2 Commits (3e7026407bb3ee2b2a18c8d37d48588b8ff7548e)

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
nexxo	0a89695189	R24: a modal is never taller than the screen ... A modal grew with its content, so a form ran off the bottom of the window and took its own save button with it — reachable only by scrolling the page BEHIND the backdrop, which on a phone means not reachable at all. The customer form with its eight fields is what made it obvious, but it was true of every long modal in the console. Two halves. The panel is capped once, in the published package view, so no modal can opt out of it and none has to remember to: max-h in dvh rather than vh, because on a phone the browser's own chrome counts towards vh and that is exactly the case where the last centimetre decides whether the button can be reached. And x-ui.modal is the other half — a header slot, a scrolling body, a footer slot. min-h-0 on the body is the line that makes it work: a flex child will not shrink below its content without it, and the overflow never engages. Fourteen modals converted: the ones that carry a field, which are the ones that can grow. A two-line confirmation with one button has nothing that needs to stay put, and the rule says so rather than leaving a footnote — the test's criterion is the field, so the moment somebody adds an input to a confirmation it fails and tells them. A submit button in a footer sits outside the form it submits, so it carries form="…". That is the price of a footer that does not scroll away, and an HTML attribute rather than a workaround; there is a test for it, because without it the button silently does nothing. Two traps met on the way, both now scanned for. A Blade directive in a component tag's attribute list (a conditional wire:poll on x-ui.modal) compiles into the attribute bag and breaks the view outright — the same mistake as @disabled on x-ui.button, which cost a debugging round earlier this session; such attributes go on an element of their own. And Pest's toContain() is variadic, so the second argument I passed as a failure message was read as another needle: the assertion demanded that a footer contain its own filename, and failed on a file that was correct. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-29 23:33:57 +02:00
nexxo	f00cbf18d3	Let an operator correct a customer's details ... The console could show them and not touch them, so a moved office or a new contact person meant impersonating the customer or editing the database by hand. Both are worse than a form. R20: a modal, opened from the Stammdaten tab, authorising again and reading the record itself rather than trusting anything the browser hydrated. Most of the work is in what saving must NOT quietly do. The customer type is never reset to "nobody asked". The field opens on "leave unchanged" precisely so that saving an address correction cannot undo it — that answer decides whether a withdrawal right exists, and losing it silently would be the expensive kind of quiet. A changed VAT number is unverified from the moment it is stored — the verification is bound to the value, so that happens by itself — but `vat_id_verified_value` is left alone: it is the record of what WAS checked, and clearing it would destroy the evidence rather than the claim. The address is also the sign-in address and the key inbound mail is matched by, so changing it moves the linked portal login in the same transaction and puts it back to unverified, which is what Laravel's own profile update does for the same reason: nobody has shown they can read the new address. No mail is sent from here — the portal asks for the confirmation at the next sign-in, and a mail an operator did not knowingly send is a surprise. Three addresses are refused: one belonging to an operator (R21 — no index spans the two tables, so it is checked), one belonging to another customer, and one belonging to somebody else's user row, which can outlive or predate a matching customer. Not offered here, each for its own reason: `status`, because suspending has consequences for access and a lifecycle switch hidden among address fields is one somebody flips by accident; `stripe_customer_id`, because a wrong one does not move a contract, it points our records at somebody else's payments; the brand fields, because the customer sets those for themselves and an operator overwriting a logo is not a correction. There is a test that fails if any of them appears — with the comments stripped first, since the class documents at length why they are absent and that documentation is not the offence. This repository has fallen into that trap three times. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-29 23:18:46 +02:00