The admin "Delete all data" action carried its delete list inline. That
list named nine tables, which was most of the schema on the day it was
written, and it stayed at nine while the schema grew to a hundred and
twenty-two models. Laboratory results, documents, cycle logs, journals,
mood, workouts, sleep and Coach conversations all survived the wipe an
operator runs before handing a box on, and the toast said it was done.
The per-account wipe had the same defect and grew a derived plan for it.
The admin route now reads that plan: ADMIN_WIPE_MODELS is WIPE_MODELS
minus a single documented subtraction, so a model added to the schema
lands in both wipes at once.
- AccountGrant is the one difference, with its reason in the plan: it is
the only access path to a managed profile, and this action preserves
accounts by definition. Deleting every grant would leave records
nobody can open, administer or delete.
- The audit history now goes with everything else. It is a record of who
did what from where, which is exactly what clearing a box is for; the
receipt written after the transaction commits replaces it.
- One transaction with the same budget as the account wipe. A
half-applied wipe is worse than none, because the person is told it
succeeded either way.
- The result line reports rows and tables instead of nine fixed names,
which is how nobody noticed: it read the same whether the wipe had
cleared nine tables or ninety.
Guards, both watched red before landing:
admin-data-wipe-completeness.test.ts fails when a user-scoped model
reaches neither the wipe nor a written exemption, and when the route
names a table inline again. The integration guard seeds every table in
the schema for two accounts, runs the route, and asks the database what
is left — drop one model from the plan and it names the surviving table.
- Exclude and erase egress claims with recipient-side lookup support\n- Serialize data wipes with managed-profile Guardian authorization\n- Cover last-Guardian and queued-claim wipe races
An account grant is one account's standing permission to read another
account's record. The row is also the consent record for the act that
created it: there is no second receipt table, because two records of one
act drift and then nobody can say which is true.
That shapes the table. Revocation stamps revoked_at and revoked_by
instead of deleting, so the record can still answer who had access, from
when to when, and who ended it. The uniqueness constraint is therefore
partial — one live grant per (owner, delegate), with history accumulating
underneath — otherwise a re-invitation would either be refused or would
overwrite the first grant's acceptance. Both foreign keys cascade: a
grant naming a user who no longer exists is an authorization nobody can
resolve and nobody can revoke.
The state machine lives in src/lib/sharing/grants.ts and only there. The
acting-account resolver and the grant surfaces both read these rows, and
if each carried its own idea of "active" the drift would be silent in
exactly one direction: the resolver admitting a grant the panel shows as
ended. Pending confers nothing, expiry is checked against the clock of
the request that reads the row, and every transition is a conditional
update so two concurrent accepts cannot both win.
The access column carries READ or WRITE and only READ is ever written.
It exists from day one so that delegated writes become enforcement work
rather than migration work.
Three lifecycle paths, each proven against the real route:
- Delete All Data removes grants from either side. The wipe loop asks
every model for "this account's rows", and a table relating two
accounts has no user_id to answer with, so wipe-plan.ts now declares
the owner columns and translates. Wiping only the grantor side would
leave the account still holding access to other people's records.
- Account deletion removes them in both directions.
- An admin restore leaves them exactly as it found them. Grants are
classified NOT_IN_BACKUP: rolling data back is a decision an admin
makes, but rolling an authorization back is a decision nobody makes,
and a grant revoked on Tuesday must not come back alive out of
Monday's file. After a restore, sharing is off and both people
re-consent.
The backup classification guard was reading a user relation by field
name, so a model naming its account relations grantor and grantee read
as instance-scoped and was excused from having a verdict at all. It now
reads the type. That surfaced InviteToken, classified here too.
The defect is about rows that survive, so a mocked client proves nothing. The
new integration test seeds a row into every table in the schema, driven by
information_schema and pg_constraint rather than a fixture, runs the wipe and
asks the database what is left. A table added later is seeded and asserted
without anyone remembering to.
It holds all four halves: nothing in the wipe list survives, everything in the
exemption list does, everything reached only by a database cascade is gone,
and the account row comes back reset but able to sign in. A second file pins
the allergy and checkup-reminder deletes actually removing their row.
The reproductive-health note gains a Deletion section. It taught people to
reason carefully about a host being imaged and never said what pressing
delete does; now it says which of the three deletions removes the row and
which only hides it.
The wipe deleted thirteen tables against a schema that carries more than
eighty user-scoped ones. Mental-health assessments, lab results, the
menstrual record, allergies, family history, the document vault, every AI
conversation and live clinician share links all survived a confirmation
that promised to permanently delete all health data. So did
MeasurementRollup, the per-day reconstruction of the measurements the same
transaction had just removed.
The list now lives in src/lib/data-wipe/wipe-plan.ts next to its own
exemption list, and a structural guard enumerates schema.prisma and fails
when a model belongs to neither. Adding a model can no longer widen the set
of things that survive a wipe by default. The same guard covers the User
row's own columns, which had drifted the same way.
The boundary is explicit: everything the account owns goes, except what is
needed to sign in again. The confirmation and the toast say so before the
person types the confirmation rather than after.
Checkup reminders and allergies promised permanence over a soft delete with
no restore path; both now hard-delete, so the dialog is true. The lab
biomarker dialog was checked and is already accurate — it maps to the
hard-deleting /api/biomarkers/[id] route, not to the soft-deleting lab
result route.
Marc-André Bombeck