Skip to content

feat: invoice discount display and two-step draft flow#693

Merged
bokelley merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
bokelley/invoice-discount-display
Jan 10, 2026
Merged

feat: invoice discount display and two-step draft flow#693
bokelley merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
bokelley/invoice-discount-display

Conversation

@bokelley

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Summary

  • Add discount banner showing percent/amount discounts on invoice products
  • Display strikethrough list prices with discounted net prices
  • Show "Recommended" badge for products matching org's revenue tier
  • Implement two-step invoice flow: Prepare Draft → Review → Send
  • Add draft review screen showing all invoice details before sending
  • Fix XSS vulnerability by replacing inline onclick handlers with data attributes and event listeners
  • Sort invoice products by price (lowest first) for better UX

Test plan

  • Tested invoice modal with discounts applied via Vibium browser
  • Verified strikethrough pricing displays correctly
  • Verified "Recommended" badge shows for matching revenue tier products
  • Tested two-step flow: Prepare Draft → Review screen → Send Invoice
  • Ran code review and addressed XSS vulnerability
  • TypeScript typecheck passes
  • All unit tests pass

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

- Add discount banner showing percent/amount discounts on invoice products
- Display strikethrough list prices with discounted net prices
- Show "Recommended" badge for products matching org's revenue tier
- Implement two-step invoice flow: Prepare Draft → Review → Send
- Add draft review screen showing all invoice details before sending
- Fix XSS vulnerability by replacing inline onclick handlers with data attributes and event listeners
- Sort invoice products by price (lowest first) for better UX

🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@bokelley bokelley merged commit 0ae7162 into main Jan 10, 2026
6 checks passed
bokelley added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 21, 2026
…oor rebaseline (#2639)

Adds the third cross-step assertion per expert review:

- After any denial signal (GOVERNANCE_DENIED, CAMPAIGN_SUSPENDED,
  PERMISSION_DENIED, POLICY_VIOLATION, TERMS_REJECTED, COMPLIANCE_UNSATISFIED,
  or check_governance status=denied) on a plan, no subsequent step may
  acquire a resource for that plan. Plan-scoped via plan_id; falls back
  to run-scoped for signals without plan linkage.
- Denial is sticky within a run — a later passing check_governance does
  not clear state. Requiring a fresh governance_context is correct
  semantics; this assertion encodes within-run monotonicity.
- Resource-acquired detection is task-allowlist (create_media_buy,
  update_media_buy, activate_signal, property/collection list CRUD,
  acquire_rights) + server-minted id fields. sync_* tasks deferred to
  follow-up (batch envelopes need schema-specific traversal).
- plan_id extraction reads response body first, then recorded request
  payload. Deliberately does NOT fall back to accumulated context —
  stale plan_id from earlier steps would bind denials to wrong plans.

Wired to governance-spend-authority (index + denied), governance-aware-seller,
governance-delivery-monitor. Silent on runs with no denial signal.

Tests: 41 passing including table-driven coverage of all 6 denial codes,
negative cases for excluded codes (GOVERNANCE_UNAVAILABLE, ACCOUNT_SUSPENDED,
CONFLICT, IDEMPOTENCY_CONFLICT), plan-scoped correctness, sticky state,
onStart reset, nested error.code shapes.

Rebases storyboard CI floors (legacy 35→27 clean, 279→271 passing;
framework 21→19 clean, 237→226 passing) to match @adcp/client 5.8.1
baseline. The drop is from upstream validation tightening (schema-driven
hooks #694, strict sync_creatives #661, refs_resolve cross-step #670,
branch_set grading #693, PRM enforcement #677), not this assertion —
the invariants: YAML additions are inert against the SDK-bundled
compliance cache until @adcp/client re-publishes its tarball. Follow-up
filed as adcp#2667 to diagnose the newly-failing storyboards.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
bokelley added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 21, 2026
#2639) (#2663)

* spec(compliance): first cross-step assertions on universal/idempotency (#2639)

Wires two programmatic gates to the universal idempotency storyboard via
the new `invariants: [...]` YAML field (shipped in @adcp/client 5.8+):

- idempotency.conflict_no_payload_leak — IDEMPOTENCY_CONFLICT error
  bodies must contain only allowlisted envelope fields. Leaking cached
  payload fingerprints (budget, start_time, cached_payload, etc.) turns
  stolen idempotency keys into a read oracle. Converts the key_reuse_conflict
  phase's reviewer_check into runtime enforcement.

- context.no_secret_echo — no response on any step may echo bearer
  literals, the test-kit's declared api_key, or suspect field names
  (Authorization, api_key, bearer, x-api-key) at any depth.

Modules live in server/src/compliance/assertions/ and register via
@adcp/client/testing's registry at import time. Runners must load them
before calling runStoryboard (CLI --invariants flag, or direct import);
the runner throws at start on unresolved ids.

Bumps @adcp/client to ^5.8.1 for the registry re-exports.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* spec(compliance): wire assertion registrations into runners (#2639)

CI failed on the parent PR because adding `invariants: [...]` to
universal/idempotency.yaml made the SDK runner throw at start on unresolved
ids — no caller was loading the assertion modules. Wire them in at the
choke points every storyboard-running flow already touches:

- server/src/services/storyboards.ts — API / comply() flows go through
  this wrapper; importing the assertions as a side effect registers them
  before any downstream runStoryboard call.
- server/tests/manual/run-storyboards.ts — the CI entry point; explicit
  import keeps the registration visible to the runner script itself.
- server/tests/manual/run-one-storyboard.ts, storyboard-smoke.ts —
  standalone manual runners that don't touch the service wrapper.

Node's module cache dedupes the actual registerAssertion calls, so the
overlap is harmless.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* spec(compliance): governance.denial_blocks_mutation assertion + CI floor rebaseline (#2639)

Adds the third cross-step assertion per expert review:

- After any denial signal (GOVERNANCE_DENIED, CAMPAIGN_SUSPENDED,
  PERMISSION_DENIED, POLICY_VIOLATION, TERMS_REJECTED, COMPLIANCE_UNSATISFIED,
  or check_governance status=denied) on a plan, no subsequent step may
  acquire a resource for that plan. Plan-scoped via plan_id; falls back
  to run-scoped for signals without plan linkage.
- Denial is sticky within a run — a later passing check_governance does
  not clear state. Requiring a fresh governance_context is correct
  semantics; this assertion encodes within-run monotonicity.
- Resource-acquired detection is task-allowlist (create_media_buy,
  update_media_buy, activate_signal, property/collection list CRUD,
  acquire_rights) + server-minted id fields. sync_* tasks deferred to
  follow-up (batch envelopes need schema-specific traversal).
- plan_id extraction reads response body first, then recorded request
  payload. Deliberately does NOT fall back to accumulated context —
  stale plan_id from earlier steps would bind denials to wrong plans.

Wired to governance-spend-authority (index + denied), governance-aware-seller,
governance-delivery-monitor. Silent on runs with no denial signal.

Tests: 41 passing including table-driven coverage of all 6 denial codes,
negative cases for excluded codes (GOVERNANCE_UNAVAILABLE, ACCOUNT_SUSPENDED,
CONFLICT, IDEMPOTENCY_CONFLICT), plan-scoped correctness, sticky state,
onStart reset, nested error.code shapes.

Rebases storyboard CI floors (legacy 35→27 clean, 279→271 passing;
framework 21→19 clean, 237→226 passing) to match @adcp/client 5.8.1
baseline. The drop is from upstream validation tightening (schema-driven
hooks #694, strict sync_creatives #661, refs_resolve cross-step #670,
branch_set grading #693, PRM enforcement #677), not this assertion —
the invariants: YAML additions are inert against the SDK-bundled
compliance cache until @adcp/client re-publishes its tarball. Follow-up
filed as adcp#2667 to diagnose the newly-failing storyboards.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

---------

Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant