From 24266ca1bd30b26835607f40b29355a91ec11cd3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Micha=C5=82=20Pierzcha=C5=82a?= <thymikee@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2026 11:14:02 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] test(daemon): pin resolveScriptTarget's retention table
 directly

The repair suites pin these rules transitively (they caught the bare-re-arm
collapse during the P4a migration), but only through healed-sibling path
assertions downstream. A direct table on the transition makes a regression
name the retention rule it broke.

Refs #1478, #1258

Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
---
 .../session-script-publication-state.test.ts  | 57 +++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 57 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 src/daemon/__tests__/session-script-publication-state.test.ts

diff --git a/src/daemon/__tests__/session-script-publication-state.test.ts b/src/daemon/__tests__/session-script-publication-state.test.ts
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..feb119d31
--- /dev/null
+++ b/src/daemon/__tests__/session-script-publication-state.test.ts
@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+import { expect, test } from 'vitest';
+import { armRepair, resolveScriptTarget } from '../session-script-publication-state.ts';
+
+// The retention table for the per-target force model (#1258). The repair suites pin these
+// transitively through healed-sibling paths; this pins the transition itself, so a regression
+// names the rule it broke instead of a downstream path assertion.
+
+test('a bare re-arm keeps a materialized explicit target and its grant', () => {
+  const previous = { kind: 'explicit', path: '/flows/a.healed.ad', force: true } as const;
+  expect(resolveScriptTarget(previous, { force: false })).toEqual(previous);
+});
+
+test('a bare re-arm with live force adds the grant without touching the path', () => {
+  expect(
+    resolveScriptTarget(
+      { kind: 'explicit', path: '/flows/a.healed.ad', force: false },
+      { force: true },
+    ),
+  ).toEqual({ kind: 'explicit', path: '/flows/a.healed.ad', force: true });
+});
+
+test('re-arming the same explicit path keeps an existing grant', () => {
+  expect(
+    resolveScriptTarget(
+      { kind: 'explicit', path: '/flows/a.ad', force: true },
+      { path: '/flows/a.ad', force: false },
+    ),
+  ).toEqual({ kind: 'explicit', path: '/flows/a.ad', force: true });
+});
+
+test('retargeting to a different explicit path without live force drops the grant', () => {
+  expect(
+    resolveScriptTarget(
+      { kind: 'explicit', path: '/flows/a.ad', force: true },
+      { path: '/flows/b.ad', force: false },
+    ),
+  ).toEqual({ kind: 'explicit', path: '/flows/b.ad', force: false });
+});
+
+test('moving from default to an explicit path keeps the grant (#1258 flagged retention)', () => {
+  expect(
+    resolveScriptTarget({ kind: 'default', force: true }, { path: '/flows/out.ad', force: false }),
+  ).toEqual({ kind: 'explicit', path: '/flows/out.ad', force: true });
+});
+
+test('per-step repair re-arms never move the boundary or wipe the healed sibling', () => {
+  const armed = armRepair(
+    { kind: 'none' },
+    {
+      requested: { path: '/flows/login.healed.ad', force: false },
+      boundary: 3,
+      sourcePath: '/flows/login.ad',
+    },
+  );
+  const rearmed = armRepair(armed, { requested: { force: false }, boundary: 0 });
+  expect(rearmed).toEqual(armed);
+});