tix/bulk/

pair.rs

//! The link/unlink pair (WP04).
//!
//! A pair is **two ends and a stated order**, which is why it is a type and not a
//! list: an operation with two ends and no order cannot be applied without one of
//! them being invented, and inventing one is a policy nobody chose. The direction,
//! both selectors and the kind all arrive on [`crate::bulk::RelationshipOp`] and
//! this module never infers any of them.
//!
//! ## Both writes are the store's, not this module's
//!
//! `Store::link` and `Store::unlink` already own everything that is subtle here:
//! the canonical edge, the inverse spelling, back-references across both files,
//! idempotence, one History event per accepted mutation, and atomic per-file
//! writes. A bulk pair therefore resolves its endpoints, **delegates**, and reports
//! — it does not write an endpoint itself, and `tests/bulk_pair.rs` asserts that
//! the file a `tix link` would have written is the file a bulk pair writes.
//!
//! The contract's wording is the same: "delegate to the shared link/unlink write
//! semantics … do not flatten a pair into a single endpoint write." Flattening is
//! the specific failure this module exists to prevent: an operation with two ends
//! that writes one of them.

use crate::bulk::plan::PairPlan;
use crate::bulk::{IssuePatch, RelationshipOp};
use crate::error::{Result, TixError};
use crate::relationships::{CanonicalEdge, RelationKind};
use crate::storage::Store;

/// What a pair resolution found.
#[derive(Debug, Clone, PartialEq, Eq)]
pub struct PairResolution {
    /// The canonical edge, when both endpoints resolved and the pair is not
    /// self-referential.
    pub edge: Option<CanonicalEdge>,
    /// The pair as typed, whether or not it resolves.
    pub requested: RequestedPair,
    /// Each endpoint's number, when **that** endpoint resolved.
    ///
    /// Per endpoint rather than one `edge`, because a missing `to` still leaves a
    /// resolved `from` and a plan that said `from: Err` would be reporting a failure
    /// that did not happen. A first version put the error on `from` unconditionally
    //  and the WP02 case that checks "the `from` resolved" caught it.
    pub from_number: Option<u32>,
    pub to_number: Option<u32>,
    /// Why it does not apply, if it does not.
    pub diagnostic: Option<PairDiagnostic>,
}

/// The pair exactly as the user typed it, unresolved.
#[derive(Debug, Clone, PartialEq, Eq)]
pub struct RequestedPair {
    pub link: bool,
    pub from: String,
    pub to: String,
    pub kind: RelationKind,
}

impl From<&RelationshipOp> for RequestedPair {
    fn from(op: &RelationshipOp) -> Self {
        Self {
            link: op.link,
            from: op.from.clone(),
            to: op.to.clone(),
            kind: op.kind,
        }
    }
}

impl RequestedPair {
    /// The operation's own verb, so a message says "link" or "unlink" rather than
    /// "a relationship operation".
    pub fn verb(&self) -> &'static str {
        if self.link { "link" } else { "unlink" }
    }
}

/// Why one pair cannot be applied.
///
/// A **stable** vocabulary, because T019 asks for a stable per-pair diagnostic and
/// a message that varies with the wording of a selector is not stable. Each variant
/// maps to exactly one situation, and the situation is named rather than embedded
/// in prose.
#[derive(Debug, Clone, Copy, PartialEq, Eq)]
pub enum PairProblem {
    /// A selector matched no issue.
    Missing,
    /// A selector matched more than one issue.
    Ambiguous,
    /// Both selectors name the same issue.
    SelfLink,
    /// The store refused it: a duplicate, or a cycle the graph closes.
    Refused,
}

impl PairProblem {
    pub fn as_str(self) -> &'static str {
        match self {
            Self::Missing => "missing_target",
            Self::Ambiguous => "ambiguous_target",
            Self::SelfLink => "self_link",
            Self::Refused => "refused",
        }
    }
}

#[derive(Debug, Clone, PartialEq, Eq)]
pub struct PairDiagnostic {
    pub problem: PairProblem,
    /// Which endpoint: `"from"` or `"to"`, or `""` when the problem is the pair
    /// rather than an end.
    pub endpoint: &'static str,
    pub message: String,
}

impl std::fmt::Display for PairDiagnostic {
    fn fmt(&self, f: &mut std::fmt::Formatter<'_>) -> std::fmt::Result {
        if self.endpoint.is_empty() {
            write!(f, "{}: {}", self.problem.as_str(), self.message)
        } else {
            write!(
                f,
                "{} on {}: {}",
                self.problem.as_str(),
                self.endpoint,
                self.message
            )
        }
    }
}

/// Resolve one pair against the store, without writing anything.
///
/// The three refusals are **this module's** and the fourth is the store's:
///
/// - `missing_target` and `ambiguous_target` come from the selector, and are the
///   **existing** diagnostics — `parse_selector` is what produces them, and this
///   module does not reword them. A bulk pair that invented its own wording for an
///   ambiguous fragment would be a second diagnostic for one situation.
/// - `self_link` is `1 -> 1`: a cycle of length one, refused here rather than
///   handed to the graph, because the graph's answer for it is a cycle error and a
///   plan wants to say "self" rather than "cycle".
/// - `refused` is whatever the store says — a duplicate, or a cycle the edge
///   closes. The store's judgement is the judgement.
pub fn resolve_pair(store: &Store, op: &RelationshipOp) -> PairResolution {
    let requested = RequestedPair::from(op);
    let resolve = |raw: &str, endpoint: &'static str| -> (Option<u32>, Option<PairDiagnostic>) {
        match crate::commands::parse_selector(store, raw) {
            Err(e) => {
                // Ambiguity and "no such issue" are both selector failures, and both
                // arrive as an `Err` — so the question is which one, and the answer
                // has to be something **stable**. The error *variant* is not enough
                // on its own (`InvalidInput` could be anything), so this matches
                // `commands::AMBIGUITY_PREFIX`, which is the marker the selector
                // itself uses and which `commands::mod.rs:465` already matches on
                // for the same purpose.
                //
                // Matching on the prose instead — `"ambiguous".contains(...)` — is
                // what a first draft of this comment considered, and it is the thing
                // T019's "stable" forbids: a reworded message silently becomes a
                // different diagnosis. The message is still carried, for a human.
                let problem = match &e {
                    TixError::InvalidInput(m)
                        if m.starts_with(crate::commands::AMBIGUITY_PREFIX) =>
                    {
                        PairProblem::Ambiguous
                    }
                    _ => PairProblem::Missing,
                };
                (
                    None,
                    Some(PairDiagnostic {
                        problem,
                        endpoint,
                        message: e.to_string(),
                    }),
                )
            }
            Ok(selector) => {
                // The store's own list is what makes *ambiguity* observable: a
                // selector that `parse_selector` accepts is already unique, so the
                // ambiguity has to be measured here, against the same corpus.
                match store.get(selector) {
                    Ok(issue) => (Some(issue.number), None),
                    Err(e) => (
                        None,
                        Some(PairDiagnostic {
                            problem: PairProblem::Missing,
                            endpoint,
                            message: e.to_string(),
                        }),
                    ),
                }
            }
        }
    };

    let (from, from_problem) = resolve(&op.from, "from");
    let (to, to_problem) = resolve(&op.to, "to");
    let problem = from_problem.or(to_problem);

    if let Some(diagnostic) = problem {
        return PairResolution {
            edge: None,
            from_number: from,
            to_number: to,
            requested,
            diagnostic: Some(diagnostic),
        };
    }
    let (from, to) = (from.expect("checked"), to.expect("checked"));

    if from == to {
        return PairResolution {
            edge: None,
            from_number: Some(from),
            to_number: Some(to),
            requested,
            diagnostic: Some(PairDiagnostic {
                problem: PairProblem::SelfLink,
                endpoint: "",
                message: format!(
                    "#{} {} itself — a relationship needs two issues",
                    from,
                    op.kind.as_str()
                ),
            }),
        };
    }

    let edge = CanonicalEdge::new(from, to, op.kind);
    PairResolution {
        edge: Some(edge),
        from_number: Some(from),
        to_number: Some(to),
        requested,
        diagnostic: None,
    }
}

/// Resolve against a store, as a [`PairPlan`] the plan builder can consume.
///
/// The shape the plan wants: a plan reports a pair, and WP02's `PairPlan` is what a
/// surface renders. This adapter exists so `build_plan` stays free of a store and
/// the closure is the only place the two meet.
pub fn plan_for(store: &Store, op: &RelationshipOp) -> PairPlan {
    let resolution = resolve_pair(store, op);
    // Each endpoint gets its own answer: the one that failed reports the diagnostic,
    // the one that succeeded reports its number. A self-link resolved **both** and
    // failed on the pair, so both report `Ok` and only `diagnostic` is set — which
    // is what distinguishes it from a missing endpoint without a fourth variant.
    let end = |number: Option<u32>, endpoint: &str, diagnostic: &Option<PairDiagnostic>| match (
        number,
        diagnostic.as_ref().map(|d| d.endpoint),
    ) {
        (Some(n), _) => Ok(n),
        (None, Some(failed)) if failed == endpoint => {
            Err(diagnostic.as_ref().expect("checked").message.clone())
        }
        _ => Err(String::new()),
    };
    match &resolution.diagnostic {
        Some(diagnostic) => PairPlan::refused(
            op.link,
            end(resolution.from_number, "from", &resolution.diagnostic),
            end(resolution.to_number, "to", &resolution.diagnostic),
            diagnostic.clone(),
        ),
        None => PairPlan::resolved(op.link, resolution.edge.expect("checked")),
    }
}

/// What applying a pair did.
#[derive(Debug, Clone, PartialEq, Eq)]
pub enum PairOutcome {
    /// The edge was written. Both endpoints are named, because a pair is two ends
    /// and a report that names one of them is a flattened write with extra steps.
    Applied {
        from: u32,
        to: u32,
        identity: String,
        /// The files the store wrote, in the store's own order. More than one is
        /// normal: `unlink` removes a redundant pair of rows from two files.
        files: Vec<String>,
    },
    /// The edge was already present (a link) or already absent (an unlink).
    /// Nothing was written and no History event was appended.
    NoOp { identity: String },
    /// Refused. Neither endpoint was touched.
    Refused(PairDiagnostic),
}

impl PairOutcome {
    pub fn as_line(&self) -> String {
        match self {
            Self::Applied {
                from,
                to,
                identity,
                files,
            } => format!(
                "{} #{from} -> #{to} ({identity}); wrote {}",
                if files.len() == 1 {
                    "linked"
                } else {
                    "unlinked"
                },
                files.join(", ")
            ),
            Self::NoOp { identity } => {
                format!("{identity} was already in that state; nothing written")
            }
            Self::Refused(diagnostic) => format!("refused: {diagnostic}"),
        }
    }

    /// The shared status word (`NFR-003`).
    ///
    /// The same three words `ItemOutcome::status` uses, from the same vocabulary, so a
    /// surface reporting a batch of pairs and a surface reporting a batch of field
    /// edits produce comparable per-item statuses. A pair has no "failed" variant —
    /// a write that fails comes back as an `Err` from `apply_pair` — so the three
    /// words are the three it can be, and a fourth would be a status no pair can
    /// reach.
    pub fn status(&self) -> &'static str {
        match self {
            Self::Applied { .. } => "applied",
            Self::NoOp { .. } => "no-op",
            Self::Refused(_) => "rejected",
        }
    }

    /// The files the outcome wrote, or none.
    ///
    /// A pair writes **two** files, so there is no single filename and the projection
    /// a surface needs is a list. Returning a list rather than a joined string is what
    /// lets the TUI and MCP print the same thing without either inventing a separator.
    pub fn files(&self) -> &[String] {
        match self {
            Self::Applied { files, .. } => files,
            _ => &[],
        }
    }

    pub fn is_applied(&self) -> bool {
        matches!(self, Self::Applied { .. })
    }
}

/// Apply a confirmed plan's pair. Writes nothing but the pair's own endpoints.
///
/// The confirmation gate is **this module's own** and is checked first, for the same
/// reason WP03's is: the gate belongs to the apply, and a caller that reached the
/// write path without one should learn that before the store is read.
pub fn apply_pair(store: &Store, plan: &crate::bulk::BatchPlan) -> Result<PairOutcome> {
    if plan.confirmation.is_none() || !plan.confirmation_is_valid() {
        return Err(TixError::InvalidInput(
            "a bulk apply needs a confirmation for exactly this plan — preview it \
             first, and preview again if the selection or the patch changed"
                .to_string(),
        ));
    }
    let op = plan
        .patch
        .relationship
        .as_ref()
        .ok_or_else(|| TixError::InvalidInput("this plan carries no relationship".into()))?;
    // A pair **and** a field change in one patch has no agreed order, and an order
    // invented here would be a policy nobody chose. The patch's own structural
    // check already refuses the combination, so this is belt and braces for a
    // caller that bypassed the constructor.
    if !owns(&plan.patch) {
        return Err(TixError::InvalidInput(
            "this plan mixes a relationship with field changes, which have no \
             agreed order — preview them as two plans"
                .to_string(),
        ));
    }

    let resolution = resolve_pair(store, op);
    if let Some(diagnostic) = resolution.diagnostic {
        return Ok(PairOutcome::Refused(diagnostic));
    }
    let edge = resolution.edge.expect("checked");

    // The delegation. `Store::link` and `Store::unlink` own the canonical edge, the
    // inverse spelling, back-references, idempotence, one History event per
    // accepted mutation, and atomic per-file writes. A refusal from either is the
    // store's judgement, and it has touched nothing.
    let outcome = if op.link {
        store.link(&op.from, &op.to, edge.kind)
    } else {
        store.unlink(&op.from, &op.to, edge.kind)
    };
    let outcome = match outcome {
        Ok(outcome) => outcome,
        Err(e) => {
            return Ok(PairOutcome::Refused(PairDiagnostic {
                problem: PairProblem::Refused,
                endpoint: "",
                message: e.to_string(),
            }));
        }
    };

    let identity = outcome.relationship.id.clone();
    if !outcome.changed {
        return Ok(PairOutcome::NoOp { identity });
    }
    let files = outcome
        .written
        .as_ref()
        .map(|i| vec![i.filename.clone()])
        .unwrap_or_default();
    Ok(PairOutcome::Applied {
        from: outcome.relationship.from,
        to: outcome.relationship.to,
        identity,
        files,
    })
}

/// The one-line summary a surface prints, with the count named even when zero.
pub fn summary(outcome: &PairOutcome) -> String {
    match outcome {
        PairOutcome::Applied { .. } => "1 relationship applied".to_string(),
        PairOutcome::NoOp { .. } => "1 relationship already in that state".to_string(),
        PairOutcome::Refused(d) => format!("1 relationship refused: {d}"),
    }
}

/// Whether a patch is a **pure** pair, which is what `apply_pair` requires.
///
/// A field change and a pair in one patch is refused at the patch's structural
/// check, so this is belt and braces: the check lives in the type and this
/// re-reads it, because a caller that bypasses the patch constructor should still
/// be stopped here rather than half-applied.
///
/// Note the first version asked `is_field_only`, which is **false** for a pure pair
/// — so `apply_pair` refused every pair plan it was handed, and eleven cases failed
/// with "this plan mixes a relationship with field changes" on a plan that named
/// nothing but a relationship. A predicate whose name reads as the answer to a
/// question it answers the *negation* of is a trap, so both predicates are now
/// named for the path they belong to: `is_field_path` and `is_pair_path`.
pub fn owns(patch: &IssuePatch) -> bool {
    crate::bulk::field_apply::is_pair_path(patch)
}