Marc-André Bombeck b59a78155b docs(api): publish the share link's PDF and FHIR downloads ...

Both routes were exempt from the contract as `shareLink` — "authenticated
by the URL credential, for a recipient with no account". That reason
holds for the page a person opens. It does not hold for two routes whose
whole purpose is to hand a practice a file it files into another system,
which is exactly the audience a contract has. `/c/{token}/d/{id}` was
published all along, one route away in the same tree.

Each entry states the gate it shares with the page, the frozen selection
it can never exceed, the flat 404 that covers every miss class including
a documents-only link, and the 20/h per-link bucket. The FHIR entry says
plainly that it is a download and not a REST face, and names the two
resource families the bundle deliberately omits.

The create-request description claimed "there is no FHIR or other
machine-readable face behind a share token", which stopped being true
when these routes landed. It now describes what a link actually serves
and records that the insurance leaf is refused outright.

The coverage guard gains the other half of its staleness check. It caught
an exemption for a route that had disappeared, and never the reverse — an
exemption left behind after the route was published, which is how these
two would have stayed on the list while the contract already carried
them. Break-proof: re-add either entry and it goes red naming it.

2026-08-24 01:10:24 +02:00

2.3 MiB

Raw Blame History