
                 schemaCode,
                 nodeCode: node.nodeCode ?? "",
                 nodeName: node.nodeName ?? "",
                 notExistPropertyObjectList: [{
-                        objectCode: schemaCode,
-                        objectName: schemaCode,
+                        objectCode: targetSchema,
+                        objectName: targetSchema,
                         objectType: 1,
                         modelExist: true,
-                        quotePropertyList: missing.map((code) => ({ objectCode: schemaCode, objectName: schemaCode, propertyCode: code, propertyName: code, exist: false, propertyPublished: false })),
+                        quotePropertyList: missing.map((code) => ({ objectCode: targetSchema, objectName: targetSchema, propertyCode: code, propertyName: code, exist: false, propertyPublished: false })),
                     }],
                 notExistOrgObjectList: [],
                 deadCycleRunMapList: [],
@@ -64,8 +77,6 @@ export const ruleLifecycleRoute = (ctx, input) => {
             const targetId = q.id ?? body.id;
             const stored = [...ctx.state.rules.values()].find((rule) => rule.id === targetId);
             const model = { ...(stored ?? {}), ...body };
-            if (process.env.FAKE_DEBUG_SELFCHECK)
-                console.error("DEBUG body keys", Object.keys(body), "nodeType", typeof body.node, String(body.node ?? "").slice(0, 120), "known", [...ctx.state.fields.keys()].slice(0, 6));
             if (selfCheckProblems(ctx.state, model).length > 0)
                 return businessRefusal(550018, "保存规则失败，规则存在异常，请点击检测并修正！");
             for (const rule of ctx.state.rules.values())

package/dist/workflow.js

@@ -266,14 +266,21 @@ export const workflowRoute = (ctx, input) => {
             // must pin the identity fields yet store name_i18n verbatim.
             const stored = wf.template.activities;
             const storedByCode = new Map((Array.isArray(stored) ? stored : []).map((activity) => [String(activity.activityCode ?? ""), activity]));
+            // 8.6 pins activityName/type on an existing code; AI-Platform 1.1.x
+            // accepts an in-place retype/rename on the SAME code (live 2026-10-21,
+            // 1.1.25: END→PARTICIPANT kept Activity4 and read back with the new
+            // name). The version switch keeps the fake faithful to both families.
+            const pinsIdentity = !(String(ctx.options.version ?? "").startsWith("1."));
             const pinned = Array.isArray(body.activities)
                 ? {
                     ...body,
                     activities: body.activities.map((activity) => {
                         const prior = storedByCode.get(String(activity.activityCode ?? ""));
-                        return prior
+                        if (!prior)
+                            return activity;
+                        return pinsIdentity
                             ? { ...activity, activityName: prior.activityName, i18nMessage: prior.i18nMessage, activityType: prior.activityType, name_i18n: activity.name_i18n ?? prior.name_i18n }
-                            : activity;
+                            : { ...activity, name_i18n: activity.name_i18n ?? prior.name_i18n };
                     }),
                 }
                 : body;

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "@stalfh233/omc-fake-platform",
-  "version": "0.4.71",
+  "version": "0.4.72",
   "description": "OMC 的内存假 CloudPivot 平台（wire 接缝的第二个适配器）+ HTTP 假服务器——@stalfh233/omc-cli 的测试与 bench 基准基座",
   "type": "module",
   "main": "dist/index.js",
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@
     "build": "tsc --project tsconfig.build.json"
   },
   "dependencies": {
-    "omc-core": "0.4.71"
+    "omc-core": "0.4.72"
   },
   "engines": {
     "node": ">=22.13"