Settings gains one section for one concept: who else can open this health
record, whose this account may open, and when they were opened. Split across
two pages it would be two half-answers.
An invitation confers nothing until the other person accepts it, and the card
says so above the field rather than after the submit — that is the part
somebody needs to know before they type a name. Refusals are named from the
stable errorCode, because "no account with that name" and "that person already
has access" are different situations with different next steps.
Ended grants stay in the list. The row is the consent record, and "who had
access, from when to when, and who ended it" is the question the panel exists
to answer; a list that dropped them could not. Revoking asks once and then does
it: reducing access must never be harder than granting it was.
`GET /api/account/activity` answers the owner's other question. One row per
person per day with a count, not one per request — a hundred identical lines
is a way of answering nothing. The window is published with the rows rather
than assumed: audit history is purged on a schedule the operator sets, so the
view prints the number the server resolved from the same setting the purge job
reads. An instance running ninety days says ninety.
Six locales ship with it.
The lifecycle surface under /api/account. An owner offers read access to
somebody already on the instance, the delegate accepts, either side ends
it, and a browser session points itself at a record it has been granted.
Ending a grant clears the acting-account carrier on every session of the
delegate pointing at that record, in the same transaction that stamps the
row. Split apart, a revocation would leave a browser inside a record it
can no longer read: every request refused, the banner still naming the
owner, nothing on screen able to explain it.
Revocation has no step-up and no confirmation step. Reducing access must
never be harder than granting it was.
Grant management is non-delegable by construction rather than by a check:
every route here resolves through bare requireAuth(), which refuses while
the caller is acting on another account, so no code path through them
runs as somebody else. The switch endpoint is the one actor surface, and
it is the way back out. A delegate already inside a record renounces
after switching out, one request, rather than the fail-closed default
growing an exception that later gets widened.
The state machine is not re-implemented anywhere: routes call the grant
module's predicate and its transitions, and the session carrier has one
writer.
Marc-André Bombeck