The pre-create sweep in inviteGrant writes an audit row when it closes a
lapsed grant, so the transaction slice it accepts now covers auditLog
alongside accountGrant. Point the module and route test fakes at the
same shape: they stub updateMany to close nothing, so the audit branch
stays unreached in the unit fixtures.
The revoke dialog tells an owner that "who entered what" stays answerable for
N days, and the activity list prints the same number under its heading. The
query behind that list had no date filter: on an instance whose retention was
shortened it showed rows the sentence said were already gone, and the number
was a caption over an unbounded read rather than its limit. It is the filter
now, resolved once so the bound and the sentence cannot drift apart.
The list also stopped at a hundred rows and said nothing about it, which is the
more dangerous of the two silences — an owner who scrolls to the bottom reads
the oldest visible line as the beginning, and a busy household reaches the cap
in a fraction of the window. The response says which of the two limits it hit,
and the view states it only when it did: a caveat that is always on is one
people learn to skip.
The self-hosting page said an empty list means nobody opened the record. It
means nobody did so within the window. Corrected, with the row cap named
alongside it.
Every action a manage-level route files now renders as its own sentence in
the owner's activity view, in all six locales. A write delegate can only add,
so the generic "made a change" was at least the right shape of fact; a manager
changes and removes entries the owner made themselves, and the generic line
withholds the only part that matters — whether a reading was corrected or
deleted, whether a dose history was purged.
The inventory reads the routes and calls the map rather than matching `case`
in its source, so an action that falls through to the fallback fails, and it
follows each resolved key into all six bundles. Every sentence interpolates
the actor's name and nothing else: the audit table is not encrypted and a
value in a verb line would be a health figure in a second store.
The revoke dialog's retention disclosure no longer depends on which of two
requests answers first. `retentionDays` rides the grant list, so a client
holding a row to revoke holds the window it must state, and the branch that
omitted the sentence is gone.
- both record resolvers check the fence after authentication and before
the carrier, off the one session row that also decides the scope
- POST /api/account/switch takes an optional expectedEpoch and writes
conditionally, so concurrent switchers resolve to one outcome
- GET /api/auth/me publishes the context a browser bootstraps from
- every response that resolved a record scope echoes it back
- regenerate the API contract
An owner can now narrow a grant to the parts of their record they mean to
share, and can offer the third level. Both decisions are made once, on the
invitation, and neither widens afterwards.
The invite schema takes `scope`: absent or null is the entire record, which
is what every stored grant means and what an owner who does not narrow still
gets. An empty array, a key outside the vocabulary and the whole-record
sentinel are each refused with a 422 naming the field; `inviteGrant` refuses
the same three underneath, and its `invalid_scope` now has an HTTP mapping
instead of falling into the generic refusal.
Offering MANAGE asks for a fresh second factor when the account has one. That
gate resolves through the session cookie and has no Bearer fall-through, so a
token caller is refused first with `sharing.invite.manage_browser_only` rather
than being told it is not authenticated by a route that had just
authenticated it. The consequence is deliberate: management of a health
record is offered from a browser.
The account payload gains `sections` and `level` beside `access` and
`canWrite`, resolved server-side and ordered as the consent screen reads.
`access` was `grant.access === "WRITE" ? "write" : "read"`, which would have
published a grant that can delete entries as read-only; it is a total map
now, so the next level cannot ship silent. The capabilities hook carries both
facts and turns neither into an affordance yet — the edit and delete controls
come back in the release where the routes behind them answer.
The consent surface asks two questions in order rather than laying out a
nineteen-cell grid. The level is three radios, narrowest preselected. What
they can open is two radios, the entire record preselected, and only the
narrow branch expands the eight sections with a sentence each. Both honest
limits are stated above the checkboxes, where the decision is being made: a
section shares everything written in it, and the cross-record surfaces do not
appear for a narrowed grant. Documents carries its own warning, cycle appears
only for an owner who tracks it, and Manage collapses the question to the one
line that answers it.
The Manage sentence says the other person can add, change and remove entries,
including ones the owner entered themselves, and says in the same breath what
it does not reach. The acceptance side gets its own responsibility line rather
than the write one wearing a stronger adjective.
Six locales.
A grant has meant one thing since it shipped: the whole record, to read or to
add to. This lays the words for the two shapes the rest of the sharing work
needs — part of a record, and management of one — while changing what no
existing grant does.
`ShareDomain` is a closed set of eight sections in `src/lib/sharing/scope.ts`,
clustered from the delegable read surfaces rather than invented, plus the
distinguished `record` for the routes that read across them. It never converts
to a `ModuleKey` and never imports one: two masks, two questions, no shared
spelling, because the day they share a name is the day somebody makes one
imply the other, and a module the owner enabled is not a section the owner
shared.
`account_grants.scope_json` is NULL on every row that exists, and NULL is the
entire record — the answer those rows were consented as, so no backfill and no
re-consent. A non-NULL value is read through one fail-closed normaliser: a
blob it cannot parse opens nothing, including a section the blob happened to
name. That is the deliberate inverse of the module preference normaliser,
which fails open on purpose; both do the safe thing with a value nobody can
read, and the safe thing differs because one answers an authorization question
and the other a presentation question.
`MANAGE` joins the level enum, ordered above WRITE so a write grant can never
satisfy it, and carries no scope at all: management of part of a record
promises a boundary that cannot survive an edit, so the invite path refuses to
write one.
`requireRecordAuth` takes the section as a second required argument. The
requirement is the lever — a delegable route without a classification does not
typecheck, so the set of classified routes cannot fall behind the set of
delegable ones. All fifty-seven modules carry theirs. The structural guard
freezes each against the production vocabulary, fails when a module's own arms
disagree, and pins a non-zero count of resolved sections so a matcher that
stopped reading the argument fails instead of agreeing with everything.
`requireGuardianAuth` is exported and reaches nothing yet. It gates on the
managed-profile marker rather than on the grant, so an adult who granted
management of their own record cannot arrive at that record's settings by any
argument about what MANAGE means: widening MANAGE would widen the record
resolver and would not touch this one. Its frozen list lands empty, with the
declaration site as the positive control that keeps "nothing reaches it" a
measurement rather than a renamed symbol.
`users.managed_profile_at` says since when a record is one somebody else runs.
A timestamp and not a boolean, for a reason the schema has to keep possible:
clearing it is the handover, and the grants and the activity trail span it
untouched.
A grant has always had an access column and `inviteGrant` has always written
READ into it. That was the right way to ship the first version: "this release
never grants write" was a property of the file rather than a promise in a
comment. Remove it deliberately now, so somebody sharing their record can offer
reading or reading plus adding.
The level is a required argument to `inviteGrant` and is defaulted in exactly
one place, the invite schema, where an omitted field becomes READ. An older
client's payload therefore stays valid and stays narrow, and the domain module
never guesses a level nobody named.
There is no upgrade path and that is the decision, not a gap. A grant is READ
or WRITE from the moment it is offered and stays that way until somebody ends
it. Widening a live one would change what the delegate agreed to without asking
them again, and their consent is half of what makes a write grant legitimate.
The way up is a new invitation, accepted again.
The audit row and the wide event carry the level: "who was given what, and by
whom" is the question that row exists to answer.
A consent record has to answer who consented and when, and the grant row
already does. It does not have to answer from where, and an address kept for
as long as both accounts exist is personal data held past the point it
evidences anything. Nothing read the column, which makes it exactly the
write-only field scripts/audit-column-readers.ts exists to surface.
The acceptance stays evidenced: audit_logs records it with the caller's
address under that table's own retention. The column never reached the wire,
so the grant view and the OpenAPI contract are unchanged.
Written before the feature shipped, so migration 0295 drops an empty column.
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