The comment from the last commit had it backwards. It called the two
original assertions "not the guard" and claimed the three DB-state
assertions fail when adoption reaches the wrong figure — both false.
AdoptStripePrice performs no database writes at all, so nothing it does can
fail an assertion that reads the 2900-net row's own table state, singly or
in combination. The `archived` assertion — the only one that reads what
Stripe was actually told — is the one adoption can fail, by archiving the
frozen booking's own Price as a false duplicate of the new figure's orphan.
Left as a trusted comment, this would have read as an invitation to delete
the real guard as redundant scaffolding around the "real" three. Reworded to
say what the DB-state assertions actually defend instead — archiveSuperseded()
losing its net_cents scoping, or remember() rewritten as an updateOrCreate()
keyed without amount_cents — and to name where each of adoption's two guards
(the amount match, the claimed callback) is tested in isolation elsewhere in
this file, since neither is isolated here.
Also closed the `archived_at` assertion: it read null for a row that is
still live and for one that is gone or rewritten onto the wrong net_cents
alike. An `exists()` check now stands beside it.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
dca74f0d78