`writableDomains` answers "is there at least one delegated write route in this
section this grant satisfies". Its docblock promised a per-section answer the
table cannot give: within a section the split runs by verb, and three of the
four sections marked writable carry MANAGE-only creates beside their WRITE ones
— an allergy and a family-history entry under `profile`, a water entry and a
checkup reminder under `measurements`, a snooze and a re-recorded dose under
`medications`.
No shipped control is wrong because of it: the allergy and family-history forms
already ask the manage question, and so does the water entry. But the name and
the sentence beside it invite a control to read "my section is writable,
therefore my create is", and that reading is wrong in three sections out of
four.
Documentation only, in the three places the claim is made — the published
field, the function that derives it, and the guard that holds it against the
routes, whose green run now says what it does not prove. A per-verb table would
be a second place the route declarations live, and the declarations are what
decides; the control keeps asking the hook for its own verb class.
`canWrite` is the grant's LEVEL and carries no scope term. Its docblock said
"May this caller ADD to that record", and the client hook republished it as
`canAdd`, so fourteen controls across measurements, medications, labs, illness
and the dashboard gated a create on a boolean that answers `true` for a WRITE
grant scoped to the document vault — a grant whose writable-section list is
empty, because the vault takes no delegated write at any level.
Nothing shipped was visibly wrong before the capture picker, because the nav
drops a section a grant does not open. That is a property of one surface, not
of the answer, and the answer is the thing many controls read.
So the coarse answer is gone from the hook, and every consumer asks
`canWriteDomain` for its own section instead: `measurements` on the two
measurement surfaces and the dashboard's empty state, `medications` on the
medication list, table, ledger, card menu and side effects, `labs` on the lab
list and biomarker detail, `illness` on the episode list. Each of those is the
section its own route declares. `canWrite` keeps its name and its wire shape —
native clients read it — and its docblock now says what it is: whether the
grant is a reading one, with the per-section lists beside it for the question a
control actually has.
The hook table gained the vault-scoped WRITE grant as its own leg: level true,
every section false. The take-all-due fixture described a grant the server
never mints — `canWrite: true` over an empty writable list — and now derives
its list from the same table the server derives it from.
Every accountAccess entry on GET /api/auth/me carries writableDomains
and manageableDomains: the sections the grant opens, intersected with
the sections whose routes accept a delegated write at that level. A
READ grant gets two empty lists, a WRITE grant gets writable sections
only, a MANAGE grant gets both, and the vault appears in neither.
The client parser checks the structural invariants (no repeats, within
the grant's sections, manageable within writable, nothing below the
level) and requires the two published views of the active record to
agree on the lists. Regenerate the OpenAPI document and extend the
payload consumer guard with the active-record readers.
The switcher and the banner named a shared record's owner by their greeting
name — the value they typed at onboarding for "how should HealthLog address
you". When an owner has set a full name, that is what a delegate should see:
entering somebody's record, you read whose it is by who they are.
- the account-access resolver publishes the owner's `fullName` alongside the
greeting name and the username
- `accountLabel` prefers fullName, then displayName, then username. Optional
on the argument so the grant-view and actor shapes that never carried it
keep the old two-field behaviour untouched
- the closed presentation schema carries `fullName` and its parity matcher
compares it, so the two published views of the active record cannot name
the same owner differently
- the OpenAPI contract regenerates with the additive field
This deliberately discloses the owner's full name to every delegate, read-only
included — it was patient-identity data behind a MANAGE-gated export until now.
That is the intended behaviour, documented at `accountLabel` so it is not
mistaken for a leak and tightened back. The resolver, the schema parity, the
label fallback and a read-only delegate's banner are each pinned by a test.
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.
The payload type still said the level is read throughout and `canWrite` false.
Both were true of the shipped release and neither survives the invitation
gaining a choice. Also says what `canWrite` does not mean, since the word
invites a larger reading than the thing it grants.
`GET /api/auth/me` grows an `accountAccess` block: the accounts this caller
may act on, the one the browser is inside right now, and the booleans a UI
binds directly — `canSwitch`, and `canWrite` per account. Every value is
resolved server-side. A client that worked out what it may do from grant rows
would be a second program deciding one person's access to a health record, and
the two answer differently the first time an expiry or a revocation appears.
`canWrite` is false for every grant in v1 because invitations write READ only.
It is resolved through the grant state machine rather than hardcoded, so the
day a WRITE grant exists the answer changes without this file being edited.
The route becomes an actor surface. It has to be: the switcher, the banner
naming whose record is open, and the way back out all read this payload, and
under a bare `requireAuth()` the whole app shell would refuse the moment a
switch was on. Every field it returns is still the caller's own.
The active record is published as a full entry, not an id to look up. A banner
that had to join two fields could render unnamed the moment they disagreed;
here the active entry is one of the listed ones, selected by the pass that
built them. A stamp left behind by a grant that lapsed reads as not switched —
the same answer the resolver gives the next delegated request.
Not published: the other account's avatar. Those bytes are owner-scoped, so a
URL here would resolve to a refusal and paint a broken image. Clients keep the
initials fallback.
Marc-André Bombeck