@wix/agent-skills 1.36.0 → 1.36.1

package/skills/wix-replatform/resources/rp-target-wix/lib/data-extension-schema.js

@@ -1,673 +0,0 @@
-'use strict';
-
-const crypto = require('node:crypto');
-
-// The Data Extension Schema (DES) path for the three objects the supported-target matrix
-// admits -- eCommerce ORDER (shipped first), stores PRODUCT, and CRM CONTACT on the default
-// Contacts V5 surface -- and nothing else. Checkout, Bookings, Booking Services and every nested
-// order subrecord are refused before any network call: add one only when a mapping needs it and
-// it has been verified live the way the order path was. The legacy Contacts V4 path is a
-// different API (CRM Extended Fields) and lives in contact-extended-fields.js; the two surfaces
-// are never mixed.
-//
-// Contacts caveat: the DES supported-objects table still omits contacts, so the V5 contact target
-// is marked `requiresLiveVerification`. The transport fails closed with CONTACTS_V5_DES_UNVERIFIED
-// when the gating List call is refused, and never falls back to V4.
-//
-// WHY A MERGE HELPER EXISTS AT ALL. Re-checked against the live schema 2026-09-03: Update Data
-// Extension Schema is a PUT that, in the API's own words, "updates a user-defined data extension
-// schema, OVERRIDING the existing data". `jsonSchema` is required and replaces what was there. So
-// a setup step that PUTs only the fields the migration needs DELETES every field the merchant
-// created. Merging is not a refinement of this contract, it is the contract -- and the failure it
-// prevents is silent, permanent and on the merchant's own data.
-//
-// The rest of the shape, same re-check:
-//   * List is GET /schema-service/v1/schemas?fqdn=&namespaces=&fields=ARCHIVED, and it returns
-//     GLOBAL and user-defined schemas together, so the `_user_fields` one must be selected by
-//     namespace rather than by position.
-//   * Archived fields are hidden unless `fields=ARCHIVED` is requested. A key that collides with
-//     an archived field cannot be reused, so the read must ask for them or the collision check is
-//     blind.
-//   * Update requires `id` and the CURRENT `revision`; id, fqdn and namespace are immutable.
-//   * The namespace carries a byte budget: `maxLimitBytes` (10,000 observed) against
-//     `currentSizeBytes`, shared with whatever the merchant already stores there.
-//   * The eCommerce order object does NOT support filtering (the supported-objects table says so
-//     for `wix.ecom.*.order`), so `x-wix-filterable` is refused for it rather than passed through.
-
-const SCHEMA_SERVICE = 'https://www.wixapis.com/schema-service/v1/schemas';
-
-const USER_FIELDS_NAMESPACE = '_user_fields';
-
-// The supported target matrix, no more. `supportsFiltering` follows the DES
-// supported-objects table (Products: yes; Orders: no). Contacts are absent from that table, so
-// filtering is treated as unsupported rather than assumed.
-const CONTACTS_FQDN = 'wix.contacts.*.contact';
-const SUPPORTED_TARGETS = {
-  'wix.ecom.*.order': { targetRef: 'ecom/order', supportsFiltering: false },
-  'wix.stores.catalog.*.product': { targetRef: 'stores/product', supportsFiltering: true },
-  [CONTACTS_FQDN]: { targetRef: 'crm/contact', supportsFiltering: false, contactWriteSurface: 'contacts-v5', requiresLiveVerification: true },
-};
-
-// Known DES objects that are deliberately OUT of this phase. Named so the refusal says why.
-const OUT_OF_SCOPE_TARGETS = new Set([
-  'wix.ecom.*.checkout',
-  'wix.bookings.*.booking',
-  'wix.bookings.services.*.service',
-]);
-
-// Deliberately just `string`. The full Wix JSON Schema type and format table has not been
-// re-verified for this slice, and shipping a guessed type list is how an unsupported type reaches
-// a live setup call. Widening this set means reading the JSON Schema article first.
-const VERIFIED_FIELD_TYPES = new Set(['string']);
-
-// Same reasoning as the type set: the format table has not been re-verified, so nothing is
-// accepted until it is. The two order invoice fields are plain strings and need no format.
-const VERIFIED_STRING_FORMATS = new Set();
-
-const PERMISSION_IDENTITIES = new Set(['apps', 'owning-app', 'users', 'users-of-users']);
-
-const PERMISSION_PRESETS = {
-  // A migration-owned field is not visitor-facing: `users-of-users` is site visitors, and this
-  // data exists for the merchant and the migration, so it is left out.
-  'migration-internal': { read: ['apps', 'users'], write: ['users'] },
-};
-
-function fail(errors, code, detail) {
-  errors.push({ code, detail });
-  return errors;
-}
-
-function validateExtendedFieldIntent(field, { fqdn } = {}) {
-  const errors = [];
-  if (!field || typeof field !== 'object') {
-    return { valid: false, errors: fail([], 'field-not-an-object', 'a field intent must be an object') };
-  }
-  if (!field.key || typeof field.key !== 'string') {
-    fail(errors, 'missing-field-key', 'a field intent needs a key');
-  } else if (!/^[A-Za-z][A-Za-z0-9_]*$/.test(field.key)) {
-    fail(errors, 'invalid-field-key', `"${field.key}" is not a usable JSON Schema property name`);
-  }
-  if (!field.fieldType) {
-    fail(errors, 'missing-field-type', `field "${field.key}" has no fieldType`);
-  } else if (!VERIFIED_FIELD_TYPES.has(field.fieldType)) {
-    fail(errors, 'unverified-field-type', `fieldType "${field.fieldType}" is not verified for this slice; only ${[...VERIFIED_FIELD_TYPES].join(', ')} is`);
-  }
-  if (field.format) {
-    if (field.fieldType !== 'string') {
-      fail(errors, 'format-type-mismatch', `format "${field.format}" cannot apply to fieldType "${field.fieldType}"`);
-    } else if (!VERIFIED_STRING_FORMATS.has(field.format)) {
-      // Accepting any string as a format let an unsupported one reach a live setup call.
-      fail(errors, 'unverified-field-format', `format "${field.format}" is not verified for this slice`);
-    }
-  }
-  if (field.filterable === true) {
-    const target = SUPPORTED_TARGETS[fqdn];
-    if (!target || target.supportsFiltering === false) {
-      fail(errors, 'filterable-unsupported-target', `${fqdn || 'this target'} does not support filtering, so x-wix-filterable cannot be requested`);
-    }
-  }
-  // LIVE-VERIFIED 2026-09-04: the API rejects a string field with no `maxLength` --
-  // `MANDATORY_FIELD_MISSING: <key>.maxLength`. It is required, not optional, so a field intent
-  // without one cannot be provisioned at all.
-  if (field.fieldType === 'string' && field.maxLength === undefined) {
-    fail(errors, 'missing-max-length', `field "${field.key}" needs a maxLength; the API rejects a string field without one`);
-  }
-  if (field.maxLength !== undefined && (!Number.isInteger(field.maxLength) || field.maxLength < 1)) {
-    fail(errors, 'invalid-max-length', `field "${field.key}" has a non-positive maxLength`);
-  }
-
-  const permissions = resolvePermissions(field);
-  if (!permissions) {
-    fail(errors, 'unknown-permissions-preset', `field "${field.key}" names no known permissionsPreset and supplies no explicit permissions`);
-  } else {
-    for (const identity of [...(permissions.read || []), ...(permissions.write || [])]) {
-      if (!PERMISSION_IDENTITIES.has(identity)) {
-        fail(errors, 'unknown-permission-identity', `"${identity}" is not a permission identity`);
-      }
-    }
-    // Reading as a visitor without reading as a user is incoherent, and the asymmetry is how a
-    // field ends up visible on a storefront but invisible to the merchant who owns it.
-    if ((permissions.read || []).includes('users-of-users') && !(permissions.read || []).includes('users')) {
-      fail(errors, 'visitor-read-without-user-read', `field "${field.key}" grants users-of-users read without users read`);
-    }
-  }
-
-  return { valid: errors.length === 0, errors };
-}
-
-function resolvePermissions(field) {
-  if (field.permissions) return field.permissions;
-  if (field.permissionsPreset) return PERMISSION_PRESETS[field.permissionsPreset] || null;
-  return null;
-}
-
-function buildExtendedFieldSchemaProperty(field) {
-  const property = { type: field.fieldType };
-  if (field.maxLength !== undefined) property.maxLength = field.maxLength;
-  if (field.format) property.format = field.format;
-  if (field.description) property.description = field.description;
-  const permissions = resolvePermissions(field);
-  if (permissions) property['x-wix-permissions'] = { read: [...permissions.read], write: [...permissions.write] };
-  if (field.pii === true) property['x-wix-pii'] = true;
-  if (field.filterable === true) property['x-wix-filterable'] = true;
-  // Business Manager lists these as toggleable order columns, so the KEY becomes the column
-  // heading unless something friendlier is supplied. `replatformSourceInvoiceFileId` is not a
-  // heading a merchant should have to read.
-  //
-  // LIVE-VERIFIED 2026-09-05: the display keyword is plain JSON Schema `title`/`description`.
-  // The `x-wix-display` object the docs' own vocabulary defines -- with `label`, `hint` and
-  // `placeholder` -- is REJECTED outright by the schema service:
-  // `UNKNOWN_KEYWORD_AT_THIS_LEVEL: <field>.x-wix-display.label`. Do not reinstate it from the
-  // documentation; it does not work on a user-defined schema.
-  if (field.displayName) property.title = field.displayName;
-  if (field.hint) property.description = field.hint;
-  return property;
-}
-
-function buildDataExtensionSchema({ fields = [] } = {}) {
-  const properties = {};
-  for (const field of fields) properties[field.key] = buildExtendedFieldSchemaProperty(field);
-  return { type: 'object', additionalProperties: false, properties };
-}
-
-function validateDataExtensionSchemaRequirement(requirement) {
-  const errors = [];
-  if (!requirement || requirement.kind !== 'extendedFieldSchema') {
-    fail(errors, 'not-an-extended-field-requirement', 'requirement.kind must be "extendedFieldSchema"');
-    return { valid: false, errors };
-  }
-  if (requirement.schemaKind !== 'data-extension-schema') {
-    fail(errors, 'unsupported-schema-kind', `this helper implements data-extension-schema only, not "${requirement.schemaKind}"`);
-  }
-  const target = SUPPORTED_TARGETS[requirement.fqdn];
-  if (!target) {
-    const why = OUT_OF_SCOPE_TARGETS.has(requirement.fqdn)
-      ? 'it is a known Data Extension Schema object but outside the supported target matrix'
-      : 'it is not a verified Data Extension Schema target';
-    fail(errors, 'unsupported-target-object', `${requirement.fqdn} is refused: ${why}`);
-  } else if (requirement.extensionPoint) {
-    // Nested subrecord fields need an extension point nobody has verified yet.
-    fail(errors, 'unsupported-target-object', `${requirement.fqdn} extension point "${requirement.extensionPoint}" is a nested subrecord, which this phase does not provision`);
-  }
-  if (requirement.targetRef && target && requirement.targetRef !== target.targetRef) {
-    fail(errors, 'target-ref-mismatch', `targetRef "${requirement.targetRef}" does not match ${requirement.fqdn} (${target.targetRef})`);
-  }
-  // Surfaces must not be mixed: a DES requirement is the V5 contact surface or no contact at all.
-  if (requirement.contactWriteSurface !== undefined) {
-    if (requirement.fqdn !== CONTACTS_FQDN) {
-      fail(errors, 'contact-surface-on-non-contact', `contactWriteSurface is only meaningful for ${CONTACTS_FQDN}`);
-    } else if (requirement.contactWriteSurface !== 'contacts-v5') {
-      fail(errors, 'contact-surface-mismatch', `a data-extension-schema contact requirement is the contacts-v5 surface; "${requirement.contactWriteSurface}" belongs to crm-contact-extended-field`);
-    }
-  }
-  // A migration-owned field belongs in the site-owner namespace. An app namespace would need a
-  // declared app-defined schema dependency, and this slice creates no app.
-  if (requirement.namespace !== USER_FIELDS_NAMESPACE) {
-    fail(errors, 'namespace-not-user-fields', `migration-owned fields live in ${USER_FIELDS_NAMESPACE}, not "${requirement.namespace}"`);
-  }
-  if (!Array.isArray(requirement.fields) || requirement.fields.length === 0) {
-    fail(errors, 'no-fields-declared', 'a requirement with no fields provisions nothing');
-  } else {
-    for (const field of requirement.fields) {
-      const result = validateExtendedFieldIntent(field, { fqdn: requirement.fqdn });
-      for (const error of result.errors) errors.push(error);
-      const expectedWritePath = `extendedFields.namespaces.${requirement.namespace}.${field.key}`;
-      if (field.writePath && field.writePath !== expectedWritePath) {
-        fail(errors, 'write-path-mismatch', `field "${field.key}" declares writePath "${field.writePath}" but its value lands at "${expectedWritePath}"`);
-      }
-    }
-  }
-  return { valid: errors.length === 0, errors };
-}
-
-function buildListDataExtensionSchemasRequest({ fqdn, namespace = USER_FIELDS_NAMESPACE, includeArchived = true } = {}) {
-  const params = new URLSearchParams();
-  params.set('fqdn', fqdn);
-  if (namespace) params.append('namespaces', namespace);
-  // Archived fields are hidden by default, and an archived key cannot be reused -- so the
-  // collision check is only meaningful when they are requested.
-  if (includeArchived) params.append('fields', 'ARCHIVED');
-  return { method: 'GET', url: `${SCHEMA_SERVICE}?${params.toString()}` };
-}
-
-// List returns global schemas alongside user-defined ones. Selecting by position would merge the
-// migration's fields into somebody else's schema.
-function selectUserFieldsSchema(response, { fqdn, namespace = USER_FIELDS_NAMESPACE } = {}) {
-  const schemas = (response && response.dataExtensionSchemas) || [];
-  return schemas.find((schema) => schema.fqdn === fqdn && schema.namespace === namespace) || null;
-}
-
-function archivedKeys(jsonSchema) {
-  const properties = (jsonSchema && jsonSchema.properties) || {};
-  return Object.keys(properties).filter((key) => properties[key] && properties[key]['x-wix-archived'] === true);
-}
-
-function detectDataExtensionSchemaBreakingChanges(existingJsonSchema, fields = []) {
-  const existing = (existingJsonSchema && existingJsonSchema.properties) || {};
-  const archived = new Set(archivedKeys(existingJsonSchema));
-  const changes = [];
-
-  for (const field of fields) {
-    if (archived.has(field.key)) {
-      changes.push({ code: 'archived-key-collision', key: field.key, detail: `"${field.key}" exists as an archived field and its key cannot be reused` });
-      continue;
-    }
-    const current = existing[field.key];
-    if (!current) continue;
-
-    if (current.type !== field.fieldType) {
-      changes.push({ code: 'field-type-change', key: field.key, detail: `"${field.key}" exists as ${current.type} and the requirement asks for ${field.fieldType}` });
-    }
-    if (field.pii === true && current['x-wix-pii'] !== true) {
-      changes.push({ code: 'pii-added-to-existing-field', key: field.key, detail: `"${field.key}" already exists without a PII classification, which cannot be added afterwards` });
-    }
-    if (typeof current.maxLength === 'number' && typeof field.maxLength === 'number' && field.maxLength < current.maxLength) {
-      changes.push({ code: 'validation-tightened', key: field.key, detail: `"${field.key}" would narrow maxLength from ${current.maxLength} to ${field.maxLength}, which can invalidate stored values` });
-    }
-  }
-  return { breaking: changes.length > 0, changes };
-}
-
-// The merge. Every existing property survives untouched -- including archived ones and anything
-// the merchant added -- and only absent keys are introduced.
-function mergeDataExtensionSchema(existingJsonSchema, fields = []) {
-  const existing = (existingJsonSchema && existingJsonSchema.properties) || {};
-  const merged = { ...existing };
-  const added = [];
-  const unchanged = [];
-  const relabelled = [];
-
-  for (const field of fields) {
-    if (Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(existing, field.key)) {
-      // The field is already there. Its TYPE and constraints stay exactly as stored -- changing
-      // those is a breaking change and is refused elsewhere -- but display metadata is
-      // presentation only, and a label added after the field was created must still reach it.
-      // Without this the merge could never improve a column heading it had already written.
-      const wanted = buildExtendedFieldSchemaProperty(field);
-      const current = existing[field.key];
-      const displayOf = (property) => JSON.stringify([property.title || null, property.description || null]);
-      if ((wanted.title || wanted.description) && displayOf(current) !== displayOf(wanted)) {
-        merged[field.key] = { ...current, ...(wanted.title ? { title: wanted.title } : {}), ...(wanted.description ? { description: wanted.description } : {}) };
-        relabelled.push(field.key);
-      } else {
-        unchanged.push(field.key);
-      }
-      continue;
-    }
-    merged[field.key] = buildExtendedFieldSchemaProperty(field);
-    added.push(field.key);
-  }
-
-  const preserved = Object.keys(existing);
-  // Carry the WHOLE existing schema forward and touch only `properties`. Rebuilding it from
-  // `type` + `properties` dropped every other top-level keyword -- `required`, `$schema`, `$id`,
-  // `title` -- and forced `additionalProperties: false` over whatever was there. Since Update is
-  // a PUT that overrides stored data, that is the same clobber this merge exists to prevent, one
-  // level up from the fields.
-  const base = existingJsonSchema ? { ...existingJsonSchema } : {};
-  base.properties = merged;
-  if (base.type === undefined) base.type = 'object';
-  if (base.additionalProperties === undefined) base.additionalProperties = false;
-  return {
-    jsonSchema: base,
-    added,
-    unchanged,
-    relabelled,
-    preserved,
-  };
-}
-
-function buildCreateDataExtensionSchemaRequest({ fqdn, namespace = USER_FIELDS_NAMESPACE, jsonSchema }) {
-  return {
-    method: 'POST',
-    url: SCHEMA_SERVICE,
-    body: { dataExtensionSchema: { fqdn, namespace, jsonSchema } },
-  };
-}
-
-function buildUpdateDataExtensionSchemaRequest({ schemaId, revision, mergedSchema }) {
-  if (!schemaId) throw new Error('updating a data extension schema needs its id');
-  if (revision === undefined || revision === null || revision === '') {
-    // Without the current revision the PUT either fails or clobbers a concurrent change.
-    throw new Error('updating a data extension schema needs the CURRENT revision; the API uses it to reject conflicting changes');
-  }
-  if (!mergedSchema || !mergedSchema.properties) {
-    throw new Error('updating a data extension schema needs the full merged jsonSchema; this PUT overrides whatever is stored');
-  }
-  return {
-    method: 'PUT',
-    url: SCHEMA_SERVICE,
-    body: { dataExtensionSchema: { id: schemaId, revision: String(revision), jsonSchema: mergedSchema } },
-  };
-}
-
-// One decision function, so the caller cannot accidentally skip the collision or budget checks.
-function planDataExtensionSchemaProvisioning({ requirement, existingSchema = null, approvedBreakingChanges = false } = {}) {
-  const validation = validateDataExtensionSchemaRequirement(requirement);
-  if (!validation.valid) {
-    return { action: 'blocked', blocking: validation.errors, request: null };
-  }
-
-  const fields = requirement.fields;
-  if (!existingSchema) {
-    const jsonSchema = buildDataExtensionSchema({ fields });
-    // No schema yet means no listed `maxLimitBytes` to check against, so the create path uses the
-    // limit observed on the live API. Without this an oversized first schema reached POST.
-    const budget = checkSizeBudget({ maxLimitBytes: OBSERVED_NAMESPACE_MAX_LIMIT_BYTES, currentSizeBytes: 0 }, jsonSchema);
-    if (budget) {
-      return { action: 'blocked', blocking: [budget], request: null };
-    }
-    return {
-      action: 'create',
-      blocking: [],
-      added: fields.map((field) => field.key),
-      unchanged: [],
-      preserved: [],
-      jsonSchema,
-      request: buildCreateDataExtensionSchemaRequest({ fqdn: requirement.fqdn, namespace: requirement.namespace, jsonSchema }),
-    };
-  }
-
-  const breaking = detectDataExtensionSchemaBreakingChanges(existingSchema.jsonSchema, fields);
-  if (breaking.breaking && approvedBreakingChanges !== true) {
-    return {
-      action: 'blocked',
-      blocking: breaking.changes.map((change) => ({ code: change.code, detail: change.detail })),
-      request: null,
-    };
-  }
-
-  const merged = mergeDataExtensionSchema(existingSchema.jsonSchema, fields);
-
-  // Idempotency: a repeated run with the same requirements changes nothing.
-  if (merged.added.length === 0 && merged.relabelled.length === 0) {
-    return { action: 'noop', blocking: [], added: [], unchanged: merged.unchanged, relabelled: [], preserved: merged.preserved, jsonSchema: merged.jsonSchema, request: null };
-  }
-
-  const budget = checkSizeBudget(existingSchema, merged.jsonSchema);
-  if (budget) {
-    return { action: 'blocked', blocking: [budget], request: null };
-  }
-
-  return {
-    action: 'update',
-    blocking: [],
-    added: merged.added,
-    unchanged: merged.unchanged,
-    relabelled: merged.relabelled,
-    preserved: merged.preserved,
-    jsonSchema: merged.jsonSchema,
-    request: buildUpdateDataExtensionSchemaRequest({
-      schemaId: existingSchema.id,
-      revision: existingSchema.revision,
-      mergedSchema: merged.jsonSchema,
-    }),
-  };
-}
-
-// The `_user_fields` namespace limit observed on the live Data Extension Schema API (2026-09-03).
-// Used only when there is no existing schema whose listed `maxLimitBytes` could be read instead.
-const OBSERVED_NAMESPACE_MAX_LIMIT_BYTES = 10000;
-
-// The namespace is a shared byte budget, so the migration's fields can be refused by what the
-// merchant already stores. Better to say so at setup than to fail mid-import.
-function checkSizeBudget(existingSchema, mergedJsonSchema) {
-  const limit = Number(existingSchema.maxLimitBytes);
-  if (!Number.isFinite(limit) || limit <= 0) return null;
-  const projected = Buffer.byteLength(JSON.stringify(mergedJsonSchema), 'utf8');
-  if (projected > limit) {
-    return {
-      // Code `schema-budget-exceeded`. The fix is to route excess fields to CMS,
-      // never to guess which fields to drop.
-      code: 'schema-budget-exceeded',
-      detail: `the merged schema is about ${projected} bytes against a ${limit}-byte namespace limit (currently ${existingSchema.currentSizeBytes} bytes used)`,
-    };
-  }
-  return null;
-}
-
-// Step 7: re-read and record evidence. A create/update that reported success but did not produce
-// the field is the case this catches.
-// What a receipt has to have checked for its contract stamp to mean anything.
-//
-// This used to compare `property.type` and nothing else, while the stamp hashed maxLength,
-// format, PII, filterability and permissions. So a schema could carry the right keys and types
-// with WRONG permissions -- visitor-readable, say -- and the receipt would still say the private
-// invoice contract passed. The `noop` path made that reachable without anyone tampering: an
-// existing schema with matching keys is never rewritten, only verified.
-//
-// Presentation is deliberately absent, exactly as it is from the hash: `title` and `description`
-// are the merchant's column headings and changing one must not invalidate receipts in flight.
-function comparableProperty(property) {
-  if (!property || typeof property !== 'object') return null;
-  const permissions = property['x-wix-permissions'];
-  return {
-    type: property.type,
-    maxLength: property.maxLength,
-    format: property.format,
-    pii: property['x-wix-pii'] === true,
-    filterable: property['x-wix-filterable'] === true,
-    permissions: permissions
-      ? { read: [...(permissions.read || [])].sort(), write: [...(permissions.write || [])].sort() }
-      : null,
-  };
-}
-
-// A field intent, expressed the same way, so the two can be compared directly.
-function expectedComparableProperty(field) {
-  return comparableProperty(buildExtendedFieldSchemaProperty(field));
-}
-
-function describeFieldMismatch(field, property) {
-  const expected = expectedComparableProperty(field);
-  const actual = comparableProperty(property);
-  if (!actual) return 'the field is not on the schema';
-  const differences = [];
-  for (const aspect of ['type', 'maxLength', 'format', 'pii', 'filterable', 'permissions']) {
-    // An aspect the requirement does not state must be ABSENT from the schema, not merely
-    // unexamined. The stamp hashes the empty value just as it hashes a set one, so a `format` the
-    // requirement never asked for is a constraint outside the contract the receipt describes --
-    // and it can reject writes the contract says are fine.
-    if (JSON.stringify(expected[aspect]) !== JSON.stringify(actual[aspect])) {
-      differences.push(`${aspect}: expected ${JSON.stringify(expected[aspect])}, schema has ${JSON.stringify(actual[aspect])}`);
-    }
-  }
-  return differences.length > 0 ? differences.join('; ') : null;
-}
-
-function verifyDataExtensionSchemaFields({ schema, fields = [], contractVersion = null } = {}) {
-  const properties = (schema && schema.jsonSchema && schema.jsonSchema.properties) || {};
-  const verified = [];
-  const missing = [];
-  const mismatched = [];
-  for (const field of fields) {
-    const property = properties[field.key];
-    if (!property) {
-      missing.push(field.key);
-      continue;
-    }
-    const difference = describeFieldMismatch(field, property);
-    if (difference) {
-      // Present but not what was asked for. Reported apart from `missing`, because "the field is
-      // not there" and "the field is there and readable by the wrong people" are different
-      // problems and only one of them is fixed by provisioning again.
-      mismatched.push({ key: field.key, difference });
-      continue;
-    }
-    verified.push({
-      key: field.key,
-      fieldType: property.type,
-      maxLength: property.maxLength,
-      writePath: `extendedFields.namespaces.${schema.namespace}.${field.key}`,
-    });
-  }
-  return {
-    verified,
-    missing,
-    mismatched,
-    passed: missing.length === 0 && mismatched.length === 0,
-    evidence: {
-      schemaId: schema && schema.id,
-      fqdn: schema && schema.fqdn,
-      namespace: schema && schema.namespace,
-      revision: schema && schema.revision,
-      verifiedAt: null,
-    },
-    // Which contract this receipt was made against. A receipt that verified an earlier set of
-    // fields is structurally identical to one that verified the current set; without this a
-    // consumer cannot tell them apart, which is how a two-of-three receipt read as provisioned.
-    contractVersion: contractVersion || null,
-  };
-}
-
-// The writer-side guard: generated import code may write an extended field only
-// after setup verification passed for that exact field.
-// The executor persists `{schemaVersion, verifications: [...]}` -- one entry per requirement --
-// while a single verification result is `{passed, verified}`. This accepted only the latter, so
-// handing it the actual on-disk receipt refused every write as unprovisioned. Both shapes are
-// normalized here, because the caller reading a file should not have to know which one it holds.
-function normalizeSetupVerification(setupVerification) {
-  if (!setupVerification) return [];
-  if (Array.isArray(setupVerification.verifications)) return setupVerification.verifications;
-  if (Array.isArray(setupVerification)) return setupVerification;
-  return [setupVerification];
-}
-
-// The contract version for an extendedFieldSchema requirement, computed from the requirement
-// itself so ANY producer of one stamps the same value for the same contract.
-//
-// It lives here rather than in a domain adapter because the shipped producer is generic:
-// `domain-knowledge.js` copies `setupRequirements` out of whatever entity it is summarising and
-// knows nothing about invoices. While the stamp existed only on the invoice adapter, the real path
-// emitted unstamped requirements and the writer refused every invoice — the guard worked and the
-// chain did not reach it.
-//
-// Hashed over what a CONSUMER'S BEHAVIOUR depends on: where the fields live, what they are called,
-// their types and caps, whether they are PII or filterable, and who may read and write them. A
-// permission or format change alters whether storing a value is safe, so it must invalidate a
-// receipt; labels and hints are presentation and deliberately excluded, so improving a column
-// heading does not invalidate every receipt in flight.
-function extendedFieldContractVersion(requirement) {
-  if (!requirement || !Array.isArray(requirement.fields)) return null;
-  // The legacy V4 contact path has no fqdn/key/fieldType to hash; it stamps its own material.
-  if (requirement.schemaKind === 'crm-contact-extended-field') {
-    // eslint-disable-next-line global-require
-    return require('./contact-extended-fields.js').contactExtendedFieldContractVersion(requirement);
-  }
-  const material = [
-    requirement.fqdn || '',
-    requirement.namespace || '',
-    ...requirement.fields.map((field) => [
-      field.key,
-      field.fieldType,
-      field.maxLength,
-      field.format || '',
-      field.pii === true ? 'pii' : '',
-      field.filterable === true ? 'filterable' : '',
-      JSON.stringify(resolvePermissions(field) || null),
-      field.writePath || '',
-    ].join(':')).sort(),
-  ].join('|');
-  return crypto.createHash('sha256').update(material).digest('hex').slice(0, 16);
-}
-
-function stampRequirement(requirement) {
-  if (!requirement || requirement.kind !== 'extendedFieldSchema') return requirement;
-  return { ...requirement, contractVersion: extendedFieldContractVersion(requirement) };
-}
-
-function validateExtendedFieldWriterReferences({ writePaths = [], setupVerification = null, contractVersion = null } = {}) {
-  const errors = [];
-  const results = normalizeSetupVerification(setupVerification);
-
-  // Provenance, not just shape. A receipt made against an older contract passes every structural
-  // check and still leaves fields unprovisioned, so the caller states which contract it is
-  // writing under and a receipt from any other one is refused.
-  // A path counts only if the entry that verified it is ITSELF stamped with the contract being
-  // written. Checking the receipt as a whole was not enough: the paths were unioned across every
-  // entry, so one stamped-but-empty verification legitimised an unstamped entry that supplied all
-  // of them. A receipt is a bag of independent claims, and provenance belongs to each claim rather
-  // than to the bag.
-  //
-  // One setup receipt covers several targets (an Order contract and a Product contract, say), so
-  // an entry stamped with a DIFFERENT contract is another requirement's claim, not a conflict: it
-  // is ignored rather than rejected. Only the entries on the writer's own contract count, and
-  // only their paths -- paths are never unioned across contracts. A receipt with no entry on this
-  // contract is refused, naming the stale contract when one is present.
-  let accepted = results;
-  if (contractVersion) {
-    accepted = results.filter((result) => result && result.contractVersion === contractVersion);
-    if (results.length > 0 && accepted.length === 0) {
-      const others = results.filter((result) => result && result.contractVersion);
-      if (others.length > 0) {
-        fail(errors, 'setup-receipt-contract-mismatch',
-          `no verification was produced against contract ${contractVersion} (the receipt has ${others.map((r) => r.contractVersion).join(', ')}); re-run setup`);
-      } else {
-        fail(errors, 'setup-receipt-unstamped',
-          'no verification in the receipt carries this contract version, so none of it can be shown to match the fields being written; re-run setup');
-      }
-    }
-  }
-  const verified = new Set(accepted.flatMap((result) => ((result && result.verified) || []).map((entry) => entry.writePath)));
-  // Every verification on this contract must have passed: one failed requirement invalidates the
-  // fields it was responsible for, and they are not distinguishable from here.
-  const passed = accepted.length > 0 && accepted.every((result) => result && result.passed === true);
-  for (const writePath of writePaths) {
-    if (!passed) {
-      fail(errors, 'writes-before-verified-setup', `"${writePath}" would be written before setup verification passed`);
-      continue;
-    }
-    if (!verified.has(writePath)) {
-      fail(errors, 'write-path-not-verified', `"${writePath}" is not among the fields setup verified`);
-    }
-  }
-  return { valid: errors.length === 0, errors };
-}
-
-// Revision-conflict recovery. Update carries the listed revision; a concurrent
-// merchant or app edit between List and Update makes it stale. Wix answers a stale revision with a
-// 409 (other revisioned services name it INVALID_REVISION), so either signal counts. Anything else
-// is a real failure and is not retried here.
-const MAX_SCHEMA_WRITE_ATTEMPTS = 3;
-const CONFLICT_EXHAUSTED_CODE = 'EXTENDED_FIELD_SCHEMA_CONFLICT_EXHAUSTED';
-const CONTACTS_V5_UNVERIFIED_CODE = 'CONTACTS_V5_DES_UNVERIFIED';
-
-function isRevisionConflict(error) {
-  if (!error) return false;
-  if (error.status === 409) return true;
-  const text = [error.code, error.applicationErrorCode, error.message].filter(Boolean).join(' ');
-  return /INVALID_REVISION|REVISION_MISMATCH|revision.*(conflict|stale|mismatch)/i.test(text);
-}
-
-module.exports = {
-  SCHEMA_SERVICE,
-  CONTACTS_FQDN,
-  OUT_OF_SCOPE_TARGETS,
-  MAX_SCHEMA_WRITE_ATTEMPTS,
-  OBSERVED_NAMESPACE_MAX_LIMIT_BYTES,
-  CONFLICT_EXHAUSTED_CODE,
-  CONTACTS_V5_UNVERIFIED_CODE,
-  isRevisionConflict,
-  USER_FIELDS_NAMESPACE,
-  SUPPORTED_TARGETS,
-  VERIFIED_FIELD_TYPES,
-  VERIFIED_STRING_FORMATS,
-  PERMISSION_PRESETS,
-  validateExtendedFieldIntent,
-  buildExtendedFieldSchemaProperty,
-  buildDataExtensionSchema,
-  validateDataExtensionSchemaRequirement,
-  buildListDataExtensionSchemasRequest,
-  selectUserFieldsSchema,
-  archivedKeys,
-  detectDataExtensionSchemaBreakingChanges,
-  mergeDataExtensionSchema,
-  buildCreateDataExtensionSchemaRequest,
-  buildUpdateDataExtensionSchemaRequest,
-  planDataExtensionSchemaProvisioning,
-  verifyDataExtensionSchemaFields,
-  normalizeSetupVerification,
-  extendedFieldContractVersion,
-  stampRequirement,
-  validateExtendedFieldWriterReferences,
-};