@startsimpli/ui 0.4.109 → 0.4.110

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "@startsimpli/ui",
-  "version": "0.4.109",
+  "version": "0.4.110",
   "description": "Shared UI components package for StartSimpli applications",
   "main": "./src/index.ts",
   "types": "./src/index.ts",
@@ -45,9 +45,9 @@
     "next": "^14.0.0 || ^15.0.0 || ^16.0.0",
     "react": "^18.0.0 || ^19.0.0",
     "react-dom": "^18.0.0 || ^19.0.0",
-    "@startsimpli/api": "^0.5.58",
     "@startsimpli/auth": "^0.4.35",
-    "@startsimpli/i18n": "^0.1.3"
+    "@startsimpli/i18n": "^0.1.3",
+    "@startsimpli/api": "^0.5.58"
   },
   "peerDependenciesMeta": {
     "@startsimpli/api": {

package/src/components/collection/__tests__/review.test.ts

@@ -223,3 +223,64 @@ describe('reviewHostOf / fieldStr', () => {
     expect(fieldStr(undefined, 'x')).toBe('');
   });
 });
+
+// ---- decision vocabulary (bd startsim-b313v) ----
+//
+// THE DEFECT THESE COVER. The three labels were string literals inside
+// `reviewDecisions`, so every tenant's every reviewable type said the same three
+// words. On the OGMC tenant that collided in the customer's hands: approving a
+// TOPIC ("this subject is worth writing") and approving a DRAFT ("this piece is
+// publishable") are different KINDS of decision, and both rendered "Approve".
+// Her question, mid-walkthrough: "so if I go, I click approve now, does it
+// approve all of them?"
+
+describe('decision labels are the consumer’s to name', () => {
+  const type = {
+    id: 't',
+    key: 'topic',
+    label: 'Topic',
+    attributes: [
+      {
+        id: 'a',
+        name: 'status',
+        dataType: 'enum' as const,
+        required: false,
+        config: { choices: ['suggested', 'ready', 'written', 'rejected'] },
+      },
+    ],
+  };
+
+  it('keeps the generic words when a consumer supplies none', () => {
+    expect(reviewDecisions(resolveReviewConfig(type)).map((d) => d.label)).toEqual([
+      'Approve',
+      'Needs work',
+      'Reject',
+    ]);
+  });
+
+  it('lets a consumer name what the decision is ABOUT', () => {
+    const cfg = resolveReviewConfig(type, {
+      decisionLabels: { approve: 'Approve topic', reject: 'Reject topic' },
+    });
+    const byKey = Object.fromEntries(reviewDecisions(cfg).map((d) => [d.key, d.label]));
+    expect(byKey.approve).toBe('Approve topic');
+    expect(byKey.reject).toBe('Reject topic');
+    // Unnamed decisions keep the default rather than going blank.
+    expect(byKey.needs_work).toBe('Needs work');
+  });
+
+  it('ignores a blank override instead of rendering an unlabelled button', () => {
+    const cfg = resolveReviewConfig(type, { decisionLabels: { approve: '   ' } });
+    expect(reviewDecisions(cfg).find((d) => d.key === 'approve')?.label).toBe('Approve');
+  });
+
+  it('leaves every other part of the decision alone — this is copy, not behaviour', () => {
+    const plain = reviewDecisions(resolveReviewConfig(type));
+    const named = reviewDecisions(
+      resolveReviewConfig(type, { decisionLabels: { approve: 'Approve topic' } }),
+    );
+    expect(named.map((d) => [d.key, d.status, d.verdict, d.tone, d.advance, d.shortcut])).toEqual(
+      plain.map((d) => [d.key, d.status, d.verdict, d.tone, d.advance, d.shortcut]),
+    );
+  });
+});

package/src/components/collection/index.ts

@@ -13,6 +13,8 @@ export {
   resolveReviewConfig,
   deriveReviewTransitions,
   reviewDecisions,
+  decisionLabel,
+  DEFAULT_DECISION_LABELS,
   applyDecisionToData,
   type ReviewDecision,
   pickStatusAttr,

package/src/components/collection/review.ts

@@ -169,6 +169,23 @@ export interface ReviewConfig {
   sourceAttrs?: string[];
   /** Drop the middle "Needs work" decision — a binary accept/reject flow (default false). */
   omitNeedsWork?: boolean;
+  /**
+   * What each decision is CALLED, by decision key ('approve' | 'needs_work' |
+   * 'reject'). Anything omitted keeps the generic default.
+   *
+   * WHY THIS EXISTS (bd startsim-b313v). The labels used to be string literals
+   * in `reviewDecisions` below, so every tenant's every reviewable type rendered
+   * the same three words. On OGMC that collided in the customer's hands: a
+   * reviewer approving a TOPIC ("this subject is worth writing") and a reviewer
+   * approving a DRAFT ("this piece is publishable") both pressed a button
+   * labelled "Approve", and she asked, mid-walkthrough, "so if I go, I click
+   * approve now, does it approve all of them?"
+   *
+   * A workspace cannot answer that from here — only the consumer knows what its
+   * records ARE — so the vocabulary is the consumer's to supply. Defaults are
+   * unchanged, so nothing that does not pass this renders differently.
+   */
+  decisionLabels?: Record<string, string>;
 }
 
 export interface ResolvedReview {
@@ -185,6 +202,7 @@ export interface ResolvedReview {
   metaAttrs: string[];
   sourceAttrs: string[];
   omitNeedsWork: boolean;
+  decisionLabels: Record<string, string>;
 }
 
 const DEFAULT_SOURCE_ATTRS = ['source_1', 'source_2', 'source_3', 'sources'];
@@ -216,9 +234,23 @@ export function resolveReviewConfig(
     // Keep source attrs the caller asked for; default to the ones this type declares.
     sourceAttrs: (config.sourceAttrs ?? DEFAULT_SOURCE_ATTRS).filter((a) => declared.has(a)),
     omitNeedsWork: config.omitNeedsWork ?? false,
+    decisionLabels: config.decisionLabels ?? {},
   };
 }
 
+/** The default name of a decision, when the consumer supplies none. */
+export const DEFAULT_DECISION_LABELS: Record<string, string> = {
+  approve: 'Approve',
+  needs_work: 'Needs work',
+  reject: 'Reject',
+};
+
+/** What a decision is called on THIS surface — the consumer's word, else the default. */
+export function decisionLabel(key: string, cfg: Pick<ResolvedReview, 'decisionLabels'>): string {
+  const supplied = cfg.decisionLabels?.[key];
+  return supplied && supplied.trim() ? supplied : DEFAULT_DECISION_LABELS[key] ?? key;
+}
+
 // ---- the single review decision (Approve / Needs work / Reject) ----
 //
 // status and team_verdict are two fields with different consumers (status = the
@@ -262,7 +294,7 @@ export function reviewDecisions(r: ResolvedReview): ReviewDecision[] {
   if (r.transitions.approve) {
     out.push({
       key: 'approve',
-      label: 'Approve',
+      label: decisionLabel('approve', r),
       status: r.transitions.approve,
       verdict: verdictOf('good'),
       tone: 'good',
@@ -276,7 +308,7 @@ export function reviewDecisions(r: ResolvedReview): ReviewDecision[] {
   if (!r.omitNeedsWork && entry && (editVerdict || entry !== r.transitions.approve)) {
     out.push({
       key: 'needs_work',
-      label: 'Needs work',
+      label: decisionLabel('needs_work', r),
       status: entry,
       verdict: editVerdict,
       tone: 'neutral',
@@ -289,7 +321,7 @@ export function reviewDecisions(r: ResolvedReview): ReviewDecision[] {
   if (r.transitions.reject) {
     out.push({
       key: 'reject',
-      label: 'Reject',
+      label: decisionLabel('reject', r),
       status: r.transitions.reject,
       verdict: verdictOf('bad'),
       tone: 'bad',