Session: c003941f-19df-4d2f-8bc9-30923d0fc83a

CWD: /var/lib/metahuman-ocr-worker/work/job-76/worktree Branch: HEAD Mode: range From: origin/new_staging2 To: origin/chore/ssma-fix-pipeline-tests Model: deepseek-v4-flash Duration: 5m20s Files: 4 Status: complete

Coverage

4
Selected
4
Completed
0
Reused
0
Failed
0
Waived

Token Usage

2.41M
Prompt Tokens
68.71K
Completion Tokens
2.48M
Total Tokens
63
LLM Requests
2.3M
Cache Read
0
Cache Write
File breakdown 3 files
FilePromptCompletionCache ReadCache WriteTotal
src/Service/Ssma/SsmaEventValidator.php,tests/Unit/Product/S… 1.93M 34.1K 1.87M0 1.97M
tests/Unit/Product/EmpresasParceiras/EmpresasParceirasContro… 482.09K 32.03K 433.66K0 514.12K
File Grouping 355 2.58K 00 2.94K

Review Comments (1 findings)

Severity:
Category:
tests/Unit/Product/EmpresasParceiras/EmpresasParceirasControllerTest.php 1 comments
test high L277-L280
O mock de `ObjectRepository` não configura `findOneBy`, então ele retorna `null` por padrão. No controller atual, toda action do arquivo passa primeiro por `canManage()`/`canAccess()` → `resolveContractorPermissionTag()`, que faz `getRepository(CompanyMembers::class)->findOneBy(...)`; com retorno `null`, o método devolve `null` e o guard responde **403**. Como os testes deste arquivo esperam 200/400/409/422 (fluxos autorizados), esta mudança apenas converte o antigo erro `Call to a member function findOneBy() on null` em respostas 403 — as asserções de status continuam falhando e o objetivo do PR (fazer o arquivo passar) não é atingido. Além disso, o mesmo repo é usado para `CompanyMembers` e `Product`; mesmo que `findOneBy` fosse configurado para retornar uma entidade, a segunda consulta (`Product`) exigiria um retorno diferente. Sugestão: configurar `getRepository` de forma consciente da classe (ex.: `willReturnMap` com `CompanyMembers`/`Product`) retornando entidades válidas e fazer o mock de `PermissionTagByMemberService` devolver um `PermissionTag`, ou usar usuário fixture com `ROLE_MANAGER` para que `isContractorPlatformAdmin()` libere o fluxo autorizado que as asserções esperam.
Existing Code
        $entityManager = $this->createMock(EntityManagerInterface::class);
        $entityManager->method('getRepository')->willReturn(
            $this->createMock(ObjectRepository::class)
        );
Files Reviewed 4 files
  • src/Service/Ssma/SsmaEventValidator.php
  • tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/GlobalPermissionListenerPreventionWriteTest.php
  • tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/GlobalPermissionListenerOccurrenceCreateWriteTest.php
  • tests/Unit/Product/EmpresasParceiras/EmpresasParceirasControllerTest.php
Session Tasks 1 tasks
File Grouping 1 requests

grouping_task

Request #1 deepseek-v4-flash P:355 C:2.58K 19151ms
Reasoning
We need group the files. Need output JSON array with label and files. We have 4 modified files. Need semantics. Let's analyze. Files: 1. src/Service/Ssma/SsmaEventValidator.php 2. tests/Unit/Product/EmpresasParceiras/EmpresasParceirasControllerTest.php 3. tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/GlobalPermissionListenerOccurrenceCreateWriteTest.php 4. tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/GlobalPermissionListenerPreventionWriteTest.php Need group into clusters. The tests likely relate to Ssma behavior, maybe adding validations for global permission listeners? EmpresasParceirasControllerTest maybe unrelated? Let's infer. SsmaEventValidator is source in Service/Ssma. Tests in Product/Ssma. Those test changes related to Ssma event validator? The test names "GlobalPermissionListenerOccurrenceCreateWriteTest" and "GlobalPermissionListenerPreventionWriteTest" likely in Ssma module. They probably test event handling. The EmpresasParceirasControllerTest maybe about Empresas Parceiras, not related? But could be changed due to same event validator? Need group by module/feature. The instruction: group semantically related clusters. Every file exactly one group. Maximum 10. If unrelated, one file group. Potential grouping: - Ssma changes: SsmaEventValidator.php + two GlobalPermissionListener tests (tests in Product/Ssma) belong together because all about Ssma global permission listener? But note SsmaEventValidator is service, tests are for GlobalPermissionListener, maybe they are all in Ssma module. The tests may include changes to expected validation behavior? Need group maybe all Ssma files, including proxy? The EmpresasParceiras test is different product? Product/EmpresasParceiras. But tests are in Unit/Product path. Maybe "Product" is a directory containing multiple domains: EmpresasParceiras and Ssma. So EmpresasParceiras is separate domain. There's no source for EmpresasParceiras changed, only test. Could be a one-file unrelated group. But need check: maybe SsmaEventValidator affects EmpresasParceiras? Since event validator for SSMA perhaps is in service and used in global permission listener. The EmpresasParceirasControllerTest change might be to adapt to something? It is in Product/EmpresasParceiras, likely not Ssma. The test name "EmpresasParceirasControllerTest" could be part of a larger product "SAP Business One" maybe? Let's not overfit. We should produce JSON groups. Let's think of possible relevant labels: - "Ssma global permission validation" includes SsmaEventValidator.php, GlobalPermissionListenerOccurrenceCreateWriteTest.php, GlobalPermissionListenerPreventionWriteTest.php. Then EmpresasParceirasControllerTest as separate. But perhaps all four are changed due to a single code change in SsmaEventValidator? The tests all may be related because the EmpresasParceirasControllerTest maybe tests something with SsmaEventValidator? Let's infer from file paths. Let's inspect paths more precisely: src/Service/Ssma/SsmaEventValidator.php. This is main code. tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/GlobalPermissionListener... Tests are in Ssma product. tests/Unit/Product/EmpresasParceiras/EmpresasParceirasControllerTest.php. This is in "EmpresasParceiras" (Portuguese = "partner companies"). Could be in same product? The namespace Product probably has modules EmpresasParceiras and Ssma. So it's likely unrelated to SSMA. But maybe "EmpresasParceiras" controller test changed because SsmaEventValidator is invoked across "Partner Companies" as well? But then it might be grouped if same feature: "global permissions for partner companies"? Need understand domain names from context. SSMA might stand for something? In context of SAP? SsmaService? Could be "System Service Management Application"? GlobalPermissionListener suggests global permissions. SsmaEventValidator validates events. EmpresasParceiras means "Partner Companies" in Portuguese, often used in "Vendas" maybe a module. Controller test. Given only filenames, likely grouping should be: Group 1: SsmaEventValidator and the two Ssma tests (they all are about SSMA). Group 2: EmpresasParceirasControllerTest alone. But is there a relationship between the test in EmpresasParceiras and the Ssma tests? It could be because the same behavior is tested in different domain contexts. For example, if SsmaEventValidator is a generic validator with data providers, and both Ssma GlobalPermissionListener tests and EmpresasParceiras controller test changed due to added validation for "occurrence create write". Hmm. Maybe each test modification +7/-1 etc likely they added a mock for SsmaEventValidator or expectations. Let's imagined. Suppose SsmaEventValidator has a new method `validate` that now flags something. The tests updated to include a new test case? The test modifications are small. EmpresasParceirasControllerTest +7/-1 maybe changed setup to mock SsmaEventValidator. Two Ssma tests +9/-1. This could be all related to introducing a new event validation method (SsmaEventValidator) and adjusting tests for "global permission" logic in Ssma? But why EmpresasParceiras? Could be because EmpresasParceirasController uses a service that now has a new dependency on SsmaEventValidator or event validation, so test needs update. It might be cross-cutting: an event validator used by multiple controllers. Then grouping all four together is plausible: label "Integrate SsmaEventValidator across controllers/listeners". Need determine from project conventions. "Product" in namespaces likely indicates a feature. Units tests grouped under product directory per domain. "EmpresasParceiras" and "Ssma" are both domains. In nested package structure, they are siblings. If same change set crosses both domains, they are likely related due to a shared dependency. But the source file is under Service/Ssma, not Service/General. If EmpresasParceirasControllerTest needed to update due to that service, perhaps EmpresasParceiras controllers depend on SsmaEventValidator. However why would a "Partner Companies" controller depend on a "SSMA" event validator? Maybe "SsmaEventValidator" is not named by domain but by something else. "SSMA" perhaps is "Sales and Service Management Application"? We cannot assume. Let's search memory: In PSR-4, `tests/Unit/Product/...` maybe package "product" has multiple modules. Let's try infer from code patterns? SsmaEventValidator is likely for "SSMA" = "Saas Service Management..."? Could be "Sales and Service Management"? "Empresas Parceiras" translates to "Partner Companies" in Latin American project. Ssma could be "System Management Module"? In Brazilian Portuguese, "SSMA" maybe "Secretaria de Saúde..."? Maybe not. Maybe there is an event "Ocorrência"? "OccurrenceCreateWrite" suggests incident/creation with permission. "Empresas Parceiras" perhaps relates to partners. What is Ssma? Could be acronym in Portuguese: "Sistema de Solicitações e Manutenção"? Hmm. Need just group based on paths: The two Ssma tests and source under Service/Ssma share module. The EmpresasParceiras test under Product/EmpresasParceiras different. Unless evidence of relationship, separate groups. But we need "semantically related clusters." A one-file group may be unrelated. So likely output two groups: [ { "label": "SSMA event validator and global permission listener tests", "files": [ "src/Service/Ssma/SsmaEventValidator.php", "tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/GlobalPermissionListenerOccurrenceCreateWriteTest.php", "tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/GlobalPermissionListenerPreventionWriteTest.php" ] }, { "label": "Empresas Parceiras controller test updates", "files": ["tests/Unit/Product/EmpresasParceiras/EmpresasParceirasControllerTest.php"] } ] Need ensure every file exactly once. Yes. Need maybe label "SsmaEventValidator related changes" and grouping tests with source. Fine. But let's question if all four groups perhaps no more than 10. Another possible grouping: Since all files are tests except source. Maybe group source with all three tests if they all changed due to a change in SsmaEventValidator? But EmpresasParceirasControllerTest is not under Ssma, but could still relate to SsmaEventValidator? The source is under `src/Service/Ssma`. If tests in EmpresasParceiras were changed for a global permission listener, maybe SsmaEventValidator is a service in "Ssma" module used by EmpresasParceiras controller? Let's peek with intuition: Names of test classes: - GlobalPermissionListenerOccurrenceCreateWriteTest - GlobalPermissionListenerPreventionWriteTest The first tests "Occurrence create write" maybe in Ssma domain; second prevention write. There may be a GlobalPermissionListener class in source? Not changed. SsmaEventValidator is a service used to validate events before writing to repository. EmpresasParceirasControllerTest might be testing an "EmpresasParceiras" endpoint with "Occurrence create write"? Hmm. Maybe "SSMA" and "EmpresasParceiras" are two independent modules but both tests use same event validation infrastructure? The modified SsmaEventValidator may change behavior that impacts tests in different domain modules, because validators maybe have generic names and are registered in all modules? We need be cautious. Let's inspect modification counts: Source +7/-11. Tests: EmpresasParceiras +7/-1, two Ssma tests +9/-1. Total changed lines 32 additions. If SsmaEventValidator refactored (net -4 lines), tests likely updated to keep expected behavior. EmpresasParceiras controller test maybe changed to add a new expectation about validation? But 7 lines. What is "GlobalPermissionListenerOccurrenceCreateWriteTest"? Likely in `Product\Ssma\Event\Listener`? It tests that when an "Occurrence create write" event occurs, a global permission listener either prevents or allows. This is a security feature. SsmaEventValidator may be a service for validating SSMA events. The tests would cover "GlobalPermissionListener" with "OccurrenceCreateWrite" and "PreventionWrite". "PreventionWriteTest" might actually be about "preventive maintenance"? Wait occurrence create write and prevention write might be two distinct scenarios: - "OccurrenceCreateWrite" => creation of occurrence (e.g., non-conformity) write - "PreventionWrite" => prevention (maintenance) write Both within Ssma module perhaps. EmpresasParceiras Controller test maybe not related to Ssma at all. So separate. Let's formulate final JSON. Must output only JSON array. No other text.
[ { "label": "Ssma event validator and global permission listener tests", "files": [ "src/Service/Ssma/SsmaEventValidator.php", "tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/GlobalPermissionListenerOccurrenceCreateWriteTest.php", "tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/GlobalPermissionListenerPreventionWriteTest.php" ] }, { "label": "Empresas Parceiras controller test updates", "files": [ "tests/Unit/Product/EmpresasParceiras/EmpresasParceirasControllerTest.php" ] } ]
Conversations 2 files
src/Service/Ssma/SsmaEventValidator.php,tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/GlobalPermissionListenerOccurrenceCreateWriteTest.php,tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/GlobalPermissionListenerPreventionWriteTest.php 41 requests

main_task

Request #1 deepseek-v4-flash P:7.02K C:323 CR:2.69K CW:0 2265ms
Reasoning
Let me analyze the changes in the review files. The files to review: 1. `src/Service/Ssma/SsmaEventValidator.php` — removed `$hasSuspect` gate, making characterization (Sim/Não + comment) always mandatory in `aprofundamento_only` flow. 2. `tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/GlobalPermissionListenerOccurrenceCreateWriteTest.php` — replaced `createMock` of final class with direct instantiation. 3. `tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/GlobalPermissionListenerPreventionWriteTest.php` — same. Let me read the context of `SsmaEventValidator.php` to understand the change. Need to look at the code around the change. Let me read the file around line 700-740.
Tool Calls (2)
file_read
Show Details
{"file_path": "src/Service/Ssma/SsmaEventValidator.php", "start_line": 660, "end_line": 760}
File: src/Service/Ssma/SsmaEventValidator.php (Total lines: 883)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 660-760
660|                            }
661|                        }
662|                    }
663|                }
664|            }
665|        }
666|
667|        $workLeave = strtoupper(trim((string) ($d['work_leave'] ?? '')));
668|        $injClass    = strtoupper(trim((string) ($d['injury_classification'] ?? '')));
669|        if ($hadInjury && $injClass === '') {
670|            $errors[] = 'Classificação da lesão é obrigatória quando há lesão.';
671|        }
672|        if ($workLeave === 'PARCIAL') {
673|            $errors[] = 'Afastamento parcial não é mais permitido. Use Com ou Sem afastamento.';
674|        }
675|        if ($workLeave !== '' && !\in_array($workLeave, ['NAO', 'TOTAL'], true)) {
676|            $errors[] = 'Licença inválida. Use Sem afastamento ou Com afastamento total.';
677|        }
678|        if ($workLeave === 'NAO' && \in_array($injClass, ['LTI', 'LTI_FATALIDADE', 'LTI_INCAPACITANTE', 'FAT'], true)) {
679|            $errors[] = 'LTI/FAT não é permitido quando a licença é Sem afastamento.';
680|        }
681|        if ($workLeave === 'TOTAL' && $injClass !== '' && !\in_array($injClass, ['LTI', 'LTI_FATALIDADE', 'LTI_INCAPACITANTE', 'FAT'], true)) {
682|            $errors[] = 'Com afastamento total, a classificação deve ser FAT ou LTI — Afastamento.';
683|        }
684|        if ($workLeave === 'NAO' && $injClass !== '' && !\in_array($injClass, ['FAC', 'MTC', 'RWC'], true)) {
685|            $errors[] = 'Sem afastamento, use apenas FAC, MTC ou RWC.';
686|        }
687|
688|        if ($hadInjury) {
689|            if (isset($d['body_location_detail']) && $d['body_location_detail'] !== null && $d['body_location_detail'] !== '') {
690|                if (!\is_string($d['body_location_detail'])) {
691|                    $errors[] = 'Detalhe da localização no corpo deve ser texto.';
692|                } elseif (mb_strlen((string) $d['body_location_detail']) > 2000) {
693|                    $errors[] = 'Detalhe da localização no corpo: no máximo 2000 caracteres.';
694|                }
695|            }
696|            /* hand_finger / foot_toe no nível details: legado (MAO/PE sem lado); preferir por body_parts[]. */
697|            $allowedHandFlat = ['POLEGAR', 'INDICADOR', 'MEDIO', 'ANULAR', 'MINIMO'];
698|            $allowedFootFlat = ['HALUX', 'SEGUNDO_DEDO', 'TERCEIRO_DEDO', 'QUARTO_DEDO', 'MINIMO_PE'];
699|            if (!empty($d['hand_finger'])) {
700|                foreach (array_filter(array_map('trim', explode(',', (string) $d['hand_finger']))) as $v) {
701|                    if (!\in_array($v, $allowedHandFlat, true)) {
702|                        $errors[] = 'Dedo da mão inválido: ' . $v;
703|                    }
704|                }
705|            }
706|            if (!empty($d['foot_toe'])) {
707|                foreach (array_filter(array_map('trim', explode(',', (string) $d['foot_toe']))) as $v) {
708|                    if (!\in_array($v, $allowedFootFlat, true)) {
709|                        $errors[] = 'Dedo do pé inválido: ' . $v;
710|                    }
711|                }
712|            }
713|        }
714|
715|        $descVal = array_key_exists('descaracterizado', $d) ? (string) $d['descaracterizado'] : '';
716|        // Médico sempre informa caracterização no aprofundamento dedicado.
717|        if (!empty($data['aprofundamento_only'])) {
718|            if (!\in_array($descVal, ['0', '1'], true)) {
719|                $errors[] = 'Informe se o evento é caracterizado como acidente (Sim/Não).';
720|            } else {
721|                $comment = trim((string) ($d['descaracter_comment'] ?? ''));
722|                if ($comment === '') {
723|                    $errors[] = 'Comentário de caracterização do acidente é obrigatório.';
724|                }
725|            }
726|        }
727|
728|        return $errors;
729|    }
730|
731|    private function validateAcidenteMaterial(array $d): array
732|    {
733|        $errors = [];
734|
735|        if (empty($d['potential_severity']) || !PotentialSeverityEnum::isValid($d['potential_severity'])) {
736|            $errors[] = 'Consequência potencial / Gravidade é obrigatória. Selecione uma opção válida.';
737|        }
738|
739|        if (empty($d['asset_type'])) {
740|            $errors[] = 'Tipo de ativo é obrigatório para Acidente Material.';
741|        }
742|        if (!isset($d['operational_impact'])) {
743|            $errors[] = 'Impacto operacional é obrigatório.';
744|        }
745|        // Barreira que falhou removida do formulário AM (Brenda) — legado opcional.
746|        if (!empty($d['failed_barrier']) && !FailedBarrierEnum::isValid((string) $d['failed_barrier'])) {
747|            $errors[] = 'Barreira que falhou: valor inválido.';
748|        }
749|        if (empty($d['barrier_type']) || !BarrierTypeEnum::isValid((string) $d['barrier_type'])) {
750|            $errors[] = 'Tipo de barreira é obrigatório. Selecione uma opção válida.';
751|        }
752|
753|        return $errors;
754|    }
755|
756|    private function validateAcidenteAmbiental(array $d): array
757|    {
758|        $errors = [];
759|
760|        if (empty($d['potential_severity']) || !PotentialSeverityEnum::isValid($d['potential_severity'])) {
file_read_diff
Show Details
{"path_array": ["tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/GlobalPermissionListenerOccurrenceCreateWriteTest.php", "tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/GlobalPermissionListenerPreventionWriteTest.php"]}
==== FILE: tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/GlobalPermissionListenerOccurrenceCreateWriteTest.php ====
diff --git a/tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/GlobalPermissionListenerOccurrenceCreateWriteTest.php b/tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/GlobalPermissionListenerOccurrenceCreateWriteTest.php
--- a/tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/GlobalPermissionListenerOccurrenceCreateWriteTest.php
+++ b/tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/GlobalPermissionListenerOccurrenceCreateWriteTest.php
@@ -20,6 +20,7 @@ use App\Service\Ssma\SsmaOccurrenceTypeConfigService;
 use App\Service\Ssma\SsmaPreventionMutatePermissionService;
 use App\Service\Ssma\SsmaRefusalRightMutatePermissionService;
 use App\Service\Ssma\SsmaRefusalRightService;
+use App\Service\Ssma\SsmaStakeholderActionPermissionService;
 use App\Repository\SsmaOccurrenceCreatePermissionRepository;
 use Doctrine\ORM\EntityManagerInterface;
 use Doctrine\Persistence\ObjectRepository;
@@ -140,7 +141,14 @@ final class GlobalPermissionListenerOccurrenceCreateWriteTest extends SsmaTestCa
                 $permissionService,
                 $authorizationChecker,
             ),
-            $this->createMock(SsmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService::class),
+            new SsmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService(
+                $entityManager,
+                new SsmaStakeholderActionPermissionService(
+                    $permissionService,
+                    new SsmaOccurrenceStakeholderAccessChecker($entityManager),
+                    $authorizationChecker,
+                ),
+            ),
             new SsmaOccurrenceCreatePermissionService(
                 $entityManager,
                 $this->createMock(SsmaOccurrenceCreatePermissionRepository::class),
==== FILE: tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/GlobalPermissionListenerPreventionWriteTest.php ====
diff --git a/tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/GlobalPermissionListenerPreventionWriteTest.php b/tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/GlobalPermissionListenerPreventionWriteTest.php
--- a/tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/GlobalPermissionListenerPreventionWriteTest.php
+++ b/tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/GlobalPermissionListenerPreventionWriteTest.php
@@ -20,6 +20,7 @@ use App\Service\Ssma\SsmaOccurrenceTypeConfigService;
 use App\Service\Ssma\SsmaPreventionMutatePermissionService;
 use App\Service\Ssma\SsmaRefusalRightMutatePermissionService;
 use App\Service\Ssma\SsmaRefusalRightService;
+use App\Service\Ssma\SsmaStakeholderActionPermissionService;
 use App\Repository\SsmaOccurrenceCreatePermissionRepository;
 use Doctrine\ORM\EntityManagerInterface;
 use Doctrine\Persistence\ObjectRepository;
@@ -157,7 +158,14 @@ final class GlobalPermissionListenerPreventionWriteTest extends SsmaTestCase
                 $permissionService,
                 $authorizationChecker,
             ),
-            $this->createMock(SsmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService::class),
+            new SsmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService(
+                $entityManager,
+                new SsmaStakeholderActionPermissionService(
+                    $permissionService,
+                    new SsmaOccurrenceStakeholderAccessChecker($entityManager),
+                    $authorizationChecker,
+                ),
+            ),
             new SsmaOccurrenceCreatePermissionService(
                 $entityManager,
                 $this->createMock(SsmaOccurrenceCreatePermissionRepository::class),

Request #2 deepseek-v4-flash P:9.72K C:255 CR:7.3K CW:0 2789ms
Reasoning
Now let me understand the SsmaEventValidator change. The change removed a gate based on `$hasSuspect` (descaracter_suspect) that previously made the "descaracterizado" Sim/Não + comment only required when suspicion of descaracterização was marked. Now it always requires both. Let me look at the overall function context to understand where `descaracter_suspect` was checked and whether this creates an inconsistency. Let me search for `descaracter_suspect` and `descaracterizado` usage elsewhere in the file.
Tool Calls (2)
code_search
Show Details
{"search_text": "descaracter_suspect", "file_patterns": ["src/"]}
File: src/Controller/SsmaController.php
Match lines: 6
14820|            'descaracter_suspect'    => !empty($details['descaracter_suspect']) ? 1 : 0,
27353|            'injured_person_details', 'descaracter_suspect', 'descaracterizado', 'descaracter_comment', 'witness_ids',
27449|                foreach (['descaracter_suspect', 'descaracterizado', 'descaracter_comment'] as $descKey) {
27461|        if (isset($details['descaracter_suspect'])) {
27462|            $details['descaracter_suspect'] = !empty($details['descaracter_suspect']) && $details['descaracter_suspect'] !== '0' ? 1 : 0;
27697|            'descaracter_suspect',

File: src/Service/Ssma/Export/SsmaOccurrenceExportRowMapper.php
Match lines: 1
156|            'ap_descaracter_suspect' => SsmaOccurrenceExportLabels::boolLabel($d['descaracter_suspect'] ?? null),

File: src/Service/Ssma/Export/SsmaOccurrenceExportSchema.php
Match lines: 1
76|        'ap_descaracter_suspect' => 'Suspeita de descaracterização?',

File: src/Service/Ssma/SsmaAutomationService.php
Match lines: 2
648|                $suspect = ($payload['descaracter_suspect'] ?? '0') === '1';
2031|        $payload['descaracter_suspect'] = !empty($details['descaracter_suspect']) ? '1' : '0';

File: src/Service/Ssma/SsmaEventService.php
Match lines: 5
161|            'descaracter_suspect', 'descaracterizado', 'descaracter_comment',
186|        if (!empty($card['descaracter_suspect'])) {
187|            $details['descaracter_suspect'] = 1;
188|        } elseif (array_key_exists('descaracter_suspect', $card)) {
189|            $details['descaracter_suspect'] = 0;

code_search
Show Details
{"search_text": "descaracterizado", "file_patterns": ["src/Service/Ssma/SsmaEventValidator.php"]}
File: src/Service/Ssma/SsmaEventValidator.php
Match lines: 2
183|        $desc = array_key_exists('descaracterizado', $d) ? (string) $d['descaracterizado'] : '';
715|        $descVal = array_key_exists('descaracterizado', $d) ? (string) $d['descaracterizado'] : '';

Request #3 deepseek-v4-flash P:10.6K C:213 CR:9.86K CW:0 2155ms
Reasoning
Let me look at the validate function around line 183 to compare — there's an existing validation that may be for a different context (maybe the same aprofundamento context). Let me look at lines 150-260 to understand.
Tool Calls (2)
file_read
Show Details
{"end_line": 230, "file_path": "src/Service/Ssma/SsmaEventValidator.php", "start_line": 140}
File: src/Service/Ssma/SsmaEventValidator.php (Total lines: 883)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 140-230
140|        if (\in_array($type, [EventTypeEnum::ROS, EventTypeEnum::QUASE_ACIDENTE], true)) {
141|            $errors = array_merge($errors, $this->validateDetails($type, $details, $data));
142|        }
143|
144|        return array_values(array_unique($errors));
145|    }
146|
147|    private function isAccidentType(string $type): bool
148|    {
149|        return \in_array($type, [
150|            EventTypeEnum::ACIDENTE_PESSOAL,
151|            EventTypeEnum::ACIDENTE_MATERIAL,
152|            EventTypeEnum::ACIDENTE_AMBIENTAL,
153|        ], true);
154|    }
155|
156|    /**
157|     * @param array<string, mixed> $data
158|     * @param array<string, mixed> $d
159|     */
160|    private function hasAccidentAprofundamentoFields(array $data, array $d): bool
161|    {
162|        // NÃO usar approach/strategic_nature aqui: o formulário manda approach com default
163|        // na 1ª etapa e isso não significa que o usuário entrou no Aprofundamento.
164|        if (trim((string) ($data['consequence'] ?? '')) !== '') {
165|            return true;
166|        }
167|
168|        foreach ([
169|            'potential_consequence',
170|            'potential_severity',
171|            'injury_type',
172|            'injury_classification',
173|            'asset_type',
174|            // Meio/poluente ficam na Identificação (Ambiental) — não disparam aprofundamento.
175|            'failed_barrier',
176|            'barrier_type',
177|        ] as $key) {
178|            if (trim((string) ($d[$key] ?? '')) !== '') {
179|                return true;
180|            }
181|        }
182|
183|        $desc = array_key_exists('descaracterizado', $d) ? (string) $d['descaracterizado'] : '';
184|
185|        return \in_array($desc, ['0', '1'], true);
186|    }
187|
188|    // ── Base ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
189|
190|    private function validateBase(array $data, array $context = []): array
191|    {
192|        $errors = [];
193|
194|        $type = $data['type'] ?? '';
195|        $allowed = $context['allowed_type_keys'] ?? null;
196|        if ($allowed === null) {
197|            if (empty($type) || !EventTypeEnum::isValid((string) $type)) {
198|                $errors[] = 'type: obrigatório e deve ser um dos valores válidos (' . implode(', ', EventTypeEnum::values()) . ').';
199|            }
200|        } else {
201|            if (empty($type) || !in_array((string) $type, $allowed, true)) {
202|                $errors[] = 'type: obrigatório ou não está habilitado para esta empresa.';
203|            }
204|        }
205|
206|        if (!empty($data['origin']) && !EventOriginEnum::isValid($data['origin'])) {
207|            $errors[] = 'origin: valor inválido.';
208|        }
209|
210|        if (empty($data['datetime'])) {
211|            $errors[] = 'datetime: obrigatório.';
212|        } elseif (!\DateTime::createFromFormat('Y-m-d\TH:i:s', $data['datetime'])
213|               && !\DateTime::createFromFormat('Y-m-d H:i:s', $data['datetime'])
214|               && !\DateTime::createFromFormat('Y-m-d\TH:i', $data['datetime'])) {
215|            $errors[] = 'datetime: formato inválido. Use ISO 8601 (ex.: 2026-04-07T10:30:00).';
216|        }
217|
218|        if (empty($data['location']) || trim((string) $data['location']) === '') {
219|            $errors[] = 'location: obrigatório.';
220|        }
221|
222|        if (empty($data['description']) || trim((string) $data['description']) === '') {
223|            $errors[] = 'description: obrigatório.';
224|        }
225|
226|        return $errors;
227|    }
228|
229|    // ── Classificação técnica ─────────────────────────────────────────────────
230|
file_read
Show Details
{"end_line": 720, "file_path": "src/Service/Ssma/SsmaEventValidator.php", "start_line": 540}
File: src/Service/Ssma/SsmaEventValidator.php (Total lines: 883)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 540-720
540|            $errors[] = 'Informe se houve lesão.';
541|        }
542|
543|        // Sem dano: não exige tipo/severidade de lesão (mesmo se had_injury legado vier true).
544|        $consequence = strtoupper(trim((string) ($data['consequence'] ?? $d['consequence'] ?? '')));
545|        $semDano = $consequence === EventConsequenceEnum::SEM_DANO;
546|
547|        $hadInjury = !$semDano
548|            && !empty($d['had_injury'])
549|            && $d['had_injury'] !== false
550|            && $d['had_injury'] !== 0
551|            && $d['had_injury'] !== '0';
552|
553|        if ($hadInjury) {
554|            if (empty($d['injury_type'])) {
555|                $errors[] = 'Tipo de lesão é obrigatório quando há lesão.';
556|            } elseif (!InjuryTypeEnum::isValid($d['injury_type'])) {
557|                $errors[] = 'Tipo de lesão inválido. Selecione uma opção válida.';
558|            }
559|        }
560|
561|        // fatal / barreira / causa imediata: opcionais (removidos do formulário de AP; legado ainda pode enviar)
562|        if (array_key_exists('fatal', $d) && $d['fatal'] !== null && $d['fatal'] !== '') {
563|            if (!\is_bool($d['fatal']) && !\in_array($d['fatal'], [0, 1, '0', '1'], true)) {
564|                $errors[] = 'Campo fatalidade inválido.';
565|            }
566|        }
567|        if (!empty($d['failed_barrier']) && !FailedBarrierEnum::isValid($d['failed_barrier'])) {
568|            $errors[] = 'Barreira que falhou inválida. Selecione uma opção válida.';
569|        }
570|        // Dimensão trocada por Tipo de barreira (Brenda).
571|        if (empty($d['barrier_type']) || !BarrierTypeEnum::isValid((string) $d['barrier_type'])) {
572|            $errors[] = 'Tipo de barreira é obrigatório. Selecione uma opção válida.';
573|        }
574|        if (isset($d['immediate_cause']) && $d['immediate_cause'] !== null && !\is_string($d['immediate_cause'])) {
575|            $errors[] = 'Causa imediata deve ser texto.';
576|        }
577|
578|        // Body map: condicional quando had_injury = true
579|        if ($hadInjury && !empty($d['body_parts'])) {
580|            if (!is_array($d['body_parts'])) {
581|                $errors[] = 'Partes do corpo devem ser uma lista.';
582|            } else {
583|                $allowedHand = ['POLEGAR', 'INDICADOR', 'MEDIO', 'ANULAR', 'MINIMO'];
584|                $allowedFoot = ['HALUX', 'SEGUNDO_DEDO', 'TERCEIRO_DEDO', 'QUARTO_DEDO', 'MINIMO_PE'];
585|                $allowedCabeca = ['OLHO_ESQ', 'OLHO_DIR', 'BOCA', 'NARIZ', 'ORELHA_ESQ', 'ORELHA_DIR', 'TESTA', 'MENTO'];
586|                $allowedPescoco = ['PESCOCO_ANT', 'PESCOCO_POST', 'PESCOCO_LAT_ESQ', 'PESCOCO_LAT_DIR'];
587|                $allowedFace = ['FACE_BOCA', 'FACE_NARIZ', 'FACE_BOCHE_ESQ', 'FACE_BOCHE_DIR', 'FACE_MENTO', 'FACE_MAXILAR'];
588|                $allowedOlhos = ['OLHO_ESQ', 'OLHO_DIR', 'SOBRANCELHA_ESQ', 'SOBRANCELHA_DIR'];
589|                foreach ($d['body_parts'] as $i => $part) {
590|                    if (!\is_array($part)) {
591|                        $errors[] = 'Parte do corpo inválida.';
592|
593|                        continue;
594|                    }
595|                    if (empty($part['region']) || !BodyRegionEnum::isValid($part['region'])) {
596|                        $errors[] = 'Região do corpo inválida.';
597|                    }
598|                    if (!empty($part['side']) && !BodySideEnum::isValid($part['side'])) {
599|                        $errors[] = 'Lado do corpo inválido.';
600|                    }
601|                    if (!empty($part['injury_type']) && !InjuryTypeEnum::isValid($part['injury_type'])) {
602|                        $errors[] = 'Tipo de lesão inválido na região marcada.';
603|                    }
604|                    if (!empty($part['hand_finger'])) {
605|                        foreach (array_filter(array_map('trim', explode(',', (string) $part['hand_finger']))) as $v) {
606|                            if (!\in_array($v, $allowedHand, true)) {
607|                                $errors[] = 'Dedo da mão inválido: ' . $v;
608|                            }
609|                        }
610|                    }
611|                    if (!empty($part['foot_toe'])) {
612|                        foreach (array_filter(array_map('trim', explode(',', (string) $part['foot_toe']))) as $v) {
613|                            if (!\in_array($v, $allowedFoot, true)) {
614|                                $errors[] = 'Dedo do pé inválido: ' . $v;
615|                            }
616|                        }
617|                    }
618|                    $reg = (string) ($part['region'] ?? '');
619|                    if (!empty($part['cabeca_zones'])) {
620|                        if ($reg !== 'CABECA') {
621|                            $errors[] = 'Zonas de cabeça só são permitidas quando a região é Cabeça.';
622|                        } else {
623|                            foreach (array_filter(array_map('trim', explode(',', (string) $part['cabeca_zones']))) as $v) {
624|                                if (!\in_array($v, $allowedCabeca, true)) {
625|                                    $errors[] = 'Zona de cabeça inválida: ' . $v;
626|                                }
627|                            }
628|                        }
629|                    }
630|                    if (!empty($part['pescoco_zones'])) {
631|                        if ($reg !== 'PESCOCO') {
632|                            $errors[] = 'Zonas de pescoço só são permitidas quando a região é Pescoço.';
633|                        } else {
634|                            foreach (array_filter(array_map('trim', explode(',', (string) $part['pescoco_zones']))) as $v) {
635|                                if (!\in_array($v, $allowedPescoco, true)) {
636|                                    $errors[] = 'Zona de pescoço inválida: ' . $v;
637|                                }
638|                            }
639|                        }
640|                    }
641|                    if (!empty($part['face_zones'])) {
642|                        if ($reg !== 'FACE') {
643|                            $errors[] = 'Zonas de face só são permitidas quando a região é Face.';
644|                        } else {
645|                            foreach (array_filter(array_map('trim', explode(',', (string) $part['face_zones']))) as $v) {
646|                                if (!\in_array($v, $allowedFace, true)) {
647|                                    $errors[] = 'Zona de face inválida: ' . $v;
648|                                }
649|                            }
650|                        }
651|                    }
652|                    if (!empty($part['olhos_zones'])) {
653|                        if ($reg !== 'OLHOS') {
654|                            $errors[] = 'Zonas de olhos só são permitidas quando a região é Olhos.';
655|                        } else {
656|                            foreach (array_filter(array_map('trim', explode(',', (string) $part['olhos_zones']))) as $v) {
657|                                if (!\in_array($v, $allowedOlhos, true)) {
658|                                    $errors[] = 'Zona de olhos inválida: ' . $v;
659|                                }
660|                            }
661|                        }
662|                    }
663|                }
664|            }
665|        }
666|
667|        $workLeave = strtoupper(trim((string) ($d['work_leave'] ?? '')));
668|        $injClass    = strtoupper(trim((string) ($d['injury_classification'] ?? '')));
669|        if ($hadInjury && $injClass === '') {
670|            $errors[] = 'Classificação da lesão é obrigatória quando há lesão.';
671|        }
672|        if ($workLeave === 'PARCIAL') {
673|            $errors[] = 'Afastamento parcial não é mais permitido. Use Com ou Sem afastamento.';
674|        }
675|        if ($workLeave !== '' && !\in_array($workLeave, ['NAO', 'TOTAL'], true)) {
676|            $errors[] = 'Licença inválida. Use Sem afastamento ou Com afastamento total.';
677|        }
678|        if ($workLeave === 'NAO' && \in_array($injClass, ['LTI', 'LTI_FATALIDADE', 'LTI_INCAPACITANTE', 'FAT'], true)) {
679|            $errors[] = 'LTI/FAT não é permitido quando a licença é Sem afastamento.';
680|        }
681|        if ($workLeave === 'TOTAL' && $injClass !== '' && !\in_array($injClass, ['LTI', 'LTI_FATALIDADE', 'LTI_INCAPACITANTE', 'FAT'], true)) {
682|            $errors[] = 'Com afastamento total, a classificação deve ser FAT ou LTI — Afastamento.';
683|        }
684|        if ($workLeave === 'NAO' && $injClass !== '' && !\in_array($injClass, ['FAC', 'MTC', 'RWC'], true)) {
685|            $errors[] = 'Sem afastamento, use apenas FAC, MTC ou RWC.';
686|        }
687|
688|        if ($hadInjury) {
689|            if (isset($d['body_location_detail']) && $d['body_location_detail'] !== null && $d['body_location_detail'] !== '') {
690|                if (!\is_string($d['body_location_detail'])) {
691|                    $errors[] = 'Detalhe da localização no corpo deve ser texto.';
692|                } elseif (mb_strlen((string) $d['body_location_detail']) > 2000) {
693|                    $errors[] = 'Detalhe da localização no corpo: no máximo 2000 caracteres.';
694|                }
695|            }
696|            /* hand_finger / foot_toe no nível details: legado (MAO/PE sem lado); preferir por body_parts[]. */
697|            $allowedHandFlat = ['POLEGAR', 'INDICADOR', 'MEDIO', 'ANULAR', 'MINIMO'];
698|            $allowedFootFlat = ['HALUX', 'SEGUNDO_DEDO', 'TERCEIRO_DEDO', 'QUARTO_DEDO', 'MINIMO_PE'];
699|            if (!empty($d['hand_finger'])) {
700|                foreach (array_filter(array_map('trim', explode(',', (string) $d['hand_finger']))) as $v) {
701|                    if (!\in_array($v, $allowedHandFlat, true)) {
702|                        $errors[] = 'Dedo da mão inválido: ' . $v;
703|                    }
704|                }
705|            }
706|            if (!empty($d['foot_toe'])) {
707|                foreach (array_filter(array_map('trim', explode(',', (string) $d['foot_toe']))) as $v) {
708|                    if (!\in_array($v, $allowedFootFlat, true)) {
709|                        $errors[] = 'Dedo do pé inválido: ' . $v;
710|                    }
711|                }
712|            }
713|        }
714|
715|        $descVal = array_key_exists('descaracterizado', $d) ? (string) $d['descaracterizado'] : '';
716|        // Médico sempre informa caracterização no aprofundamento dedicado.
717|        if (!empty($data['aprofundamento_only'])) {
718|            if (!\in_array($descVal, ['0', '1'], true)) {
719|                $errors[] = 'Informe se o evento é caracterizado como acidente (Sim/Não).';
720|            } else {
Request #4 deepseek-v4-flash P:14.94K C:184 CR:10.75K CW:0 1960ms
Reasoning
Now let me understand the full context of where this change is. I want to see where `$data['aprofundamento_only']` is set and how `validateAcidentePessoal` is called. Let me look at the top of the file and find validateAcidentePessoal's beginning, and find `aprofundamento_only`.
Tool Calls (2)
code_search
Show Details
{"file_patterns": ["src/Service/Ssma/SsmaEventValidator.php"], "search_text": "aprofundamento_only"}
File: src/Service/Ssma/SsmaEventValidator.php
Match lines: 1
717|        if (!empty($data['aprofundamento_only'])) {

file_search Failed
Show Details
{"query_name": "SsmaEventValidator"}
Request #5 deepseek-v4-flash P:15.21K C:109 CR:15.1K CW:0 1495ms
Reasoning
The `aprofundamento_only` appears only in this validator file? But it comes from `$data` - probably passed by caller. Let me look for how `aprofundamento_only` is set by callers, e.g., SsmaController. Let me search the whole codebase.
Tool Calls (1)
code_search
Show Details
{"search_text": "aprofundamento_only"}
File: docs/engineering/pr/hotfix-ssma-occ-type-perms-datatables-new-production/PR_descricao_hotfix-ssma-occ-type-perms-datatables-new-production.md
Match lines: 2
93|| `templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig` | `EvModal.openAprofundamento`, botões rascunho/finalizar, payload `aprofundamento_only` |
136|5. **+Aprofundamento — rascunho e finalizar:** especialista autorizado pode salvar rascunho (`soft_aprofundamento` / status draft) e depois finalizar. Payload parcial via `aprofundamento_only: true` no update.

File: src/Controller/SsmaController.php
Match lines: 2
25848|        $aprofundamentoOnly = !empty($data['aprofundamento_only']);
27760|        $merged['aprofundamento_only'] = true;

File: src/Service/Ssma/SsmaEventValidator.php
Match lines: 1
717|        if (!empty($data['aprofundamento_only'])) {

File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig
Match lines: 1
6960|            payload.aprofundamento_only = true;

File: tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/SsmaEventValidatorTest.php
Match lines: 1
860|            'aprofundamento_only'     => true,

Request #6 deepseek-v4-flash P:15.65K C:224 CR:15.23K CW:0 2268ms
Reasoning
Let me examine the caller in SsmaController near line 25848 and the function `validateDetails` start to understand the context where validateAcidentePessoal with aprofundamento_only is triggered, especially how it's used by the medical professional flow and whether this is creation or update.
Tool Calls (2)
file_read
Show Details
{"end_line": 25910, "file_path": "src/Controller/SsmaController.php", "start_line": 25820}
File: src/Controller/SsmaController.php (Total lines: 28130)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 25820-25910
25820|
25821|        return new JsonResponse(['success' => true, 'event' => $service->serialize($event)]);
25822|    }
25823|
25824|    /**
25825|     * POST /manager/ssma/events/{id}
25826|     * Atualiza um evento existente.
25827|     */
25828|    public function updateEvent(Request $request, int $id): JsonResponse
25829|    {
25830|        /** @var \App\Entity\User|null $user */
25831|        $user    = $this->getUser();
25832|        $company = $user?->getCompany();
25833|        if (!$user || !$company) {
25834|            return new JsonResponse(['success' => false, 'message' => 'Não autenticado.'], 401);
25835|        }
25836|
25837|        $event = $this->entityManager->getRepository(\App\Entity\SsmaEvent::class)->find($id);
25838|
25839|        if (!$event || $event->getCompany()->getId() !== $company->getId()) {
25840|            return new JsonResponse(['success' => false, 'message' => 'Evento não encontrado.'], 404);
25841|        }
25842|
25843|        if (!$this->isSsmaEventVisibleUnderOccurrenceTeamDashboardScope($event, $company, $user)) {
25844|            return new JsonResponse(['success' => false, 'message' => 'Evento não encontrado.'], 404);
25845|        }
25846|
25847|        $data = json_decode($request->getContent(), true) ?? [];
25848|        $aprofundamentoOnly = !empty($data['aprofundamento_only']);
25849|        $existingDetails = is_array($event->getDetails()) ? $event->getDetails() : [];
25850|        $aprofundamentoStatus = strtolower(trim((string) ($existingDetails['aprofundamento_status'] ?? '')));
25851|        $aprofundamentoFinalized = $aprofundamentoStatus === 'finalized'
25852|            || !empty($existingDetails['aprofundamento_complete']);
25853|
25854|        $canFullEdit = $this->canEditSsmaEvent($company, $user, $event);
25855|        $eventTypeForAccess = (string) ($data['type'] ?? $event->getType());
25856|        $canAprofundamento = $this->canAccessSsmaEventAprofundamento(
25857|            $company,
25858|            $user,
25859|            $eventTypeForAccess,
25860|            is_array($data['details'] ?? null) ? $data['details'] : $existingDetails,
25861|            (int) ($event->getCreatedById() ?? 0)
25862|        );
25863|        $isAprofundamentoUpdate = $aprofundamentoOnly
25864|            || !empty($data['aprofundamento_complete'])
25865|            || strtolower(trim((string) ($data['aprofundamento_status'] ?? ''))) === 'finalized';
25866|
25867|        if (!$canFullEdit) {
25868|            if (!$isAprofundamentoUpdate || !$canAprofundamento) {
25869|                return new JsonResponse(['success' => false, 'message' => 'Você não tem autorização para editar esse tipo de ocorrência.'], 403);
25870|            }
25871|            if ($aprofundamentoFinalized && !$this->isSsmaAprofundamentoAdmin($company, $user)) {
25872|                return new JsonResponse(['success' => false, 'message' => 'Aprofundamento finalizado. Somente um administrador ou gestor administrador pode alterar.'], 403);
25873|            }
25874|            $data = $this->mergeSsmaEventAprofundamentoOnlyPayload($event, $data);
25875|        } else {
25876|            $data = array_merge($this->eventToValidationArray($event), $data);
25877|            if ($aprofundamentoFinalized && !$this->isSsmaAprofundamentoAdmin($company, $user)) {
25878|                if ($aprofundamentoOnly || $isAprofundamentoUpdate) {
25879|                    return new JsonResponse(['success' => false, 'message' => 'Aprofundamento finalizado. Somente um administrador ou gestor administrador pode alterar.'], 403);
25880|                }
25881|                $data = $this->stripSsmaEventAprofundamentoFieldsFromPayload(
25882|                    $data,
25883|                    (string) ($data['type'] ?? $event->getType()),
25884|                    $existingDetails
25885|                );
25886|            }
25887|        }
25888|
25889|        $data = $this->normalizeSsmaEventPayload($data, $company);
25890|        $data = $this->normalizeSsmaEventManagerInDetails($data, $company);
25891|        $data = $this->forceSsmaRosReporterForPlainMember($data, $company, $user);
25892|        $data = $this->applySsmaDescaracterPermissionGate(
25893|            $data,
25894|            $company,
25895|            $user,
25896|            $existingDetails
25897|        );
25898|
25899|        $eventType = (string) ($data['type'] ?? $event->getType());
25900|        $eventDetails = is_array($data['details'] ?? null) ? $data['details'] : [];
25901|        // Em modo só-aprofundamento o especialista já está autorizado; não stripa o que acabou de enviar.
25902|        if (
25903|            !$aprofundamentoOnly
25904|            && !$this->canAccessSsmaEventAprofundamento($company, $user, $eventType, $eventDetails, $event->getCreatedById())
25905|            && in_array($eventType, ['ROS', 'QUASE_ACIDENTE', 'ACIDENTE_PESSOAL', 'ACIDENTE_MATERIAL', 'ACIDENTE_AMBIENTAL'], true)
25906|        ) {
25907|            $data = $this->stripSsmaEventAprofundamentoFieldsFromPayload(
25908|                $data,
25909|                $eventType,
25910|                $existingDetails
file_read
Show Details
{"end_line": 160, "file_path": "src/Service/Ssma/SsmaEventValidator.php", "start_line": 1}
File: src/Service/Ssma/SsmaEventValidator.php (Total lines: 883)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 1-160
1|<?php
2|
3|declare(strict_types=1);
4|
5|namespace App\Service\Ssma;
6|
7|use App\Enum\Ssma\BarrierTypeEnum;
8|use App\Enum\Ssma\BodyRegionEnum;
9|use App\Enum\Ssma\BodySideEnum;
10|use App\Enum\Ssma\DeviationTypeEnum;
11|use App\Enum\Ssma\EnvironmentalMediumEnum;
12|use App\Enum\Ssma\EventAgentEnum;
13|use App\Enum\Ssma\EventClassNatureEnum;
14|use App\Enum\Ssma\EventConsequenceEnum;
15|use App\Enum\Ssma\EventImpactEnum;
16|use App\Enum\Ssma\EventNatureEnum;
17|use App\Enum\Ssma\EventOriginEnum;
18|use App\Enum\Ssma\EventTypeEnum;
19|use App\Enum\Ssma\FailedBarrierEnum;
20|use App\Enum\Ssma\InjuryTypeEnum;
21|use App\Enum\Ssma\InvolvementTypeEnum;
22|use App\Enum\Ssma\RosFailedBarrierEnum;
23|use App\Enum\Ssma\RosInvolvementTypeEnum;
24|use App\Enum\Ssma\PersonTypeEnum;
25|use App\Enum\Ssma\PotentialSeverityEnum;
26|use App\Enum\Ssma\EventStrategicNatureEnum;
27|
28|/**
29| * Valida payload de criação/atualização de SsmaEvent.
30| *
31| * Uso:
32| *   $errors = $validator->validate($payload);
33| *   if ($errors !== []) { return 422 com $errors; }
34| */
35|final class SsmaEventValidator
36|{
37|    /**
38|     * Valida o payload completo e retorna array de erros.
39|     * Array vazio = válido.
40|     *
41|     * @param array<string, mixed> $data
42|     * @param array<string, mixed> $context allowed_type_keys?: list<string> — tipos ativos na empresa (inclui customizados).
43|     *                                    Se omitido, aceita apenas EventTypeEnum.
44|     *
45|     * @return string[]
46|     */
47|    public function validate(array $data, array $context = []): array
48|    {
49|        $errors = [];
50|
51|        $errors = array_merge($errors, $this->validateBase($data, $context));
52|
53|        if ($errors !== []) {
54|            return $errors;
55|        }
56|
57|        $type    = (string) ($data['type'] ?? '');
58|        $details = \is_array($data['details'] ?? null) ? $data['details'] : [];
59|
60|        // Rascunho de aprofundamento: valida só a base (permite salvar parcial).
61|        if (!empty($context['soft_aprofundamento'])) {
62|            return $errors;
63|        }
64|
65|        // Acidentes: create soft (1ª etapa) — campos técnicos ficam no Aprofundamento (2ª etapa),
66|        // igual ROS/QA. Só exige aprofundamento quando o payload traz esses campos ou quando
67|        // o front marca aprofundamento_complete (salvou a 2ª etapa).
68|        $isAccident = $this->isAccidentType($type);
69|        $forceAccidentDeep = !empty($data['aprofundamento_complete'])
70|            || !empty($context['force_technical_depth'])
71|            || ($isAccident && $this->hasAccidentAprofundamentoFields($data, $details));
72|        $requiresTechnicalDepth = $isAccident && $forceAccidentDeep;
73|
74|        $errors = array_merge($errors, $this->validateClassification($data, $requiresTechnicalDepth));
75|        if ($requiresTechnicalDepth) {
76|            $errors = array_merge($errors, $this->validateDetails($type, $details, $data));
77|        } elseif ($type === EventTypeEnum::ACIDENTE_PESSOAL) {
78|            // Etapa 1 do AP: pessoas envolvidas (person_id / vínculo).
79|            $errors = array_merge($errors, $this->validateAcidentePessoalEtapa1($details));
80|        }
81|        $errors = array_merge($errors, $this->validateSharedDetails($details, $requiresTechnicalDepth, $type));
82|
83|        if ($type === EventTypeEnum::ROS && $this->hasRosAprofundamentoFields($details)) {
84|            $errors = array_merge($errors, $this->validateDetails($type, $details, $data));
85|        } elseif ($type === EventTypeEnum::QUASE_ACIDENTE && $this->hasQaAprofundamentoFields($details)) {
86|            $errors = array_merge($errors, $this->validateDetails($type, $details, $data));
87|        }
88|
89|        return $errors;
90|    }
91|
92|    /**
93|     * @param array<string, mixed> $d
94|     */
95|    private function hasRosAprofundamentoFields(array $d): bool
96|    {
97|        // Campos só da 1ª etapa (categoria / sugestão / risco) NÃO disparam a validação
98|        // completa do aprofundamento — isso exigia Tipo de desvio/Barreira mesmo com
99|        // "Visto e resolvido" ou antes de chegar na 2ª etapa.
100|        foreach (['deviation_type', 'barrier_type', 'failed_barrier', 'potential_severity', 'potential_consequence'] as $key) {
101|            if (!empty($d[$key])) {
102|                return true;
103|            }
104|        }
105|
106|        return false;
107|    }
108|
109|    /**
110|     * @param array<string, mixed> $d
111|     */
112|    private function hasQaAprofundamentoFields(array $d): bool
113|    {
114|        foreach (['involvement_type', 'barrier_type', 'failed_barrier', 'potential_severity', 'potential_consequence'] as $key) {
115|            if (!empty($d[$key])) {
116|                return true;
117|            }
118|        }
119|
120|        return false;
121|    }
122|
123|    /**
124|     * Checklist do filtro “aprofundamento técnico preenchido”.
125|     * Inclui o validate() do create + campos tipados de ROS/Quase Acidente
126|     * (esses tipos são soft no create, mas o filtro marca pendência).
127|     *
128|     * @param array<string, mixed> $data
129|     * @param array<string, mixed> $context
130|     *
131|     * @return list<string>
132|     */
133|    public function aprofundamentoPendingErrors(array $data, array $context = []): array
134|    {
135|        $context['force_technical_depth'] = true;
136|        $errors = $this->validate($data, $context);
137|        $type = (string) ($data['type'] ?? '');
138|        $details = \is_array($data['details'] ?? null) ? $data['details'] : [];
139|
140|        if (\in_array($type, [EventTypeEnum::ROS, EventTypeEnum::QUASE_ACIDENTE], true)) {
141|            $errors = array_merge($errors, $this->validateDetails($type, $details, $data));
142|        }
143|
144|        return array_values(array_unique($errors));
145|    }
146|
147|    private function isAccidentType(string $type): bool
148|    {
149|        return \in_array($type, [
150|            EventTypeEnum::ACIDENTE_PESSOAL,
151|            EventTypeEnum::ACIDENTE_MATERIAL,
152|            EventTypeEnum::ACIDENTE_AMBIENTAL,
153|        ], true);
154|    }
155|
156|    /**
157|     * @param array<string, mixed> $data
158|     * @param array<string, mixed> $d
159|     */
160|    private function hasAccidentAprofundamentoFields(array $data, array $d): bool
Request #7 deepseek-v4-flash P:19.36K C:349 CR:15.87K CW:0 3181ms
Reasoning
Now I need to understand the change in context. The `aprofundamento_only` flag is used only in the validator's `validateDetails` for AP (acidente pessoal) — wait, actually let me search where the validator is invoked with the payload containing `aprofundamento_only`. In `SsmaController.php` line 27760, `$merged['aprofundamento_only'] = true;` presumably merges existing event data for the update. Let me see the context around line 27760 to understand when aprofundamento_only data is sent to the validator. Also important: where is `$data['aprofundamento_only']` checked in the validator? Only at line 717 within `validateAcidentePessoal` (a private method). The `data['aprofundamento_only']` is set by controller merging existing event details for aprofundamento-only updates. Let me look at line 27740-27790 in controller.
Tool Calls (2)
file_read
Show Details
{"end_line": 27790, "file_path": "src/Controller/SsmaController.php", "start_line": 27720}
File: src/Controller/SsmaController.php (Total lines: 28130)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 27720-27790
27720|            'aprofundamento_status',
27721|        ];
27722|    }
27723|
27724|    /**
27725|     * Monta payload de update só com campos de aprofundamento; preserva dados gerais do evento.
27726|     *
27727|     * @param array<string, mixed> $data
27728|     *
27729|     * @return array<string, mixed>
27730|     */
27731|    private function mergeSsmaEventAprofundamentoOnlyPayload(\App\Entity\SsmaEvent $event, array $data): array
27732|    {
27733|        $merged = $this->eventToValidationArray($event);
27734|        $existingDetails = is_array($merged['details'] ?? null) ? $merged['details'] : [];
27735|        $incomingDetails = is_array($data['details'] ?? null) ? $data['details'] : [];
27736|        $keys = $this->ssmaEventAprofundamentoFieldKeys();
27737|
27738|        foreach ($keys as $key) {
27739|            if (array_key_exists($key, $data)) {
27740|                $merged[$key] = $data[$key];
27741|            }
27742|            if (array_key_exists($key, $incomingDetails)) {
27743|                $existingDetails[$key] = $incomingDetails[$key];
27744|            }
27745|        }
27746|
27747|        // Consequência pode vir no nível raiz do formulário (não só em details).
27748|        if (array_key_exists('consequence', $data) && $data['consequence'] !== null && $data['consequence'] !== '') {
27749|            $merged['consequence'] = $data['consequence'];
27750|        }
27751|
27752|        if (array_key_exists('aprofundamento_complete', $data)) {
27753|            $merged['aprofundamento_complete'] = $data['aprofundamento_complete'];
27754|        }
27755|        if (array_key_exists('aprofundamento_status', $data)) {
27756|            $merged['aprofundamento_status'] = $data['aprofundamento_status'];
27757|        }
27758|
27759|        $merged['details'] = $existingDetails;
27760|        $merged['aprofundamento_only'] = true;
27761|
27762|        return $merged;
27763|    }
27764|
27765|    /**
27766|     * S/N de descaracterização só pode ser gravado por membro com flag na coluna Descaracterizar.
27767|     *
27768|     * @param array<string, mixed>      $data
27769|     * @param array<string, mixed>|null $existingDetails details já persistidos (update)
27770|     *
27771|     * @return array<string, mixed>
27772|     */
27773|    private function applySsmaDescaracterPermissionGate(
27774|        array $data,
27775|        Company $company,
27776|        $user,
27777|        ?array $existingDetails = null
27778|    ): array {
27779|        $member = $this->getCurrentCompanyMember($company, $user);
27780|        $can = $this->ssmaMemberCanDescharacterizeAccident($company, $member);
27781|        if ($can) {
27782|            return $data;
27783|        }
27784|
27785|        $details = isset($data['details']) && is_array($data['details']) ? $data['details'] : [];
27786|        if ($existingDetails !== null && array_key_exists('descaracterizado', $existingDetails)
27787|            && \in_array((string) $existingDetails['descaracterizado'], ['0', '1'], true)) {
27788|            // Mantém o valor já salvo anteriormente.
27789|            $details['descaracterizado'] = (string) $existingDetails['descaracterizado'];
27790|        } elseif (isset($data['details']['descaracterizado'])
code_search
Show Details
{"file_patterns": ["src/Service/Ssma/SsmaEventValidator.php"], "search_text": "private function validateDetails"}
File: src/Service/Ssma/SsmaEventValidator.php
Match lines: 1
351|    private function validateDetails(string $type, array $details, array $data = []): array

Request #8 deepseek-v4-flash P:20.73K C:365 CR:19.58K CW:0 3072ms
Reasoning
Let me understand the flow: When a user without "descaracterizar" permission submits an aprofundamento update, the controller strips the descaracterizado field but keeps any existing saved value. So when the validator requires descaracterizado to be '0'/'1' + comment, for users without the permission the value would be... Let me read applySsmaDescaracterPermissionGate continuation (lines 27785-27820) to see behavior when there's no existing value. Let me also check how the test `testAcidentePessoalAprofundamentoMedicoExigeCaracterizar` is structured to understand what is the desired behavior. Let me also review the create flow: on create event with aprofundamento (2nd etapa AP create)? Where does the validator get called with aprofundamento fields? Let me search for where the validator->validate is called.
Tool Calls (3)
file_read
Show Details
{"end_line": 27840, "file_path": "src/Controller/SsmaController.php", "start_line": 27790}
File: src/Controller/SsmaController.php (Total lines: 28130)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 27790-27840
27790|        } elseif (isset($data['details']['descaracterizado'])
27791|            && \in_array((string) $data['details']['descaracterizado'], ['0', '1'], true)) {
27792|            // Aceita o valor enviado pelo frontend se for válido.
27793|            $details['descaracterizado'] = (string) $data['details']['descaracterizado'];
27794|        } else {
27795|            // Sem valor anterior e sem permissão: default "Sim" (é acidente = '0').
27796|            // Quem não pode descaracterizar nunca poderia marcar "Não" de qualquer forma.
27797|            $details['descaracterizado'] = '0';
27798|        }
27799|        unset($data['descaracterizado']);
27800|        $data['details'] = $details;
27801|
27802|        return $data;
27803|    }
27804|
27805|    /**
27806|     * Resolve manager_id a partir de manager_name quando o front/LLM só enviou o nome.
27807|     *
27808|     * @param array<string, mixed> $data
27809|     *
27810|     * @return array<string, mixed>
27811|     */
27812|    private function normalizeSsmaEventManagerInDetails(array $data, Company $company): array
27813|    {
27814|        $details = $data['details'] ?? [];
27815|        if (!is_array($details)) {
27816|            return $data;
27817|        }
27818|
27819|        $rawId = $details['manager_id'] ?? null;
27820|        if ($rawId !== null && $rawId !== '') {
27821|            $details['manager_id'] = (int) $rawId;
27822|            $data['details'] = $details;
27823|
27824|            return $data;
27825|        }
27826|
27827|        $name = trim((string) ($details['manager_name'] ?? ''));
27828|        if ($name === '') {
27829|            return $data;
27830|        }
27831|
27832|        $membersById = [];
27833|        $members = $this->entityManager->getRepository(CompanyMembers::class)
27834|            ->findBy(['company' => $company, 'isRemoved' => 0]);
27835|        foreach ($members as $cm) {
27836|            if (!$cm instanceof CompanyMembers) {
27837|                continue;
27838|            }
27839|            $memberId = (int) $cm->getId();
27840|            if ($memberId <= 0) {
code_search
Show Details
{"search_text": "->validate(", "file_patterns": ["src/Service/Ssma/"]}
File: src/Service/Ssma/SsmaEventValidator.php
Match lines: 2
32| *   $errors = $validator->validate($payload);
136|        $errors = $this->validate($data, $context);

file_find
Show Details
{"query_name": "SsmaEventValidator"}
src/Service/Ssma/SsmaEventValidator.php
tests/Ssma/SsmaEventValidatorTest.php
tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/SsmaEventValidatorTest.php
Request #9 deepseek-v4-flash P:21.86K C:160 CR:20.99K CW:0 1545ms
Reasoning
Let me find where the validator's validate is called (controllers / services).
Tool Calls (2)
code_search
Show Details
{"search_text": "SsmaEventValidator", "file_patterns": ["src/"]}
File: src/Controller/SsmaController.php
Match lines: 3
14842|        $validator = new \App\Service\Ssma\SsmaEventValidator();
25680|        $validator = new \App\Service\Ssma\SsmaEventValidator();
25934|            $validator = new \App\Service\Ssma\SsmaEventValidator();

File: src/Service/Ssma/SsmaAutomationService.php
Match lines: 2
2253|        $validator = new SsmaEventValidator();
2297|        return (new SsmaEventValidator())->aprofundamentoPendingErrors($data, ['allowed_type_keys' => [$typeRaw]]) === [];

File: src/Service/Ssma/SsmaEventValidator.php
Match lines: 1
35|final class SsmaEventValidator

file_read
Show Details
{"end_line": 560, "file_path": "src/Service/Ssma/SsmaEventValidator.php", "start_line": 351}
File: src/Service/Ssma/SsmaEventValidator.php (Total lines: 883)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 351-560
351|    private function validateDetails(string $type, array $details, array $data = []): array
352|    {
353|        if (!EventTypeEnum::isValid($type)) {
354|            // Tipos configurados pela empresa (ex.: CUSTOM_*) — sem regras extras além do compartilhado + classificação.
355|            return [];
356|        }
357|
358|        return match ($type) {
359|            EventTypeEnum::ROS              => $this->validateRos($details),
360|            EventTypeEnum::QUASE_ACIDENTE   => $this->validateQuaseAcidente($details),
361|            EventTypeEnum::ACIDENTE_PESSOAL => $this->validateAcidentePessoal($details, $data),
362|            EventTypeEnum::ACIDENTE_MATERIAL  => $this->validateAcidenteMaterial($details),
363|            EventTypeEnum::ACIDENTE_AMBIENTAL => $this->validateAcidenteAmbiental($details),
364|            default                           => [],
365|        };
366|    }
367|
368|    private function validateRos(array $d): array
369|    {
370|        $errors = [];
371|
372|        // "Visto e resolvido" no ROS dispensa o bloco classificatório completo.
373|        $rosResolved = !empty($d['ros_resolved']) && (
374|            $d['ros_resolved'] === true || $d['ros_resolved'] === 1 || $d['ros_resolved'] === '1'
375|        );
376|        if ($rosResolved) {
377|            $involvement = RosInvolvementTypeEnum::normalizeLegacy((string) ($d['involvement_type'] ?? ''));
378|            if ($involvement === '' || !RosInvolvementTypeEnum::isValid($involvement)) {
379|                $errors[] = 'Envolvimento é obrigatório. Selecione Saúde, Segurança ou Meio Ambiente.';
380|            }
381|            return $errors;
382|        }
383|
384|        if (empty($d['deviation_type']) || !DeviationTypeEnum::isValid($d['deviation_type'])) {
385|            $errors[] = 'Tipo de desvio é obrigatório. Selecione uma opção válida.';
386|        }
387|        $involvement = RosInvolvementTypeEnum::normalizeLegacy((string) ($d['involvement_type'] ?? ''));
388|        if ($involvement === '' || !RosInvolvementTypeEnum::isValid($involvement)) {
389|            $errors[] = 'Envolvimento é obrigatório. Selecione Saúde, Segurança ou Meio Ambiente.';
390|        }
391|        if (!isset($d['immediate_risk'])) {
392|            $errors[] = 'Risco imediato é obrigatório.';
393|        }
394|        if (empty($d['potential_severity']) || !PotentialSeverityEnum::isValid($d['potential_severity'])) {
395|            $errors[] = 'Consequência potencial é obrigatória. Selecione Leve, Baixo, Médio, Alto ou Severo.';
396|        }
397|        if (empty($d['barrier_type']) || !BarrierTypeEnum::isValid((string) $d['barrier_type'])) {
398|            $errors[] = 'Tipo de barreira é obrigatório. Selecione uma opção válida.';
399|        }
400|        // Legado: "Barreira que falhou" / Outro — aceita se ainda vier no payload antigo.
401|        if (!empty($d['failed_barrier']) && !RosFailedBarrierEnum::isValid((string) $d['failed_barrier'])) {
402|            $errors[] = 'Barreira que falhou: valor inválido.';
403|        } elseif (($d['failed_barrier'] ?? '') === RosFailedBarrierEnum::OUTRO) {
404|            $other = trim((string) ($d['failed_barrier_other'] ?? ''));
405|            if ($other === '') {
406|                $errors[] = 'Descreva o que faltou (obrigatório quando a barreira é Outro).';
407|            }
408|        }
409|        if (empty($d['nature']) || !EventClassNatureEnum::isValid($d['nature'])) {
410|            $errors[] = 'Natureza é obrigatória e deve ser um valor válido.';
411|        }
412|        $suggestions = trim((string) ($d['improvement_suggestions'] ?? ''));
413|        if ($suggestions === '') {
414|            $errors[] = 'Sugestões de melhoria são obrigatórias.';
415|        }
416|
417|        return $errors;
418|    }
419|
420|    private function validateQuaseAcidente(array $d): array
421|    {
422|        $errors = [];
423|
424|        if (empty($d['involvement_type']) || !InvolvementTypeEnum::isValid($d['involvement_type'])) {
425|            $errors[] = 'details.involvement_type: obrigatório e deve ser um valor válido.';
426|        }
427|        if (empty($d['potential_severity']) || !PotentialSeverityEnum::isValid($d['potential_severity'])) {
428|            $errors[] = 'details.potential_severity: obrigatório e deve ser um valor válido.';
429|        }
430|        if (empty($d['barrier_type']) || !BarrierTypeEnum::isValid((string) $d['barrier_type'])) {
431|            $errors[] = 'details.barrier_type: obrigatório e deve ser um valor válido.';
432|        }
433|        // Legado: "Barreira que falhou" — aceita se ainda vier no payload antigo.
434|        if (!empty($d['failed_barrier']) && !FailedBarrierEnum::isValid($d['failed_barrier'])) {
435|            $errors[] = 'details.failed_barrier: valor inválido.';
436|        }
437|        if (empty($d['nature']) || !EventClassNatureEnum::isValid($d['nature'])) {
438|            $errors[] = 'details.nature: obrigatório e deve ser um valor válido.';
439|        }
440|
441|        if (($d['involvement_type'] ?? '') === InvolvementTypeEnum::PERSON) {
442|            if (empty($d['person_id'])) {
443|                $errors[] = 'details.person_id: obrigatório quando o envolvimento do quase acidente é Pessoa.';
444|            }
445|            if (empty($d['person_type']) || !PersonTypeEnum::isValid($d['person_type'])) {
446|                $errors[] = 'details.person_type: obrigatório e deve ser um valor válido quando o envolvimento é Pessoa.';
447|            }
448|        }
449|
450|        return $errors;
451|    }
452|
453|    /**
454|     * @param array<string, mixed> $d
455|     * @param array<string, mixed> $data Payload completo — consequence real fica no root.
456|     *
457|     * @return list<string>
458|     */
459|    /**
460|     * Etapa 1 do Acidente Pessoal (contexto): pessoas envolvidas.
461|     * Campos técnicos (lesão, consequência, descaracterização) ficam na 2ª etapa.
462|     *
463|     * @param array<string, mixed> $d
464|     *
465|     * @return list<string>
466|     */
467|    private function validateAcidentePessoalEtapa1(array $d): array
468|    {
469|        $errors = [];
470|
471|        // Etapa 1: UI preenche "Pessoa(s) envolvida(s)" (people_ids). person_id/person_type
472|        // podem ainda não ter sido espelhados — aceitar a 1ª pessoa das tags.
473|        $personId = isset($d['person_id']) && $d['person_id'] !== '' && $d['person_id'] !== null
474|            ? (int) $d['person_id']
475|            : 0;
476|        if ($personId <= 0) {
477|            $personId = $this->firstPositiveIntFromPeopleIds($d['people_ids'] ?? null);
478|        }
479|        if ($personId <= 0) {
480|            $errors[] = 'Pessoa envolvida é obrigatória para Acidente Pessoal.';
481|        }
482|
483|        $personType = trim((string) ($d['person_type'] ?? ''));
484|        if ($personType === '') {
485|            $personType = PersonTypeEnum::COLABORADOR;
486|        }
487|        if (!PersonTypeEnum::isValid($personType)) {
488|            $errors[] = 'Tipo de vínculo da pessoa envolvida é obrigatório. Selecione uma opção válida.';
489|        }
490|
491|        return $errors;
492|    }
493|
494|    /**
495|     * @param mixed $raw
496|     */
497|    private function firstPositiveIntFromPeopleIds($raw): int
498|    {
499|        if (is_string($raw) && $raw !== '') {
500|            foreach (explode(',', $raw) as $part) {
501|                $id = (int) trim($part);
502|                if ($id > 0) {
503|                    return $id;
504|                }
505|            }
506|
507|            return 0;
508|        }
509|
510|        if (!is_array($raw)) {
511|            return 0;
512|        }
513|
514|        foreach ($raw as $value) {
515|            $id = (int) $value;
516|            if ($id > 0) {
517|                return $id;
518|            }
519|        }
520|
521|        return 0;
522|    }
523|
524|    /**
525|     * @param array<string, mixed> $d
526|     * @param array<string, mixed> $data Payload completo — consequence real fica no root.
527|     *
528|     * @return list<string>
529|     */
530|    private function validateAcidentePessoal(array $d, array $data = []): array
531|    {
532|        $errors = $this->validateAcidentePessoalEtapa1($d);
533|
534|        if (empty($d['potential_severity']) || !PotentialSeverityEnum::isValid($d['potential_severity'])) {
535|            $errors[] = 'Consequência potencial / Gravidade é obrigatória. Selecione uma opção válida.';
536|        }
537|
538|        // had_injury aceita bool true/false OU int 1/0
539|        if (!isset($d['had_injury'])) {
540|            $errors[] = 'Informe se houve lesão.';
541|        }
542|
543|        // Sem dano: não exige tipo/severidade de lesão (mesmo se had_injury legado vier true).
544|        $consequence = strtoupper(trim((string) ($data['consequence'] ?? $d['consequence'] ?? '')));
545|        $semDano = $consequence === EventConsequenceEnum::SEM_DANO;
546|
547|        $hadInjury = !$semDano
548|            && !empty($d['had_injury'])
549|            && $d['had_injury'] !== false
550|            && $d['had_injury'] !== 0
551|            && $d['had_injury'] !== '0';
552|
553|        if ($hadInjury) {
554|            if (empty($d['injury_type'])) {
555|                $errors[] = 'Tipo de lesão é obrigatório quando há lesão.';
556|            } elseif (!InjuryTypeEnum::isValid($d['injury_type'])) {
557|                $errors[] = 'Tipo de lesão inválido. Selecione uma opção válida.';
558|            }
559|        }
560|
Request #10 deepseek-v4-flash P:25.05K C:421 CR:22.02K CW:0 3447ms
Reasoning
Now let me understand the change better. The change restores the mandatory `descaracterizado` (Sim/Não) and `descaracter_comment` in aprofundamento_only mode (the "finalizar aprofundamento" by the medical professional). The PR background says: "No fluxo aprofundamento_only, o médico sempre deve informar se o acidente foi ou não caracterizado (Sim/Não) e incluir um comentário obrigatório. A condição de suspeita (descaracter_suspect) não altera essa obrigatoriedade." Now I need to check for a potential regression: In the "aprofundamento_only" flow, `descaracter_comment` must be provided even when `descaracterizado = '0'` (i.e., "Sim, é acidente / caracterizado"). Wait, let's check semantics: `descaracterizado = '1'` means the event is descaracterized as an accident (not an accident); `'0'` means it IS an accident. So when `descaracterizado = '0'`, does the user still need to give a comment? The old rule (before removal) was always requiring comment regardless of descVal (since the gate was only on descaracter_suspect). The new code requires the comment in all cases too. This is consistent with the original pre-hotfix behavior and the test `testAcidentePessoalAprofundamentoMedicoExigeCaracterizar`. Let me check the test file to understand expected behavior and confirm the semantics.
Tool Calls (1)
file_read
Show Details
{"end_line": 920, "file_path": "tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/SsmaEventValidatorTest.php", "start_line": 800}
File: tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/SsmaEventValidatorTest.php (Total lines: 989)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 800-920
800|            'origin'                  => 'MANUAL',
801|            'datetime'                => '2026-04-07T10:30:00',
802|            'location'                => 'Linha 2',
803|            'description'             => 'Toast da imagem — etapa 2 incompleta',
804|            'aprofundamento_complete' => true,
805|            'details'                 => [
806|                'activity'    => 'Operação de corte',
807|                'approach'    => 'CORRECAO_OPERACIONAL',
808|                'person_id'   => '101',
809|                'person_type' => 'COLABORADOR',
810|                'had_injury'  => true,
811|            ],
812|        ]);
813|
814|        $joined = implode("\n", $errors);
815|
816|        // Não pode mais aparecer o texto técnico do print antigo.
817|        self::assertStringNotContainsString('details.injury_type:', $joined);
818|        self::assertStringNotContainsString('details.injury_classification:', $joined);
819|        self::assertStringNotContainsString('details.descaracterizado:', $joined);
820|        self::assertStringNotContainsString('details.potential_consequence:', $joined);
821|        self::assertStringNotContainsString('consequence: obrigatório', $joined);
822|
823|        self::assertTrue(
824|            (bool) array_filter($errors, static fn (string $e): bool => str_contains($e, 'Consequência real é obrigatória')),
825|            "Faltou mensagem de consequência real. Erros:\n{$joined}"
826|        );
827|        self::assertTrue(
828|            (bool) array_filter($errors, static fn (string $e): bool => str_contains($e, 'Consequência potencial é obrigatória')),
829|            "Faltou mensagem de consequência potencial. Erros:\n{$joined}"
830|        );
831|        self::assertTrue(
832|            (bool) array_filter($errors, static fn (string $e): bool => str_contains($e, 'Consequência potencial / Gravidade é obrigatória')),
833|            "Faltou mensagem de gravidade. Erros:\n{$joined}"
834|        );
835|        self::assertTrue(
836|            (bool) array_filter($errors, static fn (string $e): bool => str_contains($e, 'Tipo de lesão é obrigatório quando há lesão')),
837|            "Faltou mensagem humana de tipo de lesão. Erros:\n{$joined}"
838|        );
839|        self::assertTrue(
840|            (bool) array_filter($errors, static fn (string $e): bool => str_contains($e, 'Classificação da lesão é obrigatória quando há lesão')),
841|            "Faltou mensagem humana de classificação. Erros:\n{$joined}"
842|        );
843|        self::assertFalse(
844|            (bool) array_filter($errors, static fn (string $e): bool => str_contains($e, 'caracterizado como acidente')),
845|            "Caracterizar não deve ser exigido na criação. Erros:\n{$joined}"
846|        );
847|    }
848|
849|    public function testAcidentePessoalAprofundamentoMedicoExigeCaracterizar(): void
850|    {
851|        $validator = new SsmaEventValidator();
852|
853|        $errors = $validator->validate([
854|            'type'                    => EventTypeEnum::ACIDENTE_PESSOAL,
855|            'origin'                  => 'MANUAL',
856|            'datetime'                => '2026-04-07T10:30:00',
857|            'location'                => 'Linha 2',
858|            'description'             => 'Médico finalizando aprofundamento',
859|            'aprofundamento_complete' => true,
860|            'aprofundamento_only'     => true,
861|            'nature'                  => 'CORTE',
862|            'agent'                   => 'FERRAMENTA',
863|            'consequence'             => 'LESAO_LEVE',
864|            'impacts'                 => ['PESSOA'],
865|            'details'                 => [
866|                'activity'              => 'Operação de corte',
867|                'approach'              => 'TREINAMENTO',
868|                'strategic_nature'      => 'SEGURANCA',
869|                'barrier_type'          => 'FISICA',
870|                'potential_consequence' => 'LESAO_MODERADA',
871|                'potential_severity'    => 'MODERADO',
872|                'person_id'             => '101',
873|                'person_type'           => 'COLABORADOR',
874|                'had_injury'            => true,
875|                'injury_type'           => 'CORTE',
876|                'injury_severity'       => 'LEVE',
877|                'injury_classification' => 'FAC',
878|                'body_parts'            => [
879|                    ['region' => 'MAO', 'side' => 'DIREITA', 'injury_type' => 'CORTE'],
880|                ],
881|            ],
882|        ]);
883|
884|        self::assertTrue(
885|            (bool) array_filter($errors, static fn (string $e): bool => str_contains($e, 'caracterizado como acidente')),
886|            'Médico deve informar se foi caracterizado. Erros: ' . implode(' | ', $errors)
887|        );
888|    }
889|
890|    public function testPayloadComInjuryTypePreenchidoDisparaValidacaoAprofundamento(): void
891|    {
892|        $validator = new SsmaEventValidator();
893|
894|        $errors = $validator->validate([
895|            'type'        => EventTypeEnum::ACIDENTE_PESSOAL,
896|            'origin'      => 'MANUAL',
897|            'datetime'    => '2026-04-07T10:30:00',
898|            'location'    => 'Linha 2',
899|            'description' => 'Enviou injury_type sem completar aprofundamento',
900|            'details'     => [
901|                'activity'    => 'Operação',
902|                'approach'    => 'CORRECAO_OPERACIONAL',
903|                'person_id'   => '101',
904|                'person_type' => 'COLABORADOR',
905|                'injury_type' => 'CORTE',
906|                'had_injury'  => true,
907|            ],
908|        ]);
909|
910|        self::assertNotEmpty($errors);
911|        $joined = implode(' | ', $errors);
912|        self::assertStringNotContainsString('details.injury_type:', $joined);
913|        self::assertTrue(
914|            (bool) array_filter($errors, static fn (string $e): bool => str_contains($e, 'Consequência real')),
915|            'Com injury_type preenchido deve exigir aprofundamento. Erros: ' . $joined
916|        );
917|    }
918|
919|    public function testAcidentePessoalEtapa1SemPessoaRetornaMensagemHumana(): void
920|    {
Request #11 deepseek-v4-flash P:27.21K C:2.17K CR:25.47K CW:0 15627ms
Reasoning
Now let's understand the change more deeply. The validator previously (before this PR) had the `$hasSuspect` gate requiring descaracterizado + comment only when `descaracter_suspect` was set. Now it always requires them in `aprofundamento_only` mode. Let me check what happened when the change removed `$hasSuspect`. Key considerations: 1. Does removing the `$hasSuspect` gate create a regression where the aprofundamento can never be finalized if `descaracter_suspect` was never collected? That is by design — the requirement is to always fill the characterization. But note the semantics: when `descaracterizado = '0'` (event IS characterized as accident), the user must still provide a comment ("Comentário de caracterização do acidente é obrigatório"). Is that intended? Yes per PR description — "incluir um comentário obrigatório". 2. The concern: applySsmaDescaracterPermissionGate. In the aprofundamento-only update flow for a user WITHOUT the descaracterize permission (medical professional that doesn't have the flag), the controller: - If existingDetails has descaracterizado '0'/'1', keeps the existing value. But does NOT touch descaracter_comment — the incoming data may have the comment stripped? Actually it only strips descaracterizado at root, then sets `$details['descaracterizado']`. descaracter_comment is kept if present in the payload. So the comment is preserved from payload. That's fine. But wait — with this change, a medical professional who does NOT have the "descaracterizar" permission would be forced to provide a comment anyway, and could they modify the comment? The gate keeps the existing descaracterizado value but if they send `descaracter_comment`, that value is stored as they typed. Is the comment stored at all? It's in details and persisted. Well, this is business logic, perhaps acceptable. However, let's think about whether there's a case where the aprofundamento finalization could be blocked by this new mandatory requirement. In the aprofundamento-only flow, the front-end presumably includes `descaracterizado` field. If a user doesn't have descaracterize permission, the front may not show the field, and the controller defaults to '0'. But it won't have a comment. Then the validator would complain about missing comment! This is the critical thing. Let's examine applySsmaDescaracterPermissionGate again: If `$existingDetails` doesn't have a saved descaracterizado AND the incoming payload doesn't have descaracterizado, the default is '0' (Sim, é acidente). But there's no default for descaracter_comment. So when the medical professional finalizes the aprofundamento via aprofundamento_only flow (without having previously set anything), the details would be descaracterizado='0' and no comment -> validator error "Comentário de caracterização do acidente é obrigatório." Is that a regression? Well, that's the intended behavior: the doctor must state whether the accident is characterized and give a comment. Since the comment is mandatory even with the answer '0' (yes, it's an accident). This rule says the doctor must ALWAYS give a comment. It may be a strict rule, but the PR description says it restores the original rule that was in production. Wait — but there's a subtle point: does the medical professional (who may lack the "descaracterizar" flag) actually submit `descaracterizado` and `descaracter_comment` in the aprofundamento payload? Let me check the front-end `_modal_event.html.twig` around line 6960 where `payload.aprofundamento_only = true` to see the data it includes. Actually, the "descaracterização" fields are only visible/editable if the user has permission. This is a critical regression question. Before the hotfix (the original rule restored), presumably the flow worked because the permission gating was designed with the mandatory validation. But then someone introduced the `$hasSuspect` gate to make it optional. Now, restoring mandatory may break finalization for those without permission IF the fields aren't shown. Let me look at the applySsmaDescaracterPermissionGate more: This method is called on all updates. If not `$can`, then it sets details['descaracterizado'] to existing value, or the payload value, or default '0'. So there will ALWAYS be a descaracterizado value after this gate. But descaracter_comment? If the user has no permission and can't see/edit the field, they won't send a comment. So the validation in validator would fail and they can't finalize aprofundamento. But wait — is the comment also mandatory only when `descaracter_suspect`? Original production rule (pre-hotfix) had no gate: always require comment. So the product said the comment was always mandatory. So doctors were expected to write the comment even without the descaracterization flag? Hmm. Let me examine where the comment and descaracterizado are sent from the UI. Let me look at the twig modal and JS. Actually, let me not overthink this. The review focus: is there a functional regression introduced by this change? The rule being restored is exactly the original rule. The test confirms desired behavior: medical professional must provide characterization in aprofundamento finalization. But wait — there's an important detail to verify: does the validator apply this check even when `descaracter_suspect` was false/'0' (i.e., no suspicion of descaracterização at all)? For a typical accident where no one suspects it wasn't a real accident, the doctor must now always answer "Sim/Não" and comment. This is arguably stricter, but the test and PR description say it's intended: "A regra original (médico sempre informa se o evento foi caracterizado como acidente no aprofundamento_only) foi restaurada." Now, let me verify whether the check is truly the "original" rule by checking git history? We cannot check history with given tools. But we can look at how `$data['aprofundamento_only']` is set only in the merge function, which only is called from `updateEvent` when `!$canFullEdit` (i.e., only aprofundamento specialists). And on finalizing aprofundamento by the medical professional who has the `descaracterizar` permission presumably. Let me check how the front-end sends the aprofundamento_only payload in the modal `_modal_event.html.twig` to see if it includes descaracterizado and descaracter_comment always, and what the UI shows to users without the permission. Actually, an even more critical check: does the validator get called for `aprofundamento_complete = true` (finalization from create) without `aprofundamento_only` in data? Yes — create: `$data` contains `aprofundamento_complete: true`; but `aprofundamento_only` is not in data (it's only set in mergeSsmaEventAprofundamentoOnlyPayload in update path). In the create (or full edit) path, the validation of descaracterizado in aprofundamento would NOT be triggered because `$data['aprofundamento_only']` is empty! Wait, look at the test `testAcidentePessoalAprofundamentoMedicoExigeCaracterizar`: it includes `aprofundamento_only => true` AND `aprofundamento_complete => true`. And create event with `aprofundamento_complete` is also validated via validateDetails when `forceAccidentDeep` is true (line 69). But the characterization check in validateAcidentePessoal is gated by `$data['aprofundamento_only']`. So on a *create* flow with the medical aprofundamento (can that happen? create by medical professional), the check wouldn't fire, and the doctor could finalize without characterization. Hmm — is that a bug? That behavior is pre-existing (both before and after this change the gate is `$data['aprofundamento_only']`), so not introduced by this diff. Not our scope. Also note: In create event flow, the creation of a SsmaEvent — who creates events? Probably not medical. So the aprofundamento for medical is on the updateEvent path via aprofundamento_only merge. OK. Now let me focus on what this diff actually changed. It removed the `$hasSuspect` gate. Semantics: Old code: ``` if (!empty($data['aprofundamento_only'])) { $hasSuspect = !empty($d['descaracter_suspect']) && $d['descaracter_suspect'] !== '0'; if ($hasSuspect) { // require descVal 0/1 and comment } } ``` New code: always require descVal 0/1 and comment in aprofundamento_only mode. Potential regression: In aprofundamento_only mode, if the user has no "descaracterizar" permission, `descaracter_suspect` might be '0' (no suspicion) and previously no characterization was required. Now the medical professional who lacks permission could be blocked from finalizing because they cannot fill in descaracterizado/comment (fields may be stripped / not visible). Let me check the frontend template to see how the field is exposed and gated. Let me look at the twig modal template around descaracterizado usage.
Tool Calls (2)
code_search
Show Details
{"file_patterns": ["templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig"], "search_text": "descaracterizado"}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig
Match lines: 25
819|            <input type="hidden" id="ev_descaracterizado" name="ev_descaracterizado" value="">
2198|            descaracterizado: '',
2202|        var cardDescHidden = card.getAttribute('data-descaracterizado');
2204|            data.descaracterizado = cardDescHidden;
2208|                data.descaracterizado = cardBtns[0].getAttribute('data-descaracter-val') || '';
2253|        var descVal = saved.descaracterizado != null ? String(saved.descaracterizado) : '';
2254|        if (descVal !== '') card.setAttribute('data-descaracterizado', descVal);
2628|                card.setAttribute('data-descaracterizado', val);
2629|                var hidden = document.getElementById('ev_descaracterizado');
2938|        var hidden = document.getElementById('ev_descaracterizado');
2951|                c.setAttribute('data-descaracterizado', '0');
2957|            var cardDesc = card.getAttribute('data-descaracterizado') || cur;
6020|                    var desc = card.getAttribute('data-descaracterizado') || '';
6424|                if (seed.descaracterizado === undefined && det.descaracterizado !== undefined && det.descaracterizado !== '') {
6425|                    seed.descaracterizado = String(det.descaracterizado);
6485|        var descVal = det.descaracterizado != null ? det.descaracterizado : data.descaracterizado;
6488|        evSetVal('ev_descaracterizado', descVal == null ? '' : String(descVal));
6977|            delete payload.descaracterizado;
7093|            var descFromCard = (primaryData && primaryData.descaracterizado !== undefined && primaryData.descaracterizado !== '')
7094|                ? String(primaryData.descaracterizado)
7097|                descFromCard = String(primaryCard.getAttribute('data-descaracterizado') || '');
7100|                descFromCard = String((document.getElementById('ev_descaracterizado') || {}).value || '');
7111|                payload.descaracterizado = descFromCard;
7113|                delete payload.descaracterizado;
7253|                'details.descaracterizado': 'Caracterizado como acidente',

code_search
Show Details
{"file_patterns": ["src/Controller/SsmaController.php"], "search_text": "ssmaMemberCanDescharacterizeAccident"}
File: src/Controller/SsmaController.php
Match lines: 3
10635|    private function ssmaMemberCanDescharacterizeAccident(Company $company, ?CompanyMembers $member): bool
13050|            && $this->ssmaMemberCanDescharacterizeAccident($company, $currentMemberForExport);
27780|        $can = $this->ssmaMemberCanDescharacterizeAccident($company, $member);

Request #12 deepseek-v4-flash P:30.03K C:136 CR:29.31K CW:0 1665ms
Reasoning
Let me look at lines 6960-7120 of the template to understand how the aprofundamento_only payload is built regarding descaracterizado/descaracter_comment and permission.
Tool Calls (1)
file_read
Show Details
{"end_line": 7130, "file_path": "templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig", "start_line": 6940}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig (Total lines: 7707)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 6940-7130
6940|        } else if (type === 'QUASE_ACIDENTE') {
6941|            var qaPc = (document.getElementById('ev_qa_potential_consequence') || { value: '' }).value;
6942|            var qaCrit = evResolvePotentialSeverity(
6943|                qaPc,
6944|                (document.getElementById('ev_criticality') || {}).value
6945|            );
6946|            if (qaCrit) payload.potential_severity = qaCrit;
6947|        } else {
6948|            var critEl = document.getElementById('ev_criticality');
6949|            if (critEl && critEl.value) {
6950|                payload.potential_severity = evResolvePotentialSeverity(critEl.value) || critEl.value;
6951|            }
6952|        }
6953|
6954|        if (evRequiresAprofundamento(type)) {
6955|            payload.corrective_actions = evCollectCorrectiveActions();
6956|        }
6957|
6958|        // Marca 2ª etapa: backend exige campos técnicos só quando o médico finaliza o Aprofundamento.
6959|        if (evCurrentStep === 'aprofundamento' && evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) {
6960|            payload.aprofundamento_only = true;
6961|            payload.aprofundamento_complete = !!finalizeAprofundamento;
6962|            payload.aprofundamento_status = finalizeAprofundamento ? 'finalized' : 'draft';
6963|        }
6964|
6965|        // Etapa 1 de acidentes: não envia campos técnicos vazios (evita disparar validação da 2ª etapa).
6966|        if (
6967|            (type === 'ACIDENTE_PESSOAL' || type === 'ACIDENTE_MATERIAL' || type === 'ACIDENTE_AMBIENTAL')
6968|            && evCurrentStep !== 'aprofundamento'
6969|            && !evCanEditAprofundamento(type)
6970|        ) {
6971|            payload.consequence = '';
6972|            payload.potential_consequence = '';
6973|            delete payload.potential_severity;
6974|            delete payload.injury_type;
6975|            delete payload.injury_classification;
6976|            delete payload.injury_severity;
6977|            delete payload.descaracterizado;
6978|            delete payload.descaracter_comment;
6979|            delete payload.body_parts;
6980|            delete payload.strategic_nature;
6981|            delete payload.corrective_actions;
6982|            delete payload.asset_type;
6983|            delete payload.failed_barrier;
6984|            delete payload.barrier_type;
6985|            delete payload.environmental_medium;
6986|            delete payload.pollutant_type;
6987|        }
6988|
6989|        if (mode === 'edit') {
6990|            payload.status = document.getElementById('ev_status').value;
6991|        } else {
6992|            var stEl = document.getElementById('ev_status');
6993|            payload.status = (stEl && stEl.value) ? stEl.value : 'ABERTO';
6994|        }
6995|
6996|        // ROS "Visto e resolvido" = SIM: a ocorrência já nasce (ou é salva) como resolvida.
6997|        if (type === 'ROS' && evIsRosResolvedChecked()) {
6998|            payload.status = 'CONCLUIDO';
6999|        }
7000|
7001|        if (type === 'ROS') {
7002|            payload.deviation_type        = document.getElementById('ev_deviation_type').value;
7003|            payload.involvement_type      = document.getElementById('ev_involvement_type_ros').value;
7004|            // Consequência potencial = escala de gravidade; gravamos em potential_severity.
7005|            // Mantém potential_consequence vazio para não conflitar com EventConsequenceEnum.
7006|            payload.potential_consequence = '';
7007|            payload.immediate_risk        = document.getElementById('ev_immediate_risk').checked ? 1 : 0;
7008|            payload.barrier_type          = (document.getElementById('ev_barrier_type_ros') || { value: '' }).value;
7009|            delete payload.failed_barrier;
7010|            delete payload.failed_barrier_other;
7011|            payload.improvement_suggestions = (document.getElementById('ev_improvement_suggestions') || { value: '' }).value;
7012|            payload.ros_resolved = (document.getElementById('ev_ros_resolved') || {}).checked ? 1 : 0;
7013|            payload.ros_resolution_notes = payload.ros_resolved
7014|                ? ((document.getElementById('ev_ros_resolution_notes') || { value: '' }).value || '')
7015|                : '';
7016|            payload.ros_resolution_evidences = payload.ros_resolved ? (evRosResolutionEvidences || []).slice() : [];
7017|            payload.people_ids = '';
7018|        } else if (type === 'QUASE_ACIDENTE') {
7019|            payload.involvement_type   = document.getElementById('ev_involvement_type_qa').value;
7020|            payload.barrier_type       = (document.getElementById('ev_barrier_type_qa') || { value: '' }).value;
7021|            delete payload.failed_barrier;
7022|            payload.potential_consequence = (document.getElementById('ev_qa_potential_consequence') || { value: '' }).value;
7023|            if (payload.involvement_type === 'PERSON') {
7024|                payload.person_id   = (document.getElementById('ev_person_id_qa')   || { value: '' }).value;
7025|                payload.person_type = (document.getElementById('ev_person_type_qa') || { value: '' }).value;
7026|            }
7027|        } else if (type === 'ACIDENTE_PESSOAL') {
7028|            if (typeof evSyncInjuredCardsFromInvolved === 'function') {
7029|                evSyncInjuredCardsFromInvolved();
7030|            }
7031|            evSyncInjuredPersonDetailsHidden();
7032|            var primaryId = (typeof evGetPrimaryInjuredPersonId === 'function')
7033|                ? evGetPrimaryInjuredPersonId()
7034|                : '';
7035|            if (!primaryId) {
7036|                primaryId = evFirstPeopleInvolvedId(peopleIds);
7037|            }
7038|            payload.person_id   = primaryId || (document.getElementById('ev_person_id') || { value: '' }).value;
7039|            payload.person_type = (document.getElementById('ev_person_type') || { value: '' }).value || 'COLABORADOR';
7040|            var detailsObj = (typeof evGetInjuredDetailsObj === 'function') ? evGetInjuredDetailsObj() : {};
7041|            var primaryData = (primaryId && detailsObj[primaryId]) ? detailsObj[primaryId] : null;
7042|            var primaryCard = (typeof evGetPrimaryInjuredCard === 'function') ? evGetPrimaryInjuredCard() : null;
7043|            payload.consequence = primaryCard
7044|                ? ((primaryCard.querySelector('.ev-inj-consequence') || {}).value || '')
7045|                : ((primaryData && primaryData.consequence) || '');
7046|            payload.potential_consequence = primaryCard
7047|                ? ((primaryCard.querySelector('.ev-inj-potential-consequence') || {}).value || '')
7048|                : ((primaryData && primaryData.potential_consequence) || '');
7049|            var consequenceReal = payload.consequence;
7050|            var apDerivedCrit = evResolvePotentialSeverity(
7051|                consequenceReal,
7052|                payload.potential_consequence,
7053|                payload.potential_severity
7054|            );
7055|            if (apDerivedCrit) {
7056|                payload.potential_severity = apDerivedCrit;
7057|            }
7058|            if (consequenceReal === 'SEM_DANO') {
7059|                payload.had_injury = 0;
7060|                payload.injury_type = '';
7061|                payload.injury_severity = '';
7062|            } else {
7063|                var hadEl = primaryCard
7064|                    ? primaryCard.querySelector('.ev-inj-had-injury')
7065|                    : document.getElementById('ev_had_injury');
7066|                payload.had_injury = hadEl
7067|                    ? (hadEl.checked ? 1 : 0)
7068|                    : (primaryData && primaryData.had_injury ? 1 : 0);
7069|                if (payload.had_injury) {
7070|                    var typeFromCard = primaryCard
7071|                        ? ((primaryCard.querySelector('.ev-inj-injury-type') || {}).value || '')
7072|                        : '';
7073|                    var sevFromCard = primaryCard
7074|                        ? ((primaryCard.querySelector('.ev-inj-injury-severity') || {}).value || '')
7075|                        : '';
7076|                    payload.injury_type = (document.getElementById('ev_injury_type') || { value: '' }).value
7077|                        || typeFromCard
7078|                        || (primaryData && primaryData.injury_type) || '';
7079|                    payload.injury_severity = (document.getElementById('ev_injury_severity') || { value: '' }).value
7080|                        || sevFromCard
7081|                        || (primaryData && primaryData.injury_severity) || '';
7082|                } else {
7083|                    payload.injury_type = '';
7084|                    payload.injury_severity = '';
7085|                }
7086|            }
7087|            payload.injury_classification = (document.getElementById('ev_injury_classification') || { value: '' }).value
7088|                || (primaryData && primaryData.injury_classification) || '';
7089|            payload.work_leave      = (document.getElementById('ev_work_leave') || { value: '' }).value
7090|                || (primaryData && primaryData.work_leave) || '';
7091|            payload.injured_person_details = (document.getElementById('ev_injured_person_details') || { value: '' }).value;
7092|            var suspectEl = document.getElementById('ev_descaracter_suspect');
7093|            var descFromCard = (primaryData && primaryData.descaracterizado !== undefined && primaryData.descaracterizado !== '')
7094|                ? String(primaryData.descaracterizado)
7095|                : '';
7096|            if (!descFromCard && primaryCard) {
7097|                descFromCard = String(primaryCard.getAttribute('data-descaracterizado') || '');
7098|            }
7099|            if (!descFromCard) {
7100|                descFromCard = String((document.getElementById('ev_descaracterizado') || {}).value || '');
7101|            }
7102|            // Fallback: médico sem permissão de descaracterizar nunca pode marcar "Não",
7103|            // então se todas as fontes estiverem vazias, assume "Sim" (é acidente = '0').
7104|            if (!descFromCard && evAprofundamentoOnlyMode && !evCanDescharacterizeAccident()) {
7105|                descFromCard = '0';
7106|            }
7107|            var descAnswered = descFromCard === '0' || descFromCard === '1';
7108|            payload.descaracter_suspect = evIsDescaracterSuspectChecked() ? 1 : 0;
7109|            // Caracterizar só o médico no aprofundamento dedicado.
7110|            if (descAnswered && evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) {
7111|                payload.descaracterizado = descFromCard;
7112|            } else {
7113|                delete payload.descaracterizado;
7114|            }
7115|            var descCommentFromCard = primaryCard
7116|                ? String((primaryCard.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-comment') || {}).value || '').trim()
7117|                : '';
7118|            payload.descaracter_comment = descCommentFromCard
7119|                || (primaryData && primaryData.descaracter_comment ? String(primaryData.descaracter_comment).trim() : '')
7120|                || '';
7121|            if (!evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) {
7122|                delete payload.descaracter_comment;
7123|            }
7124|            if (suspectEl) {
7125|                suspectEl.checked = !!payload.descaracter_suspect;
7126|            }
7127|            if (payload.had_injury) {
7128|                var bodyParts = (typeof evCollectActiveBodyParts === 'function')
7129|                    ? evCollectActiveBodyParts()
7130|                    : [];
Request #13 deepseek-v4-flash P:33.23K C:960 CR:30.08K CW:0 8884ms
Reasoning
Let me see how the descaracter_comment is gated by permission. Line 7115-7120: payload.descaracter_comment is always taken from card value or existing data, and only deleted if not aprofundamento_only. But if the doctor lacks the permission and the comment input isn't visible/empty, the payload would contain an empty comment -> the validator requires comment -> blocked from finalizing. Wait, but the front-end deletes descaracterizado when descAnswered is false (if descFromCard is empty and !descAnswered), and only sets when descAnswered. If a doctor WITHOUT permission, evAprofundamentoOnlyMode true, no existing value => descFromCard = '0' => descAnswered = true => payload.descaracterizado = '0'. So the Sim/Não requirement passes. But comment: descCommentFromCard would be '' if the input hidden/invisible and no primaryData. payload.descaracter_comment = '' → validator error "Comentário de caracterização do acidente é obrigatório." Now the question is whether the field `.ev-inj-descaracter-comment` is visible/editable for doctors without descaracterize permission. Let me look at how the comment field is rendered / gated in the twig. Actually, wait. Let me re-check the original PR context. This PR is a fix that "restores the original rule" - before the hotfix, medical professionals were required to always provide the characterization. But then, was the comment required even if `descaracterizado = '0'` (Sim, é acidente)? The restored rule (old code before the previous change) required the comment always in aprofundamento_only, gated only on `$hasSuspect`? Actually let me determine which came first: the previous commit changed the code from no-gate (always require) to gate on $hasSuspect. This PR reverts that. Let me check git blame or the previous state? We can't. But the diff comment "Caracterizar é do médico no aprofundamento dedicado — não na criação." was removed, and the new comment is "Médico sempre informa caracterização no aprofundamento dedicado." Note there is a real functional concern to examine: For a doctor WITHOUT the descaracterize permission who finalizes the aprofundamento, they'd be forced to answer descaracterizado with '0' (default, since front forces '0') and the comment is required. Is the comment input visible to the doctor? If hidden, payload comment = '' and validation would block finalization -> regression where doctors can't finalize. But wait — the previous (hotfix) code introduced the `$hasSuspect` gate precisely to make this optional, likely because doctors without permission couldn't fill it. Actually the hotfix gate required characterization ONLY when descaracter_suspect = 1. So a doctor seeing "suspect" flag would have to fill it; otherwise not. Hmm, this PR is reverting that because the test `testAcidentePessoalAprofundamentoMedicoExigeCaracterizar` expects the characterization to be mandatory when a doctor finalizes aprofundamento. And per the PR description the rule should be: "Médico sempre informa se o evento foi caracterizado como acidente no aprofundamento". But let me examine the front-end more: whether descaracter_comment UI is accessible to a doctor who has descaracter_suspect = 0. Let me search the twig for "ev-inj-descaracter-comment" and descaracter section rendering and the permission gating, and understand when suspect shows the characterization question. Let me look at where `ev-inj-descaracter-comment` is used and how the descaracterizacao block is rendered.
Tool Calls (2)
code_search
Show Details
{"file_patterns": ["templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig"], "search_text": "ev-inj-descaracter-comment"}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig
Match lines: 6
2199|            descaracter_comment: (card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-comment') || {}).value || '',
2255|        var comm = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-comment');
2596|        card.querySelectorAll('.ev-inj-attendance, .ev-inj-relato, .ev-inj-injury-type, .ev-inj-injury-severity, .ev-inj-injury-classification, .ev-inj-had-injury, .ev-inj-consequence, .ev-inj-potential-consequence, .ev-inj-descaracter-comment').forEach(function (el) {
2638|        card.querySelectorAll('.ev-inj-descaracter-comment').forEach(function (ta) {
6022|                    var comm = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-comment');
7116|                ? String((primaryCard.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-comment') || {}).value || '').trim()

code_search
Show Details
{"file_patterns": ["templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig"], "search_text": "ev_descaracter_suspect"}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig
Match lines: 7
291|                <input class="form-check-input" type="checkbox" id="ev_descaracter_suspect" name="ev_descaracter_suspect" value="1">
292|                <label class="form-check-label" for="ev_descaracter_suspect">Há suspeita de descaracterização do acidente?</label>
2905|        var el = document.getElementById('ev_descaracter_suspect');
5728|        var suspectChk = document.getElementById('ev_descaracter_suspect');
5746|            var globalChk = document.getElementById('ev_descaracter_suspect');
6476|        evSetChk('ev_descaracter_suspect', suspectOn);
7092|            var suspectEl = document.getElementById('ev_descaracter_suspect');

Request #14 deepseek-v4-flash P:34.65K C:226 CR:34.18K CW:0 2366ms
Reasoning
Let me check the JS around line 2255-2260 and 2596-2640 and 5728-5750 to understand how the descaracter comment and suspect checkbox interplay and are gated by permission.
Tool Calls (2)
file_read
Show Details
{"end_line": 2270, "file_path": "templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig", "start_line": 2180}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig (Total lines: 7707)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 2180-2270
2180|            if (hadLabel) hadLabel.setAttribute('for', had.id);
2181|        }
2182|    }
2183|
2184|    function evReadCardInjuryData(card) {
2185|        if (!card) return {};
2186|        var isActive = card.classList.contains('is-expanded');
2187|        var data = {
2188|            attendance_date: (card.querySelector('.ev-inj-attendance') || {}).value || '',
2189|            breve_relato: (card.querySelector('.ev-inj-relato') || {}).value || '',
2190|            had_injury: !!(card.querySelector('.ev-inj-had-injury') || {}).checked,
2191|            injury_type: (card.querySelector('.ev-inj-injury-type') || {}).value || '',
2192|            injury_severity: (card.querySelector('.ev-inj-injury-severity') || {}).value || '',
2193|            work_leave: (card.querySelector('.ev-inj-work-leave') || {}).value || '',
2194|            injury_classification: (card.querySelector('.ev-inj-injury-classification') || {}).value || '',
2195|            consequence: (card.querySelector('.ev-inj-consequence') || {}).value || '',
2196|            potential_consequence: (card.querySelector('.ev-inj-potential-consequence') || {}).value || '',
2197|            descaracter_suspect: evIsDescaracterSuspectChecked() ? 1 : 0,
2198|            descaracterizado: '',
2199|            descaracter_comment: (card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-comment') || {}).value || '',
2200|            body_parts: []
2201|        };
2202|        var cardDescHidden = card.getAttribute('data-descaracterizado');
2203|        if (cardDescHidden !== null && cardDescHidden !== '') {
2204|            data.descaracterizado = cardDescHidden;
2205|        } else {
2206|            var cardBtns = card.querySelectorAll('.ev-inj-descaracter-btn.active');
2207|            if (cardBtns.length) {
2208|                data.descaracterizado = cardBtns[0].getAttribute('data-descaracter-val') || '';
2209|            }
2210|        }
2211|        if (isActive) {
2212|            data.body_parts = evCollectActiveBodyParts();
2213|            var bld = document.getElementById('ev_body_location_detail');
2214|            data.body_location_detail = bld && bld.value ? String(bld.value).trim() : '';
2215|        } else {
2216|            var prev = evGetInjuredDetailsObj()[card.getAttribute('data-person-id')] || {};
2217|            data.body_parts = Array.isArray(prev.body_parts) ? prev.body_parts : [];
2218|            data.body_location_detail = prev.body_location_detail || '';
2219|        }
2220|        return data;
2221|    }
2222|
2223|    function evApplyCardInjuryData(card, saved) {
2224|        if (!card || !saved) return;
2225|        var att = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-attendance');
2226|        if (att) att.value = saved.attendance_date || evTodayDateInputValue();
2227|        var rel = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-relato');
2228|        if (rel) rel.value = saved.breve_relato || '';
2229|        var had = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-had-injury');
2230|        if (had) had.checked = saved.had_injury === undefined ? true : !!saved.had_injury;
2231|        var type = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-injury-type');
2232|        if (type && saved.injury_type) type.value = saved.injury_type;
2233|        var sev = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-injury-severity');
2234|        if (sev && saved.injury_severity) sev.value = saved.injury_severity;
2235|        var leave = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-work-leave');
2236|        if (leave) leave.value = saved.work_leave === 'PARCIAL' ? 'TOTAL' : (saved.work_leave || '');
2237|        var klass = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-injury-classification');
2238|        if (klass) {
2239|            var ic = saved.injury_classification || '';
2240|            if (ic === 'LTI_FATALIDADE') ic = 'FAT';
2241|            if (ic) klass.value = ic;
2242|        }
2243|        if (typeof evSyncCardCatFromClassification === 'function') {
2244|            evSyncCardCatFromClassification(card);
2245|        }
2246|        var cons = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-consequence');
2247|        if (cons && saved.consequence) cons.value = saved.consequence;
2248|        var pot = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-potential-consequence');
2249|        if (pot && saved.potential_consequence) pot.value = saved.potential_consequence;
2250|        if (typeof evFilterCardConsequences === 'function') evFilterCardConsequences(card);
2251|        if (typeof evSyncCardDerivedSeverity === 'function') evSyncCardDerivedSeverity(card);
2252|        if (typeof evSyncCardPotentialGteReal === 'function') evSyncCardPotentialGteReal(card);
2253|        var descVal = saved.descaracterizado != null ? String(saved.descaracterizado) : '';
2254|        if (descVal !== '') card.setAttribute('data-descaracterizado', descVal);
2255|        var comm = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-comment');
2256|        if (comm) comm.value = saved.descaracter_comment || '';
2257|        evRenderInjuredPersonSummary(card, card.getAttribute('data-person-id'));
2258|        evUpdateInjuredCardSummary(card);
2259|        if (typeof syncInjuryFieldsForCard === 'function') syncInjuryFieldsForCard(card);
2260|    }
2261|
2262|    function evSyncInjuredPersonDetailsHidden() {
2263|        var wrap = document.getElementById('ev_injured_person_boxes');
2264|        if (!wrap) return;
2265|        // Merge: não apaga pessoas que ainda têm caixinha / dados salvos.
2266|        var out = evGetInjuredDetailsObj();
2267|        var seen = {};
2268|        wrap.querySelectorAll('.ev-injured-person-box[data-person-id]').forEach(function (card) {
2269|            var id = String(card.getAttribute('data-person-id') || '');
2270|            if (!id) return;
file_read
Show Details
{"end_line": 2650, "file_path": "templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig", "start_line": 2585}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig (Total lines: 7707)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 2585-2650
2585|                }
2586|            });
2587|        });
2588|        var pick = card.querySelector('.js-ev-inj-pick');
2589|        if (pick) {
2590|            pick.addEventListener('click', function (e) {
2591|                e.preventDefault();
2592|                e.stopPropagation();
2593|                evSelectPrimaryInjuredPerson(card.getAttribute('data-person-id'));
2594|            });
2595|        }
2596|        card.querySelectorAll('.ev-inj-attendance, .ev-inj-relato, .ev-inj-injury-type, .ev-inj-injury-severity, .ev-inj-injury-classification, .ev-inj-had-injury, .ev-inj-consequence, .ev-inj-potential-consequence, .ev-inj-descaracter-comment').forEach(function (el) {
2597|            el.addEventListener('change', function () {
2598|                if (el.classList.contains('ev-inj-had-injury') && typeof window.evSyncHadInjuryUi === 'function') {
2599|                    window.evSyncHadInjuryUi();
2600|                }
2601|                if (el.classList.contains('ev-inj-injury-classification')) {
2602|                    evSyncCardCatFromClassification(card);
2603|                }
2604|                if (el.classList.contains('ev-inj-consequence')) {
2605|                    evSyncCardDerivedSeverity(card);
2606|                    evSyncCardPotentialGteReal(card);
2607|                    evSyncInjuryFieldsByConsequence();
2608|                }
2609|                if (el.classList.contains('ev-inj-potential-consequence')) {
2610|                    evSyncCardPotentialGteReal(card);
2611|                }
2612|                evUpdateInjuredCardSummary(card);
2613|                evSyncInjuredPersonDetailsHidden();
2614|                evPersistDraftSoon();
2615|            });
2616|            el.addEventListener('input', function () {
2617|                evSyncInjuredPersonDetailsHidden();
2618|                evPersistDraftSoon();
2619|            });
2620|        });
2621|
2622|        card.querySelectorAll('.ev-inj-descaracter-btn').forEach(function (btn) {
2623|            btn.addEventListener('click', function () {
2624|                var val = this.getAttribute('data-descaracter-val');
2625|                if (val === '1' && !evCanDescharacterizeAccident()) {
2626|                    return;
2627|                }
2628|                card.setAttribute('data-descaracterizado', val);
2629|                var hidden = document.getElementById('ev_descaracterizado');
2630|                if (hidden) hidden.value = val;
2631|                var toggle = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-toggle');
2632|                if (toggle) toggle.classList.remove('is-invalid');
2633|                evSyncDescaracterUi();
2634|                evSyncInjuredPersonDetailsHidden();
2635|                evPersistDraftSoon();
2636|            });
2637|        });
2638|        card.querySelectorAll('.ev-inj-descaracter-comment').forEach(function (ta) {
2639|            ta.addEventListener('input', function () {
2640|                ta.classList.remove('is-invalid');
2641|            });
2642|        });
2643|        evFilterCardConsequences(card);
2644|        evSyncCardCatFromClassification(card);
2645|        evSyncDescaracterUi();
2646|        if (window.jQuery && window.jQuery.fn.tooltip) {
2647|            window.jQuery(card).find('.ev-inj-descaracter-tip').tooltip({ container: 'body' });
2648|        }
2649|    }
2650|
Request #15 deepseek-v4-flash P:37.38K C:199 CR:34.82K CW:0 2127ms
Reasoning
Let me look at `evSyncDescaracterUi` to understand how the UI presents the Sim/Não + comment fields when permission/suspect states differ. Search for the function definition.
Tool Calls (2)
code_search
Show Details
{"file_patterns": ["templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig"], "search_text": "function evSyncDescaracterUi"}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig
Match lines: 1
2937|    function evSyncDescaracterUi() {

code_search
Show Details
{"file_patterns": ["templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig"], "search_text": "evCanDescharacterizeAccident"}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig
Match lines: 4
2625|                if (val === '1' && !evCanDescharacterizeAccident()) {
2900|    function evCanDescharacterizeAccident() {
2939|        var canSn = evCanDescharacterizeAccident();
7104|            if (!descFromCard && evAprofundamentoOnlyMode && !evCanDescharacterizeAccident()) {

Request #16 deepseek-v4-flash P:37.74K C:97 CR:37.5K CW:0 1667ms
Tool Calls (1)
file_read
Show Details
{"end_line": 3010, "file_path": "templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig", "start_line": 2890}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig (Total lines: 7707)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 2890-3010
2890|            // Remonta caixinhas após restaurar o JSON do draft.
2891|            setTimeout(function () {
2892|                if (typeof evRenderInjuredPersonBoxes === 'function') evRenderInjuredPersonBoxes();
2893|            }, 0);
2894|            return true;
2895|        } catch (e) {
2896|            return false;
2897|        }
2898|    }
2899|
2900|    function evCanDescharacterizeAccident() {
2901|        return window.SSMA_CAN_DESCARACTERIZE === true || window.SSMA_CAN_DESCARACTERIZE === 'true';
2902|    }
2903|
2904|    function evIsDescaracterSuspectChecked() {
2905|        var el = document.getElementById('ev_descaracter_suspect');
2906|        return !!(el && el.checked);
2907|    }
2908|
2909|    function evIsCreateMode() {
2910|        return ((document.getElementById('ev_form_mode') || { value: 'create' }).value === 'create');
2911|    }
2912|
2913|    function evSyncDescaracterStageUi() {
2914|        var isAp = evSelectedType() === 'ACIDENTE_PESSOAL';
2915|        var isDoctorAprof = !!evAprofundamentoOnlyMode;
2916|        var form = document.getElementById('form-event-new');
2917|        if (form) form.classList.toggle('is-doctor-aprof', isDoctorAprof);
2918|        // Checkbox global de suspeita (etapa 1) fica sempre oculto — suspeita agora é por card no aprofundamento.
2919|        var suspectWrap = document.getElementById('ev-suspeita-wrap');
2920|        if (suspectWrap) {
2921|            suspectWrap.classList.add('d-none');
2922|        }
2923|        document.querySelectorAll('.ev-inj-descaracter').forEach(function (el) {
2924|            // Seção de descaracterização só aparece no aprofundamento do especialista.
2925|            el.classList.toggle('d-none', !isAp || !isDoctorAprof);
2926|        });
2927|        // Sincroniza Sim/Não de cada card com o estado do checkbox de suspeita do próprio card.
2928|        document.querySelectorAll('.ev-injured-person-box').forEach(function (card) {
2929|            var suspChk = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-suspect-chk');
2930|            var yesNoWrap = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap');
2931|            if (suspChk && yesNoWrap) {
2932|                yesNoWrap.classList.toggle('d-none', !suspChk.checked);
2933|            }
2934|        });
2935|    }
2936|
2937|    function evSyncDescaracterUi() {
2938|        var hidden = document.getElementById('ev_descaracterizado');
2939|        var canSn = evCanDescharacterizeAccident();
2940|        var cur = String((hidden || {}).value || '');
2941|
2942|        evSyncDescaracterStageUi();
2943|
2944|        // Pré-seleciona "Sim" quando o profissional não tem permissão de descaracterização
2945|        // e o campo ainda está vazio. Ele só pode dizer "Sim" de qualquer forma, então
2946|        // pré-preencher evita a validação falhar sem o usuário perceber o que falta.
2947|        if (!canSn && cur === '' && evAprofundamentoOnlyMode && hidden) {
2948|            hidden.value = '0';
2949|            cur = '0';
2950|            document.querySelectorAll('.ev-injured-person-box').forEach(function (c) {
2951|                c.setAttribute('data-descaracterizado', '0');
2952|            });
2953|        }
2954|
2955|        document.querySelectorAll('.ev-injured-person-box').forEach(function (card) {
2956|            var noPerm = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm');
2957|            var cardDesc = card.getAttribute('data-descaracterizado') || cur;
2958|            if (noPerm) noPerm.classList.toggle('d-none', canSn);
2959|            card.querySelectorAll('.ev-inj-descaracter-btn').forEach(function (b) {
2960|                var val = b.getAttribute('data-descaracter-val');
2961|                // Sem permissão: "Não" fica visível mas desabilitado — o par Sim/Não precisa aparecer.
2962|                if (val === '1' && !canSn) {
2963|                    b.disabled = true;
2964|                    b.classList.remove('d-none');
2965|                    b.setAttribute('title', 'Sem permissão para descaracterizar o acidente.');
2966|                } else {
2967|                    b.disabled = false;
2968|                    b.classList.remove('d-none');
2969|                    b.removeAttribute('title');
2970|                }
2971|            });
2972|            if (window.SsmaShared && typeof window.SsmaShared.toggleYesNo === 'function') {
2973|                window.SsmaShared.toggleYesNo(card.querySelectorAll('.ev-inj-descaracter-btn'), cardDesc !== '' ? cardDesc : null, {
2974|                    valueAttr: 'data-descaracter-val'
2975|                });
2976|            }
2977|        });
2978|    }
2979|
2980|    /** Etapa 0: admin Aura + membro — esconde título/status só na criação; na edição volta. */
2981|    function evApplyAuraTitleStatusVisibility(mode) {
2982|        var row = document.getElementById('ev-title-status-row');
2983|        if (!row) return;
2984|        var hideOnCreate = !!window.SSMA_HIDE_EVENT_TITLE_STATUS_ON_CREATE
2985|            || !!window.SSMA_IS_AURA_ADMIN;
2986|        var hide = hideOnCreate && mode === 'create';
2987|        row.classList.toggle('d-none', hide);
2988|        var statusEl = document.getElementById('ev_status');
2989|        if (statusEl) {
2990|            if (hide) {
2991|                statusEl.removeAttribute('required');
2992|                if (!statusEl.value) statusEl.value = 'ABERTO';
2993|            } else {
2994|                statusEl.setAttribute('required', 'required');
2995|            }
2996|        }
2997|    }
2998|
2999|    function evSyncAaIdentFields(type) {
3000|        var wrap = document.getElementById('ev-aa-ident-fields');
3001|        if (!wrap) return;
3002|        var show = type === 'ACIDENTE_AMBIENTAL';
3003|        wrap.classList.toggle('d-none', !show);
3004|    }
3005|
3006|    function evSyncContainmentTimeEnabled() {
3007|        var done = document.getElementById('ev_containment_done');
3008|        var time = document.getElementById('ev_containment_time');
3009|        if (!done || !time) return;
3010|        time.disabled = !done.checked;
Request #17 deepseek-v4-flash P:39.56K C:378 CR:37.76K CW:0 2980ms
Reasoning
Now the important question is whether the characterization (Sim/Não + comment) section is required even when there is no suspicion. Looking at `evSyncDescaracterStageUi` line 2928-2933: When the suspect checkbox is not checked, the yesNoWrap (Sim/Não) is hidden (d-none), but the card descaracterizado is still set based on the hidden value... Hmm, there's a comment section `ev-inj-descaracter-comment`. Where is it rendered relative to yes/no wrap? Look at line 2929-2933: `yesNoWrap.classList.toggle('d-none', !suspChk.checked)` — if no suspicion checked, Sim/Não section hidden. But what about the comment? Let me look at the render structure of the card for the descaracter section. Search in twig where ev-inj-suspect-chk, ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap and ev-inj-descaracter-comment are defined in the HTML.
Tool Calls (2)
code_search
Show Details
{"file_patterns": ["templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig"], "search_text": "ev-inj-suspect-chk"}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig
Match lines: 3
2929|            var suspChk = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-suspect-chk');
5738|            if (!e.target || !e.target.classList.contains('ev-inj-suspect-chk')) return;
6479|            var chk = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-suspect-chk');

code_search
Show Details
{"file_patterns": ["templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig"], "search_text": "ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap"}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig
Match lines: 3
2930|            var yesNoWrap = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap');
5741|            var yesNoWrap = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap');
6482|            var yesNoWrap = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap');

Request #18 deepseek-v4-flash P:40.15K C:237 CR:39.94K CW:0 2715ms
Reasoning
The markup is generated in JS. Let me find where the injured person card HTML template is created (JS template). Search for `.ev-inj-descaracter` construction, e.g. where the suspect chk, yes/no buttons and comment textarea are injected. Search for "ev-inj-descaracter-comment" or "descaracter" in JS strings.
Tool Calls (2)
code_search
Show Details
{"file_patterns": ["templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig"], "search_text": "ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm"}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig
Match lines: 1
2956|            var noPerm = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm');

code_search
Show Details
{"file_patterns": ["templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig"], "search_text": "descaracter-yesno"}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig
Match lines: 3
2930|            var yesNoWrap = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap');
5741|            var yesNoWrap = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap');
6482|            var yesNoWrap = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap');

Request #19 deepseek-v4-flash P:40.55K C:139 CR:40.32K CW:0 2218ms
Reasoning
The markup might be in a separate JS file or another twig partial. Let me search the whole project for `ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` or `ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm`.
Tool Calls (2)
code_search
Show Details
{"search_text": "ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap"}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_ev_injured_person_box.html.twig
Match lines: 1
197|            <div class="ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap d-none">

File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig
Match lines: 3
2930|            var yesNoWrap = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap');
5741|            var yesNoWrap = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap');
6482|            var yesNoWrap = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap');

code_search
Show Details
{"search_text": "ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm"}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_ev_injured_person_box.html.twig
Match lines: 1
216|                <p class="ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm small text-muted mb-0 mt-2 d-none">

File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig
Match lines: 1
2956|            var noPerm = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm');

Request #20 deepseek-v4-flash P:40.95K C:100 CR:40.58K CW:0 1669ms
Tool Calls (1)
file_read
Show Details
{"end_line": 240, "file_path": "templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_ev_injured_person_box.html.twig", "start_line": 150}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_ev_injured_person_box.html.twig (Total lines: 225)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 150-225
150|                            <option value="TOTAL">Com afastamento</option>
151|                        </select>
152|                    </div>
153|                </div>
154|            </div>
155|
156|            <div class="form-row ev-inj-consequence-row d-none" aria-hidden="true">
157|                <div class="col-6">
158|                    <div class="form-group mb-2">
159|                        <label>Consequência real <span class="text-danger">*</span></label>
160|                        <select class="form-control ev-inj-consequence">
161|                            <option value="" disabled selected>Selecione a consequência</option>
162|                            {% include 'ssma/occurrence/partials/_ev_consequence_options.html.twig' %}
163|                        </select>
164|                        <div class="ev-inj-derived-severity-wrap mt-2">
165|                            <label class="text-muted small d-block mb-1">Gravidade da ocorrência (automática)</label>
166|                            <span class="ev-inj-derived-severity-badge ssma-shared-tag"
167|                                  style="background:rgba(108,117,125,0.10);color:#6c757d;border-color:#adb5bd;">—</span>
168|                        </div>
169|                    </div>
170|                </div>
171|                <div class="col-6">
172|                    <div class="form-group mb-2">
173|                        <label>Consequência potencial <span class="text-danger">*</span></label>
174|                        <select class="form-control ev-inj-potential-consequence">
175|                            <option value="" disabled selected>Selecione a consequência</option>
176|                            {% include 'ssma/occurrence/partials/_ev_consequence_options.html.twig' %}
177|                        </select>
178|                    </div>
179|                </div>
180|            </div>
181|
182|            {# CAT eSocial — exibido quando integração estiver ativa #}
183|            <div class="ev-inj-esocial-cat-wrap d-none mt-2 p-2 rounded border">
184|                <div class="small font-weight-bold mb-1">Registro da CAT no eSocial (automático)</div>
185|                <div class="ev-inj-esocial-cat-body small text-muted">—</div>
186|            </div>
187|        </div>
188|
189|        <p class="small text-muted font-italic mb-0 mt-2">Oriente o profissional a anexar evidências (fotos, laudos) na etapa de registro, se aplicável.</p>
190|
191|        {# Descaracterização — só no aprofundamento. Suspeita editável por qualquer especialista AP; Sim/Não só quem tem permissão Descaracterizar. #}
192|        <div class="ev-inj-descaracter mt-3 pt-3 border-top d-none">
193|            <div class="form-check mb-2">
194|                <input class="form-check-input ev-inj-suspect-chk" type="checkbox">
195|                <label class="form-check-label font-weight-bold">Há suspeita de descaracterização do acidente?</label>
196|            </div>
197|            <div class="ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap d-none">
198|                <label class="d-block small mb-2 font-weight-bold">
199|                    Caracterizado como acidente?
200|                    <i class="fas fa-info-circle text-muted ml-1 ev-inj-descaracter-tip"
201|                       style="cursor:help;font-size:12px;"
202|                       data-toggle="tooltip"
203|                       data-placement="top"
204|                       title="Sim = é acidente. Não (descaracterizar) só quem tem permissão na coluna Descaracterizar em Profissionais de Saúde."></i>
205|                </label>
206|                <div class="ev-inj-descaracter-toggle d-flex align-items-center mb-3" role="group" aria-label="Caracterizado como acidente">
207|                    <button type="button" class="mhs-btn-cancel ev-inj-descaracter-btn" data-descaracter-val="0" style="min-width:84px;">Sim</button>
208|                    <button type="button" class="mhs-btn-cancel ev-inj-descaracter-btn" data-descaracter-val="1" style="min-width:84px;">Não</button>
209|                </div>
210|                <div class="form-group mb-0 ev-inj-descaracter-comment-wrap">
211|                    <label class="small mb-1">Comentário <span class="text-danger">*</span></label>
212|                    <textarea class="form-control form-control-sm ev-inj-descaracter-comment"
213|                              rows="2"
214|                              maxlength="2000"></textarea>
215|                </div>
216|                <p class="ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm small text-muted mb-0 mt-2 d-none">
217|                    Sem permissão para descaracterizar o acidente.
218|                    Peça ao gestor que marque a coluna <strong>Descaracterizar</strong> em
219|                    Profissionais de Saúde (configuração de aprofundamento).
220|                </p>
221|            </div>
222|        </div>
223|    </div>
224|</div>
225|
Request #21 deepseek-v4-flash P:42.35K C:3.51K CR:40.96K CW:0 26513ms
Reasoning
The HTML structure: `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` (contains Sim/Não + comment) is only shown when the suspect checkbox `.ev-inj-suspect-chk` is checked (per `evSyncDescaracterStageUi`: `yesNoWrap.classList.toggle('d-none', !suspChk.checked)`). So on the UI, if there's no suspicion checked, the Sim/Não + comment area is hidden; the doctor does NOT need to fill the comment because they never see the fields. But the payload building logic (7115-7120) always includes `descaracter_comment` even when the field isn't visible? Wait, descCommentFromCard comes from `.ev-inj-descaracter-comment` value — if hidden (d-none), the textarea still exists in DOM with empty value. But wait: if descAnswered is false (no descaracterizado) and evAprofundamentoOnlyMode and the doctor lacks permission, the front would default descFromCard = '0' (from line 7104-7106) when all sources are empty. Hmm but the doctor without permission CAN have suspect checked (any specialist AP can check suspect). In the case where suspect is NOT checked (normal case, no suspicion), is the Sim/Não + comment required now? The new validator rule: In aprofundamento_only mode, always require descaracterizado ∈ {0,1} AND non-empty comment. But wait: if the suspect is not checked and the doctor can't see the fields, the front-end at 7104 forces descFromCard = '0' only when `!evCanDescharacterizeAccident()`. So for the doctor without permission, descaracterizado='0' is sent. descAnswered=true → payload.descaracterizado='0'. descaracter_comment is '' (empty, since textarea hidden/empty) → validator: comment mandatory error → BLOCKED. Wait but this means the doctor without permission can never finalize the aprofundamento unless they type a comment. Since the comment field is inside `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` which is hidden unless the suspect checkbox is checked. So how would a doctor without the descaracterize permission finalize? Hold on: Wait — where is the "descaracterizado = 0" scenario for a doctor with permission? If descaracterizado = '0' (Sim, é acidente), is the comment field still shown? Yes — yesNoWrap shown whenever suspect is checked. So a doctor (with suspect) who answers Sim also must give a comment. But for the doctor WITHOUT permission: - If suspect not checked → yesNoWrap hidden, no comment field visible, but the payload's descaracterizado defaults to '0', and comment is empty. - The validation would now fail with "Comentário de caracterização do acidente é obrigatório" — blocking the finalize action. Hmm wait, but was this also the behavior before the hotfix (i.e., under the "original rule")? Yes. If the original rule was always requiring comment when aprofundamento_only, then the original behavior had the same issue. So doctors without permission couldn't finalize unless they... but wait, let me re-read the front-end. Does the payload include descaracter_comment only in aprofundamento mode, with the value from textarea or saved primaryData. Actually, wait. Let me reconsider: In the UI, this finalize flow for doctors: The doctor does the aprofundamento. If the doctor has no descaracterize permission but checks "Há suspeita de descaracterização" → yesNoWrap is shown (suspectChk.checked = true) → Sim button preselected ('0'), No disabled, comment field visible and required (with *) → the doctor will type a comment because the UI requires it (red asterisk). If the doctor checks no suspect → yesNoWrap hidden and the doctor cannot provide Sim/Não or comment. But the payload descaracterizado defaults to '0' (if no permission) and comment is empty. So validation fails with "Comentário de caracterização do acidente é obrigatório"! This would block finalize when the doctor has NO suspicion and NO permission. Hmm wait — but did the previous (original) rule include the `descaracterizado='0'` default forcing answer '0' even without suspect? Let's trace the state: When suspect is unchecked and doctor lacks permission: descFromCard sources: primaryData.descaracterizado, card data-descaracterizado, hidden ev_descaracterizado. In the "evSyncDescaracterUi" code at 2947-2953, when no permission, aprofundamento mode, and hidden empty: hidden.value = '0', all cards get data-descaracterizado='0'. So descFromCard='0'. descAnswered=true → payload.descaracterizado='0'. So the Sim/Não is answered as '0' automatically. Then the comment is required and is empty. Finalize fails. Unless... wait, maybe for doctors without permission this UI was previously a problem, and the hotfix introduced `$hasSuspect` gate to allow finalizing without comment when no suspect. Then test `testAcidentePessoalAprofundamentoMedicoExigeCaracterizar` was presumably failing in the pipeline due to the hotfix, and this PR restores the "original rule." But is the "original rule" really the desired one? The PR description says yes, restoring production behavior and that test. This is the intent. Whether the UI blocks finalization is a deeper product question not addressable through code diff alone... but there might be a legitimate functional regression issue. Let me consider whether comment mandatory for `descaracterizado='0'` (Sim, it IS an accident) even when the doctor did not check suspect. Hmm — the test name is `testAcidentePessoalAprofundamentoMedicoExigeCaracterizar` and expects error message only when descaracterizado is missing entirely. That test's payload does NOT include `descaracter_suspect`, so it passes regardless. Actually the question of whether this restores the correct business rule is what the PR intends. Given this PR's scope, I should focus on potential issues introduced by the diff that are defects: 1. **Inconsistency with the `descaracter_comment` necessity when there is no suspect / no permission.** However, from the earlier analysis: given the frontend sets descaracterizado='0' for doctors without permission, they'd always be forced to answer, and comment textarea is only visible when suspect is checked. If a doctor without permission and no suspect tries to finalize, validation fails → they're blocked and can't understand why (fields hidden). But actually, was this the "original production rule"? Under the original rule, yes — same failure would occur. Unless the original rule was different in that doctors always could see the comment. Wait — the descaracter section was previously possibly always visible in the aprofundamento mode... This might be a genuine regression that was present in the original and reintroduced. But without history access, I can't prove the "original behavior." Hmm, this is getting deep. The real question for the review is: does the removal of the `$hasSuspect` gate cause a NEW bug relative to the just-merged hotfix? Yes — relative to the hotfix state (which is what's currently in the target branch), events where `descaracter_suspect` is not set will now be blocked from aprofundamento finalization unless the comment is filled. Wait no — events with suspect set were already blocked under hotfix; events without suspect would now also be blocked. The question is whether that's intended. PR says yes, restoring original production rule. But there's a subtlety: what about events/occurrences created before this rule, where the medical approver (who may lack the descaracterize permission) simply finalizes aprofundamento? The Sim/Não answer isn't possible for them to give if suspect is unchecked... Actually wait: is the comment mandatory when descaracterizado='0' (i.e., no descaracterization — it's an accident)? That seems odd from a UX perspective: "Se o evento é caracterizado como acidente (Sim), por que exigir comentário?" But that's the product decision per the PR and prior production. Let me re-examine: The validation requires comment when descVal in {0,1}. Under the UI, descaracter comment field is in the yesno-wrap shown only when suspect checked. When a doctor checks the suspect, they are required to answer Sim/Não and comment. This suggests product intent: whenever a doctor flags suspicion of descaracterization, they must conclude Sim/Não + comment. Under the hotfix the conclusion was only forced when suspect. Under the restored rule, the conclusion is forced always (even without suspect), but without suspect the front-end hides the fields yet still defaults the answer to '0' for users lacking permission... For users WITH permission and no suspect, descaracterizado is '' (no default) → descAnswered false → payload deletes descaracterizado → then validation would say "Informe se o evento é caracterizado como acidente (Sim/Não)" → blocked too. Wait — for the doctor WITH permission and no suspect: hidden value empty? At evSyncDescaracterUi, the default '0' only when `!canSn`. So with permission, no suspect → no descaracterizado. Under the hotfix, this was OK (no requirement). Under the restored rule → error → blocked. For the doctor WITHOUT permission and no suspect: front-end forces '0' → passes Sim/Não, but the comment is empty → blocked by comment requirement. Either way, in aprofundamento_only finalize, doctors would now be blocked unless they check the suspect checkbox to reveal the fields. This suggests that the restored validation may be too strict relative to the UI, and that events finalized by doctors without a checked suspicion will now fail. But wait — this is the "original rule that was in production before the hotfix"; so if the UI was designed around it, perhaps the UI always reveals the fields to the medical specialist in aprofundamento mode regardless of suspect. Let me re-check evSyncDescaracterStageUi: `yesNoWrap.classList.toggle('d-none', !suspChk.checked)`. Yes the yes/no area (Sim/Não + comment) shows only if suspect checkbox is checked. And this is the current UI state (not part of this diff). So under the restored rule, a doctor who finalizes aprofundamento with no suspicion is blocked. Hmm — but is that really the case? Only if the descaracterizado answer is missing or comment missing. For doctor WITH permission and no suspect: blocked. For doctor WITHOUT permission and no suspect: forced '0' but blocked on comment. Wait — perhaps the aprofundamento_only mode on finalize only happens when there is a suspicion? Let's check when `evAprofundamentoOnlyMode` is active. It's the "dedicated medical aprofundamento" mode. The doctor may not have checked suspect. OK, I can't fully resolve the product intent from code. But the relevant point is that this diff restores what the PR explicitly says is the "original rule," and a test asserts it. It's the product intent. I shouldn't flag this as a regression without evidence that it blocks legitimate flows. But the fact that this may block doctors when no suspect — is this the "regression" the pipeline showed? Actually, the failing test in the pipeline was the unit test `testAcidentePessoalAprofundamentoMedicoExigeCaracterizar` that the hotfix broke. So the intended behavior is: doctor must characterize, regardless of the suspect flag. I'll step back. Since this is a review task, the major things to consider: 1. Semantic bug: When `descaracter_suspect` is false/'0' but the doctor provides descaracterizado='1'... not possible. Not our scope. 2. The validator now requires `descaracter_comment` even when `descaracterizado='0'`. Consider comment semantics: "Comentário de caracterização do acidente" mandatory even when the doctor says "Sim, é acidente." That means: even when NOT descaracterized, comment needed. This was original behavior presumably. Let me examine git history to understand if the code was previously always requiring comment. Actually, we have a strong clue: The removed code comment states "Caracterizar é do médico no aprofundamento dedicado — não na criação. Sim/Não + comentário só são obrigatórios quando há suspeita de descaracterização marcada." — meaning the preceding change (the hotfix / PR) intentionally introduced the `$hasSuspect` gate. Now this PR removes the gate. And the test `testAcidentePessoalAprofundamentoMedicoExigeCaracterizar` was failing since the hotfix. Actually — the test would fail under the hotfix ONLY IF the hotfix payload included `descaracter_suspect` = 0 (default from line 7108: payload.descaracter_suspect = evIsDescaracterSuspectChecked() ? 1 : 0). Wait, the test at line 853-882 does NOT include descaracter_suspect in payload details at all, so `$d['descaracter_suspect']` empty → $hasSuspect false → no requirement → test fails under hotfix. Yes. Now this PR restores the no-gate behavior. Test passes again. Now let me consider potential real defects in the diff: **Concern A: `$hasSuspect` was removed but is still relevant for legacy events where descaracterizado was never recorded.** With the gate removed, an aprofundamento finalization on an AP event where descaracterizado was never recorded (and suspect never flagged) will now hard-fail with two errors, even though the medical professional has no reason to suspect descaracterization. This is intended per product rule, so not a bug. **Concern B: the comment is required also when descaracterizado='0'.** The rule text in the PR says the doctor must include a mandatory comment. Test only checks the missing Sim/Não error. So the comment requirement for '0' is asserted implicitly by rule. Not a bug. Wait, I want to double check semantics of descaracterizado in this codebase. Let me confirm '0' = "Sim, é acidente (caracterizado)" and '1' = "Não (descaracterizado)". In the twig: `descaracterizado=1` means "Não (descaracterizar)". And the tooltip: "Sim = é acidente. Não (descaracterizar) só quem tem permissão". Yes. And controller applySsmaDescaracterPermissionGate: default '0' when no permission → "Sim" (characterized as accident). Now for the review of the tests changes in the two GlobalPermissionListener test files: They replaced `createMock(SsmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService::class)` with `new SsmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService($entityManager, new SsmaStakeholderActionPermissionService($permissionService, new SsmaOccurrenceStakeholderAccessChecker($entityManager), $authorizationChecker))`. I should check the constructor signature of SsmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService to confirm order of arguments, and SsmaStakeholderActionPermissionService constructor. Also whether those classes are final (thus requiring the real instantiation) and whether the test setup provides `$permissionService` and `$authorizationChecker` and `$entityManager`. Those are used elsewhere in these tests already (they're defined as properties in SsmaTestCase presumably). Let me read the files and the service classes.
Tool Calls (3)
file_find
Show Details
{"query_name": "SsmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService"}
src/Service/Ssma/SsmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService.php
tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/SsmaActionPlanMutatePermissionServiceTest.php
file_find
Show Details
{"query_name": "SsmaStakeholderActionPermissionService"}
src/Service/Ssma/SsmaStakeholderActionPermissionService.php
file_find
Show Details
{"query_name": "SsmaOccurrenceStakeholderAccessChecker"}
src/Service/Ssma/SsmaOccurrenceStakeholderAccessChecker.php
Request #22 deepseek-v4-flash P:45.96K C:106 CR:45.82K CW:0 1716ms
Tool Calls (2)
file_read
Show Details
{"file_path": "src/Service/Ssma/SsmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService.php"}
File: src/Service/Ssma/SsmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService.php (Total lines: 111)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 1-111
1|<?php
2|
3|declare(strict_types=1);
4|
5|namespace App\Service\Ssma;
6|
7|use App\Entity\Company;
8|use App\Entity\CompanyMembers;
9|use App\Entity\SsmaAction;
10|use App\Entity\User;
11|use Doctrine\ORM\EntityManagerInterface;
12|use Symfony\Component\HttpFoundation\Request;
13|
14|/**
15| * Libera rotas de resolver/validar ação no gate global quando o membro
16| * é executor ou validador designado, mesmo com tag SSMA só leitura.
17| * A validação fina permanece em {@see SsmaStakeholderActionPermissionService} e no controller.
18| */
19|final class SsmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService
20|{
21|    /** @var list<string> */
22|    private const MUTATION_ROUTES = [
23|        'admin_ssma_action_resolve',
24|        'admin_ssma_action_validate',
25|    ];
26|
27|    public function __construct(
28|        private EntityManagerInterface $entityManager,
29|        private SsmaStakeholderActionPermissionService $stakeholderActionPermissionService,
30|    ) {}
31|
32|    public function isMutationRoute(string $route): bool
33|    {
34|        return in_array($route, self::MUTATION_ROUTES, true);
35|    }
36|
37|    public function canMutateForRoute(
38|        User $user,
39|        Company $company,
40|        CompanyMembers $member,
41|        string $route,
42|        ?Request $request = null,
43|    ): bool {
44|        if (!$this->isMutationRoute($route)) {
45|            return false;
46|        }
47|
48|        $action = $this->resolveActionForRoute($company, $request);
49|        if ($action === null) {
50|            return false;
51|        }
52|
53|        if ($route === 'admin_ssma_action_validate') {
54|            return $this->stakeholderActionPermissionService->canValidateAsDesignatedValidator($action, $member);
55|        }
56|
57|        if ($route === 'admin_ssma_action_resolve') {
58|            if (in_array($this->resolveOperation($request), ['evaluate', 'reopen'], true)) {
59|                return false;
60|            }
61|
62|            return $this->stakeholderActionPermissionService->canResolveAsResponsible($action, $member);
63|        }
64|
65|        return false;
66|    }
67|
68|    private function resolveActionForRoute(Company $company, ?Request $request): ?SsmaAction
69|    {
70|        if ($request === null) {
71|            return null;
72|        }
73|
74|        $id = $request->attributes->get('id');
75|        if (!is_numeric($id)) {
76|            return null;
77|        }
78|
79|        $action = $this->entityManager->find(SsmaAction::class, (int) $id);
80|        if (!$action || (int) $action->getCompany()->getId() !== (int) $company->getId()) {
81|            return null;
82|        }
83|
84|        return $action;
85|    }
86|
87|    private function resolveOperation(?Request $request): string
88|    {
89|        if ($request === null) {
90|            return 'resolve';
91|        }
92|
93|        $content = $request->getContent();
94|        if (!is_string($content) || $content === '') {
95|            return 'resolve';
96|        }
97|
98|        try {
99|            $data = json_decode($content, true, 512, JSON_THROW_ON_ERROR);
100|        } catch (\JsonException) {
101|            return 'resolve';
102|        }
103|
104|        if (!is_array($data)) {
105|            return 'resolve';
106|        }
107|
108|        return (string) ($data['operation'] ?? 'resolve');
109|    }
110|}
111|
file_read
Show Details
{"file_path": "src/Service/Ssma/SsmaStakeholderActionPermissionService.php"}
File: src/Service/Ssma/SsmaStakeholderActionPermissionService.php (Total lines: 124)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 1-124
1|<?php
2|
3|declare(strict_types=1);
4|
5|namespace App\Service\Ssma;
6|
7|use App\Entity\Company;
8|use App\Entity\CompanyMembers;
9|use App\Entity\SsmaAction;
10|use App\Entity\User;
11|use App\Service\PermissionTagByMemberService;
12|use Symfony\Component\Security\Core\Authorization\AuthorizationCheckerInterface;
13|
14|/**
15| * Permissões de escrita SSMA para executor, validador e stakeholder de ocorrência.
16| *
17| * Regras de produto ficam no módulo SSMA e são aplicadas no SsmaController.
18| */
19|final class SsmaStakeholderActionPermissionService
20|{
21|    public function __construct(
22|        private PermissionTagByMemberService $permissionService,
23|        private SsmaOccurrenceStakeholderAccessChecker $stakeholderAccessChecker,
24|        private AuthorizationCheckerInterface $authorizationChecker,
25|    ) {}
26|
27|    public function hasStakeholderAccess(?CompanyMembers $member, Company $company): bool
28|    {
29|        return $this->stakeholderAccessChecker->hasStakeholderLink($member, $company);
30|    }
31|
32|    public function canUploadOccurrenceEvidence(?CompanyMembers $member, Company $company): bool
33|    {
34|        return $this->hasStakeholderAccess($member, $company);
35|    }
36|
37|    public function canUserUploadOccurrenceEvidence(User $user, Company $company, bool $canManageOccurrences): bool
38|    {
39|        if ($canManageOccurrences) {
40|            return true;
41|        }
42|
43|        $member = $this->permissionService->getCompanyMember($user, $company);
44|
45|        return $this->canUploadOccurrenceEvidence($member, $company);
46|    }
47|
48|    public function canResolveAsResponsible(SsmaAction $action, ?CompanyMembers $member): bool
49|    {
50|        if (!$member) {
51|            return false;
52|        }
53|
54|        $memberId = (int) $member->getId();
55|        if ($memberId <= 0) {
56|            return false;
57|        }
58|
59|        if ($action->isSolved() || $action->getValidationStatus() === 'pending_validation') {
60|            return false;
61|        }
62|
63|        return in_array($memberId, $action->getResponsibleIds() ?? [], true);
64|    }
65|
66|    public function canValidateAsDesignatedValidator(SsmaAction $action, ?CompanyMembers $member): bool
67|    {
68|        if (!$member || !$action->isPendingValidation()) {
69|            return false;
70|        }
71|
72|        $validatorId = $action->getValidatorMemberId();
73|        if ($validatorId === null) {
74|            return false;
75|        }
76|
77|        return (int) $member->getId() === (int) $validatorId;
78|    }
79|
80|    public function canUserResolveAction(
81|        SsmaAction $action,
82|        Company $company,
83|        ?User $user,
84|        bool $canManageOccurrences,
85|        string $operation = 'resolve',
86|    ): bool {
87|        if (in_array($operation, ['evaluate', 'reopen'], true)) {
88|            return $canManageOccurrences;
89|        }
90|
91|        if ($this->authorizationChecker->isGranted('ROLE_SUPER_ADMIN')
92|            || $this->authorizationChecker->isGranted('ROLE_MANAGER')) {
93|            return true;
94|        }
95|
96|        if ($canManageOccurrences) {
97|            return true;
98|        }
99|
100|        $member = $user ? $this->permissionService->getCompanyMember($user, $company) : null;
101|
102|        return $this->canResolveAsResponsible($action, $member);
103|    }
104|
105|    public function canUserValidateAction(
106|        SsmaAction $action,
107|        Company $company,
108|        ?User $user,
109|        bool $canManageOccurrences,
110|    ): bool {
111|        if (!$action->isPendingValidation()) {
112|            return false;
113|        }
114|
115|        if ($canManageOccurrences) {
116|            return true;
117|        }
118|
119|        $member = $user ? $this->permissionService->getCompanyMember($user, $company) : null;
120|
121|        return $this->canValidateAsDesignatedValidator($action, $member);
122|    }
123|}
124|
Request #23 deepseek-v4-flash P:48.23K C:245 CR:45.95K CW:0 2685ms
Reasoning
The constructors match the argument order used in the tests: - `SsmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService(EntityManagerInterface $entityManager, SsmaStakeholderActionPermissionService $stakeholderActionPermissionService)` - `SsmaStakeholderActionPermissionService(PermissionTagByMemberService $permissionService, SsmaOccurrenceStakeholderAccessChecker $stakeholderAccessChecker, AuthorizationCheckerInterface $authorizationChecker)` - `SsmaOccurrenceStakeholderAccessChecker(EntityManagerInterface $entityManager)` — need to check. Let me read the two test files to make sure the variables used (`$entityManager`, `$permissionService`, `$authorizationChecker`) are actually defined in the test scope at the point of usage, and see the full constructor of the listener under test, and what these tests cover.
Tool Calls (1)
file_read
Show Details
{"file_path": "tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/GlobalPermissionListenerOccurrenceCreateWriteTest.php"}
File: tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/GlobalPermissionListenerOccurrenceCreateWriteTest.php (Total lines: 163)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 1-163
1|<?php
2|
3|declare(strict_types=1);
4|
5|namespace App\Tests\Unit\Product\Ssma;
6|
7|use App\Entity\Company;
8|use App\Entity\CompanyMembers;
9|use App\Entity\PermissionTag;
10|use App\Entity\Product;
11|use App\Entity\User;
12|use App\EventListener\GlobalPermissionListener;
13|use App\Service\Finance\FinanceTenantContextResolver;
14|use App\Service\LiveInterviewAccessService;
15|use App\Service\PermissionTagByMemberService;
16|use App\Service\Ssma\SsmaOccurrenceCreatePermissionService;
17|use App\Service\Ssma\SsmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService;
18|use App\Service\Ssma\SsmaOccurrenceStakeholderAccessChecker;
19|use App\Service\Ssma\SsmaOccurrenceTypeConfigService;
20|use App\Service\Ssma\SsmaPreventionMutatePermissionService;
21|use App\Service\Ssma\SsmaRefusalRightMutatePermissionService;
22|use App\Service\Ssma\SsmaRefusalRightService;
23|use App\Service\Ssma\SsmaStakeholderActionPermissionService;
24|use App\Repository\SsmaOccurrenceCreatePermissionRepository;
25|use Doctrine\ORM\EntityManagerInterface;
26|use Doctrine\Persistence\ObjectRepository;
27|use Symfony\Component\HttpFoundation\Request;
28|use Symfony\Component\HttpFoundation\Session\SessionInterface;
29|use Symfony\Component\HttpKernel\Event\ControllerEvent;
30|use Symfony\Component\HttpKernel\HttpKernelInterface;
31|use Symfony\Component\Routing\Generator\UrlGeneratorInterface;
32|use Symfony\Component\Security\Core\Security;
33|
34|/**
35| * Anti-regressão: cadastro de ocorrência (ssma_event_create) não pode levar 403
36| * no gate de Supervisor antes do bypass isMemberOwnOccurrenceCreate / occurrenceMatrixMutate.
37| */
38|final class GlobalPermissionListenerOccurrenceCreateWriteTest extends SsmaTestCase
39|{
40|    public function testSupervisorViewerCanPostSsmaEventCreateWithoutListener403(): void
41|    {
42|        $listener = $this->createListener(['ROLE_USER', 'ROLE_MANAGER_VIEWER'], false);
43|        $request = Request::create('/manager/ssma/events', 'POST', [], [], [], [], '{}');
44|        $request->attributes->set('_route', 'ssma_event_create');
45|
46|        $event = new ControllerEvent(
47|            $this->createMock(HttpKernelInterface::class),
48|            static function (): void {},
49|            $request,
50|            HttpKernelInterface::MAIN_REQUEST,
51|        );
52|
53|        $listener->onKernelController($event);
54|
55|        self::assertSame('ssma_event_create', $request->attributes->get('_route'));
56|    }
57|
58|    public function testPlainMemberWithoutCreateTagRemainsBlockedOnOccurrenceWrite(): void
59|    {
60|        $listener = $this->createListener(['ROLE_USER'], false);
61|        // ssma_event_update ganha bypass via occurrenceMatrixMutate (ROS padrão do membro).
62|        // DELETE sem bypass de matriz valida o gate de escrita da tag.
63|        $request = Request::create('/manager/ssma/events/1', 'DELETE');
64|        $request->attributes->set('_route', 'ssma_event_delete');
65|
66|        $event = new ControllerEvent(
67|            $this->createMock(HttpKernelInterface::class),
68|            static function (): void {},
69|            $request,
70|            HttpKernelInterface::MAIN_REQUEST,
71|        );
72|
73|        $this->expectExceptionMessage('Você não possui permissão para executar esta ação.');
74|        $listener->onKernelController($event);
75|    }
76|
77|    /**
78|     * @param list<string> $roles
79|     */
80|    private function createListener(array $roles, bool $canCreate): GlobalPermissionListener
81|    {
82|        $company = $this->company(10);
83|        $user = $this->user(20)->setCompany($company)->setRoles($roles);
84|        $member = (new CompanyMembers())->setCompany($company)->setUser($user);
85|        $tag = (new PermissionTag())
86|            ->setName('Membro')
87|            ->setCanView(true)
88|            ->setCanCreate($canCreate)
89|            ->setCanEdit(false)
90|            ->setCanDelete(false)
91|            ->setTeamLimitation(false);
92|        $product = $this->setEntityId(new Product(), 30);
93|
94|        $productRepository = $this->createMock(ObjectRepository::class);
95|        $productRepository->method('findOneBy')->willReturn($product);
96|        $memberRepository = $this->createMock(ObjectRepository::class);
97|        $memberRepository->method('findBy')->willReturn([]);
98|        $metaRepository = $this->createMock(ObjectRepository::class);
99|        $metaRepository->method('findOneBy')->willReturn(null);
100|
101|        $entityManager = $this->createMock(EntityManagerInterface::class);
102|        $entityManager->method('getRepository')->willReturnCallback(
103|            static function (string $class) use ($productRepository, $memberRepository, $metaRepository): ObjectRepository {
104|                return match ($class) {
105|                    Product::class => $productRepository,
106|                    CompanyMembers::class => $memberRepository,
107|                    default => $metaRepository,
108|                };
109|            }
110|        );
111|
112|        $permissionService = $this->createMock(PermissionTagByMemberService::class);
113|        $permissionService->method('getCompanyMember')->willReturn($member);
114|        $permissionService->method('getPermissionTag')->willReturn($tag);
115|
116|        $security = $this->createMock(Security::class);
117|        $security->method('getUser')->willReturn($user);
118|
119|        $authorizationChecker = $this->createMock(\Symfony\Component\Security\Core\Authorization\AuthorizationCheckerInterface::class);
120|        $authorizationChecker->method('isGranted')->willReturnCallback(
121|            static fn (string $role): bool => $role === 'ROLE_MANAGER_VIEWER' && in_array('ROLE_MANAGER_VIEWER', $roles, true)
122|        );
123|        $preventionService = new SsmaPreventionMutatePermissionService(
124|            $entityManager,
125|            $permissionService,
126|            $authorizationChecker,
127|        );
128|
129|        return new GlobalPermissionListener(
130|            $permissionService,
131|            $this->createMock(LiveInterviewAccessService::class),
132|            $security,
133|            $entityManager,
134|            $this->createMock(SessionInterface::class),
135|            $this->createMock(UrlGeneratorInterface::class),
136|            new SsmaOccurrenceStakeholderAccessChecker($entityManager),
137|            $preventionService,
138|            new SsmaRefusalRightMutatePermissionService(
139|                new SsmaRefusalRightService($entityManager),
140|                $entityManager,
141|                $permissionService,
142|                $authorizationChecker,
143|            ),
144|            new SsmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService(
145|                $entityManager,
146|                new SsmaStakeholderActionPermissionService(
147|                    $permissionService,
148|                    new SsmaOccurrenceStakeholderAccessChecker($entityManager),
149|                    $authorizationChecker,
150|                ),
151|            ),
152|            new SsmaOccurrenceCreatePermissionService(
153|                $entityManager,
154|                $this->createMock(SsmaOccurrenceCreatePermissionRepository::class),
155|                $authorizationChecker,
156|                new SsmaOccurrenceTypeConfigService($entityManager),
157|                $permissionService,
158|            ),
159|            $this->createMock(FinanceTenantContextResolver::class),
160|        );
161|    }
162|}
163|
Request #24 deepseek-v4-flash P:50.44K C:426 CR:48.38K CW:0 3713ms
Reasoning
The change from `createMock` to direct instantiation is consistent with the constructor of `GlobalPermissionListener` (assuming the mock for entityManager and repository-based lookups is configured). Since the SsmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService is final and PHPUnit 10+ cannot mock final classes. Actually, wait: PHPUnit can mock final classes only with `--enable-autoloader`? No — PHPUnit by default cannot create mocks of final classes. That's the pipeline issue. So direct instantiation is the fix. However, note that the direct instantiation will now execute real code in `SsmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService` and `SsmaStakeholderActionPermissionService` methods if the listener calls them. In the tests above, the listener only calls the route-gate for `ssma_event_create` and `ssma_event_delete`; the action plan service returns `false` for non-mutation routes. Since these tests only exercise those two routes and expect them to not go through action plan logic... they should still pass. The `SsmaStakeholderActionPermissionService` methods could be invoked by the `GlobalPermissionListener` for the delete route? Let me check GlobalPermissionListener's usage to verify testability. But tests presumably pass in CI after this fix (this is the intent). Let me look at the GlobalPermissionListener to verify constructor param order, and ensure they're placing the ActionPlan service in the correct slot. Also check `SsmaOccurrenceStakeholderAccessChecker` constructor.
Tool Calls (2)
file_read
Show Details
{"file_path": "tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/GlobalPermissionListenerPreventionWriteTest.php"}
File: tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/GlobalPermissionListenerPreventionWriteTest.php (Total lines: 180)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 1-180
1|<?php
2|
3|declare(strict_types=1);
4|
5|namespace App\Tests\Unit\Product\Ssma;
6|
7|use App\Entity\Company;
8|use App\Entity\CompanyMembers;
9|use App\Entity\PermissionTag;
10|use App\Entity\Product;
11|use App\Entity\User;
12|use App\EventListener\GlobalPermissionListener;
13|use App\Service\Finance\FinanceTenantContextResolver;
14|use App\Service\LiveInterviewAccessService;
15|use App\Service\PermissionTagByMemberService;
16|use App\Service\Ssma\SsmaOccurrenceCreatePermissionService;
17|use App\Service\Ssma\SsmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService;
18|use App\Service\Ssma\SsmaOccurrenceStakeholderAccessChecker;
19|use App\Service\Ssma\SsmaOccurrenceTypeConfigService;
20|use App\Service\Ssma\SsmaPreventionMutatePermissionService;
21|use App\Service\Ssma\SsmaRefusalRightMutatePermissionService;
22|use App\Service\Ssma\SsmaRefusalRightService;
23|use App\Service\Ssma\SsmaStakeholderActionPermissionService;
24|use App\Repository\SsmaOccurrenceCreatePermissionRepository;
25|use Doctrine\ORM\EntityManagerInterface;
26|use Doctrine\Persistence\ObjectRepository;
27|use Symfony\Component\HttpFoundation\Request;
28|use Symfony\Component\HttpFoundation\Session\SessionInterface;
29|use Symfony\Component\HttpKernel\Event\ControllerEvent;
30|use Symfony\Component\HttpKernel\HttpKernelInterface;
31|use Symfony\Component\Routing\Generator\UrlGeneratorInterface;
32|use Symfony\Component\Security\Core\Security;
33|
34|final class GlobalPermissionListenerPreventionWriteTest extends SsmaTestCase
35|{
36|    /**
37|     * Supervisor é autorizado pelo serviço de Prevenção para registrar o próprio
38|     * conteúdo. O listener global não pode sobrescrever essa decisão.
39|     *
40|     * @param array{0: string, 1: string} $endpoint
41|     * @dataProvider preventionCreateEndpoints
42|     */
43|    public function testSupervisorCanCreatePreventionContentWhenPreventionGateAllowsIt(array $endpoint): void
44|    {
45|        [$route, $path] = $endpoint;
46|        $listener = $this->createListener(['ROLE_USER', 'ROLE_MANAGER_VIEWER'], false);
47|        $request = Request::create($path, 'POST');
48|        $request->attributes->set('_route', $route);
49|
50|        $event = new ControllerEvent(
51|            $this->createMock(HttpKernelInterface::class),
52|            static function (): void {},
53|            $request,
54|            HttpKernelInterface::MAIN_REQUEST,
55|        );
56|
57|        $listener->onKernelController($event);
58|
59|        self::assertTrue($request->attributes->get('can_create'));
60|        self::assertTrue($request->attributes->get('can_edit'));
61|    }
62|
63|    /**
64|     * @param array{0: string, 1: string} $endpoint
65|     * @dataProvider preventionCreateEndpoints
66|     */
67|    public function testPlainMemberWithoutMetaOrCreateTagRemainsBlocked(array $endpoint): void
68|    {
69|        [$route, $path] = $endpoint;
70|        $listener = $this->createListener(['ROLE_USER'], false);
71|        $request = Request::create($path, 'POST');
72|        $request->attributes->set('_route', $route);
73|
74|        $event = new ControllerEvent(
75|            $this->createMock(HttpKernelInterface::class),
76|            static function (): void {},
77|            $request,
78|            HttpKernelInterface::MAIN_REQUEST,
79|        );
80|
81|        $this->expectExceptionMessage('Você não possui permissão para executar esta ação.');
82|        $listener->onKernelController($event);
83|    }
84|
85|    /**
86|     * @return iterable<string, array{0: array{0: string, 1: string}}>
87|     */
88|    public static function preventionCreateEndpoints(): iterable
89|    {
90|        yield 'inspeção' => [['admin_ssma_inspection_create', '/manager/ssma/inspections']];
91|        yield 'abordagem' => [['ssma_abordagem_create', '/manager/ssma/abordagens']];
92|    }
93|
94|    /**
95|     * @param list<string> $roles
96|     */
97|    private function createListener(array $roles, bool $canCreate): GlobalPermissionListener
98|    {
99|        $company = $this->company(10);
100|        $user = $this->user(20)->setCompany($company)->setRoles($roles);
101|        $member = (new CompanyMembers())->setCompany($company)->setUser($user);
102|        $tag = (new PermissionTag())
103|            ->setName('Membro')
104|            ->setCanView(true)
105|            ->setCanCreate($canCreate)
106|            ->setCanEdit(false)
107|            ->setCanDelete(false)
108|            ->setTeamLimitation(false);
109|        $product = $this->setEntityId(new Product(), 30);
110|
111|        $productRepository = $this->createMock(ObjectRepository::class);
112|        $productRepository->method('findOneBy')->willReturn($product);
113|        $memberRepository = $this->createMock(ObjectRepository::class);
114|        $memberRepository->method('findBy')->willReturn([]);
115|        $metaRepository = $this->createMock(ObjectRepository::class);
116|        $metaRepository->method('findOneBy')->willReturn(null);
117|
118|        $entityManager = $this->createMock(EntityManagerInterface::class);
119|        $entityManager->method('getRepository')->willReturnCallback(
120|            static function (string $class) use ($productRepository, $memberRepository, $metaRepository): ObjectRepository {
121|                return match ($class) {
122|                    Product::class => $productRepository,
123|                    CompanyMembers::class => $memberRepository,
124|                    default => $metaRepository,
125|                };
126|            }
127|        );
128|
129|        $permissionService = $this->createMock(PermissionTagByMemberService::class);
130|        $permissionService->method('getCompanyMember')->willReturn($member);
131|        $permissionService->method('getPermissionTag')->willReturn($tag);
132|
133|        $security = $this->createMock(Security::class);
134|        $security->method('getUser')->willReturn($user);
135|
136|        $authorizationChecker = $this->createMock(\Symfony\Component\Security\Core\Authorization\AuthorizationCheckerInterface::class);
137|        $authorizationChecker->method('isGranted')->willReturnCallback(
138|            static fn (string $role): bool => $role === 'ROLE_MANAGER_VIEWER' && in_array('ROLE_MANAGER_VIEWER', $roles, true)
139|        );
140|        $preventionService = new SsmaPreventionMutatePermissionService(
141|            $entityManager,
142|            $permissionService,
143|            $authorizationChecker,
144|        );
145|
146|        return new GlobalPermissionListener(
147|            $permissionService,
148|            $this->createMock(LiveInterviewAccessService::class),
149|            $security,
150|            $entityManager,
151|            $this->createMock(SessionInterface::class),
152|            $this->createMock(UrlGeneratorInterface::class),
153|            new SsmaOccurrenceStakeholderAccessChecker($entityManager),
154|            $preventionService,
155|            new SsmaRefusalRightMutatePermissionService(
156|                new SsmaRefusalRightService($entityManager),
157|                $entityManager,
158|                $permissionService,
159|                $authorizationChecker,
160|            ),
161|            new SsmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService(
162|                $entityManager,
163|                new SsmaStakeholderActionPermissionService(
164|                    $permissionService,
165|                    new SsmaOccurrenceStakeholderAccessChecker($entityManager),
166|                    $authorizationChecker,
167|                ),
168|            ),
169|            new SsmaOccurrenceCreatePermissionService(
170|                $entityManager,
171|                $this->createMock(SsmaOccurrenceCreatePermissionRepository::class),
172|                $authorizationChecker,
173|                new SsmaOccurrenceTypeConfigService($entityManager),
174|                $permissionService,
175|            ),
176|            $this->createMock(FinanceTenantContextResolver::class),
177|        );
178|    }
179|}
180|
file_read
Show Details
{"file_path": "src/Service/Ssma/SsmaOccurrenceStakeholderAccessChecker.php"}
File: src/Service/Ssma/SsmaOccurrenceStakeholderAccessChecker.php (Total lines: 145)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 1-145
1|<?php
2|
3|declare(strict_types=1);
4|
5|namespace App\Service\Ssma;
6|
7|use App\Entity\Company;
8|use App\Entity\CompanyMembers;
9|use Doctrine\ORM\EntityManagerInterface;
10|
11|/**
12| * Detecta se um membro da empresa está ligado a alguma ocorrência SSMA clássica ou evento tipado
13| * (gestor, pessoas envolvidas, responsáveis, person_id em evento) — alinhado a
14| * {@see \App\Controller\SsmaController::isOccurrenceVisibleToMember}.
15| */
16|final class SsmaOccurrenceStakeholderAccessChecker
17|{
18|    /** @var EntityManagerInterface */
19|    private $entityManager;
20|
21|    public function __construct(EntityManagerInterface $entityManager)
22|    {
23|        $this->entityManager = $entityManager;
24|    }
25|
26|    public function hasStakeholderLink(?CompanyMembers $companyMember, Company $company): bool
27|    {
28|        if (!$companyMember) {
29|            return false;
30|        }
31|
32|        $mid = (int) $companyMember->getId();
33|        if ($mid <= 0) {
34|            return false;
35|        }
36|
37|        $cid = (int) $company->getId();
38|        $conn = $this->entityManager->getConnection();
39|        $midJson = json_encode($mid) ?: (string) $mid;
40|        $midStr = (string) $mid;
41|
42|        try {
43|            $sqlOcc = <<<'SQL'
44|SELECT 1 FROM ssma_occurrences o
45|WHERE o.company_id = ?
46|AND (
47|  o.manager_id = ?
48|  OR JSON_CONTAINS(COALESCE(o.people_ids, JSON_ARRAY()), CAST(? AS JSON), '$')
49|  OR JSON_CONTAINS(COALESCE(o.responsible_ids, JSON_ARRAY()), CAST(? AS JSON), '$')
50|)
51|LIMIT 1
52|SQL;
53|            $r = $conn->fetchOne($sqlOcc, [$cid, $mid, $midJson, $midJson]);
54|            if ($r !== false && $r !== null) {
55|                return true;
56|            }
57|        } catch (\Throwable) {
58|        }
59|
60|        try {
61|            $sqlEv = <<<'SQL'
62|SELECT 1 FROM ssma_events e
63|WHERE e.company_id = ?
64|AND (
65|  CAST(NULLIF(JSON_UNQUOTE(JSON_EXTRACT(e.details, '$.person_id')), '') AS UNSIGNED) = ?
66|  OR CAST(NULLIF(JSON_UNQUOTE(JSON_EXTRACT(e.details, '$.manager_id')), '') AS UNSIGNED) = ?
67|  OR (
68|    JSON_TYPE(JSON_EXTRACT(e.details, '$.people_ids')) = 'ARRAY'
69|    AND JSON_CONTAINS(JSON_EXTRACT(e.details, '$.people_ids'), CAST(? AS JSON), '$') = 1
70|  )
71|  OR (
72|    JSON_TYPE(JSON_EXTRACT(e.details, '$.people_ids')) = 'STRING'
73|    AND FIND_IN_SET(?, JSON_UNQUOTE(JSON_EXTRACT(e.details, '$.people_ids'))) > 0
74|  )
75|  OR (
76|    JSON_TYPE(JSON_EXTRACT(e.details, '$.responsible_ids')) = 'ARRAY'
77|    AND JSON_CONTAINS(JSON_EXTRACT(e.details, '$.responsible_ids'), CAST(? AS JSON), '$') = 1
78|  )
79|  OR (
80|    JSON_TYPE(JSON_EXTRACT(e.details, '$.responsible_ids')) = 'STRING'
81|    AND FIND_IN_SET(?, JSON_UNQUOTE(JSON_EXTRACT(e.details, '$.responsible_ids'))) > 0
82|  )
83|)
84|LIMIT 1
85|SQL;
86|            $r = $conn->fetchOne($sqlEv, [$cid, $mid, $mid, $midJson, $midStr, $midJson, $midStr]);
87|            if ($r !== false && $r !== null) {
88|                return true;
89|            }
90|        } catch (\Throwable) {
91|        }
92|
93|        // Membro responsável por uma ação (ssma_actions.responsible_ids) também acessa o Plano de Ação
94|        try {
95|            $sqlAction = <<<'SQL'
96|SELECT 1 FROM ssma_actions a
97|WHERE a.company_id = ?
98|AND (
99|  JSON_CONTAINS(COALESCE(a.responsible_ids, JSON_ARRAY()), CAST(? AS JSON), '$') = 1
100|  OR a.validator_member_id = ?
101|)
102|LIMIT 1
103|SQL;
104|            $r = $conn->fetchOne($sqlAction, [$cid, $midJson, $mid]);
105|            if ($r !== false && $r !== null) {
106|                return true;
107|            }
108|        } catch (\Throwable) {
109|        }
110|
111|        // Participante ou responsável em inspeção SSMA — acessa Prevenção Ativa
112|        try {
113|            $sqlInsp = <<<'SQL'
114|SELECT 1 FROM ssma_inspections i
115|WHERE i.company_id = ?
116|AND (
117|  i.safety_responsible_id = ?
118|  OR JSON_CONTAINS(COALESCE(i.participants_ids, JSON_ARRAY()), CAST(? AS JSON), '$') = 1
119|)
120|LIMIT 1
121|SQL;
122|            $r = $conn->fetchOne($sqlInsp, [$cid, $mid, $midJson]);
123|            if ($r !== false && $r !== null) {
124|                return true;
125|            }
126|        } catch (\Throwable) {
127|        }
128|
129|        // Observador em abordagem comportamental SSMA — acessa Prevenção Ativa
130|        try {
131|            $sqlAb = <<<'SQL'
132|SELECT 1 FROM ssma_abordagem a
133|WHERE a.company_id = ?
134|AND a.observador_id = ?
135|LIMIT 1
136|SQL;
137|            $r = $conn->fetchOne($sqlAb, [$cid, $mid]);
138|
139|            return $r !== false && $r !== null;
140|        } catch (\Throwable) {
141|            return false;
142|        }
143|    }
144|}
145|
Request #25 deepseek-v4-flash P:54.59K C:263 CR:50.82K CW:0 2573ms
Reasoning
These test files look consistent. The direct instantiation uses `$entityManager`, `$permissionService`, `$authorizationChecker` already defined in the same test function — good. Now, would the replaced `new SsmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService(...)` introduce unintended DB access in the tests? In `GlobalPermissionListenerOccurrenceCreateWriteTest`, the delete-route test expects an exception. The listener will eventually check whether the route is a mutation route for the action plan — but only for those two routes (`admin_ssma_action_resolve`, `admin_ssma_action_validate`), which are not `ssma_event_delete`, so no DB. It should be fine. Let me quickly confirm the GlobalPermissionListener constructor's parameter list order to be sure the tests' instantiation order matches production wiring. Let me read the constructor.
Tool Calls (1)
file_read
Show Details
{"end_line": 130, "file_path": "src/EventListener/GlobalPermissionListener.php", "start_line": 1}
File: src/EventListener/GlobalPermissionListener.php (Total lines: 1919)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 1-130
1|<?php
2|
3|namespace App\EventListener;
4|
5|use App\Service\PermissionTagByMemberService;
6|use App\Service\Finance\FinanceTenantContextResolver;
7|use App\Service\LiveInterviewAccessService;
8|use App\Entity\User;
9|use App\Entity\Company;
10|use App\Entity\Product;
11|use App\Entity\CompanyMembers;
12|use App\Entity\PermissionTag;
13|use App\Entity\SsmaPermissionTagMember;
14|use App\Service\Ssma\SsmaOccurrenceCreatePermissionService;
15|use App\Service\Ssma\SsmaOccurrenceStakeholderAccessChecker;
16|use App\Service\Ssma\SsmaPreventionMutatePermissionService;
17|use App\Service\Ssma\SsmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService;
18|use App\Service\Ssma\SsmaRefusalRightMutatePermissionService;
19|use App\Entity\StructuralResearchSurvey;
20|use App\Entity\StructuralResearchParticipant;
21|use Symfony\Component\HttpKernel\Event\ControllerEvent;
22|use Symfony\Component\HttpKernel\Exception\AccessDeniedHttpException;
23|use Symfony\Component\Security\Core\Security;
24|use Symfony\Component\HttpFoundation\JsonResponse;
25|use Symfony\Component\HttpFoundation\RedirectResponse;
26|use Symfony\Component\HttpFoundation\Session\SessionInterface;
27|use Symfony\Component\Routing\Generator\UrlGeneratorInterface;
28|use Doctrine\ORM\EntityManagerInterface;
29|use Symfony\Component\EventDispatcher\Attribute\AsEventListener;
30|
31|#[AsEventListener(event: 'kernel.controller', priority: 0)]
32|class GlobalPermissionListener
33|{
34|    private PermissionTagByMemberService $permissionService;
35|    private LiveInterviewAccessService $liveInterviewAccessService;
36|    private Security $security;
37|    private EntityManagerInterface $entityManager;
38|    private SessionInterface $session;
39|    private UrlGeneratorInterface $urlGenerator;
40|    private SsmaOccurrenceStakeholderAccessChecker $ssmaOccurrenceStakeholderAccessChecker;
41|    private SsmaPreventionMutatePermissionService $ssmaPreventionMutatePermissionService;
42|    private SsmaRefusalRightMutatePermissionService $ssmaRefusalRightMutatePermissionService;
43|    private SsmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService $ssmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService;
44|    private SsmaOccurrenceCreatePermissionService $ssmaOccurrenceCreatePermissionService;
45|    private FinanceTenantContextResolver $financeTenantContextResolver;
46|    private string $ssmaParentProductSlug;
47|
48|    // Mapeamento de rotas para produtos necessários (inicializado no construtor para suportar slug dinâmico)
49|    private array $routeProductMapping = [];
50|
51|    // Mapeamento de templates baseado em rotas
52|    private array $routeTemplateMapping = [
53|        'onboarding_index' => [
54|            'product' => 'onboarding',
55|            'admin' => 'onboarding/index_admin.html.twig',
56|            'user' => 'onboarding/index_user.html.twig'
57|        ],
58|        'offboarding_index' => [
59|            'product' => 'offboarding',
60|            'admin' => 'offboarding/index.html.twig',
61|            'user' => 'offboarding/index_user.html.twig'
62|        ],
63|        'nps_dashboard' => [
64|            'product' => 'nps-com-ia',
65|            'admin' => 'layoutAdmin.html.twig',
66|            'user' => 'layoutUser.html.twig'
67|        ],
68|        'live_interview_management' => [
69|            'product' => 'live_interview',
70|            'admin' => 'layoutAdmin.html.twig',
71|            'user' => 'layoutUser.html.twig'
72|        ],
73|        // Adicione outras rotas conforme necessário
74|    ];
75|
76|    // Mapeamento específico para rotas de pesquisa estrutural
77|    private array $structuralResearchRoutes = [
78|        'structural_research_list',
79|        'structural_research_survey_list',
80|        'structural_research_survey_new',
81|        'structural_research_survey_edit',
82|        'structural_research_survey_save',
83|        'structural_research_survey_delete',
84|        'structural_research_copy',
85|        'structural_research_survey_get_participants',
86|        'structural_research_survey_update_participants',
87|        'structural_research_survey_current_participants',
88|        'structural_research_survey',
89|        'structural_research_view',
90|        'structural_research_survey_edit_manager'
91|    ];
92|
93|
94|    public function __construct(
95|        PermissionTagByMemberService $permissionService,
96|        LiveInterviewAccessService $liveInterviewAccessService,
97|        Security $security,
98|        EntityManagerInterface $entityManager,
99|        SessionInterface $session,
100|        UrlGeneratorInterface $urlGenerator,
101|        SsmaOccurrenceStakeholderAccessChecker $ssmaOccurrenceStakeholderAccessChecker,
102|        SsmaPreventionMutatePermissionService $ssmaPreventionMutatePermissionService,
103|        SsmaRefusalRightMutatePermissionService $ssmaRefusalRightMutatePermissionService,
104|        SsmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService $ssmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService,
105|        SsmaOccurrenceCreatePermissionService $ssmaOccurrenceCreatePermissionService,
106|        FinanceTenantContextResolver $financeTenantContextResolver,
107|        string $ssmaParentProductSlug = 'saude-e-seguranca'
108|    ) {
109|        $this->permissionService = $permissionService;
110|        $this->liveInterviewAccessService = $liveInterviewAccessService;
111|        $this->security = $security;
112|        $this->entityManager = $entityManager;
113|        $this->session = $session;
114|        $this->urlGenerator = $urlGenerator;
115|        $this->ssmaOccurrenceStakeholderAccessChecker = $ssmaOccurrenceStakeholderAccessChecker;
116|        $this->ssmaPreventionMutatePermissionService = $ssmaPreventionMutatePermissionService;
117|        $this->ssmaRefusalRightMutatePermissionService = $ssmaRefusalRightMutatePermissionService;
118|        $this->ssmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService = $ssmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService;
119|        $this->ssmaOccurrenceCreatePermissionService = $ssmaOccurrenceCreatePermissionService;
120|        $this->financeTenantContextResolver = $financeTenantContextResolver;
121|        $this->ssmaParentProductSlug = $ssmaParentProductSlug;
122|        $this->routeProductMapping = [
123|            'ssma_prevencao_' => 'ssma-prevention',
124|            'admin_ssma_prevencao_' => 'ssma-prevention',
125|            'ssma_inspection_' => 'ssma-prevention',
126|            'admin_ssma_inspection_' => 'ssma-prevention',
127|            'ssma_abordagem_' => 'ssma-prevention',
128|            'ssma_plano_acao_' => 'ssma-action-plan',
129|            'ssma_action_plan_' => 'ssma-action-plan',
130|            'admin_ssma_action_create' => 'ssma-action-plan',
Request #26 deepseek-v4-flash P:56.63K C:584 CR:54.78K CW:0 5197ms
Reasoning
The test changes match the constructor signature ordering of the GlobalPermissionListener (arg #10 = SsmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService). Good — the instantiation is properly ordered. Now, could the test with direct instantiation of `SsmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService` need an entity manager stub with methods (e.g., `find`) which the mock supports by returning null for unconfigured methods? Mocks return null by default, so `resolveActionForRoute` returns null if called. `isMutationRoute` returns false for non-mutation routes. So these tests should behave like before. There is risk the tests no longer verify real behavior since the action plan service is not exercised—but the point of these tests is gate on event create/prevention routes. It's fine. Now, is there a possibility that `SsmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService` invocation during the DELETE route test would require the `SsmaOccurrenceStakeholderAccessChecker` to query the DB via `$entityManager->getConnection()`? The listener for `ssma_event_delete` route will call `ssmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService->canMutateForRoute` which for non-mutation route returns false immediately. Good. Now the main remaining review item is the functional change in the validator. Let me now deep dive into the risk of blocking the medical aprofundamento finalization with no suspicion. Actually, let me carefully think about whether `validateAcidentePessoal` is invoked during `aprofundamento_only` finalize flow, and where aprofundamento_only is set in `$data`. In the controller `updateEvent`: - If `!$canFullEdit` and `$isAprofundamentoUpdate`: calls `mergeSsmaEventAprofundamentoOnlyPayload` which sets `$merged['aprofundamento_only'] = true`, merges all the aprofundamento fields from the incoming payload into details. Let me look at where the validator is called at line 25680/25934 for the update flow.
Tool Calls (2)
file_read
Show Details
{"end_line": 25690, "file_path": "src/Controller/SsmaController.php", "start_line": 25640}
File: src/Controller/SsmaController.php (Total lines: 28130)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 25640-25690
25640|        if ($dataAbordagem > $hoje) {
25641|            return 'Data da abordagem não pode ser futura.';
25642|        }
25643|
25644|        $limiteMinimo = $hoje->modify('-' . self::SSMA_ABORDAGEM_JANELA_REGISTRO_DIAS . ' days');
25645|        if ($dataAbordagem < $limiteMinimo) {
25646|            return sprintf(
25647|                'Data da abordagem fora do prazo: só é possível registrar até %d dias após a data em que foi realizada (a partir de %s).',
25648|                self::SSMA_ABORDAGEM_JANELA_REGISTRO_DIAS,
25649|                $limiteMinimo->format('d/m/Y')
25650|            );
25651|        }
25652|
25653|        return null;
25654|    }
25655|
25656|    // =========================================================================
25657|    // EVENTOS SSMA (SSMAEvent tipado)
25658|    // =========================================================================
25659|
25660|    /**
25661|     * POST /manager/ssma/events
25662|     * Cria um novo evento SSMA tipado.
25663|     */
25664|    public function createEvent(Request $request): JsonResponse
25665|    {
25666|        /** @var \App\Entity\User|null $user */
25667|        $user    = $this->getUser();
25668|        $company = $user?->getCompany();
25669|        if (!$user || !$company) {
25670|            return new JsonResponse(['success' => false, 'message' => 'Não autenticado.'], 401);
25671|        }
25672|
25673|        $data = json_decode($request->getContent(), true) ?? [];
25674|        $data = $this->normalizeSsmaEventPayload($data, $company);
25675|        $data = $this->normalizeSsmaEventManagerInDetails($data, $company);
25676|        $data = $this->forceSsmaRosReporterForPlainMember($data, $company, $user);
25677|        $data = $this->applySsmaDescaracterPermissionGate($data, $company, $user);
25678|        $data = $this->ensureSsmaEventTitle($data);
25679|
25680|        $validator = new \App\Service\Ssma\SsmaEventValidator();
25681|        $errors    = $validator->validate($data, [
25682|            'allowed_type_keys' => $this->ssmaOccurrenceTypeConfig->getAllowedTypeKeys($company),
25683|        ]);
25684|        if ($errors !== []) {
25685|            return new JsonResponse([
25686|                'success' => false,
25687|                'message' => implode(' ', $errors),
25688|                'errors'  => $errors,
25689|            ], 422);
25690|        }
file_read
Show Details
{"end_line": 26020, "file_path": "src/Controller/SsmaController.php", "start_line": 25920}
File: src/Controller/SsmaController.php (Total lines: 28130)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 25920-26020
25920|            if ($wantsFinalize) {
25921|                $data['aprofundamento_complete'] = true;
25922|                $detailsOut['aprofundamento_complete'] = true;
25923|                $detailsOut['aprofundamento_status'] = 'finalized';
25924|            } else {
25925|                $data['aprofundamento_complete'] = false;
25926|                $detailsOut['aprofundamento_complete'] = false;
25927|                $detailsOut['aprofundamento_status'] = 'draft';
25928|            }
25929|            $data['details'] = $detailsOut;
25930|        }
25931|
25932|        // Valida apenas se type ou details estiverem presentes no payload (atualização parcial ok)
25933|        if (!empty($data['type']) || !empty($data['details'])) {
25934|            $validator = new \App\Service\Ssma\SsmaEventValidator();
25935|            $errors    = $validator->validate($data, [
25936|                'allowed_type_keys' => $this->ssmaOccurrenceTypeConfig->getAllowedTypeKeys($company),
25937|                'soft_aprofundamento' => $aprofundamentoOnly && !$wantsFinalize,
25938|            ]);
25939|            if ($errors !== []) {
25940|                return new JsonResponse(['success' => false, 'errors' => $errors], 422);
25941|            }
25942|        }
25943|
25944|        $teamScopeErr = $this->validateSsmaEventPayloadAgainstTeamScope($data, $company, $user);
25945|        if ($teamScopeErr !== null) {
25946|            return new JsonResponse(['success' => false, 'message' => $teamScopeErr], 403);
25947|        }
25948|
25949|        $service = new \App\Service\Ssma\SsmaEventService($this->entityManager, $this->ssmaOccurrenceTypeConfig);
25950|        $prevType         = $event->getType();
25951|        $prevStatus       = $event->getStatus();
25952|        $prevImmediateRisk = !empty($event->getDetails()['immediate_risk']);
25953|        $prevManagerId = (int) ($event->getDetails()['manager_id'] ?? 0);
25954|        $wasRejectedApproval = $this->ssmaOccurrenceApprovalService->getState($event)['status']
25955|            === \App\Service\Ssma\SsmaOccurrenceApprovalService::STATUS_REJECTED;
25956|        $editorMeta = $this->resolveSsmaEditorMeta($company, $user);
25957|        $event      = $service->updateFromPayload($event, $data, $user, $editorMeta);
25958|
25959|        if ($wasRejectedApproval) {
25960|            // Readequação: reenvia tanto na edição completa quanto ao finalizar só o aprofundamento.
25961|            $this->maybeSubmitOccurrenceForValidation($event, $company, $user, true);
25962|        } elseif ($wantsFinalize) {
25963|            $this->maybeSubmitOccurrenceForValidation($event, $company, $user, false);
25964|        }
25965|
25966|        $registeredByName = trim(($user->getFirstName() ?? '') . ' ' . ($user->getLastName() ?? ''));
25967|        if ($registeredByName === '') {
25968|            $registeredByName = $user->getEmail() ?? 'Sistema';
25969|        }
25970|        $automationContext = [
25971|            'registered_by_name' => $registeredByName,
25972|            'type_raw'           => $event->getType(),
25973|            'new_type'           => $event->getType(),
25974|        ];
25975|        $flashApproval = null;
25976|
25977|        try {
25978|            $this->ssmaAutomationService->triggerForEvent(
25979|                'ssma_on_occurrence_updated',
25980|                $event,
25981|                $company,
25982|                $automationContext
25983|            );
25984|            if ($prevStatus !== $event->getStatus()) {
25985|                $this->ssmaAutomationService->triggerForEvent(
25986|                    'ssma_on_status_change',
25987|                    $event,
25988|                    $company,
25989|                    array_merge($automationContext, ['old_status' => $prevStatus])
25990|                );
25991|            }
25992|            if ($prevType !== $event->getType()) {
25993|                $this->ssmaAutomationService->triggerForEvent(
25994|                    'ssma_on_occurrence_type_changed',
25995|                    $event,
25996|                    $company,
25997|                    array_merge($automationContext, [
25998|                        'old_type' => $prevType,
25999|                        'new_type' => $event->getType(),
26000|                    ])
26001|                );
26002|            }
26003|            $newImmediateRisk = !empty($event->getDetails()['immediate_risk']);
26004|            $newManagerId = (int) ($event->getDetails()['manager_id'] ?? 0);
26005|            // Dispara quando risco vira SIM, ou quando Relatado por é preenchido com risco já ativo.
26006|            if ($newImmediateRisk && (!$prevImmediateRisk || ($prevManagerId <= 0 && $newManagerId > 0))) {
26007|                $this->ssmaNotificationService->notifyImmediateRisk($event);
26008|            }
26009|            if ($newManagerId > 0 && $newManagerId !== $prevManagerId) {
26010|                $this->ssmaNotificationService->notifyOccurrenceResponsible($newManagerId, (int) $event->getId(), 'event', $user);
26011|            }
26012|
26013|            // P2: quando a ocorrência está pronta, tenta abrir aprovação na CC (não envia PDF).
26014|            // Idempotente: se já pending/sent, ou sem aprovador, maybeAutoRequestApproval só faz skip.
26015|            // Importante para ROS: já pode estar "ready" no create (sem aprovador) e precisar
26016|            // re-tentar no update depois que a automação ganha aprovador.
26017|            $eventPayload = $this->ssmaAutomationService->buildEventPayload($event, $company, $automationContext);
26018|            $nowReady = $this->ssmaAutomationService->passesFlashReportRequirements($eventPayload);
26019|            if ($nowReady) {
26020|                $flashApproval = $this->ssmaFlashReportService->maybeAutoRequestApproval($event, $user);
Request #27 deepseek-v4-flash P:59.57K C:1.86K CR:57.09K CW:0 15154ms
Reasoning
I see an important detail at line 25937: in the update flow, `soft_aprofundamento` is only true when `$aprofundamentoOnly && !$wantsFinalize`. Wait — when `wantsFinalize` (i.e., finalizing the aprofundamento by the medical professional), the validator runs with full technical-depth validation; `$data['aprofundamento_only']` is true (merged). So `validateAcidentePessoal` will require descaracterizado and comment. Wait — but the `validate()` method: at line 61, if `soft_aprofundamento` context is true it returns only base errors. On finalization (`$wantsFinalize`), `soft_aprofundamento` is false. Also `$requiresTechnicalDepth` is true because aprofundamento fields are present in the merged payload. OK. Now — is it plausible that on the creation flow (createEvent at 25680) or the "complete" editing flow, medical characterization is validated? In `createEvent`, `aprofundamento_only` isn't in data. So no characterization check. Fine. Wait, actually there's a subtlety: For a full editing user (`canFullEdit = true`), `$data['aprofundamento_only']` is not set to true in updateEvent. But the medical professional who only can do aprofundamento (`!canFullEdit`) goes through the merge that sets it. So the mandatory characterization applies to the medical aprofundamento-only finalize — exactly as intended by the test. So the design appears self-consistent: this change enforces that medical professional always answers characterization question and comment when finalizing the aprofundamento. Now there's one more question: does the medical approver ALWAYS see the characterization fields in the UI (i.e., can they answer it)? In the UI, the yes/no + comment only appear when the suspect checkbox is checked per the current UI. But wait — the UI was presumably designed to comply with the "original rule" that the characterization always is answered. Let me re-examine `evSyncDescaracterStageUi`. It toggles yesNoWrap based on `suspChk.checked`. That hides the answer when no suspicion. Then finalize validation with the restored rule would block unless the front-end supplies the answers — the front-end defaults descaracterizado = '0' for those without permission, but doctors WITH permission and no suspect won't answer at all. So finalize would be blocked for doctors with permission who see no suspicion. But wait — maybe the medical professional approver is always someone who has the descaracterize permission? Actually no — descaracterization is a special permission; most medical professionals do not have it. In the no-permission case, the front-end forces descaracterizado = '0'. In the permission case, the field is not forced (it needs to be answered only when suspect). But with the restored validation, even a doctor WITH permission but no suspicion must answer Sim/Não... which is not shown in the UI when no suspicion. Hmm. However, this potential bug is in the UI (which is NOT in the review diff). The backend rule simply enforces: "no finalization without characterization" — matching the intended product requirement per the PR. The UI might have a separate ticket. But note: the UI was already there, in this modal. So the restored rule might break finalize if the UI hides the fields when there's no suspicion. Let me test my understanding: consider the doctor WITH descaracterize permission, no suspect. The UI shows: suspect unchecked; yes/no and comment hidden. The doctor finalizes. Payload: descaracter_suspect = 0; descFromCard = '' (no sources; since canSn = true, no default forced '0'); descAnswered=false → delete payload.descaracterizado; payload.descaracter_comment = '' (empty). Backend merge: details keep descaracterizado as ''? Wait — mergeSsmaEventAprofundamentoOnlyPayload merges only keys present in incoming data. descaracterizado not present in incoming → keep existing (maybe '' or absent). descaracter_comment present (empty) → overwrite existing (maybe set to ''). Then validation: descVal = '' → error 'Informe se o evento é caracterizado...' → blocked with 422. So under the restored rule, a doctor who does not flag suspicion cannot finalize the aprofundamento → 422. That means every finalization now REQUIRES the doctor to check "suspeita de descaracterização" just to answer "Sim" + comment? That seems odd, unless the UI was changed in a previous PR to always show the characterization when finalizing (not gated on suspicion). But current UI gates on the suspect checkbox. Hold on. Let me reconsider — this is important. This PR is titled "fix pipeline tests" and restores a rule that existed "before the hotfix" (i.e., in the current target branch's base). Wait — which "hotfix"? The PR description mentions PR #658 hotfix (Empresas Parceiras) and PR #661 (painel do plano de ação). And the SsmaEventValidator changes are from PR #...? "o merge das PRs #661 (painel do plano de ação) e #658 (hotfix empresas parceiras 403)". Neither appears to be about the descaracterization gate. Hmm. Wait, actually the diff removes a gate that was added by some prior PR — the removed comment says "Caracterizar é do médico no aprofundamento dedicado — não na criação. Sim/Não + comentário só são obrigatórios quando há suspeita de descaracterização marcada." Then the pipeline test `testAcidentePessoalAprofundamentoMedicoExigeCaracterizar` started failing (probably introduced by a prior PR change that gated on `$hasSuspect`, which conflicted with the medical rule). This PR restores the original mandatory rule. Regardless of which prior PR changed it, the question for review remains: does the restored rule have a realistic functional regression given the current UI? Since the UI forces answer '0' for users without permission only, and users with permission must answer only when suspect... But wait — let me re-read more carefully about what "medical professional" can do in the aprofundamento-only flow, and whether the medical finalize is allowed with suspicion. Actually, is `descaracter_suspect` itself mandatory? It's not validated. Hmm, but here's the thing: maybe in the medical approver flow, the UI always shows the descaracter section (because `.ev-inj-descaracter` is shown when `isDoctorAprof`); the suspect checkbox is shown and can be unchecked; and the answer area is shown only when suspect is checked. So yes, when the approver sees nothing suspicious, the Sim/Não + comment fields are hidden. But under the restored rule, the approver is forced to give Sim/Não + comment regardless. This would break finalize for the no-suspicion case — UNLESS the approver always has the permission to descaracterize (so they can answer "Sim"), and unless the UI forces them to... but they can't answer because fields hidden. Actually wait, let me look at whether `evSyncDescaracterStageUi` is what's actually applied, or whether the older `evSyncDescaracterUi`... Both call; `evSyncDescaracterUi` calls `evSyncDescaracterStageUi`. Then the yesno wrap is shown when suspect checked. Actually, wait, look at line 2928-2933 of `evSyncDescaracterStageUi`, which toggles yesnoWrap by suspectChk.checked, applying to all cards. Let me verify how suspect checkbox checked state is seeded when the medical professional opens the aprofundamento. Look at 5728-5760 area for suspect chk handling.
Tool Calls (2)
file_read
Show Details
{"end_line": 5765, "file_path": "templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig", "start_line": 5720}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig (Total lines: 7707)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 5720-5765
5720|                var hidden = document.getElementById('ev_derived_criticality');
5721|                var critSel = document.getElementById('ev_criticality');
5722|                if (hidden) hidden.value = this.value || '';
5723|                if (critSel && this.value) critSel.value = this.value;
5724|                evPersistDraftSoon();
5725|            });
5726|        }
5727|        // Descaracterização: suspeita na 1ª etapa; caracterizado na caixinha (aprofundamento).
5728|        var suspectChk = document.getElementById('ev_descaracter_suspect');
5729|        if (suspectChk) {
5730|            suspectChk.addEventListener('change', function () {
5731|                evSyncDescaracterStageUi();
5732|                evSyncInjuredPersonDetailsHidden();
5733|                evPersistDraftSoon();
5734|            });
5735|        }
5736|        // Checkbox de suspeita por card (aprofundamento): mostra/oculta Sim/Não do próprio card.
5737|        document.addEventListener('change', function (e) {
5738|            if (!e.target || !e.target.classList.contains('ev-inj-suspect-chk')) return;
5739|            var card = e.target.closest('.ev-injured-person-box');
5740|            if (!card) return;
5741|            var yesNoWrap = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap');
5742|            if (yesNoWrap) yesNoWrap.classList.toggle('d-none', !e.target.checked);
5743|            // Atualiza o data-descaracter-suspect do card para serialização.
5744|            card.setAttribute('data-descaracter-suspect', e.target.checked ? '1' : '0');
5745|            // Espelha no campo global usado pelo payload (evIsDescaracterSuspectChecked).
5746|            var globalChk = document.getElementById('ev_descaracter_suspect');
5747|            if (globalChk) globalChk.checked = e.target.checked;
5748|            evSyncInjuredPersonDetailsHidden();
5749|            evPersistDraftSoon();
5750|        });
5751|        var contDone = document.getElementById('ev_containment_done');
5752|        if (contDone) {
5753|            contDone.addEventListener('change', function () {
5754|                evSyncContainmentTimeEnabled();
5755|                evPersistDraftSoon();
5756|            });
5757|        }
5758|        var form = document.getElementById('form-event-new');
5759|        if (form) {
5760|            form.addEventListener('change', evPersistDraftSoon);
5761|            form.addEventListener('input', evPersistDraftSoon);
5762|        }
5763|        document.addEventListener('ev:formLoaded', function () {
5764|            evSyncCriticalityField(evSelectedType());
5765|            evSyncDerivedSeverityFromConsequence();
file_read
Show Details
{"end_line": 6010, "file_path": "templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig", "start_line": 5990}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig (Total lines: 7707)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 5990-6010
5990|            var primaryPotEl = primaryCardForVal ? primaryCardForVal.querySelector('.ev-inj-potential-consequence') : null;
5991|            var hadInj = evHadInjuryForValidation();
5992|            var semDano = ((primaryConsEl || {}).value || '') === 'SEM_DANO';
5993|            if (boxesWrap) {
5994|                boxesWrap.querySelectorAll('.ev-injured-person-box[data-person-id]').forEach(function (card) {
5995|                    var cons = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-consequence');
5996|                    var pot = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-potential-consequence');
5997|                    if (cons && !cons.value) mark(cons);
5998|                    if (pot && !pot.value) mark(pot);
5999|                });
6000|            }
6001|            if (!(document.getElementById('ev_barrier_type_ap') || {}).value) mark('#ev_barrier_type_ap');
6002|            if (hadInj && !semDano) {
6003|                var injCard = primaryCardForVal || evGetPrimaryInjuredCard();
6004|                var typeEl = injCard
6005|                    ? injCard.querySelector('.ev-inj-injury-type')
6006|                    : document.getElementById('ev_injury_type');
6007|                var sevEl = injCard
6008|                    ? injCard.querySelector('.ev-inj-injury-severity')
6009|                    : document.getElementById('ev_injury_severity');
6010|                if (typeEl && !typeEl.value) mark(typeEl);
Request #28 deepseek-v4-flash P:62.58K C:152 CR:61.31K CW:0 2518ms
Reasoning
Let me check the client-side validation of the characterization fields to see if the front-end also enforces Sim/Não + comment always in aprofundamento mode, or only when suspect is checked. Let me read the region near 6010-6100 for the validation rules, and look for `.ev-inj-descaracter`.
Tool Calls (1)
code_search
Show Details
{"file_patterns": ["templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig"], "search_text": "descaracter-comment"}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig
Match lines: 6
2199|            descaracter_comment: (card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-comment') || {}).value || '',
2255|        var comm = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-comment');
2596|        card.querySelectorAll('.ev-inj-attendance, .ev-inj-relato, .ev-inj-injury-type, .ev-inj-injury-severity, .ev-inj-injury-classification, .ev-inj-had-injury, .ev-inj-consequence, .ev-inj-potential-consequence, .ev-inj-descaracter-comment').forEach(function (el) {
2638|        card.querySelectorAll('.ev-inj-descaracter-comment').forEach(function (ta) {
6022|                    var comm = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-comment');
7116|                ? String((primaryCard.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-comment') || {}).value || '').trim()

Request #29 deepseek-v4-flash P:62.98K C:97 CR:62.72K CW:0 2038ms
Tool Calls (1)
file_read
Show Details
{"end_line": 6060, "file_path": "templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig", "start_line": 6005}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig (Total lines: 7707)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 6005-6060
6005|                    ? injCard.querySelector('.ev-inj-injury-type')
6006|                    : document.getElementById('ev_injury_type');
6007|                var sevEl = injCard
6008|                    ? injCard.querySelector('.ev-inj-injury-severity')
6009|                    : document.getElementById('ev_injury_severity');
6010|                if (typeEl && !typeEl.value) mark(typeEl);
6011|                if (sevEl && !sevEl.value) mark(sevEl);
6012|                var classEl = injCard ? injCard.querySelector('.ev-inj-injury-classification') : null;
6013|                if (classEl && !classEl.value) mark(classEl);
6014|            }
6015|            if (boxesWrap && evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) {
6016|                var descaracterInvalid = false;
6017|                var focusCard = null;
6018|                var focusEl = null;
6019|                boxesWrap.querySelectorAll('.ev-injured-person-box[data-person-id]').forEach(function (card) {
6020|                    var desc = card.getAttribute('data-descaracterizado') || '';
6021|                    var toggle = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-toggle');
6022|                    var comm = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-comment');
6023|                    if (toggle) toggle.classList.remove('is-invalid');
6024|                    if (desc === '0' || desc === '1') {
6025|                        if (comm && !String(comm.value || '').trim()) {
6026|                            mark(comm);
6027|                            descaracterInvalid = true;
6028|                            if (!focusCard) {
6029|                                focusCard = card;
6030|                                focusEl = comm;
6031|                            }
6032|                        }
6033|                    } else {
6034|                        if (toggle) {
6035|                            toggle.classList.add('is-invalid');
6036|                            if (MV) MV.markInvalid($(toggle));
6037|                        }
6038|                        if (comm) mark(comm);
6039|                        ok = false;
6040|                        descaracterInvalid = true;
6041|                        if (!focusCard) {
6042|                            focusCard = card;
6043|                            focusEl = toggle || comm || card;
6044|                        }
6045|                    }
6046|                });
6047|                if (descaracterInvalid) {
6048|                    window.__ssmaEvSkipGenericValidationToast = true;
6049|                    if (focusCard && typeof evExpandInjuredCard === 'function') {
6050|                        evExpandInjuredCard(focusCard);
6051|                    }
6052|                    window.setTimeout(function () {
6053|                        var target = focusEl
6054|                            || (focusCard && focusCard.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter'))
6055|                            || focusCard;
6056|                        if (target && typeof target.scrollIntoView === 'function') {
6057|                            try { target.scrollIntoView({ block: 'center', behavior: 'smooth' }); } catch (eScroll) {}
6058|                        }
6059|                    }, 80);
6060|                    if (typeof showToast === 'function') {
Request #30 deepseek-v4-flash P:63.85K C:790 CR:62.85K CW:0 7342ms
Reasoning
This is the client-side validation in aprofundamento mode: it requires `data-descaracterizado` in {0,1} and a non-empty comment. This matches the restored backend rule! So the UI (client-side validation) enforces Sim/Não + comment for all cards in aprofundamento mode regardless of suspect. Therefore, the UI must ensure the desc field is set. But what about the case with no suspect and no permission: earlier `evSyncDescaracterUi` forces hidden.value='0' and card data-descaracterizado='0' when `!canSn` and aprofundamento mode. But the comment textarea is inside the yesNoWrap which is hidden when no suspect checked. Client-side validation `mark(comm)` on an empty hidden textarea would mark invalid and block finalize. Wait, let me re-check: Client-side validation (line 6015-6046) runs for all cards when `evAprofundamentoOnlyMode`. For each card, desc = card data-descaracterizado. If desc is '0'/'1' → require comment non-empty. If desc is '' → error. So in the UI, a card must have desc set and a comment. When the doctor doesn't check the suspect, the yesNoWrap is hidden but the client-side validation would still fail if comment is empty and desc is '0' (from forced default if no permission)... Hmm, but this front-end validation was part of the UI; likely when the suspicion is not checked, the card's data-descaracterizado remains '' and the toggle isn't shown... Wait — but if the UI required it always, then finalizing would always force suspect checked? That would mean under the current UI, in aprofundamento mode, the doctor always must check "suspeita" to reveal and fill Sim/Não + comment? That seems odd but plausible given that `evAprofundamentoOnlyMode` applies to medical aprofundamento (dedicated physician flow). But it seems like there should be a case of no suspicion where Sim is just not needed. OK, hold on. The client-side validation is the same for both front-end rules. Let me look at whether the UI hides the descaracter section entirely when not `evCanDescaracterizeAccident` OR... no. Actually, we're going too deep. The UI isn't part of the review files, and it already enforces the same thing on the client side (comment + Sim/Não always in aprofundamento finalize). That means the restored rule is consistent with the existing front-end validation. If the front-end requires it, then the front-end presumably also ensures the fields are shown to the medical user, regardless of the suspect checkbox — OR the fields' presence is gated by something else. Let me look more carefully at where `evAprofundamentoOnlyMode` is true and whether the suspect checkbox default is checked. Let me find evAprofundamentoOnlyMode definition and how the suspect checkbox state initializes for medical professionals.
Tool Calls (2)
code_search
Show Details
{"file_patterns": ["templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig"], "search_text": "evAprofundamentoOnlyMode ="}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig
Match lines: 4
1546|    var evAprofundamentoOnlyMode = false;
6131|        evAprofundamentoOnlyMode = false;
6525|            evAprofundamentoOnlyMode = true;
6564|        evAprofundamentoOnlyMode = false;

code_search
Show Details
{"file_patterns": ["templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig"], "search_text": "evAprofundamentoOnlyMode"}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig
Match lines: 24
1546|    var evAprofundamentoOnlyMode = false;
2915|        var isDoctorAprof = !!evAprofundamentoOnlyMode;
2947|        if (!canSn && cur === '' && evAprofundamentoOnlyMode && hidden) {
3330|            draft.classList.toggle('d-none', !evAprofundamentoOnlyMode || evCurrentStep !== 'aprofundamento');
3332|        if (evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) {
3368|        if (evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) {
3376|            general.classList.toggle('is-readonly', !!evAprofundamentoOnlyMode);
3381|            if (evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) {
6015|            if (boxesWrap && evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) {
6131|        evAprofundamentoOnlyMode = false;
6525|            evAprofundamentoOnlyMode = true;
6533|            // Sincroniza a UI de descaracterização agora que evAprofundamentoOnlyMode=true.
6564|        evAprofundamentoOnlyMode = false;
6657|            if (evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) return;
6676|        if (evAprofundamentoOnlyMode && evIsAprofundamentoFinalized() && !EV_IS_ADMIN_APROFUNDAMENTO) {
6692|        var finalizeAprofundamento = !evAprofundamentoOnlyMode || !!evAprofundamentoFinalizeIntent;
6693|        if (evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) {
6699|        if (evCurrentStep === 'general' && !evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) {
6716|            if (!evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) {
6722|        var softAprofundamentoDraft = evAprofundamentoOnlyMode && !finalizeAprofundamento;
6959|        if (evCurrentStep === 'aprofundamento' && evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) {
7104|            if (!descFromCard && evAprofundamentoOnlyMode && !evCanDescharacterizeAccident()) {
7110|            if (descAnswered && evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) {
7121|            if (!evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) {

Request #31 deepseek-v4-flash P:65.27K C:120 CR:64.64K CW:0 1900ms
Reasoning
Let me look at lines 6500-6570 to understand how the medical aprofundamento opens (mode).
Tool Calls (1)
file_read
Show Details
{"end_line": 6580, "file_path": "templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig", "start_line": 6500}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig (Total lines: 7707)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 6500-6580
6500|        evEvidenceRenderList();
6501|
6502|        // ── Labels do modal ─────────────────────────────────
6503|        var btnLbl = document.getElementById('ev-btn-label');
6504|        var modalTitle = document.getElementById('ev-modal-title');
6505|        if (modalTitle) modalTitle.textContent = 'Editar ocorrência';
6506|        evApplyAuraTitleStatusVisibility('edit');
6507|        evSetStep('general');
6508|        $('#ev_manager').trigger('change');
6509|    };
6510|
6511|    /**
6512|     * Abre o offcanvas no aprofundamento (especialista).
6513|     * Admin/gestor administrador edita tudo desde informações gerais — não trava o 1º passo.
6514|     */
6515|    window.EvModal.openAprofundamento = function (data) {
6516|        data = data || {};
6517|        if (EV_IS_ADMIN_APROFUNDAMENTO && window.OccurrenceModal && typeof window.OccurrenceModal.openEdit === 'function') {
6518|            window.OccurrenceModal.openEdit(data);
6519|            return;
6520|        }
6521|        var EV_GET_URL = '{{ path('ssma_event_get', {id: '__EV_ID__'})|e('js') }}';
6522|
6523|        function openWith(full) {
6524|            window.EvModal.populateForEdit(full || data);
6525|            evAprofundamentoOnlyMode = true;
6526|            evAprofundamentoFinalizeIntent = true;
6527|            var modalTitle = document.getElementById('ev-modal-title');
6528|            if (modalTitle) modalTitle.textContent = 'Aprofundamento técnico';
6529|            if (typeof evEnsureCorrectiveActionsSeed === 'function') {
6530|                evEnsureCorrectiveActionsSeed();
6531|            }
6532|            evSetStep('aprofundamento');
6533|            // Sincroniza a UI de descaracterização agora que evAprofundamentoOnlyMode=true.
6534|            // Isso também pré-seleciona "Sim" quando o profissional não pode descaracterizar.
6535|            evSyncDescaracterUi();
6536|            if (typeof window.openOffcanvasmodalEventNew === 'function') {
6537|                window.openOffcanvasmodalEventNew();
6538|            }
6539|        }
6540|
6541|        var eventId = data.id;
6542|        if (!eventId || String(eventId) === 'undefined') {
6543|            openWith(data);
6544|            return;
6545|        }
6546|        fetch(EV_GET_URL.replace('__EV_ID__', encodeURIComponent(String(eventId))), {
6547|            method: 'GET',
6548|            credentials: 'same-origin',
6549|            headers: { 'X-Requested-With': 'XMLHttpRequest' }
6550|        })
6551|            .then(function (res) { return res.json(); })
6552|            .then(function (result) {
6553|                var fullData = (result && result.success && result.event) ? result.event : data;
6554|                openWith(fullData);
6555|            })
6556|            .catch(function () {
6557|                openWith(data);
6558|            });
6559|    };
6560|
6561|    window.EvModal.openCreate = function (opts) {
6562|        opts = opts || {};
6563|        window.__ssmaEvCreateMode = opts.createMode || null;
6564|        evAprofundamentoOnlyMode = false;
6565|        evAprofundamentoFinalizeIntent = true;
6566|        evAprofundamentoFinalized = false;
6567|        // Nova ocorrência sempre começa limpa (não restaura draft de preenchimento anterior).
6568|        var modeEl = document.getElementById('ev_form_mode');
6569|        var idEl = document.getElementById('ev_id');
6570|        if (modeEl) {
6571|            modeEl.value = 'create';
6572|        }
6573|        if (idEl) {
6574|            idEl.value = '';
6575|        }
6576|        var modalTitle = document.getElementById('ev-modal-title');
6577|        if (modalTitle) {
6578|            if (window.__ssmaEvCreateMode === 'ros') {
6579|                modalTitle.textContent = 'Novo ROS';
6580|            } else if (window.__ssmaEvCreateMode === 'event') {
Request #32 deepseek-v4-flash P:66.48K C:599 CR:65.28K CW:0 5313ms
Reasoning
OK, so the aprofundamento-only mode is entered by the specialist (doctor). The `evSyncDescaracterUi` is called, which preselects '0' when the doctor cannot descaracterize. But the yes/no answer area and comment remain hidden unless the suspect checkbox is toggled. Hmm, but look at the client-side validation: it requires the comment too when desc is set. Wait — maybe the suspect checkbox state is preserved per-card and, for the primary injured person in the aprofundamento, the doctor should always answer. This could indeed be a deliberate UX where the suspect checkbox being unchecked means "not suspect" but the doctor must still confirm characterization... but the comment is hidden. I keep going around in circles. This could be a real UX regression, but the front-end isn't part of this diff. If a rule change on the backend introduces a mismatch with the front-end, that mismatch is arguably a regression in the PR scope only if the backend behavior changed relative to what the current UI supports. Since the current UI (client validation at 6015-6046) also demands the same data (descaracterizado 0/1 + comment) whenever `evAprofundamentoOnlyMode`, it suggests the UI was ALREADY aligned with "always require" rule. This means the UI relies on the fields being answered; the medical approver must see them. So either the UI always forces suspect=true, or... hmm. Actually wait, let me reconsider: maybe the front-end validation at 6015 is bypassed when the suspect is not checked? No — it iterates all cards and requires `data-descaracterizado` set. So the front-end would never let a medical approver finalize without answering anyway. Since front-end already enforced it, the UI designers must have ensured the medical approver can always answer the characterization. Perhaps in the medical approval flow the suspect checkbox defaults checked? Let me look at the seeding of the suspect state per card (line 6470-6490).
Tool Calls (2)
file_read
Show Details
{"end_line": 6495, "file_path": "templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig", "start_line": 6450}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig (Total lines: 7707)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 6450-6495
6450|        }
6451|        evFilterInjuredPersonSelect();
6452|        evRenderInjuredPersonBoxes();
6453|
6454|        if (type === 'ACIDENTE_PESSOAL') {
6455|            // Re-sync depois das tags + details: garante caixinhas médicas mesmo se
6456|            // setTagSelectValues rodou antes do hidden ou membro não estava no select.
6457|            syncBodyRegionVisibility();
6458|            evSyncInjuryFieldsByConsequence();
6459|            if (typeof window.evSyncLtiAvailability === 'function') { window.evSyncLtiAvailability(); }
6460|            evSyncInjuredCardsFromInvolved();
6461|            // Se sync ainda não viu pessoas nas tags, remonta a partir dos details salvos.
6462|            var wrapAfter = document.getElementById('ev_injured_person_boxes');
6463|            var hasMedCards = !!(wrapAfter && wrapAfter.querySelector('.ev-injured-person-box[data-person-id]'));
6464|            if (!hasMedCards && Object.keys(evGetInjuredDetailsObj() || {}).length) {
6465|                evRenderInjuredPersonBoxes();
6466|            }
6467|            if (evCurrentStep === 'aprofundamento' && typeof evEnsurePrimaryInjuredCardExpanded === 'function') {
6468|                evEnsurePrimaryInjuredCardExpanded();
6469|            }
6470|        }
6471|
6472|        // ── Descaracterização ────────────────────────────────
6473|        // Restaura suspeita por card a partir do det ou do injured_person_details do card primário.
6474|        var suspectRaw = det.descaracter_suspect != null ? det.descaracter_suspect : data.descaracter_suspect;
6475|        var suspectOn = suspectRaw === true || suspectRaw === 1 || suspectRaw === '1';
6476|        evSetChk('ev_descaracter_suspect', suspectOn);
6477|        // Propaga suspeita para cada card (checkbox editável no aprofundamento).
6478|        document.querySelectorAll('.ev-injured-person-box').forEach(function (card) {
6479|            var chk = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-suspect-chk');
6480|            if (chk) chk.checked = suspectOn;
6481|            card.setAttribute('data-descaracter-suspect', suspectOn ? '1' : '0');
6482|            var yesNoWrap = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap');
6483|            if (yesNoWrap) yesNoWrap.classList.toggle('d-none', !suspectOn);
6484|        });
6485|        var descVal = det.descaracterizado != null ? det.descaracterizado : data.descaracterizado;
6486|        if (descVal === true || descVal === 1) descVal = '1';
6487|        if (descVal === false || descVal === 0) descVal = '0';
6488|        evSetVal('ev_descaracterizado', descVal == null ? '' : String(descVal));
6489|        evSyncDescaracterUi();
6490|
6491|        // ── Evidências já anexadas ──────────────────────────
6492|        var evidences = Array.isArray(det.evidences) ? det.evidences : (Array.isArray(data.evidences) ? data.evidences : []);
6493|        evEvidences = evidences.map(function (e) {
6494|            return {
6495|                name: e.name || e.filename || '',
read Failed
Show Details
{"file_path": "templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig", "start_line": 2940, "end_line": 2960}
Request #33 deepseek-v4-flash P:68.01K C:523 CR:67.07K CW:0 4947ms
Reasoning
Let me look at the card-level suspect state initialization to understand whether, when the doctor opens the aprofundamento in "finalize" mode without prior suspicion, the UI forces the yes/no wrap to show. At line 6478-6484: The suspect checkbox is set to `suspectOn` and the yesNoWrap toggled. If there's no existing suspect, they're unchecked/hidden. So when the doctor opens the aprofundamento and there is no prior suspect, the Sim/Não + comment fields are hidden. But the client-side validation (line 6015+) would still demand them before finalize... This suggests the front-end would already block finalize in that situation, even before the backend rule change, because it checks descaracterizado and comment always when evAprofundamentoOnlyMode. But wait — the front-end only demands descaracterizado + comment when the card has data-descaracterizado... no — it demands `desc === '0' || desc === '1'` OR else an error for the toggle. So no answer → error. Front-end already requires answer always. Wait, that would make the flow completely impossible for the no-suspect/no-answer case... unless the descaracterizado hidden is pre-filled '0' when doctor lacks permission (making Sim/Não answered) and then the comment requirement kicks in... still impossible if comment hidden. Hmm, maybe I'm wrong about when the validation applies (maybe only on the "finalize" button that appears in a special case). Let me look at 6100-6160 to see the guard around the validation block (e.g., finalize only if suspect). Also, I should look at where evExpandInjuredCard shows the descaracter fields; maybe the fields are visible when the card is expanded (is-expanded). Recall `evSyncDescaracterStageUi` toggles `yesNoWrap` based on the suspect check, not on expansion. Let me read lines 6100-6160 to understand the overall validation wrapper.
Tool Calls (1)
file_read
Show Details
{"end_line": 6140, "file_path": "templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig", "start_line": 6060}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig (Total lines: 7707)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 6060-6140
6060|                    if (typeof showToast === 'function') {
6061|                        showToast(
6062|                            'No card do acidentado (acima da Ação), responda “Caracterizado como acidente?” e preencha o comentário.',
6063|                            'Aprofundamento',
6064|                            'fas fa-exclamation-circle',
6065|                            'bg-warning'
6066|                        );
6067|                    }
6068|                }
6069|            }
6070|        } else if (type === 'ACIDENTE_MATERIAL') {
6071|            if (!(document.getElementById('ev_asset_type') || {}).value) mark('#ev_asset_type');
6072|            if (!(document.getElementById('ev_consequence') || {}).value) mark('#ev_consequence');
6073|            if (!(document.getElementById('ev_potential_consequence') || {}).value) mark('#ev_potential_consequence');
6074|            if (!(document.getElementById('ev_barrier_type_am') || {}).value) mark('#ev_barrier_type_am');
6075|        } else if (type === 'ACIDENTE_AMBIENTAL') {
6076|            if (!(document.getElementById('ev_environmental_medium') || {}).value) {
6077|                mark('#ev_environmental_medium');
6078|            }
6079|            if (!(document.getElementById('ev_pollutant_type') || {}).value) {
6080|                mark('#ev_pollutant_type');
6081|            }
6082|            if (!(document.getElementById('ev_consequence') || {}).value) mark('#ev_consequence');
6083|            if (!(document.getElementById('ev_potential_consequence') || {}).value) mark('#ev_potential_consequence');
6084|            if (!(document.getElementById('ev_barrier_type_aa') || {}).value) mark('#ev_barrier_type_aa');
6085|        }
6086|        return ok;
6087|    }
6088|
6089|    /* ── Helpers internos para populateForEdit ────────────── */
6090|    function evSetVal(id, val) {
6091|        var el = document.getElementById(id);
6092|        if (el && val !== undefined && val !== null && val !== '') el.value = String(val);
6093|        if (id === 'ev_person_id' || id === 'ev_person_id_qa') {
6094|            if (typeof window.setCustomSelectValue === 'function' && val !== undefined && val !== null && val !== '') {
6095|                window.setCustomSelectValue(id, String(val));
6096|            } else {
6097|                evSyncCustomSelectVisual(id, false);
6098|            }
6099|        }
6100|    }
6101|    /** Garante option legada no select (meio/poluente/barreira antigos) ao editar. */
6102|    function evEnsureSelectOption(selectId, value) {
6103|        if (value === undefined || value === null || value === '') return;
6104|        var sel = document.getElementById(selectId);
6105|        if (!sel) return;
6106|        var v = String(value);
6107|        for (var i = 0; i < sel.options.length; i++) {
6108|            if (sel.options[i].value === v) return;
6109|        }
6110|        var opt = document.createElement('option');
6111|        opt.value = v;
6112|        opt.textContent = v;
6113|        sel.appendChild(opt);
6114|    }
6115|    function evSetChk(id, val) {
6116|        var el = document.getElementById(id);
6117|        if (el) el.checked = !!val;
6118|    }
6119|    function evParseCsvIds(val) {
6120|        if (Array.isArray(val)) return val.map(Number).filter(Boolean);
6121|        if (!val) return [];
6122|        return String(val).split(',').map(function (s) { return parseInt(s.trim(), 10); }).filter(Boolean);
6123|    }
6124|
6125|    /* ── API pública para abertura em modo edição ─────────── */
6126|    window.EvModal = window.EvModal || {};
6127|    window.EvModal.populateForEdit = function (data) {
6128|        var $ = window.jQuery;
6129|        if (!$) return;
6130|        window.__ssmaEvCreateMode = null;
6131|        evAprofundamentoOnlyMode = false;
6132|        evAprofundamentoFinalizeIntent = true;
6133|        var detEarly = (data && data.details && typeof data.details === 'object') ? data.details : (data || {});
6134|        var aprofStatus = String(detEarly.aprofundamento_status || (data && data.aprofundamento_status) || '').toLowerCase();
6135|        evAprofundamentoFinalized = aprofStatus === 'finalized'
6136|            || !!(detEarly.aprofundamento_complete || (data && data.aprofundamento_complete));
6137|        var typeWrap = document.getElementById('ev_type_wrap');
6138|        if (typeWrap) typeWrap.classList.remove('d-none');
6139|        var shared = window.SsmaShared || {};
6140|        var tc     = window.EvModal._tagConfigs;
Request #34 deepseek-v4-flash P:69.83K C:3.75K CR:68.48K CW:0 30349ms
Reasoning
OK so the client-side validation at 6015-6068 blocks finalize of aprofundamento unless descaracterizado + comment are filled. This means the UI likely always expects the medical professional to answer the question (fields revealed by checking the suspect box, or the question asked). But regardless, since the UI already blocks finalize in the same situations, the backend rule restored here is consistent with the existing UI behavior. So the "always require" backend rule doesn't introduce a NEW front-end mismatch. Actually, wait — the UI requires the comment even when desc = '0'; under the hotfix's `$hasSuspect` gate, the backend allowed no comment when no suspect. The UI still required it (front-end validation). So before this PR, a doctor who didn't check suspect would have been blocked by the front-end anyway. So the hotfix `$hasSuspect` relaxation was inconsistent with the front-end; now the backend matches the front-end. This is consistent with "restoring the original rule." Given all this, the validator change seems coherent with the UI and test. It's intended behavior. But wait — there's still an important edge case to consider about the comment being mandatory when `descaracterizado = '0'` ("Sim, é acidente"). The UI's front-end validation requires a comment too when desc='0'. So intended. Let me now consider what the actual realistic functional bug could be: consider the creation of a draft aprofundamento by the medical professional (draft mode). In `updateEvent`, when the doctor clicks "save draft" (`finalizeAprofundamento = false`), the code at line 25921-25928 sets `aprofundamento_complete = false`. Then `soft_aprofundamento` context = true → validator returns base errors only, so no characterization error. Fine — drafts don't require characterization. When the doctor finalizes, characterization is required. All good. Now, one more important angle: In the create flow (`createEvent`), the events created may be of AP type with full aprofundamento fields (if the initial creation is by a specialist completing the 2nd step). In that create flow, there's no `aprofundamento_only` flag; `$data['aprofundamento_complete'] = true` triggers `forceAccidentDeep` and validateDetails → validateAcidentePessoal is invoked with `$data` (no `aprofundamento_only`) → no characterization requirement. And the front-end at 7121-7123 deletes descaracter_comment when not aprofundamentoOnlyMode. And the create flow at 6965-6987 strips technical fields when the creator can't edit aprofundamento. Note that the description in the PR says: "No fluxo aprofundamento_only, o médico sempre deve informar..." So the change is only in the aprofundamento_only flow. So the change is fairly scoped and matches the stated business rule and test. Now, are there other subtle concerns? One subtle concern: in the new code, the comment requirement applies whenever `descaracterizado` ∈ {0,1}, including when the value '0' comes from `applySsmaDescaracterPermissionGate` default when the member has NO permission. In this case, the medical professional (without the descaracterize permission) is required to write a comment they may not be able to see (hidden in UI) — but they can write if the suspect is checked; if not checked, the comment textarea is hidden but the Sim/Não toggle is also hidden, so how can they finalize? The front-end blocks, too (regardless of backend). So if a medical professional without permission and no suspect tries to finalize, the front-end blocks them with an error telling them to answer "Caracterizado como acidente?" — which is inside the hidden yesNoWrap unless suspect is checked! This may be an actual UX problem but it pre-existed this PR (front-end always blocked). Since this diff doesn't touch the front-end, and the backend now merely aligns, it's a pre-existing UI matter. Not introduced by this diff. Let me carefully compare pre-diff (target branch current state) vs post-diff backend behavior, from the medical perspective: - Target branch (with `$hasSuspect` gate): Backend only required characterization when suspect was flagged. Front-end requires it always (blocking in UI when no suspect? Hmm...). Wait — that can't be right: if front-end always blocks when no suspect + no answer, then the `$hasSuspect` relaxation would never be observable because the front-end would block first. Unless the front-end was also changed in the same hotfix that introduced the backend gate... Not in our diff scope. Given that the target branch already merges some prior PR that introduced the `$hasSuspect` gate, and the UI may or may not align, this PR simply reverts. Since our review should focus on the diff and its reachable context, and the diff makes the backend consistent with both the documented product rule and the unit test, I will not flag it as a bug. Actually, let me reconsider a more concrete potential regression with respect to this diff. Under the target branch behavior (gate with suspect), an AP event where a non-doctor reporter had marked `descaracter_suspect=1` but the event was later finalized... not relevant. Hmm, but there's one thing: the check now applies `$data['aprofundamento_only']`, and in the update flow the merged details include existing `descaracter_suspect` (from existingDetails). Suppose an event created with `descaracter_suspect=0` (no suspicion) and no descaracterizado recorded. A doctor with full "descaracterizar" permission finalizes. They must now answer Sim/Não and comment. But the UI shows the yesNoWrap only if suspect toggled. The front-end already enforces answering. So if the front-end enforces it, then the front-end must show these controls always for the doctor. Since UI enforcement exists and seems to indicate UI design already required it, likely the modal does show the descaracter block (not gated on suspect) in the aprofundamento of the doctor. Hmm, but I read code saying yesNoWrap is hidden unless suspect is checked. Let me look at `evExpandInjuredCard`, which may re-toggle the yesNoWrap when a card is expanded (line 2929 etc.). Actually maybe there is specific behavior: when the primary injured card is expanded in aprofundamento mode, the suspect is auto-checked. Let me search `evEnsurePrimaryInjuredCardExpanded`. Actually let me stop this deep dive. The frontend is not part of the diff, and its validation was already aligned with the mandatory rule (it demands both desc and comment). The backend change is a restoration per PR intent, and the unit test confirms. I'll not flag this. Now let me consider whether there is a real bug in the change regarding `descaracter_comment` type handling: comment `trim((string)($d['descaracter_comment'] ?? ''))`. Not changed behavior besides gate removal. Let me look at line 715 with the broader function name to confirm the changed code is inside `validateAcidentePessoal`. Also double-check whether there are other calls to validateAcidentePessoal that pass `$data` with `aprofundamento_only` but for types/events where characterization shouldn't be required... It's only used from `validateDetails` for ACIDENTE_PESSOAL. And in the update flow, aprofundamento_only is set by merge. And where else is `validateDetails` called with `$data` containing aprofundamento_only? Only updateEvent flows. Wait — there's a subtle scenario: In `updateEvent`, the merge applies only when `!$canFullEdit` (specialist-only). For `$canFullEdit` users who finalize an aprofundamento (setting `aprofundamento_complete=true` and status finalized) but not through aprofundamento_only mode, the validation runs `validateAcidentePessoal` with `$data` lacking `aprofundamento_only`, so no characterization requirement. That's pre-existing behavior — unchanged by this diff. OK. Now let me check for a **test-isolation/DB concern** in the test files: `new SsmaOccurrenceStakeholderAccessChecker($entityManager)` — during the listener's execution, is `hasStakeholderLink` invoked, requiring `$entityManager->getConnection()`? For routes tested (ssma_event_create, ssma_event_delete, admin_ssma_inspection_create, ssma_abordagem_create), the listener may call `ssmaOccurrenceStakeholderAccessChecker` for those routes. Since the tests pass presumably (this PR is a fix), it's fine — mock returns null for getConnection → `hasStakeholderLink` would throw? `$conn = $this->entityManager->getConnection();` — with a mock, getConnection returns null → `$conn->fetchOne(...)` on null → error inside try → caught by `catch (\Throwable)` → returns false. So safe. Let me double check that the tests in these two files exercise routes that might call the action plan service or stakeholder checker in the failing paths — they would then call DB via mock entity manager with return null connection. The try/catch around each fetch will catch. Fine. Also, `SsmaRefusalRightService($entityManager)` was already instantiated before in those tests, so patterns work. Now let me check the EmpresasParceirasControllerTest which is in "other_changed_files" — not in review group, so we shouldn't comment on it, but it's listed as changed elsewhere. Our scope is only the three files in review_files. Let me now assess the actual code carefully for bugs: **Bug candidate 1:** `$descVal = ...` — in the new block, comment is required also for `descaracterizado='0'`. Hmm wait — consider the descaracter permission gate path: a user who CANNOT descaracterize gets details['descaracterizado']='0' auto-set, but never provides a comment in payload; is there a possibility of a comment being required but non-fillable? But again, front-end forces the answer and comment when possible. This is aligned. Actually — wait. Let me reconsider who performs the "aprofundamento finalize" for AP: it's the medical professional/doctor. The UI must be usable for them. If the doctor doesn't suspect, but they cannot see the fields, the finalize would fail both client and server. But that would have been true before the hotfix too (original production rule). So unless production had this issue all along (possible bug but out of scope of the diff), this restored rule is intended behavior. Given this PR's intent to restore prior production behavior and the existing unit test, I'll treat the change as consistent. Let me also consider possible **integration issue in the validator for AM/AA** — the change is in `validateAcidentePessoal`, so no impact on other types. Let me consider **the case where the descaracterization fields apply only when the aprofundamento is for the primary injured person**: The check is per details (single card). Actually validateAcidentePessoal deals with `$d` = details for the whole event? Wait — how are per-injured-person details handled? The payload details object could have `injured_person_details`? Let me not dig; the change doesn't alter the target of validation, only removes the gate. If previously the check was inside the same `if` branch, then it's the same object. Now, potential issue: **`$data['aprofundamento_only']` is only true during updateEvent merge; but the test sets `aprofundamento_complete=true` and `aprofundamento_only=true` simultaneously.** The `wantsFinalize` variable at controller line ~25912? Need to check wantsFinalize logic: It probably derives from `aprofundamento_status === 'finalized'` or `aprofundamento_complete`. Fine. Let me step back and identify actual issues worth flagging. Perhaps the strongest candidate for feedback: The mandatory requirement now also applies to the case where `descaracter_suspect` is NOT set (default), effectively forcing doctors to always answer/comment — meaning events where the reporter never raised suspicion now get blocked during the medical aprofundamento finalize unless the answer + comment fields (which in the UI are only revealed when suspicion is marked) are filled. If the UI hides them without suspicion, users would be stuck — a functional regression relative to the just-merged behavior. But because the unit test and PR description confirm the requirement (doctor must always characterize), this is intended. Given the reviewer instructions "precision over recall" and "only report defects likely real", I should not flag intended behavior as bug. However, there's still an actual subtle code-level concern worth checking: **duplicate/conflicting errors and missing enforcement when descaracter_comment present but descaracterizado missing** etc. Not new. Let me now examine whether the change should still consider `descaracter_suspect` for *non-doctor* users finalizing? `aprofundamento_only` is only used in the medical flow by design. OK, given the deep analysis, no obvious bug in the SsmaEventValidator change beyond intended behavior. Let me now check the test-related concern: In the `GlobalPermissionListenerPreventionWriteTest` direct instantiation, they now run through real services. In test `testPlainMemberWithoutMetaOrCreateTagRemainsBlocked`, exception message expected 'Você não possui permissão para executar esta ação.' — listener throws for members without tag; the ActionPlan service is invoked as part of the gate for these routes? Possibly, but if route not in mutation routes, returns false → then the listener's write-gate would throw AccessDenied as expected. Good. One potential issue with test modification: Both test files pass the same `$entityManager` mock to `SsmaOccurrenceStakeholderAccessChecker`, and `SsmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService::resolveActionForRoute` calls `$this->entityManager->find(...)` if invoked. But for the routes tested it's never invoked (isMutationRoute returns false first). Good. Now let me focus once more on the SsmaEventValidator behavior in update flow, considering the **full-edit** path where canFullEdit=true and the event's status is already finalized; the `stripSsmaEventAprofundamentoFieldsFromPayload` strips fields from data so the medical requirement doesn't apply — fine. Now let me consider whether there could be any *double-counting* or *missed requirement* issues in terms of new errors list not de-duplicated in the create flow... The `validate()` merges and calls array_unique at the end. validateAcidentePessoal returns list of errors; the final array_unique removes duplicates. Wait, at line 144, validate() returns `array_values(array_unique($errors))`? Let me check the end of validate. Actually the code in validate at lines 47-90 has a return at 89 without unique. Let me check `validateDetails`'s callers more carefully to make sure characterization errors don't double with earlier errors. Not important. Let me now verify: does this change cause any inconsistency with `$d['descaracter_suspect']` semantics? With the gate removed, `descaracter_suspect` becomes unused in the validation of characterization. Fine. Now let me think about whether removing the suspect gate is a problem when the aprofundamento update is performed by a NON-medical person (e.g., an admin completing details). The flow is the same regardless of who does it; they'd have to answer characterization. But only in aprofundamento_only (specialist mode). Admins edit via full-edit (canFullEdit) without aprofundamento_only, so they wouldn't be blocked. Good. I think the SsmaEventValidator change has a potential legitimate **functional regression** relative to the currently-merged code for finalizations where the suspect flag is absent — but that's precisely the intended behavior per the business rule and unit test. So it's not a defect. Wait, let me reconsider one more angle: this is a "tests pipeline fix" chore. The revert could break other existing unit tests that assert optional characterization when no suspect. Let me search tests for `descaracter_suspect` in SsmaEventValidatorTest, to see if some tests relied on the gated behavior (would now fail). The pipeline is the CI; this PR targets 4 test files. If other tests assert the optional rule, they'd break and this PR would fail its own CI. But not our concern unless in scope files. Let me quickly scan SsmaEventValidatorTest for descaracter tests.
Tool Calls (2)
code_search
Show Details
{"file_patterns": ["tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/SsmaEventValidatorTest.php"], "search_text": "descaracter"}
File: tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/SsmaEventValidatorTest.php
Match lines: 15
41|                'descaracterizado'      => '0',
42|                'descaracter_comment'   => 'Acidente confirmado.',
145|                'descaracterizado'      => '0',
146|                'descaracter_comment'   => 'Acidente confirmado.',
184|                'descaracterizado'      => '0',
185|                'descaracter_comment'   => 'Acidente confirmado.',
226|                'descaracterizado'      => '0',
227|                'descaracter_comment'   => 'Sem descaracterização.',
252|                'descaracterizado'      => '0',
253|                'descaracter_comment'   => 'Sem descaracterização.',
448|        self::assertStringNotContainsString('details.descaracterizado', $joined);
501|                'descaracterizado'      => '',
691|                'descaracterizado'      => '0',
692|                'descaracter_comment'   => 'Acidente confirmado.',
819|        self::assertStringNotContainsString('details.descaracterizado:', $joined);

file_read
Show Details
{"end_line": 989, "file_path": "tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/SsmaEventValidatorTest.php", "start_line": 920}
File: tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/SsmaEventValidatorTest.php (Total lines: 989)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 920-989
920|    {
921|        $validator = new SsmaEventValidator();
922|
923|        $errors = $validator->validate([
924|            'type'        => EventTypeEnum::ACIDENTE_PESSOAL,
925|            'origin'      => 'MANUAL',
926|            'datetime'    => '2026-04-07T10:30:00',
927|            'location'    => 'Linha 2',
928|            'description' => 'Sem pessoa',
929|            'details'     => [
930|                'activity' => 'Operação',
931|                'approach' => 'CORRECAO_OPERACIONAL',
932|            ],
933|        ]);
934|
935|        self::assertNotEmpty($errors);
936|        $joined = implode(' | ', $errors);
937|        self::assertStringNotContainsString('details.person_id', $joined);
938|        self::assertTrue(
939|            (bool) array_filter($errors, static fn (string $e): bool => str_contains($e, 'Pessoa envolvida é obrigatória')),
940|            'Esperava mensagem humana de pessoa. Erros: ' . $joined
941|        );
942|    }
943|
944|    public function testAcidentePessoalEtapa1ComPessoaEnvolvidaNaoExigeAprofundamento(): void
945|    {
946|        $validator = new SsmaEventValidator();
947|
948|        $errors = $validator->validate([
949|            'type'        => EventTypeEnum::ACIDENTE_PESSOAL,
950|            'origin'      => 'MANUAL',
951|            'datetime'    => '2026-04-07T10:30:00',
952|            'location'    => 'Linha 2',
953|            'description' => 'Com pessoa na etapa 1',
954|            'details'     => [
955|                'activity'    => 'Operação',
956|                'approach'    => 'CORRECAO_OPERACIONAL',
957|                'people_ids'  => '101,102',
958|                'person_id'   => '101',
959|                'person_type' => 'COLABORADOR',
960|            ],
961|        ]);
962|
963|        self::assertEmpty($errors, 'Etapa 1 com person_id/person_type deve passar: ' . implode(' | ', $errors));
964|    }
965|
966|    public function testAcidentePessoalEtapa1AceitaPeopleIdsSemPersonId(): void
967|    {
968|        $validator = new SsmaEventValidator();
969|
970|        $errors = $validator->validate([
971|            'type'        => EventTypeEnum::ACIDENTE_PESSOAL,
972|            'origin'      => 'MANUAL',
973|            'datetime'    => '2026-04-07T10:30:00',
974|            'location'    => 'Linha 2',
975|            'description' => 'Só tags de pessoas envolvidas',
976|            'details'     => [
977|                'activity'   => 'Operação',
978|                'approach'   => 'CORRECAO_OPERACIONAL',
979|                'people_ids' => '101,102',
980|            ],
981|        ]);
982|
983|        self::assertEmpty(
984|            $errors,
985|            'Etapa 1 com people_ids deve passar sem person_id explícito: ' . implode(' | ', $errors)
986|        );
987|    }
988|}
989|
Request #35 deepseek-v4-flash P:74.71K C:2.04K CR:73.47K CW:0 15736ms
Reasoning
There don't appear to be any other tests relying on the optional behavior. Now let me look at lines 30-60 and 680-700 to double-check test payloads around `aprofundamento_complete` without `aprofundamento_only` where descaracterizado is '0' with comment, to ensure they're fine (they would be unaffected since no aprofundamento_only → no requirement). Fine. Let me also read the beginning of the file (40-50, 130-260) to see the general context of the tests that might be run in the pipeline and could break. Also let me confirm that in the existing unit test suite, `aprofundamento_complete: true` create paths don't include descaracter fields; they'd still pass because the characterization requirement is gated by aprofundamento_only only. Now, what about the `validate()` line 69-76: when `aprofundamento_complete` = true in create, `$requiresTechnicalDepth` true → `validateAcidentePessoal` runs; the descaracter requirement is only enforced when `$data['aprofundamento_only']` is truthy, which it isn't in create. That means the medical characterization can be absent on event creation with aprofundamento_complete = true... but that's only for users that can full-edit (admins). This is pre-existing. Let me now take a look at how the validator's `validateAcidentePessoal` is reached when the medical flow sends `aprofundamento_only=true` AND soft draft etc. Nothing new. Now, are there any real issues I should flag at all? Consider the code change from a maintainability standpoint: the validation now requires `descaracter_comment` to be non-empty whenever `descaracterizado` is '0'/'1'. Under this restored rule, the check is inside the else after descVal ∈ {0,1}. Fine. I think the core SsmaEventValidator change is correct per intended behavior. But wait, let me reconsider the removal of the `$hasSuspect` check from the perspective of a real production issue — data consistency: The PR says: "Reativa a obrigatoriedade de caracterização pelo médico no aprofundamento. Sem essa regra, médicos poderiam finalizar o aprofundamento sem informar se o acidente foi caracterizado." But hold on: There's an important edge case. The comment requirement when the doctor selects '0' = "Sim (é acidente)". Under the previous pre-hotfix behavior (that this restores), was the comment required for '0' too? The diff before removal had the exact same structure (comment required within else of in_array). So yes, the restored rule equals the earlier version in this respect. No change. Let me now evaluate whether there are any latent concerns in the code as changed related to **new_staging2 target (a staging branch)**. Not our problem. Given the instructions to focus on precision and only report real issues, let me think about whether to report anything. Potential genuine issues to mention: 1. In `SsmaEventValidator`, the mandatory characterization now applies in the updateEvent aprofundamento-only flow to any ACIDENTE_PESSOAL regardless of whether it's the "dedicated medical" sub-flow. Since only the medical professional uses aprofundamento_only, fine. 2. Actually — wait, there is one more subtle thing. Look at line 715-726 in context of `validate()` and the special `soft_aprofundamento` (draft). Drafts skip full validation (line 61). But there's another scenario: **update without finalize intent but not through aprofundamento_only**: `$aprofundamentoOnly && !$wantsFinalize` → soft. Otherwise full validation. For the medical doctor, when they click the "finalize" button in the modal: `evAprofundamentoFinalizeIntent` is set true at open; the finalize happens with `aprofundamento_complete=true`. Then backend sets `$wantsFinalize` and full validation runs; the requirement is on. Now if the medical doctor has saved existing `descaracterizado='0'` + comment already (from earlier drafts), finalization passes. If never answered, blocked (intended). So the code behaves per spec. Given this is a "fix pipeline tests" chore and the actual code change restores a production rule, I think there might be little to flag. But let me reconsider once more whether there is a real problem with this change, in particular with the **`descaracter_suspect` value absent in the payload but descaracterizado present**. This case previously (target branch) required answer only when suspect set; now always. In the create-then-medical-update flow, descaracter fields originate with the reporter? Actually the descaracter section appears only in the medical aprofundamento, so the reporter doesn't set suspect in stage 1 (the suspect wrap is hidden at stage 1, but there is a card-level checkbox in the aprofundamento). Hmm OK. Let me now look at what happens if the suspect checkbox remains unchecked but the doctor still cannot finalize. This would make the intended flow (doctor finalizes the aprofundamento without suspecting anything, per the PR's description, since the rule "médico sempre informa" requires a comment even when no descaracterization) stuck, because the comment input is hidden until the suspect checkbox is checked, and descaracterizado defaults to '0' only for doctors without permission. Actually, wait. Let me re-read line 7107-7114: ``` var descAnswered = descFromCard === '0' || descFromCard === '1'; payload.descaracter_suspect = evIsDescaracterSuspectChecked() ? 1 : 0; if (descAnswered && evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) { payload.descaracterizado = descFromCard; } else { delete payload.descaracterizado; } ``` So when the doctor doesn't answer, descaracterizado is not sent, and the validation now fails. The doctor cannot see the answer area when suspect is unchecked. So finalization without suspect is impossible? That would be an existing bug that predates the diff? No — actually wait: prior to the hotfix that introduced the `$hasSuspect` gate, the backend had the same mandatory rule. So the "always block without answer" behavior existed in production. If it was a problem, production would have caught it. It's possible production doctors always check "suspeita" — hmm, that's for descaracterização suspicion; a typical accident has no suspicion, so if production mandatory rule applied, doctors would get blocked... unless the UI reveals the answer without suspect in the real modal — perhaps the version I'm reading here (this branch) is different. Given the complexity and that the frontend is not in the diff, and this chore explicitly aligns backend with front-end expectations + unit tests, I will NOT flag it. Instead, my review could note this as a caution only if well-founded. I won't. Now let me consider the diff once more for any actual code issue: The new code: ```php $descVal = array_key_exists('descaracterizado', $d) ? (string) $d['descaracterizado'] : ''; // Médico sempre informa caracterização no aprofundamento dedicado. if (!empty($data['aprofundamento_only'])) { if (!\in_array($descVal, ['0', '1'], true)) { $errors[] = 'Informe se o evento é caracterizado como acidente (Sim/Não).'; } else { $comment = trim((string) ($d['descaracter_comment'] ?? '')); if ($comment === '') { $errors[] = 'Comentário de caracterização do acidente é obrigatório.'; } } } ``` This is functionally identical to what existed before the gate was introduced. I don't see a bug in it. Now, both test files' changes appear to be straightforward, well-ordered. One potential concern is duplicated instantiation of `SsmaOccurrenceStakeholderAccessChecker` for arg 7 (`new SsmaOccurrenceStakeholderAccessChecker($entityManager)`) and inner one. Minor. Fine. Let me double-check that there is no other `GlobalPermissionListener` constructor test for the action plan... Actually, one potential issue: **mocks of final class were replaced by direct instantiations, but the `SsmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService` will be invoked for the `ssma_event_delete` route test?** In `GlobalPermissionListenerOccurrenceCreateWriteTest::testPlainMemberWithoutCreateTagRemainsBlockedOnOccurrenceWrite` the listener receives route `ssma_event_delete`, and expects the access denied exception. In the listener, does the flow reach the action plan service? Let me check the onKernelController to see the order of calls and where the ActionPlan service's `canMutateForRoute` is invoked, and where `canCreate`/`canEdit` etc are used for those specific routes. Let me search for `ssmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService->canMutateForRoute` in the listener.
Tool Calls (1)
code_search
Show Details
{"file_patterns": ["src/EventListener/GlobalPermissionListener.php"], "search_text": "ssmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService"}
File: src/EventListener/GlobalPermissionListener.php
Match lines: 6
17|use App\Service\Ssma\SsmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService;
43|    private SsmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService $ssmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService;
104|        SsmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService $ssmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService,
118|        $this->ssmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService = $ssmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService;
504|            && $this->ssmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService->isMutationRoute((string) $route)
505|            && $this->ssmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService->canMutateForRoute(

Request #36 deepseek-v4-flash P:76.92K C:86 CR:76.67K CW:0 1911ms
Tool Calls (1)
file_read
Show Details
{"end_line": 600, "file_path": "src/EventListener/GlobalPermissionListener.php", "start_line": 470}
File: src/EventListener/GlobalPermissionListener.php (Total lines: 1919)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 470-600
470|                    }
471|                }
472|            }
473|        }
474|
475|        $refusalRightMutate = false;
476|        if (
477|            $requiredProduct === 'ssma-occurrences'
478|            && $companyMember
479|            && $this->ssmaRefusalRightMutatePermissionService->isMutationRoute((string) $route)
480|            && $this->ssmaRefusalRightMutatePermissionService->canMutateForRoute(
481|                $user,
482|                $company,
483|                $companyMember,
484|                (string) $route,
485|                $request
486|            )
487|        ) {
488|            $refusalRightMutate = true;
489|            $occurrencesProduct = $this->entityManager->getRepository(Product::class)
490|                ->findOneBy(['slug' => 'ssma-occurrences']);
491|            if ($occurrencesProduct) {
492|                $occurrencesTag = $this->permissionService->getPermissionTag($companyMember, $occurrencesProduct);
493|                if ($occurrencesTag && ($occurrencesTag->getCanView() ?? false)) {
494|                    if (!$permissionTag || !($permissionTag->getCanView() ?? false)) {
495|                        $permissionTag = $occurrencesTag;
496|                    }
497|                }
498|            }
499|        }
500|
501|        $actionPlanMutate = false;
502|        if (
503|            $companyMember
504|            && $this->ssmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService->isMutationRoute((string) $route)
505|            && $this->ssmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService->canMutateForRoute(
506|                $user,
507|                $company,
508|                $companyMember,
509|                (string) $route,
510|                $request
511|            )
512|        ) {
513|            $actionPlanMutate = true;
514|            $occurrencesProduct = $this->entityManager->getRepository(Product::class)
515|                ->findOneBy(['slug' => 'ssma-occurrences']);
516|            if ($occurrencesProduct) {
517|                $occurrencesTag = $this->permissionService->getPermissionTag($companyMember, $occurrencesProduct);
518|                if ($occurrencesTag && ($occurrencesTag->getCanView() ?? false)) {
519|                    if (!$permissionTag || !($permissionTag->getCanView() ?? false)) {
520|                        $permissionTag = $occurrencesTag;
521|                    }
522|                }
523|            }
524|        }
525|
526|        if (!$permissionTag) {
527|            $ssmaStakeholderReadWithoutTag = is_string($requiredProduct)
528|                && $this->isSsmaPermissionProduct($requiredProduct)
529|                && $companyMember
530|                && $this->isSsmaStakeholderOccurrenceRoute((string) $route)
531|                && $this->ssmaOccurrenceStakeholderAccessChecker->hasStakeholderLink($companyMember, $company);
532|            if ($ssmaStakeholderReadWithoutTag || $actionPlanMutate) {
533|                $this->setSsmaTechnicalOccurrenceAttributes(
534|                    $request,
535|                    null,
536|                    $companyMember,
537|                    $user,
538|                    $company,
539|                    $product
540|                );
541|                return null;
542|            }
543|
544|            $this->addFlashErrorOnce('Usuário não possui permissão para acessar este módulo.');
545|            return new RedirectResponse($this->urlGenerator->generate('app_home'));
546|        }
547|
548|        if (
549|            $this->isSsmaPermissionProduct($requiredProduct)
550|            && ($permissionTag->getCanView() ?? false) === false
551|            && $this->isSsmaTechnicalOccurrenceRoute((string) $route)
552|            && $this->hasSsmaTechnicalOccurrenceAccess($companyMember, $company)
553|        ) {
554|            $this->setSsmaTechnicalOccurrenceAttributes($request, $permissionTag, $companyMember, $user, $company, $product);
555|            return null;
556|        }
557|
558|        // Membro com canView=false no SSMA, mas vinculado a ocorrência/evento (pessoa envolvida, responsável, etc.):
559|        // libera só rotas de leitura da área de ocorrências — a listagem/detalhe já filtra dados no controller.
560|        if (
561|            $this->isSsmaPermissionProduct($requiredProduct)
562|            && ($permissionTag->getCanView() ?? false) === false
563|            && $this->isSsmaStakeholderOccurrenceRoute((string) $route)
564|            && $companyMember
565|            && $this->ssmaOccurrenceStakeholderAccessChecker->hasStakeholderLink($companyMember, $company)
566|        ) {
567|            $this->setSsmaTechnicalOccurrenceAttributes($request, $permissionTag, $companyMember, $user, $company, $product);
568|            return null;
569|        }
570|
571|        // Membro com PermissionTagByMember explícito no produto SSMA (gestor atribuiu via "Editar Tags")
572|        // mas tag com can_view=false (ex.: "Membro"): libera acesso de leitura restrita para a maioria
573|        // dos subprodutos.
574|        // EXCEÇÃO: ssma-cause-tree e ssma-authorization exigem permissão real de gestão — a atribuição
575|        // automática via cloneSsmaParentPermissions não concede acesso a esses produtos restritos.
576|        // cloneSsmaParentPermissions() clona PTBMs do pai para todos os subprodutos, inclusive ssma-cause-tree,
577|        // fazendo $hadExplicitSsmaProductAssignment=true para qualquer Membro com ssma-occurrences — sem esta
578|        // exclusão, todo membro veria a Árvore de Causas.
579|        $ssmaStrictAccessProducts = ['ssma-authorization', 'ssma-badge', 'ssma-cause-tree'];
580|        if (
581|            $this->isSsmaPermissionProduct($requiredProduct)
582|            && ($permissionTag->getCanView() ?? false) === false
583|            && $hadExplicitSsmaProductAssignment
584|            && !in_array($requiredProduct, $ssmaStrictAccessProducts, true)
585|        ) {
586|            $this->setSsmaTechnicalOccurrenceAttributes($request, $permissionTag, $companyMember, $user, $company, $product);
587|            return null;
588|        }
589|
590|        if (
591|            $this->isSsmaPermissionProduct($requiredProduct)
592|            && ($permissionTag->getCanView() ?? false) === false
593|            && $this->canAccessMappedRouteWithRestrictedView((string) $route)
594|        ) {
595|            $this->setSsmaTechnicalOccurrenceAttributes($request, $permissionTag, $companyMember, $user, $company, $product);
596|            return null;
597|        }
598|
599|        // Membro da matriz de criação de ocorrências (SsmaOccurrenceCreatePermission):
600|        // tem permissão explícita para criar tipos de ocorrência, mas tag SSMA sem can_create.
Request #37 deepseek-v4-flash P:78.75K C:4.2K CR:76.93K CW:0 35632ms
Reasoning
OK, in the tested routes (ssma_event_create/delete, inspections/abordagens create), the action plan service `isMutationRoute` returns false, so no DB access. Direct instantiation is fine. Now, let me confirm that both new services are final and the tests wouldn't need to mock them anyway. But since the goal is to fix the pipeline, and this matches constructor signature ordering — done. Now, let me also confirm the test files that are part of the review don't produce a subtle issue: they instantiate the real `SsmaStakeholderActionPermissionService` whose `canUserUploadOccurrenceEvidence` etc. could be invoked during listener for the routes `ssma_event_delete`. If invoked, it calls `permissionService->getCompanyMember` (mocked) — OK. `authorizationChecker->isGranted` (mocked) — OK. No DB. And `SsmaOccurrenceStakeholderAccessChecker` constructor accepts the mocked entity manager. `hasStakeholderLink` is not called for delete route (only for stakeholder routes). Even if it were, the try/catch guards. Thus test changes are sound. Now, let me finalize: are there any code issues to report? Given the depth of analysis, the main thing I could potentially flag: The change now enforces mandatory characterization whenever aprofundamento_only for AP. That is the intended rule. No code-level defect. Let me think about the "comment mandatory when descaracterizado='0' (acidente confirmado)" case more carefully, because this might conflict with real world usage: When the doctor checks "Sim (é acidente)" — i.e., NOT descaracterized — a comment may be unnecessary. But under the restored rule and test, the comment is mandatory. However — note the PR description states "Sim/Não + comentário só são obrigatórios" originally? Wait, the test only checks the Sim/Não error. But the rule was already in production and consistent with UI (comment textarea marked with * always visible when the yes/no wrap shows). So intended. Actually, wait. Let me reconsider the possibility of an actual bug introduced by this change relative to the *currently merged state* (target). This is the real basis for regression review. Under current target state (with gate), a doctor finalizing an AP aprofundamento where no suspicion was recorded would pass. With the change, they get blocked with "Informe se o evento é caracterizado..." The PR intends this (restoring prior behavior). As a reviewer, the potential regression to flag is precisely this: **events whose `descaracter_suspect` was never set can no longer be finalized without the doctor answering the Sim/Não + comment; legacy events previously finalized without these fields cannot be re-finalized** — that's the intended rule per the PR description, though. The PR description explicitly calls it out: "Reativa a obrigatoriedade de caracterização pelo médico no aprofundamento. Sem essa regra, médicos poderiam finalizar o aprofundamento sem informar se o acidente foi caracterizado." So the author is aware and intends it. Not a defect for review. I think there's nothing genuinely broken in these three files given the intent. But wait — let me reconsider whether the requirement may fail in the case where the medical approver has the `descaracterizar` permission and previously answered Sim/Não and comment; on subsequent aprofundamento updates (e.g., a correction by an admin?) — no, aprofundamento_only mode only entered by the specialist. If the doctor edits after finalizing (re-open), the existing values remain, so they pass. Fine. One more possibility for a code-level issue: consider **`descaracter_comment` used to be mandatory only when there's a suspicion; now mandatory always — including for ROS-like accidents or events that are "Acidente Pessoal" with `consequence = SEM_DANO`**. In validateAcidentePessoal, SEM_DANO doesn't skip descaracter validation; only `had_injury`-based fields skip. But a SEM_DANO acidente still needs descaracterization Sim/Não. Product intent. OK, so do we have any findings at all? Let me think about the second and third review files: are they free of defects? One possible test-quality note: with `createMock(SsmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService::class)`, PHPUnit 9 could mock final classes (deprecation in PHPUnit 9, hard error in 10). The pipeline failed because of PHPUnit version? The direct instantiation is the fix, matching the class being final. Correct fix. Wait — one subtle test concern: Now that the real `SsmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService` is instantiated with the SAME mocked entityManager, if any of these tests reached the `canMutateForRoute` for one of the MUTATION_ROUTES... none do. Fine. Now also `GlobalPermissionListenerPreventionWriteTest` — same. Now, given the instructions to comment on only real issues and be precise, maybe I should not report anything and complete the task. But let me double-check the SsmaEventValidator change in context one more time to be safe regarding the actual line 715-726 area. Is this inside a function that runs for **both** full validation paths where `$data['aprofundamento_only']` might be set even during soft draft? No, soft draft returns earlier. Also, in the updateEvent controller, there is a path where `$canFullEdit` users send `aprofundamento_complete=true` + aprofundamento_only true? The front-end only sets aprofundamento_only for the specialist-only mode. Admin opens full edit; no aprofundamento_only. OK. Wait, there's another caller: `SsmaAutomationService.php` at line 2253: `$validator = new SsmaEventValidator();` — let me check its usage; and at 2297 `aprofundamentoPendingErrors` which forces `force_technical_depth`. In `aprofundamentoPendingErrors`, no `aprofundamento_only` in $data, so characterization not checked there. So the "aprofundamento pending" filter for events will NOT flag missing characterization. Meaning: In the dashboard list, an event with missing medical characterization won't be flagged as "aprofundamento pendente" but finalize is blocked. That was the same in the pre-hotfix behavior (this check is gated by aprofundamento_only). Not introduced. Hmm, but that might actually matter for the new rule: for the filter to be consistent, `aprofundamentoPendingErrors` should also enforce characterization. But that's pre-existing behavior and outside diff scope (not a change introduced here). Actually wait — the characterization requirement only applies in aprofundamento_only mode; `aprofundamentoPendingErrors` isn't gated, so it never enforces characterization. Under the restored rule, events can get stuck where finalize fails but the pending filter shows them as complete... This inconsistency predates the diff (the gate never was in aprofundamentoPendingErrors either, because the check code is inside validateAcidentePessoal under aprofundamento_only gate). Since both the target and the new code leave this as is, not introduced. Given all of this, I think the review has no real defects to flag in these files. However, given the risk-based approach and the large behavioral scope of the validator change (affects production finalization of medical AP aprofundamentos in the whole SSMA flow), a reviewer could reasonably add a non-blocking note about the fact that events without `descaracter_suspect` (the common case) now become un-finalizable unless the doctor answers the characterization question and a comment — which is the intended business rule but should be acknowledged with UI alignment and a regression test for the no-suspect case (where previously passing). Is that a "concrete changed failure mode"? The test set provided includes `testAcidentePessoalAprofundamentoMedicoExigeCaracterizar` only for the missing-Sim/Não case; there's no test for the case where `descaracter_suspect` is absent/'0' but the payload contains both fields (should pass). Also there's no test that specifically ensures the previously-allowed flow (finalize without suspicion) now must include the answer — but that's exactly what the changed test covers implicitly. Wait — actually I realize the change's test counterpart (in the review group? no; EmpresasParceirasControllerTest is other; the SsmaEventValidatorTest isn't in the review group either). The SsmaEventValidator.php change's test `testAcidentePessoalAprofundamentoMedicoExigeCaracterizar` exists in the repo already (not in this diff). This chore only fixes the validator and the 3 test files in scope; the "changed tests" do not include a new case for the "no suspect + finalize" scenario. That is acceptable since this is a revert. Hmm, is there anything regarding EmpresasParceirasControllerTest that we should cross-check? It is in other_changed_files, not review_files. The instructions say comments must address files within review_files only; but cross-file observations encouraged when inconsistencies across related files in review_files. The other file isn't in review_files, so skip. Let me also double-check whether removing the `$hasSuspect` gate causes PHPStan concerns (unused var etc.). No. Now, I want to make sure about the severity and possibility of a real bug: let me think about the scenario in which the descaracter fields don't make sense: an AP event whose reporter is the medical professional at creation (maybe the create event is by the doctor, who completes the entire form with descaracter answer in the create). In this case `createEvent` never sets `aprofundamento_only`, so characterization isn't validated in create; event created without Sim/Não. Later when a doctor (same or another) opens to finalize via aprofundamento_only mode, the characterization is demanded. If the doctor who created it didn't answer, then finalize gets blocked. Fine/intended. Everything is consistent with intent. Let me consider whether a potential issue worth flagging: In the validator, `$data['aprofundamento_only']` gate means this new requirement is NOT applied when the whole event is being created with full aprofundamento (create flow with aprofundamento_complete=true). Actually wait, could the medical professional also create a new event? Hmm — a doctor would normally not create an event; the reporter creates events, then the doctor finalizes. But the front-end's openCreate sets evAprofundamentoOnlyMode = false. So create never includes aprofundamento_only. OK. So, the change is not applied to create with aprofundamento_complete; meaning an admin or full-edit creator could still create an AP event marked aprofundamento_complete=true without the characterization answer, and no medical finalize is required. That is the same as pre-change. Not introduced. Given everything, I don't have strong, well-supported, blocking findings. But I should still present at least a reasonable review. Let me be careful not to fabricate issues. Maybe there is at least one legitimately debatable item: the requirement to fill `descaracter_comment` even when the doctor answers '0' (Sim, é acidente / caracterizado) can block events where there's no suspicion of descaracterização. In the UI, the answer/comment section only appears when the per-card "suspeita de descaracterização" checkbox is checked. This means: under the restored rule, the doctor must (a) check suspect and (b) type a comment in order to finalize ANY AP aprofundamento — even when there's no actual suspicion. In the no-suspect case, the section is hidden, so finalization can't even be performed via UI. This suggests a real inconsistency between backend rule and the UI behavior — and this UI gating was presumably introduced in the same prior work as the `$hasSuspect` gate (the hotfix). Wait, but the diff for this PR only touches backend; the UI was already gating on the suspect before this PR? Let's see: the current target state (before this PR) had the backend gate on `$hasSuspect`, matching UI gating on suspect. That pair was introduced by some PR. This PR removes the backend gate, making backend stricter than the UI. If the UI hides the answer/comment when no suspect, then under this PR's backend, finalization would now fail... but the UI never even submits descaracterizado when no suspect (deletes payload.descaracterizado), so the event would be saved with empty descaracterizado → backend 422 error. So the UI would show the backend errors and block the user, with fields hidden — a poor UX/functional regression. But hold on: was the UI gating on suspect introduced before or after? Both `evSyncDescaracterStageUi` gating and the `$hasSuspect` gate in the backend appear in the current files. This PR only removes the backend gate. So we have two possibilities: - If the UI gating was introduced BEFORE the backend `$hasSuspect` gate (e.g., the UI gating is older, and the prior change adding backend gate made backend more lenient but UI still strict), then removing the backend gate merely restores backend to match the still-strict UI. In this case, no regression vs. the UI, and the earlier `$hasSuspect` backend change was the bug (allowed backend to accept things the UI wouldn't allow). That is consistent with the failing unit test which asserts the doctor must always characterize. Under this scenario, the PR is correct. - If the UI gating was introduced at the same time as the `$hasSuspect` gate (both as a pair relaxing to "only when suspect"), then removing the backend gate would leave the UI relaxed and the backend strict → functional regression in the no-suspect case. But this PR doesn't touch UI, so if the UI were relaxed, then the unit test would... hmm, the unit test doesn't involve UI. Which scenario is real? Let me check the UI: client-side validation at 6015+ ALWAYS requires the answer + comment in aprofundamento finalize (regardless of suspect) — this contradicts the "UI relaxed" hypothesis. That block exists in current code and reads as originally authored to require always. The suspect-based hiding only controls visibility of the fields. If the UI required always, then before the suspect checkbox, the doctor must always answer — the fields must be accessible. So the UI is consistent with the "always require" backend rule. The `$hasSuspect` backend gate was thus the odd one out, and removing it restores consistency. Also note: a doctor without suspicion marking but with the mandatory fields — how would UI force them to see the answer area when no suspect? The answer area is hidden unless suspect checked... that means UI would be impossible to finalize without suspect. Contradiction again. Unless... the intended semantics: since the UI demands an answer always, the medical approver workflow implicitly always has a suspicion marked or the doctor toggles the suspect to reveal and then answers "Sim". This is maybe a UX quirk that already existed. Whatever — it's beyond the diff's reach. I'll conclude with a low-key note as a non-blocking observation? The review instructions: "Avoid commenting on correct code". Also "precision over recall". I think the responsible thing is to report no code defects in these three files because the change matches the intended rule, tests, and UI client-side validation. But hold on — let me make sure I haven't missed a genuine bug: In the removed code, `$hasSuspect` only blocked the requirement when suspect not flagged. In the new code, no requirement of `descaracter_suspect` value; comment is required for both 0 and 1. There's no behavior for the case `descaracter_suspect` is set but descaracterizado is '0' or '1' — same. One more thing: **Reachability of the new errors for existing finalized drafts**: If a doctor previously saved a draft with `aprofundamento_complete=true` (finalized) under the target branch without characterization (because no suspect), then after deploy, opening the event and re-saving (e.g., only evidence upload) would fail? Editing finalized events is restricted to admins. Admins use full-edit path (no aprofundamento_only). OK. Alright, no blocking finding. Wait, actually, I realize I should verify my claim that this rule "restores original production behavior" by checking whether the requirement is in the changelog/description; not needed. Let me now reconsider the potential functional issue from the perspective of the described target branch behavior at line 27786-27797. In the aprofundamento-only update path, `applySsmaDescaracterPermissionGate` runs BEFORE validation (25934). It forces descaracterizado value even when not in payload for members without permission. So the Sim/Não requirement is effectively always satisfied for members without permission. Only the comment is left to the doctor, which they provide because UI requires it (red asterisk). So the only added-block scenario is when the doctor provides no comment; per product rule, comment is required. Great — the requirement is satisfiable when fields visible (suspect checked). When the doctor has permission and suspect unchecked → Sim/Não not answered → blocked; but the UI blocks client-side too. So if this was a real problem, the UI would have already prevented finalize even before this backend PR; this PR doesn't change what the user sees. Conclusion: No defects to report in these files. Hmm, but wait — I should reconsider whether the diff removes behavior that was specifically added to accommodate a scenario where medical specialists *without* the `descaracterizar` permission finalize AP aprofundamentos for events they *didn't* suspect: Because `applySsmaDescaracterPermissionGate` defaults descaracterizado='0' and forces a comment requirement. But the comment textarea is only visible if suspect checked. Actually, do we know that finalize for medical with no suspect even shows those fields to them? The suspect checkbox `.ev-inj-suspect-chk` is visible to any AP specialist in the aprofundamento. If they don't check it, no comment box. But client validation would block anyway (requiring descaracterizado + comment). So a medical specialist could never finalize without suspecting — unless the UI auto-checks suspect in some flow. This seems like a pre-existing UX bug, not this PR. Given the constraints and the instruction for precision, I'll report no code issue. But before I finish, let me double check there isn't a simpler logic bug in the changed code: `array_key_exists('descaracterizado', $d)` vs using `$d['descaracterizado'] ?? ''`. Both fine. Let me also scan the file for any test that may reveal desired behavior for `descaracter_suspect='0'` + `descaracterizado=''` in aprofundamento_only to make sure the new behavior breaks a test not updated (which would then be caught in CI, not this review group). Search in SsmaEventValidatorTest for aprofundamento_only scenarios where characterization not provided.
Tool Calls (1)
file_read
Show Details
{"end_line": 260, "file_path": "tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/SsmaEventValidatorTest.php", "start_line": 1}
File: tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/SsmaEventValidatorTest.php (Total lines: 989)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 1-260
1|<?php
2|
3|declare(strict_types=1);
4|
5|namespace App\Tests\Unit\Product\Ssma;
6|
7|use App\Enum\Ssma\EventTypeEnum;
8|use App\Enum\Ssma\RosInvolvementTypeEnum;
9|use App\Service\Ssma\SsmaEventValidator;
10|
11|final class SsmaEventValidatorTest extends SsmaTestCase
12|{
13|    public function testValidAcidentePessoalPayloadPassesValidation(): void
14|    {
15|        $validator = new SsmaEventValidator();
16|
17|        $errors = $validator->validate([
18|            'type'        => EventTypeEnum::ACIDENTE_PESSOAL,
19|            'origin'      => 'MANUAL',
20|            'datetime'    => '2026-04-07T10:30:00',
21|            'location'    => 'Linha 2',
22|            'description' => 'Teste',
23|            'nature'      => 'CORTE',
24|            'agent'       => 'FERRAMENTA',
25|            'consequence' => 'LESAO_LEVE',
26|            'impacts'     => ['PESSOA'],
27|            'details'     => [
28|                'activity'              => 'Operação de corte',
29|                'approach'              => 'TREINAMENTO',
30|                'strategic_nature'      => 'SEGURANCA',
31|                'barrier_type'          => 'FISICA',
32|                'potential_consequence' => 'LESAO_MODERADA',
33|                'potential_severity'    => 'MODERADO',
34|                'person_id'             => '101',
35|                'person_type'           => 'COLABORADOR',
36|                'had_injury'            => true,
37|                'injury_type'           => 'CORTE',
38|                'injury_classification' => 'FAC',
39|                'work_leave'            => 'NAO',
40|                'injury_severity'       => 'LEVE',
41|                'descaracterizado'      => '0',
42|                'descaracter_comment'   => 'Acidente confirmado.',
43|                'body_parts'            => [
44|                    ['region' => 'MAO', 'side' => 'DIREITA', 'injury_type' => 'CORTE'],
45|                ],
46|            ],
47|        ]);
48|
49|        self::assertSame([], $errors);
50|    }
51|
52|    public function testInvalidHandFingerFailsValidation(): void
53|    {
54|        $validator = new SsmaEventValidator();
55|
56|        $errors = $validator->validate([
57|            'type'        => EventTypeEnum::ACIDENTE_PESSOAL,
58|            'origin'      => 'MANUAL',
59|            'datetime'    => '2026-04-07T10:30:00',
60|            'location'    => 'Linha 2',
61|            'description' => 'Teste',
62|            'nature'      => 'CORTE',
63|            'agent'       => 'FERRAMENTA',
64|            'consequence' => 'LESAO_LEVE',
65|            'impacts'     => ['PESSOA'],
66|            'details'     => [
67|                'activity'              => 'Operação',
68|                'approach'              => 'TREINAMENTO',
69|                'strategic_nature'      => 'SEGURANCA',
70|                'barrier_type'          => 'FISICA',
71|                'potential_consequence' => 'LESAO_MODERADA',
72|                'potential_severity'    => 'MODERADO',
73|                'person_id'             => '101',
74|                'person_type'           => 'COLABORADOR',
75|                'had_injury'            => true,
76|                'injury_type'           => 'CORTE',
77|                'injury_severity'       => 'LEVE',
78|                'hand_finger'           => 'INVALIDO',
79|                'body_parts'            => [
80|                    ['region' => 'MAO'],
81|                ],
82|            ],
83|        ]);
84|
85|        self::assertNotEmpty($errors);
86|    }
87|
88|    public function testMissingRequiredFieldsReturnErrors(): void
89|    {
90|        $validator = new SsmaEventValidator();
91|
92|        $errors = $validator->validate([
93|            'type'   => EventTypeEnum::ACIDENTE_PESSOAL,
94|            'origin' => 'MANUAL',
95|        ]);
96|
97|        self::assertNotEmpty($errors);
98|    }
99|
100|    public function testAprofundamentoPendingFlagsIncompleteRos(): void
101|    {
102|        $validator = new SsmaEventValidator();
103|        $base = [
104|            'type'        => EventTypeEnum::ROS,
105|            'datetime'    => '2026-04-07T10:30:00',
106|            'location'    => 'Patio',
107|            'description' => 'Observacao',
108|            'details'     => [
109|                'activity' => 'Inspeção de rotina',
110|            ],
111|        ];
112|
113|        // Create soft-passa; filtro de aprofundamento marca pendência nos campos tipados ROS.
114|        self::assertSame([], $validator->validate($base));
115|        self::assertNotEmpty($validator->aprofundamentoPendingErrors($base));
116|    }
117|
118|    public function testAprofundamentoPendingClearWhenAcidenteComplete(): void
119|    {
120|        $validator = new SsmaEventValidator();
121|        $payload = [
122|            'type'        => EventTypeEnum::ACIDENTE_PESSOAL,
123|            'origin'      => 'MANUAL',
124|            'datetime'    => '2026-04-07T10:30:00',
125|            'location'    => 'Linha 2',
126|            'description' => 'Teste',
127|            'nature'      => 'CORTE',
128|            'agent'       => 'FERRAMENTA',
129|            'consequence' => 'LESAO_LEVE',
130|            'impacts'     => ['PESSOA'],
131|            'details'     => [
132|                'activity'              => 'Operação de corte',
133|                'approach'              => 'TREINAMENTO',
134|                'strategic_nature'      => 'SEGURANCA',
135|                'barrier_type'          => 'FISICA',
136|                'potential_consequence' => 'LESAO_MODERADA',
137|                'potential_severity'    => 'MODERADO',
138|                'person_id'             => '101',
139|                'person_type'           => 'COLABORADOR',
140|                'had_injury'            => true,
141|                'injury_type'           => 'CORTE',
142|                'injury_classification' => 'FAC',
143|                'work_leave'            => 'NAO',
144|                'injury_severity'       => 'LEVE',
145|                'descaracterizado'      => '0',
146|                'descaracter_comment'   => 'Acidente confirmado.',
147|                'body_parts'            => [
148|                    ['region' => 'MAO', 'side' => 'DIREITA', 'injury_type' => 'CORTE'],
149|                ],
150|            ],
151|        ];
152|
153|        self::assertSame([], $validator->aprofundamentoPendingErrors($payload));
154|    }
155|
156|    public function testPotentialConsequenceLowerThanRealIsRejected(): void
157|    {
158|        $validator = new SsmaEventValidator();
159|
160|        $errors = $validator->validate([
161|            'type'        => EventTypeEnum::ACIDENTE_PESSOAL,
162|            'origin'      => 'MANUAL',
163|            'datetime'    => '2026-04-07T10:30:00',
164|            'location'    => 'Linha 2',
165|            'description' => 'Teste',
166|            'nature'      => 'CORTE',
167|            'agent'       => 'FERRAMENTA',
168|            'consequence' => 'LESAO_LEVE',
169|            'impacts'     => ['PESSOA'],
170|            'details'     => [
171|                'activity'              => 'Operação de corte',
172|                'approach'              => 'TREINAMENTO',
173|                'strategic_nature'      => 'SEGURANCA',
174|                'barrier_type'          => 'FISICA',
175|                'potential_consequence' => 'SEM_DANO',
176|                'potential_severity'    => 'LEVE',
177|                'person_id'             => '101',
178|                'person_type'           => 'COLABORADOR',
179|                'had_injury'            => true,
180|                'injury_type'           => 'CORTE',
181|                'injury_classification' => 'FAC',
182|                'work_leave'            => 'NAO',
183|                'injury_severity'       => 'LEVE',
184|                'descaracterizado'      => '0',
185|                'descaracter_comment'   => 'Acidente confirmado.',
186|                'body_parts'            => [
187|                    ['region' => 'MAO', 'side' => 'DIREITA', 'injury_type' => 'CORTE'],
188|                ],
189|            ],
190|        ]);
191|
192|        self::assertNotEmpty($errors);
193|        self::assertTrue(
194|            (bool) array_filter(
195|                $errors,
196|                static fn (string $e): bool => str_contains($e, 'potencial deve ser maior ou igual')
197|            )
198|        );
199|    }
200|
201|    public function testSemDanoDoesNotRequireInjuryTypeEvenIfHadInjuryLegacyTrue(): void
202|    {
203|        $validator = new SsmaEventValidator();
204|
205|        $errors = $validator->validate([
206|            'type'        => EventTypeEnum::ACIDENTE_PESSOAL,
207|            'origin'      => 'MANUAL',
208|            'datetime'    => '2026-04-07T10:30:00',
209|            'location'    => 'Linha 2',
210|            'description' => 'Teste Sem dano',
211|            'nature'      => 'CORTE',
212|            'agent'       => 'FERRAMENTA',
213|            'consequence' => 'SEM_DANO',
214|            'impacts'     => ['PESSOA'],
215|            'details'     => [
216|                'activity'              => 'Operação',
217|                'approach'              => 'TREINAMENTO',
218|                'strategic_nature'      => 'SEGURANCA',
219|                'barrier_type'          => 'ADMINISTRATIVA',
220|                'potential_consequence' => 'LESAO_GRAVE',
221|                'potential_severity'    => 'LEVE',
222|                'person_id'             => '101',
223|                'person_type'           => 'COLABORADOR',
224|                // Legado / UI inconsistente: checkbox marcado sem tipo/severidade
225|                'had_injury'            => 1,
226|                'descaracterizado'      => '0',
227|                'descaracter_comment'   => 'Sem descaracterização.',
228|            ],
229|        ]);
230|
231|        self::assertSame([], $errors);
232|        self::assertSame([], $validator->aprofundamentoPendingErrors([
233|            'type'        => EventTypeEnum::ACIDENTE_PESSOAL,
234|            'origin'      => 'MANUAL',
235|            'datetime'    => '2026-04-07T10:30:00',
236|            'location'    => 'Linha 2',
237|            'description' => 'Teste Sem dano',
238|            'nature'      => 'CORTE',
239|            'agent'       => 'FERRAMENTA',
240|            'consequence' => 'SEM_DANO',
241|            'impacts'     => ['PESSOA'],
242|            'details'     => [
243|                'activity'              => 'Operação',
244|                'approach'              => 'TREINAMENTO',
245|                'strategic_nature'      => 'SEGURANCA',
246|                'barrier_type'          => 'ADMINISTRATIVA',
247|                'potential_consequence' => 'LESAO_GRAVE',
248|                'potential_severity'    => 'LEVE',
249|                'person_id'             => '101',
250|                'person_type'           => 'COLABORADOR',
251|                'had_injury'            => 1,
252|                'descaracterizado'      => '0',
253|                'descaracter_comment'   => 'Sem descaracterização.',
254|            ],
255|        ]));
256|    }
257|
258|    public function testHadInjuryWithoutTypeStillFailsWhenConsequenceIsNotSemDano(): void
259|    {
260|        $validator = new SsmaEventValidator();
Request #38 deepseek-v4-flash P:86.15K C:3.43K CR:82.94K CW:0 27938ms
Reasoning
These tests don't exercise the aprofundamento_only characterization gate except `testAcidentePessoalAprofundamentoMedicoExigeCaracterizar`. Let me now verify the change also handles the `descaracter_suspect`=1 & descaracterizado valid path, ensuring no new bug from removing the outer `if` — the new code directly validates; if suspect present, nothing else required for descaracter fields. Good. Now let me make a final decision about comments: Given everything I've reviewed: 1. SsmaEventValidator.php change: Restores intended rule; consistent with PR, tests, and UI client validation. No defect. 2. Test changes: consistent construction matching constructor signatures; real services rely on mocks that return safe defaults; no DB access in exercised routes. No defect. Actually, hold on. Wait, I want to double-check the semantics — could this removal break the **draft** save flow? In the draft save, `soft_aprofundamento=true` returns base errors only; so the doctor can always save drafts. When a doctor opens an existing draft and clicks save without finalize intent, `finalizeAprofundamento = false`. But wait: `evAprofundamentoFinalizeIntent = true` is set by default at `openAprofundamento` (line 6526). If they click the "finalizar" button... Let me examine how the draft/finalize mode works in the UI, since if `finalizeAprofundamento` were true by default, every save in aprofundamento mode would be a finalize, requiring characterization (backed by 422). Not new though: this would hold under the pre-hotfix rule as well. And since the UI blocks too, no change in what users can/can't do. Given that there's the real possibility of **no real bug introduced**, I should look at the diff one last time for a trivial but actual defect: the comment `// Médico sempre informa caracterização no aprofundamento dedicado.` Fine. Alright, I'll finalize with no comments? Actually wait — let me reconsider the case that could be a real regression and is subtle: Under the target-branch behavior (which this PR changes), the *create* flow (createEvent) validates with full technical depth if `aprofundamento_complete=true` present. But there's a route where `aprofundamento_only` might be set in data from a create...? No. Not relevant. OK. Let me consider one more possibility, that removing `$hasSuspect` reintroduces a bug **in the SsmaAutomationService event status checks** — e.g., the automation/LLM flow validates an event payload that is partial and doesn't include `aprofundamento_only`; not affected because the gate checks `aprofundamento_only` before requiring anything. So no impact on automation flow at all (since automation never sets aprofundamento_only). Good. No new behavior in automation. Let me now think about whether the removal of the suspect-gate could conflict with the `mergeSsmaEventAprofundamentoOnlyPayload` when the doctor finalizes without changing any descaracter fields. If the event had previously been answered (desc + comment saved), then the merged details contain them → passes. If not answered (as with events finalized under the recent hotfix without characterization) — wait: under the hotfix (target state), events could be finalized WITHOUT characterization. After this PR deploy, if a doctor (or admin in full-edit) opens such a finalized event and makes any small aprofundamento-only update and saves draft (soft) → OK. But the event remains "finalized". If the doctor re-finalizes (maybe after a correction), it'd require characterization — a potential new error for existing data. But this is inherent to the rule restoration; existing finalized events aren't re-opened normally. Not a code defect in the diff. Therefore, I'll report that no issues were found? Hmm. But is that responsible? Let me re-review once more the test files' changes for a specific technical problem: they import `SsmaStakeholderActionPermissionService` and use it — good, imports added. They instantiate with `$entityManager` etc., defined in scope — good. Actually, one more check: `GlobalPermissionListenerOccurrenceCreateWriteTest::testSupervisorViewerCanPostSsmaEventCreateWithoutListener403` asserts route remains unchanged after listener (no exception). With real ActionPlan service, no behavior change for these routes. Hmm, wait — in the `testPlainMemberWithoutCreateTagRemainsBlockedOnOccurrenceWrite`, the expected thrown exception message is 'Você não possui permissão para executar esta ação.' The new code instantiates the real ActionPlan service. But would the route `ssma_event_delete` ever reach `ssmaOccurrenceStakeholderAccessChecker->hasStakeholderLink`? Only if it's a stakeholder read route — delete isn't a read route. So fine. Also in both test files, `SsmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService` constructor: `(EntityManagerInterface, SsmaStakeholderActionPermissionService)`. We matched order. Everything checks out. But hold on — in the Prevenção test `testPlainMemberWithoutMetaOrCreateTagRemainsBlocked`, the route `ssma_abordagem_create` — in the listener, could it call `ssmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService->isMutationRoute('ssma_abordagem_create')`? Returns false. Then, tag canCreate=false → blocked → exception. As expected. I'm confident that these tests are fine. Now should I provide any code comments at all? The user asks to review the changes in these review_files and report issues. If no issues found, call task_done. Before finalizing, let me consider whether the validator change deserves a comment about **scope** (that this restored requirement applies only to the `aprofundamento_only` update flow and not to the analogous create-with-full-edit flow), since the test description says "Médico sempre informa caracterização no aprofundamento dedicado" and the PR description says the rule restored in the aprofundamento. Since this gate already existed in both versions, it is unchanged by this diff — I should not comment on unchanged logic. Hmm, let me reconsider one real potential defect, which I keep circling: **This change introduces a strict requirement for events without `descaracter_suspect`, i.e., in the majority of acidentes pessoais.** And then: The docs (PR) explicitly says: "No fluxo aprofundamento_only, o médico sempre deve informar se o acidente foi ou não caracterizado (Sim/Não) e incluir um comentário obrigatório. A condição de suspeita (descaracter_suspect) não altera essa obrigatoriedade." This directly matches the diff. So the diff is exactly what the PR claims, and the test asserts it. It is the intended rule. Given the evidence, no defect. But there is a nuance I could raise (as maintainability/test suggestion): the current change set doesn't add a regression test covering the restored rule in this PR (the test `testAcidentePessoalAprofundamentoMedicoExigeCaracterizar` isn't part of the diff). Since SsmaEventValidatorTest is outside the review scope, I shouldn't comment on it. Let me now also confirm there are no issues with type: `$d['descaracter_comment']` may be array (malformed input) → `(string)` cast; fine. Alright, decision: no code issues to report. However, before task_done, let me double-check the SsmaEventValidator reachable context, in case there is an actual integration bug — i.e., whether the controller's updateEvent flow reaches `validate()` with a merged payload where `details` was NOT remapped to the `$d` expected by the validator (already handled by the merge function, unchanged). Actually, wait: one thing I want to verify is whether the validator's `$data['aprofundamento_only']` was added by the merge only in the `!$canFullEdit` branch. There's another update path for the admin (`canFullEdit`) finalizing an aprofundamento? If admin does it via `EvModal.openAprofundamento`, EV_IS_ADMIN_APROFUNDAMENTO → calls OccurrenceModal.openEdit (full edit), and payload `aprofundamento_only` isn't sent (line 6959-6963 only when `evAprofundamentoOnlyMode`). So the characterization rule wouldn't apply to admins finalizing. Under the "original rule", presumably that was the same. So consistent. OK — no defects. Hmm, but maybe I'm missing something important: Let me look again at the removed code and the new code with a diff-eye for `$hasSuspect`: OLD: ``` $hasSuspect = !empty($d['descaracter_suspect']) && $d['descaracter_suspect'] !== '0'; if ($hasSuspect) { ... require ... } ``` NEW: always require. The only possible bug introduced: Requiring the comment when `descaracterizado` is present '0'/'1', even when `descaracter_suspect` is false, could cause existing (non-finalized-draft) AP events to fail to save **when doctors update their own draft** — but draft saves pass through soft path (no validation of these). Only finalize triggers. Now, there is another subtle path: **The doctor updates a *draft* that was never finalized, without the finalize intent** — e.g., they use "salvar rascunho" in the aprofundamento step. `wantsFinalize` false → `soft_aprofundamento` true → base validation only → passes. So doctors can save all their work as draft even without answering characterization. Then to finalize, they answer. Thus, doctors who don't want to answer can only save drafts (not finalize). That's the intent of the restored rule. Final answer: No issues found. Actually, wait, let me reconsider once more if there's a likely-real defect regarding **descaracter_suspect false but descaracterizado='1'**. Since '1' means "Não" (descaracterizado) which only users with permission can set, and the gate `applySsmaDescaracterPermissionGate` ensures the descaracterizado value sent by a user without permission is overridden... but the comment they type would remain. If a user without permission sends descaracterizado='1' with comment, the gate overrides the descaracterizado to existing/'0' but leaves the comment; then validation sees '0' + comment → pass. The stored state would be descaracterizado='0' (Sim) but comment might say "Não é acidente" — a data inconsistency that exists independently of the gate removal. Not part of this diff. OK, no findings. Time to finalize? Hmm, but I'm a bit uneasy about concluding zero findings when the change has this scope. Let me at least think about whether the strict requirement is applied for ACIDENTE_PESSOAL events with `descaracterizado` sent as '1' with comment. That's the descaracterization case; only permitted users can select '1'. For those, comment is required and their comment is meaningful. Good. Now the case of doctors without permission finalizing when there IS suspicion: fields visible; doctor sees "Sim" preselected, "Não" disabled, and comment required. UI shows message at .ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm. Doctor must type a comment (e.g., "Acidente confirmado") to finalize. So intended. And when there's no suspicion, doctors (with or without permission) — under this change, they'd be blocked unless they have an answer. And this could be a real UX bug, because the question area appears only when suspect toggled. Wait, but this block also existed in the front-end for all aprofundamento finalize. Let me re-read 6015-6046 to double check whether it applies only when the card is expanded or similar. It's within a finalize-validation function. Let me look at the code to see exactly under what condition the "descaracterInvalid" block runs, and whether the earlier `desc === '0'||desc === '1'` path applies when the doctor simply doesn't have the data. Actually it runs for all cards in boxesWrap when `evAprofundamentoOnlyMode`; so it requires every card to have desc set + comment. So under the current UI, finalizing requires all injured cards to have characterization, always. This implies the UI is designed to require it always (since the UI must be usable). So either the UI forces the desc value somehow for all cards (e.g., in populateForEdit after evSyncDescaracterUi: for no-permission doctors, data-descaracterizado='0' default; for permission doctors, if no answer, toggle visible? when suspect unchecked, the toggle is hidden but perhaps the card expanded shows it?). I cannot resolve the UI without deep trace, but since the UI was already enforcing this rule before this PR, the backend rule restoration does not introduce new user-facing blocking. So no new bug relative to what the UI already did. Conclusion: no issues in the diff. Also given time constraints, I'll finalize with task_done. Wait, before doing so, let me consider one more angle: In the test, `SsmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService` instantiation requires `SsmaStakeholderActionPermissionService`, which requires `SsmaOccurrenceStakeholderAccessChecker`, which requires `EntityManagerInterface`. But note in the tests, `$entityManager` is a PHPUnit mock of `EntityManagerInterface` where `getRepository` returns repository stubs. `SsmaOccurrenceStakeholderAccessChecker` constructor doesn't call methods. Fine. Are the classes final and does that matter in the direct instantiation? `final class` — they can still be instantiated with `new` fine. Yes. Potential issue: Since `SsmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService` is final and thus the production services in test were being mocked before this change presumably for a reason (test of listener should isolate services; the action plan wasn't the point). With the real service, tests may depend on internal implementation (e.g., if someone later adds more routes to MUTATION_ROUTES the test could behave differently). But that's a maintainability trade-off, not a bug. Now, since the pipeline fix is exactly to avoid mocking final classes (PHPUnit 10 prohibits), direct instantiation is the right approach. Alright, final decision: No blocking or notable defects. I will finish the task. Hmm, actually wait. Let me reconsider the case where the two GlobalPermissionListener tests now exercise the real `SsmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService`. In the `GlobalPermissionListenerOccurrenceCreateWriteTest`, the delete-route test expects exception. But actually — for the delete route, could the code path (line 501-524) call `canMutateForRoute`? Only when `isMutationRoute` is true, which requires route in the MUTATION_ROUTES list. `ssma_event_delete` is not in list. So fine. Let me quickly check if GlobalPermissionListener has any other calls to the action plan service in other sections (e.g., isSsmaActionPlanRoute). Search for `isSsmaActionPlanRoute` or action plan product logic.
Tool Calls (1)
code_search
Show Details
{"file_patterns": ["src/EventListener/GlobalPermissionListener.php"], "search_text": "ssma-action-plan|ssma_plano_acao|isSsma.*ActionPlan", "use_perl_regexp": true}
File: src/EventListener/GlobalPermissionListener.php
Match lines: 8
128|            'ssma_plano_acao_' => 'ssma-action-plan',
129|            'ssma_action_plan_' => 'ssma-action-plan',
130|            'admin_ssma_action_create' => 'ssma-action-plan',
131|            'admin_ssma_action_plan_' => 'ssma-action-plan',
1116|            'ssma_plano_acao_panel_filter',
1565|            'ssma_plano_acao_index',
1566|            'ssma_plano_acao_painel',
1567|            'ssma_plano_acao_panel_filter',

Request #39 deepseek-v4-flash P:89.74K C:1.29K CR:89.47K CW:0 12209ms
Reasoning
These route mappings aren't exercised in the tests at hand (they use occurrence create routes and prevention routes). Good. Let me make a final pass to consider the *only* real potentially-reportable observation in the SsmaEventValidator change: Given the "no-suspect" case: the UI hides the Sim/Não + comment fields unless the doctor marks a suspicion (`yesNoWrap` toggled by suspect checkbox). But the backend now requires both the answer and the comment for **every** AP aprofundamento finalize — including when no suspicion is marked. On the create-первой stage reporter default? If the front-end cannot show the fields (no suspect), finalization becomes impossible through the UI. However, we also saw the front-end client-side validation already requires both fields always (regardless of suspect). The client validation and the UI gating (fields hidden unless suspect) seem contradictory in the current (unchanged) front-end. Since I can't run the UI and can't see the runtime interplay (e.g., maybe the suspect checkbox defaults to checked when opening the aprofundamento of a not-yet-finalized AP...), I can't confidently claim the diff introduces a user-facing block. Given the strict focus on precision and not duplicating intended behavior, I'll refrain from commenting on this unless I can firmly confirm the UI issue. My trace shows the client-side validation at line 6015-6068, executed before submit in aprofundamento mode, forces both fields. Therefore the UI already enforces the same mandatory rule; the UI must already reveal the fields. If the UI reveals the fields in finalize mode (which the presence of this validation strongly implies), then the restored backend rule matches the UI. So no regression. Actually, wait — let me settle this by checking the condition under which the doctor finalizes: is the characterization section forced visible at finalize time? Let me look at `evEnsurePrimaryInjuredCardExpanded` and how the descaracter fields are shown. Perhaps when the primary card is expanded, the yesNoWrap is shown regardless of suspect. Let me check line 2923-2935 again: `evSyncDescaracterStageUi` toggles yesNoWrap to `!suspChk.checked` — always hidden without suspect. Hmm. And in the doc at line 2959-2976: For a no-permission doctor, the "Não" button is disabled but visible when the section is shown. All under yesNoWrap. Hmm, so the question remains: how does the UI force the doctor to answer? Possibly the UI's `evSyncDescaracterStageUi` doesn't hide if finalize intent? Let me look more closely at whether the section could be forced visible when `evAprofundamentoFinalizeIntent` true. At line 2928-2933, it doesn't consider finalize intent. So even at finalize, no suspect → no visible Sim/Não. That makes the UI appear inconsistent with its own client-side validation (which requires always). But this is pre-existing and not part of the review group. Given front-end is outside this diff and pre-existing behavior, this is not actionable in this review, unless the backend change makes previously-possible saves now impossible. Given the UI validation already blocked, no. Alright. I am fairly confident there are no real defects within the changed files for the intended behavior. Actually, hold on. Let me reconsider: Could the UI be modified in this same PR (in other changed files)? The other changed file is only EmpresasParceirasControllerTest.php. So no UI changes. Final: report no issues? Wait, I want to be careful: is there perhaps a place where the backend change makes the medical flow **impossible**, where the UI client-side validation only runs in some modes, so backend is the only enforcement in others? For example, maybe the client validation only runs when `finalizeAprofundamento` is true and suspect... no, it runs on all cards always in aprofundamento mode (6015). So any request reaching backend without fields would have already been blocked client-side. So no added blocking beyond existing UI behavior. Therefore, no reportable code defect. Hmm, but I feel there should be something to note regarding the **potential regression for events created before this rule, which are missing descaracter fields and are now being finalized** — but this is the intended, documented business behavior. I'll go ahead and complete the task with no code comments... but wait: given the instructions, maybe I should double check whether `descaracter_suspect` should still be consulted regarding `descaracter_comment` on updates when descaracterizado is unchanged but comment empty because the user with permission doesn't need to type when there's no descaracterization... The rule per PR: always comment. OK. Now consider if the change may inadvertently break the SsmaEventValidatorTest `testAcidentePessoalAprofundamentoMedicoExigeCaracterizar` — that's the test we want to pass; it does pass. But are there any existing tests that now FAIL due to this change? The changed tests in the review group are about permission listeners. The SsmaEventValidatorTest — is it in the review group? No; it's mentioned in the PR description as "Rodar php bin/phpunit ... SsmaEventValidatorTest.php --filter ...". It exists already. Fine. Let me now double-check whether any OTHER existing SsmaEventValidatorTest tests include `aprofundamento_only` or `aprofundamento_complete` + AP type with details lacking descaracter fields and expecting empty errors. Let me search the validator test file for aprofundamento_only and aprofundamento_complete usages to see which tests would now change their outcome.
Tool Calls (1)
code_search
Show Details
{"file_patterns": ["tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/SsmaEventValidatorTest.php"], "search_text": "aprofundamento"}
File: tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/SsmaEventValidatorTest.php
Match lines: 45
100|    public function testAprofundamentoPendingFlagsIncompleteRos(): void
113|        // Create soft-passa; filtro de aprofundamento marca pendência nos campos tipados ROS.
115|        self::assertNotEmpty($validator->aprofundamentoPendingErrors($base));
118|    public function testAprofundamentoPendingClearWhenAcidenteComplete(): void
153|        self::assertSame([], $validator->aprofundamentoPendingErrors($payload));
232|        self::assertSame([], $validator->aprofundamentoPendingErrors([
296|    public function testValidRosAprofundamentoPayloadPassesValidation(): void
404|    public function testAcidentePessoalEtapa1SemAprofundamentoPassaValidacao(): void
422|        self::assertSame([], $errors, 'Etapa 1 não deve exigir campos do Aprofundamento. Erros: ' . implode(' | ', $errors));
425|    public function testAcidentePessoalAprofundamentoCompleteExigeCamposTecnicosComMensagemHumana(): void
435|            'aprofundamento_complete' => true,
456|            'Esperava mensagens humanas do Aprofundamento. Erros: ' . $joined
460|    public function testAcidentePessoalAprofundamentoPendingAindaExigeCampos(): void
464|        $errors = $validator->aprofundamentoPendingErrors([
484|        // Simula payload do front na 1ª etapa com strings vazias (não dispara aprofundamento).
508|    public function testAcidenteMaterialEtapa1SemAprofundamentoPassaValidacao(): void
524|        self::assertSame([], $errors, 'AM etapa 1 não deve exigir aprofundamento. Erros: ' . implode(' | ', $errors));
527|    public function testAcidenteAmbientalEtapa1SemAprofundamentoPassaValidacao(): void
543|        self::assertSame([], $errors, 'AA etapa 1 não deve exigir aprofundamento. Erros: ' . implode(' | ', $errors));
546|    public function testAcidenteAmbientalAprofundamentoBrendaSemDimensaoNemFailedBarrier(): void
557|            'aprofundamento_complete' => true,
570|        self::assertSame([], $errors, 'AA aprofundamento Brenda deve passar. Erros: ' . implode(' | ', $errors));
573|    public function testAcidenteAmbientalAprofundamentoComAaComoGravidadePassaAposDePara(): void
584|            'aprofundamento_complete' => true,
609|    public function testAcidenteAmbientalAprofundamentoRejeitaEscalaLeveSeveroComoOpcaoNova(): void
620|            'aprofundamento_complete' => true,
640|    public function testAcidenteMaterialAprofundamentoBrendaSemDimensaoNemFailedBarrier(): void
651|            'aprofundamento_complete' => true,
663|        self::assertSame([], $errors, 'AM aprofundamento Brenda deve passar. Erros: ' . implode(' | ', $errors));
666|    public function testAcidentePessoalAprofundamentoBrendaTrocaDimensaoPorTipoBarreira(): void
677|            'aprofundamento_complete' => true,
706|    public function testAcidenteAmbientalEtapa1ComMeioPoluenteNaoDisparaAprofundamento(): void
728|            'Meio/poluente na identificação não devem exigir aprofundamento. Erros: ' . implode(' | ', $errors)
743|            'aprofundamento_complete' => true,
774|            'aprofundamento_complete' => true,
794|    public function testToastAprofundamentoIncompletoUsaMensagensHumanasDoPrint(): void
804|            'aprofundamento_complete' => true,
849|    public function testAcidentePessoalAprofundamentoMedicoExigeCaracterizar(): void
858|            'description'             => 'Médico finalizando aprofundamento',
859|            'aprofundamento_complete' => true,
860|            'aprofundamento_only'     => true,
890|    public function testPayloadComInjuryTypePreenchidoDisparaValidacaoAprofundamento(): void
899|            'description' => 'Enviou injury_type sem completar aprofundamento',
915|            'Com injury_type preenchido deve exigir aprofundamento. Erros: ' . $joined
944|    public function testAcidentePessoalEtapa1ComPessoaEnvolvidaNaoExigeAprofundamento(): void

Request #40 deepseek-v4-flash P:92.12K C:307 CR:91.01K CW:0 3130ms
Reasoning
Let me look at the tests `testAcidentePessoalAprofundamentoCompleteExigeCamposTecnicosComMensagemHumana` (line 425-458) and `testAcidentePessoalAprofundamentoBrendaTrocaDimensaoPorTipoBarreira` (666-705) and the toast test at 794+ to see whether they have `aprofundamento_complete=true` with AP type and include descaracter fields or expect errors about them; and also whether `aprofundamento_only` is absent in those (so they don't trigger the characterization requirement). Let me read those areas.
Tool Calls (2)
file_read
Show Details
{"end_line": 480, "file_path": "tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/SsmaEventValidatorTest.php", "start_line": 425}
File: tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/SsmaEventValidatorTest.php (Total lines: 989)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 425-480
425|    public function testAcidentePessoalAprofundamentoCompleteExigeCamposTecnicosComMensagemHumana(): void
426|    {
427|        $validator = new SsmaEventValidator();
428|
429|        $errors = $validator->validate([
430|            'type'                    => EventTypeEnum::ACIDENTE_PESSOAL,
431|            'origin'                  => 'MANUAL',
432|            'datetime'                => '2026-04-07T10:30:00',
433|            'location'                => 'Linha 2',
434|            'description'             => 'Teste etapa 2',
435|            'aprofundamento_complete' => true,
436|            'details'                 => [
437|                'activity'    => 'Operação de corte',
438|                'approach'    => 'CORRECAO_OPERACIONAL',
439|                'person_id'   => '101',
440|                'person_type' => 'COLABORADOR',
441|                'had_injury'  => true,
442|            ],
443|        ]);
444|
445|        self::assertNotEmpty($errors);
446|        $joined = implode(' | ', $errors);
447|        self::assertStringNotContainsString('details.injury_type', $joined);
448|        self::assertStringNotContainsString('details.descaracterizado', $joined);
449|        self::assertTrue(
450|            (bool) array_filter(
451|                $errors,
452|                static fn (string $e): bool => str_contains($e, 'Consequência real')
453|                    || str_contains($e, 'Tipo de lesão')
454|                    || str_contains($e, 'caracterizado como acidente')
455|            ),
456|            'Esperava mensagens humanas do Aprofundamento. Erros: ' . $joined
457|        );
458|    }
459|
460|    public function testAcidentePessoalAprofundamentoPendingAindaExigeCampos(): void
461|    {
462|        $validator = new SsmaEventValidator();
463|
464|        $errors = $validator->aprofundamentoPendingErrors([
465|            'type'        => EventTypeEnum::ACIDENTE_PESSOAL,
466|            'origin'      => 'MANUAL',
467|            'datetime'    => '2026-04-07T10:30:00',
468|            'location'    => 'Linha 2',
469|            'description' => 'Pendente',
470|            'details'     => [
471|                'activity'    => 'Operação',
472|                'person_id'   => '101',
473|                'person_type' => 'COLABORADOR',
474|            ],
475|        ]);
476|
477|        self::assertNotEmpty($errors);
478|    }
479|
480|    public function testAcidentePessoalEtapa1ComCamposTecnicosVaziosAindaPassa(): void
file_read
Show Details
{"end_line": 790, "file_path": "tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/SsmaEventValidatorTest.php", "start_line": 666}
File: tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/SsmaEventValidatorTest.php (Total lines: 989)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 666-790
666|    public function testAcidentePessoalAprofundamentoBrendaTrocaDimensaoPorTipoBarreira(): void
667|    {
668|        $validator = new SsmaEventValidator();
669|
670|        $errors = $validator->validate([
671|            'type'                    => EventTypeEnum::ACIDENTE_PESSOAL,
672|            'origin'                  => 'MANUAL',
673|            'datetime'                => '2026-04-07T10:30:00',
674|            'location'                => 'Linha 2',
675|            'description'             => 'AP Brenda — barreira no lugar da dimensão',
676|            'consequence'             => 'MEDIO',
677|            'aprofundamento_complete' => true,
678|            'details'                 => [
679|                'activity'              => 'Operação de corte',
680|                'approach'              => 'TREINAMENTO',
681|                'barrier_type'          => 'COMPORTAMENTAL',
682|                'potential_consequence' => 'ALTO',
683|                'potential_severity'    => 'MEDIO',
684|                'person_id'             => '101',
685|                'person_type'           => 'COLABORADOR',
686|                'had_injury'            => true,
687|                'injury_type'           => 'CORTE',
688|                'injury_classification' => 'FAC',
689|                'work_leave'            => 'NAO',
690|                'injury_severity'       => 'LEVE',
691|                'descaracterizado'      => '0',
692|                'descaracter_comment'   => 'Acidente confirmado.',
693|                'body_parts'            => [
694|                    ['region' => 'MAO', 'side' => 'DIREITA', 'injury_type' => 'CORTE'],
695|                ],
696|            ],
697|        ]);
698|
699|        self::assertSame(
700|            [],
701|            $errors,
702|            'AP deve aceitar Leve…Severo + Tipo de barreira sem Dimensão. Erros: ' . implode(' | ', $errors)
703|        );
704|    }
705|
706|    public function testAcidenteAmbientalEtapa1ComMeioPoluenteNaoDisparaAprofundamento(): void
707|    {
708|        $validator = new SsmaEventValidator();
709|
710|        $errors = $validator->validate([
711|            'type'        => EventTypeEnum::ACIDENTE_AMBIENTAL,
712|            'origin'      => 'MANUAL',
713|            'datetime'    => '2026-04-07T10:30:00',
714|            'location'    => 'Área externa',
715|            'description' => 'Vazamento contido',
716|            'details'     => [
717|                'activity'             => 'Transferência',
718|                'approach'             => 'CORRECAO_OPERACIONAL',
719|                'environmental_medium' => 'SOLO',
720|                'pollutant_type'       => 'ESGOTO_SANITARIO',
721|                'containment_done'     => true,
722|            ],
723|        ]);
724|
725|        self::assertSame(
726|            [],
727|            $errors,
728|            'Meio/poluente na identificação não devem exigir aprofundamento. Erros: ' . implode(' | ', $errors)
729|        );
730|    }
731|
732|    public function testAcidenteAmbientalAceitaPollutantFreeTextLegadoNoResave(): void
733|    {
734|        $validator = new SsmaEventValidator();
735|
736|        $errors = $validator->validate([
737|            'type'                    => EventTypeEnum::ACIDENTE_AMBIENTAL,
738|            'origin'                  => 'MANUAL',
739|            'datetime'                => '2026-04-07T10:30:00',
740|            'location'                => 'Área externa',
741|            'description'             => 'Vazamento legado',
742|            'consequence'             => 'MEDIO',
743|            'aprofundamento_complete' => true,
744|            'details'                 => [
745|                'activity'              => 'Transferência',
746|                'approach'              => 'CORRECAO_OPERACIONAL',
747|                'environmental_medium'  => 'SOLO',
748|                'pollutant_type'        => 'Óleo hidráulico',
749|                'containment_done'      => true,
750|                'potential_severity'    => 'MEDIO',
751|                'potential_consequence' => 'ALTO',
752|                'barrier_type'          => 'FISICA',
753|            ],
754|        ]);
755|
756|        self::assertSame(
757|            [],
758|            $errors,
759|            'Poluente free-text legado deve permitir re-save. Erros: ' . implode(' | ', $errors)
760|        );
761|    }
762|
763|    public function testAcidenteAmbientalRejeitaPollutantVazio(): void
764|    {
765|        $validator = new SsmaEventValidator();
766|
767|        $errors = $validator->validate([
768|            'type'                    => EventTypeEnum::ACIDENTE_AMBIENTAL,
769|            'origin'                  => 'MANUAL',
770|            'datetime'                => '2026-04-07T10:30:00',
771|            'location'                => 'Área externa',
772|            'description'             => 'Sem poluente',
773|            'consequence'             => 'MEDIO',
774|            'aprofundamento_complete' => true,
775|            'details'                 => [
776|                'activity'              => 'Transferência',
777|                'approach'              => 'CORRECAO_OPERACIONAL',
778|                'environmental_medium'  => 'SOLO',
779|                'pollutant_type'        => '',
780|                'containment_done'      => true,
781|                'potential_severity'    => 'MEDIO',
782|                'potential_consequence' => 'MEDIO',
783|                'barrier_type'          => 'FISICA',
784|            ],
785|        ]);
786|
787|        self::assertNotSame([], $errors);
788|        self::assertTrue(
789|            (bool) array_filter($errors, static fn (string $e): bool => str_contains($e, 'poluente')),
790|            'Deve exigir tipo de poluente. Erros: ' . implode(' | ', $errors)
Request #41 deepseek-v4-flash P:94.74K C:2.47K CR:92.42K CW:0 19002ms
Reasoning
Interesting — the test at 794 (testToastAprofundamentoIncompletoUsaMensagensHumanasDoPrint) uses `aprofundamento_complete => true` with AP type WITHOUT aprofundamento_only, and asserts it does NOT contain the caracterização messages (line 843-846) — meaning the characterization is not required in the create flow. And test 425 (testAcidentePessoalAprofundamentoCompleteExigeCamposTecnicosComMensagemHumana) allows the 'caracterizado como acidente' message but the payload doesn't set aprofundamento_only either... wait, this test at line 435 has no aprofundamento_only, so the caracterização error is NOT expected to appear? Actually the assertion at 449-455 uses `array_filter` on `str_contains('Consequência real') || 'Tipo de lesão' || 'caracterizado como acidente'` — at least one of those; that passes even without caracterização. So they won't fail. The toast test (794-847) asserts characterization NOT required in create (no aprofundamento_only). Still passes with this change. All these tests remain passing with the diff (because the gate is aprofundamento_only). So no other tests would break. Good. Now, I've verified the change is consistent with the suite. I feel confident there are no defects to flag in the validator change either. Given the very large amount of analysis with no real findings, I'll present a summary review as the final output and call task_done. But actually, should I provide code_comment feedback? The instruction says: only comment when discovering a code issue. Since I found none with sufficient confidence, I should call task_done and give a brief summary of the review, noting no blocking issues. Hold on — let me reconsider once more the practical risk with the two permission-listener test changes. There is one thing: creating a real `SsmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService` inside the test now may require the EntityManager mock to have a `find`/`getRepository` configured if the tested route mapping ever hits the action plan mutation path. It doesn't for the four tested routes. So tests pass. Now, let me review the EmpresasParceirasControllerTest change since it's not in the review_files but the user mentioned it only as context ("other files changed"). The task instructs: "Review every file listed in <review_files> individually." and "your comments must address code within <review_files> — never produce comments targeting files outside it." So skip EmpresasParceirasControllerTest. Wait — but the user background mentions it as part of this PR. Not in our review group though, so skip. Time to finalize with a summary; no code comments. Actually, wait. Let me reconsider the SsmaEventValidator change once more: Could this change inadvertently **make the ACIDENTE_PESSOAL finalize impossible for a payload that goes through the controller's `updateEvent` when `$wantsFinalize` is true but the incoming data wasn't merged with aprofundamento_only**? No, because if not aprofundamento_only, no requirement. One more nuance: `aprofundamento_only` is set as `true` boolean at merge. In `validate()`, `!empty($data['aprofundamento_only'])` true. Good. Alright. But hmm, maybe there is an actual code-level issue with the comment requirement — because the doctor who cannot descaracterize never sees the Sim/Não + comment UI when there's no suspicion, but the backend now rejects finalization. If this combination is reached, the doctor is blocked AND the front-end cannot help them (fields hidden). If the front-end validation also blocks, they'd never reach the backend. But is it really true that the front-end validation requires the answer even when no suspect? Let me re-read the front-end validation once more at 6015: ``` if (boxesWrap && evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) { var descaracterInvalid = false; boxesWrap.querySelectorAll(...).forEach(function (card) { var desc = card.getAttribute('data-descaracterizado') || ''; ... if (desc === '0' || desc === '1') { if (comm && !String(comm.value||'').trim()) { mark; invalid; } } else { mark(toggle); ok=false; invalid; } }); ``` This is inside a big `if (type === 'ACIDENTE_PESSOAL')`? Let me confirm from earlier context: line 6015-6069 is inside an else-if block for ACIDENTE_PESSOAL? The preceding code at 5990-6014 marks injury fields for AP. Yes. So client-side: every AP aprofundamento finalize requires each card to have data-descaracterizado in {0,1} and a comment. But how does a doctor who doesn't suspect ever answer if the yes/no area is hidden? Under `evSyncDescaracterUi`: - canSn = true (has permission): the hidden value isn't preset; cards that were previously unanswered have data-descaracterizado=''. So client blocks finalize, and the doctor sees the toast "No card do acidentado (acima da Ação), responda 'Caracterizado como acidente?' e preencha o comentário." — but can they see the actual question? Only if they check suspect. This suggests that the current UI/UX was designed such that the characterization answer is ALWAYS required (client + backend) — meaning doctors who finalize must interact with the question area, which suggests the question area is probably shown in the finalize screen regardless of suspect in actual use, OR doctors always check suspect. Whatever. This isn't part of the diff. Therefore I am confident the diff introduces intended, UI-consistent behavior. No comments. Actually, let me reconsider once more — maybe there IS a subtle but real inconsistency worth flagging within the diff scope: The controller (not in diff) `applySsmaDescaracterPermissionGate` defaults the descaracterizado to '0' but never supplies a default comment. Meanwhile the validator now always requires the comment in aprofundamento_only mode. For a member without the descaracterize permission, the UI forces descaracterizado = '0' automatically. If the comment is not supplied (because for '0'/Sim the question may not be visible when no suspect), finalization is rejected. But per the restored rule and the UI (which marks the comment with a red asterisk and shows it in the same block as the Sim/Não buttons), the intended rule is that the doctor DOES supply the comment. So a doctor finalizing an AP where no suspicion was flagged must still answer Sim/Não + comment. In the UI, to answer they must toggle suspect (?) — a UX inconsistency pre-existing and out of diff. OK, final: no defects. But wait, I should think about whether there are issues with the OTHER file not in the review list but given as context — EmpresasParceirasControllerTest.php. Not in review_files, skip per instructions. Let me now produce the final summary and call task_done. Actually, I want to double check one more possible real defect in the diff that I might've glossed over: **In the two permission listener tests, the removed `createMock` produced a service whose `canMutateForRoute` returned false (default mock behavior). The new real service's `canMutateForRoute` calls `isMutationRoute` then for non-mutation routes returns false.** In tests, is there any route that IS a mutation route exercised? No. But in the listener's line 501-524, note the condition ordering: ``` $companyMember && isMutationRoute(route) && canMutateForRoute(...) ``` Only if isMutationRoute true. For the tested routes, false. No DB. Now, if the route is `ssma_event_create` (the first Occurrence test), the route maps to ssma-occurrences; but it reaches the ActionPlan block? isMutationRoute false; no. Final: no issues. Let me produce a summary in pt-BR and call task_done. Wait, actually, I realize I should double check one more subtle thing in the validator diff: it's possible that the check should still be conditioned on the AP event having `descaracter_suspect` OR the event having an injured person that is a "colaborador"... nothing indicates that. Skip. OK finalizing.
Concluí a análise dos três arquivos do grupo de review. Segue o resumo do que foi verificado: ## Revisão realizada ### `src/Service/Ssma/SsmaEventValidator.php` - A remoção do gate `$hasSuspect` restaura a regra em que a caracterização (Sim/Não + comentário) é sempre obrigatória no fluxo `aprofundamento_only`, independentemente de `descaracter_suspect`. - Verifiquei a consistência com: - O teste `testAcidentePessoalAprofundamentoMedicoExigeCaracterizar` (fora do diff), que espera exatamente essa obrigatoriedade; - A validação client-side no template `_ev_injured_person_box.html.twig` / `_modal_event.html.twig`, que já exige Sim/Não + comentário ao finalizar o aprofundamento; - O gate de permissão `applySsmaDescaracterPermissionGate` no controller, que mantém um valor default (`'0'`) de `descaracterizado` para quem não pode descaracterizar; - Demais casos do `SsmaEventValidatorTest` que usam `aprofundamento_complete` sem `aprofundamento_only` (não são afetados, pois o bloco só é executado com `aprofundamento_only`). - A condição `!empty($data['aprofundamento_only'])` permanece inalterada, então rascunhos (`soft_aprofundamento`) e o fluxo de criação não são impactados. ### Testes `GlobalPermissionListenerOccurrenceCreateWriteTest` / `GlobalPermissionListenerPreventionWriteTest` - A substituição de `createMock` de classe `final` por instanciação direta é a correção adequada para PHPUnit (não permite mockar classes finais). - Confirmei que a ordem dos argumentos nos construtores bate com `SsmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService(EntityManagerInterface, SsmaStakeholderActionPermissionService)` e com o construtor de `GlobalPermissionListener` (argumento 10). - As rotas exercitadas nos testes (`ssma_event_create`, `ssma_event_delete`, inspeções/abordagens) não passam por `isMutationRoute` do plano de ação, então não há acesso a banco de dados inesperado com o serviço real; os mocks de `EntityManagerInterface` e `AuthorizationCheckerInterface` já usados no setup cobrem os caminhos alcançáveis. ## Conclusão Não identifiquei defeitos funcionais, de segurança ou de regressão introduzidos pelo diff nos arquivos revisados. As alterações são consistentes com a regra de negócio documentada e com o comportamento já esperado pelo front-end e pelos testes existentes.
Tool Calls (1)
task_done
Show Details
{"state": "DONE"}
tests/Unit/Product/EmpresasParceiras/EmpresasParceirasControllerTest.php 21 requests

main_task

Request #1 deepseek-v4-flash P:6.19K C:1.11K CR:2.69K CW:0 7888ms
Reasoning
Let me analyze the code changes in the review file. The file is `tests/Unit/Product/EmpresasParceiras/EmpresasParceirasControllerTest.php`. The diff shows: 1. Added import `use Doctrine\Persistence\ObjectRepository;` 2. In a test helper method that creates the controller, added mock of `EntityManagerInterface` that returns a mock of `ObjectRepository` when `getRepository` is called. This is a test file change to fix `Call to a member function findOneBy() on null`. Let me look at the context. Let me read the file to understand the context around this change. The change: ```php $entityManager = $this->createMock(EntityManagerInterface::class); $entityManager->method('getRepository')->willReturn( $this->createMock(ObjectRepository::class) ); $controller = new EmpresasParceirasController( $requirementService, $companyService, $this->createMock(PermissionTagByMemberService::class), $entityManager, ); ``` Potential issues: 1. `ObjectRepository` interface has methods `find`, `findAll`, `findBy`, `findOneBy`, `getClassName`. The mock will return null for those methods, since no `willReturn` for `findOneBy`. If the controller code calls `findOneBy` on the repository and it returns null, then downstream code might break with null dereference. Wait, but the test fix purpose was that `getRepository` returned null before, and calling `findOneBy()` on null caused error. Now `getRepository` returns an `ObjectRepository` mock, whose `findOneBy()` returns null by default. That is a default mock behavior—methods return null unless configured. So if controller logic does `$repo->findOneBy(...)` and expects a non-null entity, it would return null. But maybe the code path under test only requires no error, and handles null fine. Let me check the controller. Let me read the actual controller and test. Let me consider: the concern is whether the test correctly sets up the mock. The other changed files include the controller hotfix (PR #658) that added `EntityManagerInterface` to controller constructor. Let me look for the controller file. Let me search for EmpresasParceirasController. Let me read the test file first, and search for controller. Let me check for usage of `findOneBy` in the controller or in services that use repository. Also, in the test method signature, the parameter `EntityManagerInterface` is not passed; instead inside they create the mock. Wait, in the diff, the method signature previously didn't include entity manager; but the constructor expects one. This is a factory method to build controller. Let me read the file to understand. Let me perform file reads and searches. I need to review each file listed in review_files. Only one file: EmpresasParceirasControllerTest.php. But other changed files include SsmaEventValidator, GlobalPermissionListener tests—they are not in review_files, so I shouldn't produce comments on them. Wait—the diff for EmpresasParceirasControllerTest shows only small change. Let me evaluate. Potential issue: The mock `ObjectRepository` might be typed as `Doctrine\Persistence\ObjectRepository` but `getRepository` in `EntityManagerInterface` returns `object` or `ObjectRepository`? In Doctrine ORM, `EntityManagerInterface::getRepository($className)` has signature `public function getRepository($className): ObjectRepository`. So returning a mock of `ObjectRepository` is fine. But wait, in Symfony/Doctrine ORM, `EntityManagerInterface::getRepository` returns `ObjectRepository` (from doctrine/persistence). Some code may call methods not in `ObjectRepository` interface e.g., `findOneBy` is in ObjectRepository. `createQueryBuilder` etc. not. But the issue only arises in the code path. Now there might be a nuance: `EntityManagerInterface` mock's `getRepository` should return a repository matching the specific class. But a generic ObjectRepository mock returns null for findOneBy. If the controller's constructor or the tested method calls `findOneBy` and expects an entity, null may produce a new error. But maybe the controller flow handles null, e.g., creating new if not found. Let me examine the controller and the test helper usage to see how this helper is used in tests (perhaps only for tests where entity manager isn't exercised). Let me read the test file and locate the controller. Let me start with file reads.
Tool Calls (2)
file_read
Show Details
{"file_path": "tests/Unit/Product/EmpresasParceiras/EmpresasParceirasControllerTest.php", "start_line": 1, "end_line": 330}
File: tests/Unit/Product/EmpresasParceiras/EmpresasParceirasControllerTest.php (Total lines: 299)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 1-299
1|<?php
2|
3|declare(strict_types=1);
4|
5|namespace App\Tests\Unit\Product\EmpresasParceiras;
6|
7|use App\Controller\Contractor\EmpresasParceirasController;
8|use App\Entity\Contractor\ContractorDocumentRequirementHistory;
9|use App\Entity\Contractor\ContractorProviderCompanyHistory;
10|use App\Repository\Contractor\ContractorDocumentRequirementRepository;
11|use App\Repository\Contractor\ContractorProviderCompanyRequirementRepository;
12|use App\Service\PermissionTagByMemberService;
13|use Doctrine\ORM\EntityManagerInterface;
14|use Doctrine\Persistence\ObjectRepository;
15|use Symfony\Component\HttpFoundation\Request;
16|
17|/**
18| * Testes de efeito colateral do EmpresasParceirasController com services reais
19| * e dependências mockadas (classes final não são mockáveis no PHPUnit).
20| */
21|final class EmpresasParceirasControllerTest extends EmpresasParceirasTestCase
22|{
23|    public function testRequirementSavePersistsAndReturnsRequirement(): void
24|    {
25|        $company = $this->company(1);
26|        $user = $this->user(10, $company);
27|        $payload = $this->validRequirementPayload();
28|
29|        $entityManager = $this->entityManagerWithConnection();
30|        $entityManager->expects(self::atLeastOnce())->method('persist');
31|        $entityManager->expects(self::once())->method('flush');
32|
33|        $response = $this->controller(
34|            $this->makeRequirementService(['entityManager' => $entityManager]),
35|            $this->makeProviderCompanyService(),
36|            $user,
37|        )->requirementSave($this->jsonRequest($payload));
38|
39|        self::assertSame(200, $response->getStatusCode());
40|        $data = $this->decode($response);
41|        self::assertTrue($data['success']);
42|        self::assertSame('ASO Admissional', $data['requirement']['titulo']);
43|    }
44|
45|    public function testRequirementSaveReturns422OnValidationError(): void
46|    {
47|        $response = $this->controller(
48|            $this->makeRequirementService(),
49|            $this->makeProviderCompanyService(),
50|            $this->user(10, $this->company(1)),
51|        )->requirementSave($this->jsonRequest(['categoria' => 'contrato']));
52|
53|        self::assertSame(422, $response->getStatusCode());
54|        self::assertSame('Título é obrigatório.', $this->decode($response)['message']);
55|    }
56|
57|    public function testRequirementSaveRejectsInvalidPayload(): void
58|    {
59|        $entityManager = $this->createMock(EntityManagerInterface::class);
60|        $entityManager->expects(self::never())->method('flush');
61|
62|        $response = $this->controller(
63|            $this->makeRequirementService(['entityManager' => $entityManager]),
64|            $this->makeProviderCompanyService(),
65|            $this->user(10, $this->company(1)),
66|        )->requirementSave(Request::create('/', 'POST', [], [], [], [], 'not-json'));
67|
68|        self::assertSame(400, $response->getStatusCode());
69|    }
70|
71|    public function testRequirementDeleteReturns409WhenLinked(): void
72|    {
73|        $company = $this->company(1);
74|        $requirement = $this->documentRequirement(7, $company);
75|
76|        $requirementRepository = $this->createMock(ContractorDocumentRequirementRepository::class);
77|        $requirementRepository->method('findOneByCompanyAndId')->willReturn($requirement);
78|
79|        $companyRequirementRepository = $this->createMock(ContractorProviderCompanyRequirementRepository::class);
80|        $companyRequirementRepository->method('countByRequirement')->willReturn(2);
81|
82|        $entityManager = $this->createMock(EntityManagerInterface::class);
83|        $entityManager->expects(self::never())->method('remove');
84|
85|        $response = $this->controller(
86|            $this->makeRequirementService([
87|                'entityManager' => $entityManager,
88|                'requirementRepository' => $requirementRepository,
89|                'companyRequirementRepository' => $companyRequirementRepository,
90|            ]),
91|            $this->makeProviderCompanyService(),
92|            $this->user(10, $company),
93|        )->requirementDelete(7, $this->jsonRequest(['motivo' => 'teste']));
94|
95|        self::assertSame(409, $response->getStatusCode());
96|        self::assertSame(2, $this->decode($response)['linked_count']);
97|    }
98|
99|    public function testRequirementDeleteRemovesWhenNotLinked(): void
100|    {
101|        $company = $this->company(1);
102|        $requirement = $this->documentRequirement(7, $company);
103|
104|        $requirementRepository = $this->createMock(ContractorDocumentRequirementRepository::class);
105|        $requirementRepository->method('findOneByCompanyAndId')->willReturn($requirement);
106|
107|        $companyRequirementRepository = $this->createMock(ContractorProviderCompanyRequirementRepository::class);
108|        $companyRequirementRepository->method('countByRequirement')->willReturn(0);
109|
110|        $entityManager = $this->createMock(EntityManagerInterface::class);
111|        $entityManager->expects(self::once())->method('persist')->with(self::isInstanceOf(ContractorDocumentRequirementHistory::class));
112|        $entityManager->expects(self::exactly(2))->method('flush');
113|        $entityManager->expects(self::once())->method('remove')->with($requirement);
114|
115|        $response = $this->controller(
116|            $this->makeRequirementService([
117|                'entityManager' => $entityManager,
118|                'requirementRepository' => $requirementRepository,
119|                'companyRequirementRepository' => $companyRequirementRepository,
120|            ]),
121|            $this->makeProviderCompanyService(),
122|            $this->user(10, $company),
123|        )->requirementDelete(7, $this->jsonRequest(['motivo' => 'motivo teste']));
124|
125|        self::assertSame(200, $response->getStatusCode());
126|        self::assertTrue($this->decode($response)['success']);
127|    }
128|
129|    public function testRequirementSetActiveRequiresActiveField(): void
130|    {
131|        $company = $this->company(1);
132|        $requirement = $this->documentRequirement(3, $company);
133|
134|        $requirementRepository = $this->createMock(ContractorDocumentRequirementRepository::class);
135|        $requirementRepository->method('findOneByCompanyAndId')->willReturn($requirement);
136|
137|        $entityManager = $this->entityManagerWithConnection();
138|        $entityManager->expects(self::never())->method('flush');
139|
140|        $response = $this->controller(
141|            $this->makeRequirementService([
142|                'entityManager' => $entityManager,
143|                'requirementRepository' => $requirementRepository,
144|            ]),
145|            $this->makeProviderCompanyService(),
146|            $this->user(10, $company),
147|        )->requirementSetActive(3, $this->jsonRequest(['active' => 'invalido']));
148|
149|        self::assertSame(422, $response->getStatusCode());
150|    }
151|
152|    public function testCompanySavePersistsAndReturnsCompany(): void
153|    {
154|        $company = $this->company(1);
155|        $user = $this->user(10, $company);
156|        $member = $this->companyMember(20, $company);
157|        $payload = $this->validCompanyPayload(20);
158|
159|        $companyMembersRepository = $this->createMock(\App\Repository\CompanyMembersRepository::class);
160|        $companyMembersRepository->method('findOneBy')->willReturn($member);
161|
162|        $entityManager = $this->createMock(EntityManagerInterface::class);
163|        $entityManager->expects(self::atLeastOnce())->method('persist');
164|        $entityManager->expects(self::once())->method('flush');
165|
166|        $response = $this->controller(
167|            $this->makeRequirementService(),
168|            $this->makeProviderCompanyService([
169|                'entityManager' => $entityManager,
170|                'companyMembersRepository' => $companyMembersRepository,
171|            ]),
172|            $user,
173|        )->companySave($this->jsonRequest($payload));
174|
175|        self::assertSame(200, $response->getStatusCode());
176|        self::assertSame('Empresa Parceira LTDA', $this->decode($response)['company']['razao_social']);
177|    }
178|
179|    public function testCompanyDeleteReturns409WhenInUse(): void
180|    {
181|        $company = $this->company(1);
182|        $providerCompany = $this->providerCompany(4, $company);
183|        $this->providerCompanyMember(1, $providerCompany, $this->companyMember(30, $company));
184|
185|        $companyRepository = $this->createMock(\App\Repository\Contractor\ContractorProviderCompanyRepository::class);
186|        $companyRepository->method('findOneByCompanyAndId')->willReturn($providerCompany);
187|
188|        $entityManager = $this->createMock(EntityManagerInterface::class);
189|        $entityManager->expects(self::never())->method('remove');
190|
191|        $response = $this->controller(
192|            $this->makeRequirementService(),
193|            $this->makeProviderCompanyService([
194|                'entityManager' => $entityManager,
195|                'companyRepository' => $companyRepository,
196|            ]),
197|            $this->user(10, $company),
198|        )->companyDelete(4, $this->jsonRequest(['motivo' => 'teste']));
199|
200|        self::assertSame(409, $response->getStatusCode());
201|        self::assertSame('Empresa em uso.', $this->decode($response)['message']);
202|    }
203|
204|    public function testCompanyProvidersLinkPersistsMembers(): void
205|    {
206|        $company = $this->company(1);
207|        $user = $this->user(10, $company);
208|        $providerCompany = $this->providerCompany(4, $company);
209|        $member = $this->companyMember(30, $company);
210|
211|        $companyRepository = $this->createMock(\App\Repository\Contractor\ContractorProviderCompanyRepository::class);
212|        $companyRepository->method('findOneByCompanyAndId')->willReturn($providerCompany);
213|
214|        $companyMembersRepository = $this->createMock(\App\Repository\CompanyMembersRepository::class);
215|        $companyMembersRepository->method('findOneBy')->willReturn($member);
216|
217|        $entityManager = $this->createMock(EntityManagerInterface::class);
218|        $entityManager->expects(self::once())
219|            ->method('persist')
220|            ->with(self::isInstanceOf(\App\Entity\Contractor\ContractorProviderCompanyMember::class));
221|        $entityManager->expects(self::once())->method('flush');
222|
223|        $response = $this->controller(
224|            $this->makeRequirementService(),
225|            $this->makeProviderCompanyService([
226|                'entityManager' => $entityManager,
227|                'companyRepository' => $companyRepository,
228|                'companyMembersRepository' => $companyMembersRepository,
229|            ]),
230|            $user,
231|        )->companyProvidersLink(4, $this->jsonRequest(['provider_ids' => [30]]));
232|
233|        self::assertSame(200, $response->getStatusCode());
234|        self::assertSame(1, $this->decode($response)['company']['prestadores_count']);
235|    }
236|
237|    public function testCompaniesListReturnsStats(): void
238|    {
239|        $company = $this->company(1);
240|        $providerCompany = $this->providerCompany(1, $company);
241|
242|        $companyRepository = $this->createMock(\App\Repository\Contractor\ContractorProviderCompanyRepository::class);
243|        $companyRepository->method('findByCompany')->willReturn([$providerCompany]);
244|
245|        $response = $this->controller(
246|            $this->makeRequirementService(),
247|            $this->makeProviderCompanyService(['companyRepository' => $companyRepository]),
248|            $this->user(10, $company),
249|        )->companiesList();
250|
251|        $data = $this->decode($response);
252|        self::assertTrue($data['success']);
253|        self::assertCount(1, $data['companies']);
254|        self::assertSame(1, $data['stats']['total']);
255|    }
256|
257|    public function testCompanyRequirementEvidenceUploadRejectsMissingFile(): void
258|    {
259|        $entityManager = $this->createMock(EntityManagerInterface::class);
260|        $entityManager->expects(self::never())->method('flush');
261|
262|        $response = $this->controller(
263|            $this->makeRequirementService(),
264|            $this->makeProviderCompanyService(['entityManager' => $entityManager]),
265|            $this->user(10, $this->company(1)),
266|        )->companyRequirementEvidenceUpload(1, 2, Request::create('/', 'POST'));
267|
268|        self::assertSame(400, $response->getStatusCode());
269|        self::assertSame('Arquivo inválido.', $this->decode($response)['message']);
270|    }
271|
272|    private function controller(
273|        \App\Service\Contractor\ContractorDocumentRequirementService $requirementService,
274|        \App\Service\Contractor\ContractorProviderCompanyService $companyService,
275|        ?\App\Entity\User $user,
276|    ): EmpresasParceirasController {
277|        $entityManager = $this->createMock(EntityManagerInterface::class);
278|        $entityManager->method('getRepository')->willReturn(
279|            $this->createMock(ObjectRepository::class)
280|        );
281|
282|        $controller = new EmpresasParceirasController(
283|            $requirementService,
284|            $companyService,
285|            $this->createMock(PermissionTagByMemberService::class),
286|            $entityManager,
287|        );
288|        $controller->setContainer($this->containerWithUser($user));
289|
290|        return $controller;
291|    }
292|
293|    /** @param array<string, mixed> $payload */
294|    private function jsonRequest(array $payload): Request
295|    {
296|        return Request::create('/', 'POST', [], [], [], [], json_encode($payload, JSON_THROW_ON_ERROR));
297|    }
298|}
299|
file_find
Show Details
{"query_name": "EmpresasParceirasController.php"}
src/Controller/Contractor/EmpresasParceirasController.php
Request #2 deepseek-v4-flash P:10.99K C:83 CR:7.3K CW:0 1888ms
Reasoning
Now let me look at the controller to understand how EntityManagerInterface is used, particularly getRepository / findOneBy.
Tool Calls (1)
file_read
Show Details
{"file_path": "src/Controller/Contractor/EmpresasParceirasController.php"}
File: src/Controller/Contractor/EmpresasParceirasController.php (Total lines: 730)
IS_TRUNCATED: true
LINE_RANGE: 1-500
1|<?php
2|
3|declare(strict_types=1);
4|
5|namespace App\Controller\Contractor;
6|
7|use App\Entity\Company;
8|use App\Entity\CompanyMembers;
9|use App\Entity\PermissionTag;
10|use App\Entity\Product;
11|use App\Entity\User;
12|use App\Service\Contractor\ContractorDocumentRequirementService;
13|use App\Service\Contractor\ContractorProviderCompanyService;
14|use App\Service\PermissionTagByMemberService;
15|use Doctrine\ORM\EntityManagerInterface;
16|use Symfony\Bundle\FrameworkBundle\Controller\AbstractController;
17|use Symfony\Component\HttpFoundation\BinaryFileResponse;
18|use Symfony\Component\HttpFoundation\File\UploadedFile;
19|use Symfony\Component\HttpFoundation\JsonResponse;
20|use Symfony\Component\HttpFoundation\Request;
21|use Symfony\Component\HttpFoundation\Response;
22|use Symfony\Component\HttpFoundation\ResponseHeaderBag;
23|
24|final class EmpresasParceirasController extends AbstractController
25|{
26|    private const CONTRACTOR_PRODUCT_SLUG = 'ssma-contractor';
27|
28|    public function __construct(
29|        private ContractorDocumentRequirementService $requirementService,
30|        private ContractorProviderCompanyService $companyService,
31|        private PermissionTagByMemberService $permissionTagByMemberService,
32|        private EntityManagerInterface $entityManager,
33|    ) {
34|    }
35|
36|    public function index(): Response
37|    {
38|        $this->assertCanAccess();
39|
40|        $company = $this->resolveCompany();
41|        $contractorCompanies = $this->companyService->listForFrontend($company);
42|
43|        return $this->render('contractor/index.html.twig', [
44|            'contractorRequirements' => $this->requirementService->listForFrontend($company),
45|            'contractorCompanies' => $contractorCompanies,
46|            'contractorCompanyStats' => $this->companyService->computeStats($contractorCompanies),
47|            'contractorDocumentoStatus' => ContractorProviderCompanyService::DOCUMENTO_STATUS,
48|            'contractorCategorias' => ContractorDocumentRequirementService::CATEGORIAS,
49|            'contractorAreas' => ContractorDocumentRequirementService::AREAS,
50|            'contractorCompanyTypes' => ContractorDocumentRequirementService::COMPANY_TYPES,
51|            'contractorValidadeTipos' => ContractorDocumentRequirementService::VALIDADE_TIPOS,
52|            'contractorValidadeUnidades' => ContractorDocumentRequirementService::VALIDADE_UNIDADES,
53|            'contractorRegrasBloqueio' => ContractorDocumentRequirementService::REGRAS_BLOQUEIO,
54|            'contractorBloqueioParcialTipos' => ContractorDocumentRequirementService::BLOQUEIO_PARCIAL_TIPOS,
55|            'contractorBloqueioParcialOptions' => $this->requirementService->listPartialBlockingOptions($company),
56|            'contractorInternalResponsibleOptions' => $this->companyService->listInternalResponsibleOptions($company),
57|            'contractorCanManage' => $this->canManage(),
58|            'contractorCanManagePermissions' => $this->canManagePermissions(),
59|        ]);
60|    }
61|
62|    public function requirementsList(): JsonResponse
63|    {
64|        if ($response = $this->jsonIfCannotAccess()) {
65|            return $response;
66|        }
67|
68|        $company = $this->resolveCompany();
69|
70|        return $this->json([
71|            'success' => true,
72|            'requirements' => $this->requirementService->listForFrontend($company),
73|        ]);
74|    }
75|
76|    public function requirementDetail(int $id): JsonResponse
77|    {
78|        if ($response = $this->jsonIfCannotAccess()) {
79|            return $response;
80|        }
81|
82|        $company = $this->resolveCompany();
83|
84|        try {
85|            $detail = $this->requirementService->getDetail($company, $id);
86|        } catch (\RuntimeException $exception) {
87|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => $exception->getMessage()], 404);
88|        }
89|
90|        return $this->json(['success' => true] + $detail);
91|    }
92|
93|    public function requirementSave(Request $request): JsonResponse
94|    {
95|        if (!$this->canManage()) {
96|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => 'Sem permissão.'], 403);
97|        }
98|
99|        $company = $this->resolveCompany();
100|        $user = $this->resolveUser();
101|        $payload = json_decode($request->getContent(), true);
102|
103|        if (!is_array($payload)) {
104|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => 'Payload inválido.'], 400);
105|        }
106|
107|        try {
108|            $requirement = $this->requirementService->save($company, $user, $payload);
109|        } catch (\InvalidArgumentException $exception) {
110|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => $exception->getMessage()], 422);
111|        }
112|
113|        return $this->json([
114|            'success' => true,
115|            'requirement' => $requirement,
116|        ]);
117|    }
118|
119|    public function requirementDelete(int $id, Request $request): JsonResponse
120|    {
121|        if (!$this->canManage()) {
122|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => 'Sem permissão.'], 403);
123|        }
124|
125|        $company = $this->resolveCompany();
126|        $user = $this->resolveUser();
127|        $payload = json_decode($request->getContent(), true);
128|        $motivo = is_array($payload) ? ($payload['motivo'] ?? null) : null;
129|
130|        try {
131|            $linkedCount = $this->requirementService->countLinkedCompanies($company, $id);
132|            if ($linkedCount > 0) {
133|                return $this->json([
134|                    'success' => false,
135|                    'message' => 'Requisito em uso por empresas parceiras.',
136|                    'linked_count' => $linkedCount,
137|                ], 409);
138|            }
139|
140|            $this->requirementService->delete($company, $user, $id, is_string($motivo) ? $motivo : null);
141|        } catch (\RuntimeException $exception) {
142|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => $exception->getMessage()], 404);
143|        }
144|
145|        return $this->json(['success' => true]);
146|    }
147|
148|    public function requirementSetActive(int $id, Request $request): JsonResponse
149|    {
150|        if (!$this->canManage()) {
151|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => 'Sem permissão.'], 403);
152|        }
153|
154|        $company = $this->resolveCompany();
155|        $user = $this->resolveUser();
156|        $payload = json_decode($request->getContent(), true);
157|
158|        if (!is_array($payload)) {
159|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => 'Payload inválido.'], 400);
160|        }
161|
162|        $active = filter_var($payload['active'] ?? null, FILTER_VALIDATE_BOOLEAN, FILTER_NULL_ON_FAILURE);
163|        if ($active === null) {
164|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => 'Campo active é obrigatório.'], 422);
165|        }
166|
167|        $motivo = isset($payload['motivo']) ? (string) $payload['motivo'] : null;
168|
169|        try {
170|            $requirement = $this->requirementService->setActive($company, $user, $id, $active, $motivo);
171|        } catch (\RuntimeException $exception) {
172|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => $exception->getMessage()], 404);
173|        }
174|
175|        return $this->json([
176|            'success' => true,
177|            'requirement' => $requirement,
178|        ]);
179|    }
180|
181|    public function requirementUsage(int $id): JsonResponse
182|    {
183|        if ($response = $this->jsonIfCannotAccess()) {
184|            return $response;
185|        }
186|
187|        $company = $this->resolveCompany();
188|
189|        try {
190|            $linkedCount = $this->requirementService->countLinkedCompanies($company, $id);
191|        } catch (\RuntimeException $exception) {
192|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => $exception->getMessage()], 404);
193|        }
194|
195|        return $this->json([
196|            'success' => true,
197|            'linked_count' => $linkedCount,
198|            'in_use' => $linkedCount > 0,
199|        ]);
200|    }
201|
202|    public function companiesList(): JsonResponse
203|    {
204|        if ($response = $this->jsonIfCannotAccess()) {
205|            return $response;
206|        }
207|
208|        $company = $this->resolveCompany();
209|        $companies = $this->companyService->listForFrontend($company);
210|
211|        return $this->json([
212|            'success' => true,
213|            'companies' => $companies,
214|            'stats' => $this->companyService->computeStats($companies),
215|        ]);
216|    }
217|
218|    public function companyDetail(int $id): JsonResponse
219|    {
220|        if ($response = $this->jsonIfCannotAccess()) {
221|            return $response;
222|        }
223|
224|        $company = $this->resolveCompany();
225|
226|        try {
227|            $detail = $this->companyService->getDetail($company, $id);
228|        } catch (\RuntimeException $exception) {
229|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => $exception->getMessage()], 404);
230|        }
231|
232|        return $this->json(['success' => true] + $detail);
233|    }
234|
235|    public function companyDelete(int $id, Request $request): JsonResponse
236|    {
237|        if (!$this->canManage()) {
238|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => 'Sem permissão.'], 403);
239|        }
240|
241|        $company = $this->resolveCompany();
242|        $user = $this->resolveUser();
243|        $payload = json_decode($request->getContent(), true);
244|        $motivo = is_array($payload) ? ($payload['motivo'] ?? null) : null;
245|
246|        try {
247|            $linkedCount = $this->companyService->countLinkedRecords($company, $id);
248|            if ($linkedCount > 0) {
249|                return $this->json([
250|                    'success' => false,
251|                    'message' => 'Empresa em uso.',
252|                    'linked_count' => $linkedCount,
253|                ], 409);
254|            }
255|
256|            $this->companyService->delete($company, $user, $id, is_string($motivo) ? $motivo : null);
257|        } catch (\RuntimeException $exception) {
258|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => $exception->getMessage()], 404);
259|        }
260|
261|        return $this->json(['success' => true]);
262|    }
263|
264|    public function companySetActive(int $id, Request $request): JsonResponse
265|    {
266|        if (!$this->canManage()) {
267|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => 'Sem permissão.'], 403);
268|        }
269|
270|        $company = $this->resolveCompany();
271|        $user = $this->resolveUser();
272|        $payload = json_decode($request->getContent(), true);
273|
274|        if (!is_array($payload)) {
275|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => 'Payload inválido.'], 400);
276|        }
277|
278|        $active = filter_var($payload['active'] ?? null, FILTER_VALIDATE_BOOLEAN, FILTER_NULL_ON_FAILURE);
279|        if ($active === null) {
280|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => 'Campo active é obrigatório.'], 422);
281|        }
282|
283|        $motivo = isset($payload['motivo']) ? (string) $payload['motivo'] : null;
284|
285|        try {
286|            $providerCompany = $this->companyService->setActive($company, $user, $id, $active, $motivo);
287|        } catch (\RuntimeException $exception) {
288|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => $exception->getMessage()], 404);
289|        }
290|
291|        return $this->json([
292|            'success' => true,
293|            'company' => $providerCompany,
294|        ]);
295|    }
296|
297|    public function companyUsage(int $id): JsonResponse
298|    {
299|        if ($response = $this->jsonIfCannotAccess()) {
300|            return $response;
301|        }
302|
303|        $company = $this->resolveCompany();
304|
305|        try {
306|            $linkedCount = $this->companyService->countLinkedRecords($company, $id);
307|        } catch (\RuntimeException $exception) {
308|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => $exception->getMessage()], 404);
309|        }
310|
311|        return $this->json([
312|            'success' => true,
313|            'linked_count' => $linkedCount,
314|            'in_use' => $linkedCount > 0,
315|        ]);
316|    }
317|
318|    public function companySave(Request $request): JsonResponse
319|    {
320|        if (!$this->canManage()) {
321|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => 'Sem permissão.'], 403);
322|        }
323|
324|        $company = $this->resolveCompany();
325|        $user = $this->resolveUser();
326|        $payload = json_decode($request->getContent(), true);
327|
328|        if (!is_array($payload)) {
329|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => 'Payload inválido.'], 400);
330|        }
331|
332|        try {
333|            $providerCompany = $this->companyService->save($company, $user, $payload);
334|        } catch (\InvalidArgumentException $exception) {
335|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => $exception->getMessage()], 422);
336|        } catch (\RuntimeException $exception) {
337|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => $exception->getMessage()], 404);
338|        }
339|
340|        return $this->json([
341|            'success' => true,
342|            'company' => $providerCompany,
343|        ]);
344|    }
345|
346|    public function companyProviders(int $id): JsonResponse
347|    {
348|        if ($response = $this->jsonIfCannotAccess()) {
349|            return $response;
350|        }
351|
352|        $company = $this->resolveCompany();
353|
354|        try {
355|            $data = $this->companyService->getProviders($company, $id);
356|        } catch (\RuntimeException $exception) {
357|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => $exception->getMessage()], 404);
358|        }
359|
360|        return $this->json(['success' => true] + $data);
361|    }
362|
363|    public function companyProvidersLink(int $id, Request $request): JsonResponse
364|    {
365|        if (!$this->canManage()) {
366|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => 'Sem permissão.'], 403);
367|        }
368|
369|        $company = $this->resolveCompany();
370|        $user = $this->resolveUser();
371|        $payload = json_decode($request->getContent(), true);
372|        $providerIds = is_array($payload) ? ($payload['provider_ids'] ?? []) : [];
373|
374|        if (!is_array($providerIds)) {
375|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => 'Payload inválido.'], 400);
376|        }
377|
378|        try {
379|            $providerCompany = $this->companyService->linkProviders($company, $user, $id, $providerIds);
380|        } catch (\RuntimeException $exception) {
381|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => $exception->getMessage()], 404);
382|        }
383|
384|        return $this->json([
385|            'success' => true,
386|            'company' => $providerCompany,
387|        ]);
388|    }
389|
390|    public function companyRequirements(int $id): JsonResponse
391|    {
392|        if ($response = $this->jsonIfCannotAccess()) {
393|            return $response;
394|        }
395|
396|        $company = $this->resolveCompany();
397|
398|        try {
399|            $data = $this->companyService->getCompanyRequirements($company, $id, $this->requirementService);
400|        } catch (\RuntimeException $exception) {
401|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => $exception->getMessage()], 404);
402|        }
403|
404|        return $this->json(['success' => true] + $data);
405|    }
406|
407|    public function companyRequirementsSave(int $id, Request $request): JsonResponse
408|    {
409|        if (!$this->canManage()) {
410|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => 'Sem permissão.'], 403);
411|        }
412|
413|        $company = $this->resolveCompany();
414|        $user = $this->resolveUser();
415|        $payload = json_decode($request->getContent(), true);
416|        $requirementIds = is_array($payload) ? ($payload['requirement_ids'] ?? []) : [];
417|        $requirementNames = is_array($payload) ? ($payload['requirement_names'] ?? []) : [];
418|        $requirementResponsibleIds = is_array($payload) ? ($payload['requirement_responsible_ids'] ?? []) : [];
419|        $requirementOptionalResponsibleIds = is_array($payload) ? ($payload['requirement_optional_responsible_ids'] ?? []) : [];
420|
421|        if (!is_array($requirementIds)) {
422|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => 'Payload inválido.'], 400);
423|        }
424|
425|        if (!is_array($requirementNames)) {
426|            $requirementNames = [];
427|        }
428|
429|        if (!is_array($requirementResponsibleIds)) {
430|            $requirementResponsibleIds = [];
431|        }
432|
433|        if (!is_array($requirementOptionalResponsibleIds)) {
434|            $requirementOptionalResponsibleIds = [];
435|        }
436|
437|        try {
438|            $providerCompany = $this->companyService->saveCompanyRequirements(
439|                $company,
440|                $user,
441|                $id,
442|                $requirementIds,
443|                $requirementNames,
444|                $requirementResponsibleIds,
445|                $requirementOptionalResponsibleIds,
446|            );
447|        } catch (\RuntimeException $exception) {
448|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => $exception->getMessage()], 404);
449|        }
450|
451|        return $this->json([
452|            'success' => true,
453|            'company' => $providerCompany,
454|        ]);
455|    }
456|
457|    public function companyRequirementDelete(int $id, int $linkId): JsonResponse
458|    {
459|        if (!$this->canManage()) {
460|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => 'Sem permissão.'], 403);
461|        }
462|
463|        $company = $this->resolveCompany();
464|        $user = $this->resolveUser();
465|
466|        try {
467|            $providerCompany = $this->companyService->deleteCompanyRequirement($company, $user, $id, $linkId);
468|        } catch (\RuntimeException $exception) {
469|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => $exception->getMessage()], 404);
470|        }
471|
472|        return $this->json([
473|            'success' => true,
474|            'company' => $providerCompany,
475|        ]);
476|    }
477|
478|    public function companyRequirementDocumentSave(int $id, Request $request): JsonResponse
479|    {
480|        if (!$this->canManage()) {
481|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => 'Sem permissão.'], 403);
482|        }
483|
484|        $company = $this->resolveCompany();
485|        $user = $this->resolveUser();
486|        $payload = json_decode($request->getContent(), true);
487|
488|        if (!is_array($payload)) {
489|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => 'Payload inválido.'], 400);
490|        }
491|
492|        try {
493|            $providerCompany = $this->companyService->saveRequirementDocument($company, $user, $id, $payload);
494|        } catch (\InvalidArgumentException $exception) {
495|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => $exception->getMessage()], 422);
496|        } catch (\RuntimeException $exception) {
497|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => $exception->getMessage()], 404);
498|        }
499|
500|        return $this->json([

Note: Results truncated to 500 lines. Please narrow your line range.
Request #3 deepseek-v4-flash P:16.48K C:128 CR:11.01K CW:0 1521ms
Reasoning
Let me read the remaining lines 500-730 to see where getRepository/findOneBy is used, e.g., in companyRequirementEvidenceUpload or other methods.
Tool Calls (1)
file_read
Show Details
{"file_path": "src/Controller/Contractor/EmpresasParceirasController.php", "start_line": 500, "end_line": 730}
File: src/Controller/Contractor/EmpresasParceirasController.php (Total lines: 730)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 500-730
500|        return $this->json([
501|            'success' => true,
502|            'company' => $providerCompany,
503|        ]);
504|    }
505|
506|    public function companyRequirementEvidenceUpload(int $id, int $requirementId, Request $request): JsonResponse
507|    {
508|        if (!$this->canManage()) {
509|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => 'Sem permissão.'], 403);
510|        }
511|
512|        $company = $this->resolveCompany();
513|        $user = $this->resolveUser();
514|        /** @var UploadedFile|null $file */
515|        $file = $request->files->get('file');
516|
517|        if (!$file instanceof UploadedFile) {
518|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => 'Arquivo inválido.'], 400);
519|        }
520|
521|        try {
522|            $payload = $this->companyService->uploadRequirementEvidence(
523|                $company,
524|                $user,
525|                $id,
526|                $requirementId,
527|                $file,
528|                $this->requirementService,
529|                $request->request->all(),
530|            );
531|        } catch (\InvalidArgumentException $exception) {
532|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => $exception->getMessage()], 422);
533|        } catch (\RuntimeException $exception) {
534|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => $exception->getMessage()], 404);
535|        }
536|
537|        return $this->json(['success' => true] + $payload);
538|    }
539|
540|    public function companyRequirementEvidenceDownload(int $id, int $requirementId, string $evidenceId): Response
541|    {
542|        if (!$this->canAccess()) {
543|            return new Response('Sem permissão.', Response::HTTP_FORBIDDEN);
544|        }
545|
546|        $company = $this->resolveCompany();
547|
548|        try {
549|            $download = $this->companyService->resolveRequirementEvidenceDownload(
550|                $company,
551|                $id,
552|                $requirementId,
553|                $evidenceId,
554|            );
555|        } catch (\RuntimeException $exception) {
556|            return new Response($exception->getMessage(), Response::HTTP_NOT_FOUND);
557|        }
558|
559|        $response = new BinaryFileResponse($download['absolute_path']);
560|        $response->setContentDisposition(
561|            ResponseHeaderBag::DISPOSITION_ATTACHMENT,
562|            $download['download_name'],
563|        );
564|
565|        return $response;
566|    }
567|
568|    public function companyRequirementEvidenceDelete(int $id, int $requirementId, Request $request): JsonResponse
569|    {
570|        if (!$this->canManage()) {
571|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => 'Sem permissão.'], 403);
572|        }
573|
574|        $company = $this->resolveCompany();
575|        $payload = json_decode($request->getContent(), true);
576|        $evidenceId = is_array($payload) ? trim((string) ($payload['evidence_id'] ?? '')) : '';
577|        $index = is_array($payload) && array_key_exists('index', $payload) ? (int) $payload['index'] : null;
578|
579|        try {
580|            $data = $this->companyService->deleteRequirementEvidence(
581|                $company,
582|                $id,
583|                $requirementId,
584|                $evidenceId !== '' ? $evidenceId : null,
585|                $index,
586|                $this->requirementService,
587|            );
588|        } catch (\InvalidArgumentException $exception) {
589|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => $exception->getMessage()], 422);
590|        } catch (\RuntimeException $exception) {
591|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => $exception->getMessage()], 404);
592|        }
593|
594|        return $this->json(['success' => true] + $data);
595|    }
596|
597|    /**
598|     * Leitura: requer PermissionTag ativa do produto ssma-contractor ou admin de plataforma.
599|     * OCR-Fixes: OCR-658-01
600|     */
601|    private function canAccess(): bool
602|    {
603|        if ($this->isContractorPlatformAdmin()) {
604|            return true;
605|        }
606|
607|        return $this->resolveContractorPermissionTag() instanceof PermissionTag;
608|    }
609|
610|    private function assertCanAccess(): void
611|    {
612|        if (!$this->canAccess()) {
613|            throw $this->createAccessDeniedException('Sem permissão para acessar Empresas Parceiras.');
614|        }
615|    }
616|
617|    private function jsonIfCannotAccess(): ?JsonResponse
618|    {
619|        if ($this->canAccess()) {
620|            return null;
621|        }
622|
623|        return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => 'Sem permissão.'], 403);
624|    }
625|
626|    private function canManage(): bool
627|    {
628|        if ($this->isContractorPlatformAdmin()) {
629|            return true;
630|        }
631|
632|        $tag = $this->resolveContractorPermissionTag();
633|        if (!$tag instanceof PermissionTag) {
634|            return false;
635|        }
636|
637|        $tagName = trim((string) $tag->getName());
638|        if ($tagName === '' || strcasecmp($tagName, 'Membro') === 0) {
639|            return false;
640|        }
641|
642|        if (in_array($tagName, [
643|            'Gestor Administrador',
644|            'Gestor de Equipe',
645|            'Supervisor de Equipe',
646|            'Supervisor',
647|        ], true)) {
648|            return true;
649|        }
650|
651|        return (bool) ($tag->getCanCreate() || $tag->getCanEdit());
652|    }
653|
654|    private function canManagePermissions(): bool
655|    {
656|        if ($this->isContractorPlatformAdmin()) {
657|            return true;
658|        }
659|
660|        $tag = $this->resolveContractorPermissionTag();
661|
662|        return $tag instanceof PermissionTag
663|            && $tag->getName() === 'Gestor Administrador';
664|    }
665|
666|    private function isContractorPlatformAdmin(): bool
667|    {
668|        $user = $this->getUser();
669|
670|        return $user instanceof User
671|            && ($user->isSuperAdmin() || in_array('ROLE_MANAGER', $user->getRoles(), true));
672|    }
673|
674|    private function resolveContractorPermissionTag(): ?PermissionTag
675|    {
676|        $user = $this->getUser();
677|        if (!$user instanceof User) {
678|            return null;
679|        }
680|
681|        $company = $user->getCompany();
682|        if (!$company instanceof Company) {
683|            return null;
684|        }
685|
686|        $member = $this->entityManager->getRepository(CompanyMembers::class)->findOneBy([
687|            'user' => $user,
688|            'company' => $company,
689|            'isRemoved' => false,
690|            'enabled' => true,
691|        ]);
692|        if (!$member instanceof CompanyMembers) {
693|            return null;
694|        }
695|
696|        $product = $this->entityManager->getRepository(Product::class)
697|            ->findOneBy(['slug' => self::CONTRACTOR_PRODUCT_SLUG]);
698|        if (!$product instanceof Product) {
699|            return null;
700|        }
701|
702|        return $this->permissionTagByMemberService->getPermissionTag($member, $product);
703|    }
704|
705|    private function resolveCompany(): Company
706|    {
707|        $user = $this->getUser();
708|        if (!$user instanceof User) {
709|            throw $this->createAccessDeniedException();
710|        }
711|
712|        $company = $user->getCompany();
713|        if (!$company instanceof Company) {
714|            throw $this->createAccessDeniedException('Empresa não encontrada.');
715|        }
716|
717|        return $company;
718|    }
719|
720|    private function resolveUser(): User
721|    {
722|        $user = $this->getUser();
723|        if (!$user instanceof User) {
724|            throw $this->createAccessDeniedException();
725|        }
726|
727|        return $user;
728|    }
729|}
730|
Request #4 deepseek-v4-flash P:18.76K C:459 CR:16.51K CW:0 3945ms
Reasoning
So the controller uses `$this->entityManager->getRepository(CompanyMembers::class)->findOneBy(...)` and `getRepository(Product::class)->findOneBy(...)`. Now in tests, the `PermissionTagByMemberService` is mocked and `containerWithUser($user)` presumably returns a container with security token. In the tests using `controller(...)` helper, actions that call `resolveContractorPermissionTag()` (via canManage, canAccess) would call getRepository twice: CompanyMembers and Product. The mock `getRepository` returns a generic `ObjectRepository` mock for any call. `findOneBy` on the mock returns null by default. That means `resolveContractorPermissionTag()` returns null → `canManage()` false → returns 403. Wait, but the tests are testing successful actions... Let's check what the tests actually assert. Actually, some tests don't require canManage to pass. But for tests like `testRequirementSavePersistsAndReturnsRequirement` expecting 200 success, `canManage()` must return true. How? `resolveContractorPermissionTag()` requires: 1. $user is a User → yes via containerWithUser. 2. $user->getCompany() returns Company → yes. 3. getRepository(CompanyMembers)->findOneBy(...) returns CompanyMembers → null in mock. 4. Then if member not found, return null → canManage false → 403. Wait, but tests currently expect 200. So how do these tests pass? Perhaps `containerWithUser` sets up user as super admin or ROLE_MANAGER? Let's check the EmpresasParceirasTestCase. Actually, `isContractorPlatformAdmin` checks user is super admin or has ROLE_MANAGER. The test uses `user(10, $company)`. Let's check the test case base class and the user() helper. Let me read EmpresasParceirasTestCase.
Tool Calls (1)
file_find
Show Details
{"query_name": "EmpresasParceirasTestCase.php"}
tests/Unit/Product/EmpresasParceiras/EmpresasParceirasTestCase.php
Request #5 deepseek-v4-flash P:19.25K C:70 CR:19.2K CW:0 1202ms
Reasoning
Let me read it.
Tool Calls (1)
file_read
Show Details
{"file_path": "tests/Unit/Product/EmpresasParceiras/EmpresasParceirasTestCase.php"}
File: tests/Unit/Product/EmpresasParceiras/EmpresasParceirasTestCase.php (Total lines: 302)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 1-302
1|<?php
2|
3|declare(strict_types=1);
4|
5|namespace App\Tests\Unit\Product\EmpresasParceiras;
6|
7|use App\Entity\Company;
8|use App\Entity\CompanyMembers;
9|use App\Entity\Contractor\ContractorDocumentRequirement;
10|use App\Entity\Contractor\ContractorProviderCompany;
11|use App\Entity\Contractor\ContractorProviderCompanyMember;
12|use App\Entity\Contractor\ContractorProviderCompanyRequirement;
13|use App\Entity\User;
14|use App\Repository\CompanyMembersRepository;
15|use App\Repository\Contractor\ContractorDocumentRequirementHistoryRepository;
16|use App\Repository\Contractor\ContractorDocumentRequirementRepository;
17|use App\Repository\Contractor\ContractorProviderCompanyHistoryRepository;
18|use App\Repository\Contractor\ContractorProviderCompanyMemberRepository;
19|use App\Repository\Contractor\ContractorProviderCompanyRepository;
20|use App\Repository\Contractor\ContractorProviderCompanyRequirementRepository;
21|use App\Service\Contractor\ContractorDocumentRequirementService;
22|use App\Service\Contractor\ContractorMemberServiceProvisionService;
23|use App\Service\Contractor\ContractorProviderCompanyService;
24|use App\Service\Contractor\ContractorRequirementDocumentStorageService;
25|use Doctrine\DBAL\Connection;
26|use Doctrine\ORM\EntityManagerInterface;
27|use PHPUnit\Framework\TestCase;
28|use Psr\Container\ContainerInterface;
29|use Symfony\Component\DependencyInjection\ParameterBag\ParameterBagInterface;
30|use Symfony\Component\HttpFoundation\JsonResponse;
31|use Symfony\Component\Security\Core\Authentication\Token\Storage\TokenStorageInterface;
32|use Symfony\Component\Security\Core\Authentication\Token\TokenInterface;
33|
34|abstract class EmpresasParceirasTestCase extends TestCase
35|{
36|    protected function setEntityId(object $entity, int $id): object
37|    {
38|        $reflection = new \ReflectionObject($entity);
39|        while (!$reflection->hasProperty('id') && $reflection->getParentClass()) {
40|            $reflection = $reflection->getParentClass();
41|        }
42|
43|        $property = $reflection->getProperty('id');
44|        $property->setAccessible(true);
45|        $property->setValue($entity, $id);
46|
47|        return $entity;
48|    }
49|
50|    protected function setPrivateProperty(object $object, string $propertyName, mixed $value): void
51|    {
52|        $property = (new \ReflectionClass($object))->getProperty($propertyName);
53|        $property->setAccessible(true);
54|        $property->setValue($object, $value);
55|    }
56|
57|    protected function company(int $id): Company
58|    {
59|        /** @var Company $company */
60|        $company = $this->setEntityId(new Company(), $id);
61|
62|        return $company;
63|    }
64|
65|    protected function user(int $id, ?Company $company = null, string $email = 'user@example.com'): User
66|    {
67|        /** @var User $user */
68|        $user = $this->setEntityId(new User(), $id);
69|        $user->setEmail($email);
70|        if ($company !== null) {
71|            $user->setCompany($company);
72|        }
73|
74|        return $user;
75|    }
76|
77|    protected function companyMember(int $id, Company $company, string $email = 'colab@example.com'): CompanyMembers
78|    {
79|        /** @var CompanyMembers $member */
80|        $member = $this->setEntityId(new CompanyMembers(), $id);
81|        $member->setCompany($company);
82|        $member->setUser($this->user($id + 10000, $company, $email));
83|        $member->setIsRemoved(false);
84|
85|        return $member;
86|    }
87|
88|    protected function mockCompanyMember(int $id, string $name = '', string $email = ''): CompanyMembers
89|    {
90|        $member = $this->createMock(CompanyMembers::class);
91|        $member->method('getId')->willReturn($id);
92|        $member->method('getFullName')->willReturn($name !== '' ? $name : null);
93|        $member->method('getEmail')->willReturn($email !== '' ? $email : null);
94|
95|        return $member;
96|    }
97|
98|    protected function providerCompany(int $id, Company $company, string $razaoSocial = 'Parceira LTDA'): ContractorProviderCompany
99|    {
100|        /** @var ContractorProviderCompany $providerCompany */
101|        $providerCompany = $this->setEntityId(
102|            (new ContractorProviderCompany())
103|                ->setCompany($company)
104|                ->setRazaoSocial($razaoSocial)
105|                ->setDocumento('12345678000199')
106|                ->setTipo('operacional')
107|                ->setActive(true),
108|            $id,
109|        );
110|
111|        return $providerCompany;
112|    }
113|
114|    protected function documentRequirement(int $id, Company $company, string $titulo = 'ASO'): ContractorDocumentRequirement
115|    {
116|        /** @var ContractorDocumentRequirement $requirement */
117|        $requirement = $this->setEntityId(
118|            (new ContractorDocumentRequirement())
119|                ->setCompany($company)
120|                ->setTitulo($titulo)
121|                ->setCategoria('contrato')
122|                ->setAplicarPara(['operacional'])
123|                ->setValidadeTipo('sem_validade')
124|                ->setRegraBloqueio('sem_bloqueio')
125|                ->setActive(true),
126|            $id,
127|        );
128|
129|        return $requirement;
130|    }
131|
132|    protected function providerCompanyRequirement(
133|        int $id,
134|        ContractorProviderCompany $providerCompany,
135|        ContractorDocumentRequirement $requirement,
136|    ): ContractorProviderCompanyRequirement {
137|        /** @var ContractorProviderCompanyRequirement $link */
138|        $link = $this->setEntityId(
139|            (new ContractorProviderCompanyRequirement())
140|                ->setProviderCompany($providerCompany)
141|                ->setRequirement($requirement)
142|                ->setStatus('nao_conforme'),
143|            $id,
144|        );
145|        $providerCompany->getRequirements()->add($link);
146|
147|        return $link;
148|    }
149|
150|    protected function providerCompanyMember(
151|        int $id,
152|        ContractorProviderCompany $providerCompany,
153|        CompanyMembers $member,
154|    ): ContractorProviderCompanyMember {
155|        /** @var ContractorProviderCompanyMember $link */
156|        $link = $this->setEntityId(
157|            (new ContractorProviderCompanyMember())
158|                ->setProviderCompany($providerCompany)
159|                ->setCompanyMember($member),
160|            $id,
161|        );
162|        $providerCompany->getMembers()->add($link);
163|
164|        return $link;
165|    }
166|
167|    protected function documentStorage(?string $projectDir = null): ContractorRequirementDocumentStorageService
168|    {
169|        $parameterBag = $this->createMock(ParameterBagInterface::class);
170|        $parameterBag->method('get')->with('kernel.project_dir')->willReturn($projectDir ?? sys_get_temp_dir());
171|
172|        return new ContractorRequirementDocumentStorageService($parameterBag);
173|    }
174|
175|    /**
176|     * @param array<string, object> $overrides
177|     */
178|    protected function makeRequirementService(array $overrides = []): ContractorDocumentRequirementService
179|    {
180|        return new ContractorDocumentRequirementService(
181|            $overrides['entityManager'] ?? $this->entityManagerWithConnection(),
182|            $overrides['requirementRepository'] ?? $this->createMock(ContractorDocumentRequirementRepository::class),
183|            $overrides['historyRepository'] ?? $this->createMock(ContractorDocumentRequirementHistoryRepository::class),
184|            $overrides['companyRequirementRepository'] ?? $this->createMock(ContractorProviderCompanyRequirementRepository::class),
185|        );
186|    }
187|
188|    protected function entityManagerWithConnection(): EntityManagerInterface
189|    {
190|        $connection = $this->createMock(Connection::class);
191|        $connection->method('fetchAllAssociative')->willReturn([]);
192|
193|        $repository = $this->createMock(\Doctrine\Persistence\ObjectRepository::class);
194|        $repository->method('findBy')->willReturn([]);
195|
196|        $entityManager = $this->createMock(EntityManagerInterface::class);
197|        $entityManager->method('getConnection')->willReturn($connection);
198|        $entityManager->method('getRepository')->willReturn($repository);
199|
200|        return $entityManager;
201|    }
202|
203|    /**
204|     * @param array<string, object> $overrides
205|     */
206|    protected function makeProviderCompanyService(array $overrides = []): ContractorProviderCompanyService
207|    {
208|        return new ContractorProviderCompanyService(
209|            $overrides['entityManager'] ?? $this->createMock(EntityManagerInterface::class),
210|            $overrides['companyRepository'] ?? $this->createMock(ContractorProviderCompanyRepository::class),
211|            $overrides['historyRepository'] ?? $this->createMock(ContractorProviderCompanyHistoryRepository::class),
212|            $overrides['companyRequirementRepository'] ?? $this->createMock(ContractorProviderCompanyRequirementRepository::class),
213|            $overrides['requirementRepository'] ?? $this->createMock(ContractorDocumentRequirementRepository::class),
214|            $overrides['companyMembersRepository'] ?? $this->createMock(CompanyMembersRepository::class),
215|            $overrides['documentStorage'] ?? $this->documentStorage(),
216|        );
217|    }
218|
219|    /**
220|     * @param array<string, object> $overrides
221|     */
222|    protected function makeMemberProvisionService(array $overrides = []): ContractorMemberServiceProvisionService
223|    {
224|        return new ContractorMemberServiceProvisionService(
225|            $overrides['entityManager'] ?? $this->createMock(EntityManagerInterface::class),
226|            $overrides['providerCompanyRepository'] ?? $this->createMock(ContractorProviderCompanyRepository::class),
227|            $overrides['providerMemberRepository'] ?? $this->createMock(ContractorProviderCompanyMemberRepository::class),
228|            $overrides['providerCompanyService'] ?? $this->makeProviderCompanyService(),
229|            $overrides['requirementService'] ?? $this->makeRequirementService(),
230|        );
231|    }
232|
233|    protected function containerWithUser(?User $user): ContainerInterface
234|    {
235|        $token = $this->createMock(TokenInterface::class);
236|        $token->method('getUser')->willReturn($user);
237|
238|        $tokenStorage = $this->createMock(TokenStorageInterface::class);
239|        $tokenStorage->method('getToken')->willReturn($user !== null ? $token : null);
240|
241|        return new class($tokenStorage) implements ContainerInterface {
242|            public function __construct(private TokenStorageInterface $tokenStorage)
243|            {
244|            }
245|
246|            public function get(string $id): mixed
247|            {
248|                if ($id === 'security.token_storage') {
249|                    return $this->tokenStorage;
250|                }
251|
252|                throw new \LogicException('Serviço não configurado no container de teste: ' . $id);
253|            }
254|
255|            public function has(string $id): bool
256|            {
257|                return $id === 'security.token_storage';
258|            }
259|        };
260|    }
261|
262|    /** @return array<string, mixed> */
263|    protected function decode(JsonResponse $response): array
264|    {
265|        $data = json_decode((string) $response->getContent(), true);
266|
267|        return is_array($data) ? $data : [];
268|    }
269|
270|    /**
271|     * @return array<string, mixed>
272|     */
273|    protected function validCompanyPayload(int $responsibleMemberId): array
274|    {
275|        return [
276|            'razao_social' => 'Empresa Parceira LTDA',
277|            'cnpj' => '12.345.678/0001-99',
278|            'tipo' => 'operacional',
279|            'responsavel_interno_member_id' => $responsibleMemberId,
280|            'contato' => [
281|                'nome' => 'João Contato',
282|                'email' => 'joao@parceira.com',
283|                'telefone' => '11999998888',
284|            ],
285|        ];
286|    }
287|
288|    /**
289|     * @return array<string, mixed>
290|     */
291|    protected function validRequirementPayload(): array
292|    {
293|        return [
294|            'titulo' => 'ASO Admissional',
295|            'categoria' => 'contrato',
296|            'aplicar_para' => ['operacional'],
297|            'validade_tipo' => 'sem_validade',
298|            'regra_bloqueio' => 'sem_bloqueio',
299|        ];
300|    }
301|}
302|
Request #6 deepseek-v4-flash P:22.59K C:3.78K CR:19.2K CW:0 29133ms
Reasoning
Now the tests use `$this->controller(...)` which now creates a mock EntityManager that returns a mock `ObjectRepository` for getRepository. Before the change, the controller constructor got a `createMock(EntityManagerInterface::class)` whose `getRepository` would return null (default). Then calling `findOneBy` on null would throw error (Call to a member function findOneBy() on null) — that was the pipeline error being fixed. But now: findOneBy returns null by default (mock's default behavior returns null). Then `resolveContractorPermissionTag()` returns null unless user is platform admin (super admin / ROLE_MANAGER). Wait, tests like `testRequirementSavePersistsAndReturnsRequirement` call `requirementSave` which first calls `canManage()`: - `isContractorPlatformAdmin()`: user(10, $company) created with `new User()`, no roles set. getRoles() probably returns [] — unless set super admin? Not. So false. - Then `resolveContractorPermissionTag()`: gets user, company. getRepository(CompanyMembers) returns mock ObjectRepository → findOneBy returns null → member null → returns null. - Then canManage returns false → 403. But the test expects 200! So how could this test pass? Maybe the user fixture in the original tests passed because... wait, but the test was passing before? Hmm. Actually the diff implies the pipeline has 17 errors and they're fixing the `Call to a member function findOneBy() on null` which occurred because the hotfix #658 added EntityManagerInterface to the constructor. Wait, if the previous code `$this->createMock(EntityManagerInterface::class)` passed to controller, then `getRepository()` returns null, `findOneBy` on null → error. But now the tests... all these tests go through `canManage()` which requires the entity manager to return a member and product. So how does findOneBy returning null not break the test expectations? Hold on. In the current tests, the user fixture - does the User class maybe have default role ROLE_MANAGER? Let's check how `user()` is set up; there's no role assignment. But maybe `canManage` used to be different before hotfix #658 (the controller hotfix for 403). The hotfix added the entityManager usage to check permission tag. Wait, PR #658 added EntityManagerInterface to the controller constructor (per the background), meaning resolveContractorPermissionTag is new code. But wait, all these controller tests with actions that require `canManage()` returning true (e.g., requirementSave which tests expect 200) rely on `resolveContractorPermissionTag()` returning a PermissionTag or on the user being a platform admin. The new mock returns null for findOneBy, so canManage() returns false, so requirementSave would return 403, not 200. Unless... the tests assert 403? Let's check: testRequirementSavePersistsAndReturnsRequirement asserts 200. Hmm. Wait — maybe these tests were failing in the pipeline with the error "Call to a member function findOneBy() on null", which means they hit `resolveContractorPermissionTag`, and would throw because getRepository returns null. But if findOneBy returned null (not throwing), resolveContractorPermissionTag returns null, and canManage returns false → response 403, and test would fail with a different error (expected 200 got 403). Hmm, unless in these tests the user is set up such that the tests already pass... Let me think again. Wait — is this the actual runtime path? `requirementSave` → `canManage()` → `isContractorPlatformAdmin` false → `resolveContractorPermissionTag()`. Yes. So after this fix, tests that exercise actions guarded by canManage() would now... hmm, but wait, was there an earlier version of the tests that ran fine? Actually wait - maybe tests were failing before the fix at the exact error "Call to a member function findOneBy() on null". That means before the fix, getRepository returned null → calling findOneBy on null → PHP error. In these tests, since a mocked EntityManager was given in constructor (from previous test code), the error occurs for EVERY action that calls resolveContractorPermissionTag. So these tests previously errored and were among the 17 errors. Now with this fix, resolveContractorPermissionTag returns null (no member), so canManage() returns false → guarded actions return 403, which would make the "success" tests fail with an assertion failure rather than an error. Unless... the PermissionTag resolution isn't actually necessary because canManage returns false only when user isn't a platform admin. And test users aren't platform admin. Hmm, wait. Let me reconsider: Are all these success tests (200) supposed to work with a mocked permission service that just needs... no. They rely on canManage() == true. Hmm, so either: 1. The user fixture sets roles like ROLE_MANAGER somewhere. Let me check the User entity and its `setRoles` or default roles. 2. Actually, wait — the tests run in the unit test; these are actions requiring canManage. If they were previously failing with "Call to member function findOneBy on null", then they were failing, period. The fix would now make them return 403. Then the tests expecting 200 would fail. But wait — maybe I'm wrong. Maybe resolveContractorPermissionTag, when member not found, returns null, and canManage returns false. But the previous passing behavior? Hmm, but there is no "previous passing behavior" since the hotfix #658 introduced the entityManager usage in resolveContractorPermissionTag. The tests had to be adapted to the new constructor with a mock EntityManager... but the mock returns null repo. Hmm. Actually, hold on: maybe tests were written when the controller didn't have the EntityManager parameter and thus didn't call getRepository. Then the hotfix added the EM dependency, so the existing tests needed a 4th constructor argument. The original fix (before this PR) was to add `$this->createMock(EntityManagerInterface::class)` as the 4th argument (as we can see was there before this diff), but that mock returns null for getRepository → calling findOneBy on null → error. That was the pipeline error. Now they added getRepository returning an ObjectRepository mock, so findOneBy returns null instead of throwing. So now the actions canManage → false → returns 403 for tests that expected 200? Wait but that would be a failing assertion, not resolved. Let me check the tests that use the controller helper and their expected statuses: - testRequirementSavePersistsAndReturnsRequirement → expects 200 and asserts success true. - testRequirementSaveReturns422OnValidationError → expects 422 ('Título é obrigatório'). But wait, requirementSave's canManage check returns 403 before validation. So the test would fail because 422 expected but gets 403. Hmm, so unless canManage returns true. So how does canManage return true? Let's look more carefully. The member from findOneBy mock returns null. But wait, maybe `getRepository` is called with specific class and returns different mock. In this new code, getRepository always returns the same ObjectRepository mock (no arg matching). findOneBy returns null. So member null. Alternatively, maybe the mock of `PermissionTagByMemberService` is not relevant because... canManage is only called when user is not a platform admin. Hmm. Wait, maybe I should check whether the tests pass by running them? Can't run. Let's re-read the background description: "Mock do EntityManagerInterface configurado para retornar um ObjectRepository, eliminando o Call to a member function findOneBy() on null que ocorria porque o hotfix da PR #658 adicionou EntityManagerInterface ao construtor do controller." Hmm — the fix ensures findOneBy does not get called on null. But the tests' expected behavior implies canManage must be true (or at least resolveContractorPermissionTag yields a tag). Yet with a null-returning findOneBy mock, member null → tag null → canManage false. Unless the tests were previously passing before #658 (which changed permission logic to look up member/product via repositories) because before, the controller obtained permissions via a different route: e.g., via a service or a route that just used PermissionTagByMemberService with user/company. And after #658, resolveContractorPermissionTag needed an EM. But the test's mocked PermissionTagByMemberService is what returns the tag; but it's never reached because member is null. Wait, but the mocked `containerWithUser` + mock PermissionTagByMemberService → `getPermissionTag` would return null anyway (mocked method returns null unless configured). So even in the old design, if canManage were routed through the mock permission service, the mock would return null → canManage false. So for the success tests to pass, canManage must have been returning true via a different path that does not depend on the mocked PermissionTagByMemberService... Hmm wait: canManage starts with `isContractorPlatformAdmin()`. `User::isSuperAdmin()` — maybe user entity's isSuperAdmin checks role 'ROLE_SUPER_ADMIN'. New User() has no roles. So false. Unless the user fixture gets roles somewhere. Let's look at User entity and the setRoles, or isSuperAdmin. Actually, maybe user() returns a User mock? No, real User. OK let me check what `canManage` did before #658 — perhaps the tests were updated in #658's original commit to reflect new behavior. Actually, maybe the "17 errors" include these same tests failing differently. The point is: this fix might not make all the tests in the file pass. But our job is to review the diff, not to verify the entire test run. But if the diff's fix is insufficient such that these tests still fail (now returning 403 instead of 200), that's a real issue worth flagging. Actually, let me re-examine. Perhaps these success tests DID pass before #658 because before the hotfix, `canManage` used `$this->permissionTagByMemberService->getPermissionTag($member, $product)` where the member came from a repository from the requirementService's EM, or something. Now, in this version, canManage requires EM-based lookups of CompanyMembers and Product. Let me check the git history/diff for the controller to understand. But the controller isn't in the review_files; the current code is what matters. Given current controller code (which we read), success on requirementSave requires canManage()==true which requires either platform admin or member found + product found + permission tag from mocked service non-null. Wait, mock PermissionTagByMemberService::getPermissionTag returns null (default). So even if member and product are found, tag null → canManage false. Unless the test mock sets a willReturn. In controller() helper, `$this->createMock(PermissionTagByMemberService::class)` with no expectations. So getPermissionTag returns null → tag not PermissionTag instance → canManage: resolveContractorPermissionTag returns null → canManage false. Hmm, so with current code and mocks, canManage() always false (unless user platform admin), regardless of the EM fix! So requirementSave always returns 403 → all those "200" and "422" tests fail. But wait — maybe these tests were already in this state before and previously passed? That can't be, because the mock EM given before returned null repo and caused "call to findOneBy on null". Both before and after, canManage can't return true. Unless the tests are currently expected to be "errors" and this PR is only part of the fix... Hold on. Actually maybe I should look at the actual git diff of the controller change to understand the previous behavior of canManage relative to these tests. But the controller isn't in the review_files nor in changed files list of this PR (except SsmaEventValidator). Wait: review only requires review_files; we shouldn't comment on the other changed files. But for context, the hotfix #658 is in the baseline? Actually, "src/Controller/Contractor/EmpresasParceirasController.php" is not among the modified files in this PR. So it's part of the base branch already (post #658 merge). So these tests existed alongside the current controller code? No — the tests were failing because after #658 merged, the controller constructor changed but the tests weren't updated until now. Before #658, the tests may have passed because controller didn't use EM at all. Wait, actually the tests as they stand before this PR's diff had `$this->createMock(EntityManagerInterface::class)` as the 4th constructor arg. So someone had already updated the constructor call to include the EM mock. But then, the controller (from #658) calls getRepository → null → findOneBy on null → error. The tests fail. Now this diff makes getRepository return an ObjectRepository mock so findOneBy returns null. But then resolveContractorPermissionTag returns null → canManage false → guarded actions return 403 → tests expecting 200/422 would fail assertions. Hmm, so would these tests pass with this fix? Let's look more carefully at each test action and the flow. Wait, maybe canManage is only reached if `$this->isContractorPlatformAdmin()` is false. Could user() fixture roles...? Let me inspect User::getRoles() and whether setRoles sets something, and whether Company relation matters. Actually — Wait. Perhaps I misread resolveContractorPermissionTag: `$member = $this->entityManager->getRepository(CompanyMembers::class)->findOneBy([...])`. If member is null, returns null. So canManage false. So maybe ALL tests in this file that go through controller() would produce 403 responses for write actions (they require canManage) and... Actually, wait: which tests require canManage vs canAccess? - requirementSave: canManage (line 95) - requirementDelete: canManage - requirementSetActive: canManage - companySave: canManage - companyDelete: canManage - companyProvidersLink: canManage - companyRequirementEvidenceUpload: canManage - companiesList: jsonIfCannotAccess → canAccess. canAccess: if isContractorPlatformAdmin false → resolveContractorPermissionTag() instanceof PermissionTag. Returns null → false → jsonIfCannotAccess returns 403. So essentially every action in these tests is permission-guarded and none can pass with current mocks (unless user is platform admin). The user fixture: `$this->user(10, $company)` — real User entity, no roles. Wait, hmm. So all these tests, with this fix, would return 403, failing the assertions (expecting 200/422/etc). So the fix seems incomplete. But wait, maybe the tests were already failing before #658? Let me consider whether the tests were actually passing at HEAD before the merge of #658. #658's diff added EM to constructor and also added permission-check logic requiring repository lookups. Before #658, canManage presumably used the permission service directly or getPermissionTagByMemberService with user's member resolved differently, e.g., via a repository fetched from the same EM. Hmm. Actually, let me not speculate; let me check git log/diff for the controller to see how canManage looked before. But we can't access git history via tools. We only have file reads of current state. Alternatively, maybe the intended way these tests pass is that `containerWithUser` returns token with user, and the User object has some special getter that maps to a platform admin check. Let me check the User class and isSuperAdmin. Let me search for isSuperAdmin and getRoles in User entity. Actually — Wait. Maybe I'm missing something about how the tests previously (before hotfix #658) got canManage to be true: the `PermissionTagByMemberService` mock returned null, and canManage used to be: `return $this->permissionTagByMemberService->...`? Let's just check git blame by looking for the tests' original expectations and how they passed. Hmm. Actually, let's reconsider: maybe these tests currently don't assert 200 in these flows because they were updated at #658 time to assert 403? Let's re-read: the diff for the test file only shows the constructor changes and import. The test bodies expecting 200 were presumably passing before the hotfix (i.e., before #658). Since #658 is already merged into new_staging2 and this PR's diff only touches these lines, we can't assume the tests in the current file are all expected to pass post-fix... but the PR claims: "Resultado esperado: todos os 4 conjuntos de testes passam sem erros", specifically listing EmpresasParceirasControllerTest as a whole. So the author believes running `php bin/phpunit tests/Unit/Product/EmpresasParceiras/EmpresasParceirasControllerTest.php` passes after the change. So there must be something making canManage() true. Let me dig into the User entity to see roles and whether user() from the fixture returns a user that counts as super admin or has ROLE_MANAGER. Let me search.
Tool Calls (2)
code_search
Show Details
{"search_text": "function isSuperAdmin"}
File: src/Entity/User.php
Match lines: 1
412|    public function isSuperAdmin(): bool

File: src/Service/LLMRequestService.php
Match lines: 1
980|    private function isSuperAdminFreeUsage(array $options, array $context): bool

code_search
Show Details
{"search_text": "function getRoles"}
File: .claude/agents/especialistas/symfony/security_specialist.md
Match lines: 1
109|    public function getRoles(): array

File: agents/especialistas/symfony/security_specialist.md
Match lines: 1
109|    public function getRoles(): array

File: src/Controller/Api/CompanyApiController.php
Match lines: 1
1075|    public function getRoles(int $companyId): JsonResponse

File: src/Controller/DecisionSystem/FlowTemplateController.php
Match lines: 1
4714|    public function getRoles(Request $request): JsonResponse

File: src/Controller/DecisionSystemController.php
Match lines: 1
12797|    public function getRoles(): JsonResponse

File: src/Entity/AiTrainingModule.php
Match lines: 1
229|    public function getRoles(): ?array

File: src/Entity/CompanyArea.php
Match lines: 1
511|    public function getRoles(): Collection

File: src/Entity/CostCenter.php
Match lines: 1
282|    public function getRoles(): Collection

File: src/Entity/SstEntity.php
Match lines: 1
120|    public function getRoles(): array

File: src/Entity/TrainingModule.php
Match lines: 1
377|    public function getRoles(): ?array

File: src/Entity/Trm/TrmPerson.php
Match lines: 1
251|    public function getRoleSet(): ?string { return $this->roleSet; }

File: src/Entity/User.php
Match lines: 1
312|    public function getRoles(): array

File: src/Repository/RolesBenefitsRepository.php
Match lines: 1
93|    public function getRolesWithBenefitsSummary(int $companyId): array

File: src/Service/Chat/ChatDataSourceService.php
Match lines: 8
1113|    private function getRolesHierarchicalLevels(): array
1129|    private function getRolesTypeContracts(): array
1145|    private function getRolesSalaryBenefits(): array
1161|    private function getRolesSalaryAdditionals(): array
1177|    private function getRolesMarketJobs(): array
1193|    private function getRolesMembersAtivos(): array
1243|    private function getRolesCompetencies(): array
1259|    private function getRolesCompanyActive(): array

Request #7 deepseek-v4-flash P:26.98K C:98 CR:26.37K CW:0 1565ms
Reasoning
Let me read the User entity around isSuperAdmin and getRoles.
Tool Calls (1)
file_read
Show Details
{"file_path": "src/Entity/User.php", "start_line": 300, "end_line": 430}
File: src/Entity/User.php (Total lines: 1529)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 300-430
300|    public function getEmail(): ?string
301|    {
302|        return $this->email;
303|    }
304|
305|    public function setEmail(?string $email): self
306|    {
307|        $email = $email !== null ? strtolower(trim($email)) : null;
308|        $this->email = $email !== '' ? $email : null;
309|        return $this;
310|    }
311|
312|    public function getRoles(): array
313|    {
314|        $roles = array_unique($this->roles ?? []);
315|
316|        // access_control em ^/user exige ROLE_USER; candidatos às vezes só têm ROLE_CANDIDATE na BD → 403.
317|        if (\in_array(self::ROLE_CANDIDATE, $roles, true) && !\in_array(self::ROLE_USER, $roles, true)) {
318|            $roles[] = self::ROLE_USER;
319|        }
320|
321|        return $roles;
322|    }
323|
324|    public function setRoles(array $roles): self
325|    {
326|        $this->roles = $roles;
327|        return $this;
328|    }
329|
330|    public function getPassword(): string
331|    {
332|        return $this->password;
333|    }
334|
335|    public function setPassword(string $password): self
336|    {
337|        $this->password = $password;
338|        return $this;
339|    }
340|
341|    public function getSalt(): ?string
342|    {
343|        return null;
344|    }
345|
346|    public function eraseCredentials()
347|    {
348|        // If you store any temporary, sensitive data on the user, clear it here
349|    }
350|
351|    public function getUsername(): string
352|    {
353|        return $this->getUserIdentifier();
354|    }
355|
356|    public function getUserIdentifier(): string
357|    {
358|        $email = trim((string) $this->email);
359|        if ($email !== '') {
360|            return strtolower($email);
361|        }
362|
363|        $cpf = preg_replace('/\D+/', '', (string) ($this->profile?->getCpf() ?? ''));
364|        if ($cpf !== '') {
365|            return $cpf;
366|        }
367|
368|        return $this->id ? 'user:' . $this->id : 'user:new';
369|    }
370|
371|    public function getAuditIdentifier(): string
372|    {
373|        return $this->id ? 'user:' . $this->id : 'user:new';
374|    }
375|
376|    /**
377|     * A sessão contém uma versão serializada sem Profile. Sem esta comparação
378|     * por ID, senha e papéis, o Symfony compara getUserIdentifier(): a cópia da
379|     * sessão retorna user:<id>, enquanto a entidade recarregada retorna o CPF,
380|     * e encerra uma autenticação válida com "user has changed".
381|     */
382|    public function isEqualTo(UserInterface $user): bool
383|    {
384|        if (!$user instanceof self || $this->id === null || $this->id !== $user->getId()) {
385|            return false;
386|        }
387|
388|        if (!hash_equals((string) $this->password, (string) $user->getPassword())) {
389|            return false;
390|        }
391|
392|        $currentRoles = $this->getRoles();
393|        $refreshedRoles = $user->getRoles();
394|        sort($currentRoles);
395|        sort($refreshedRoles);
396|
397|        return $currentRoles === $refreshedRoles;
398|    }
399|
400|    public function getDisplayName(): string
401|    {
402|        $name = trim((string) $this->getFullName());
403|
404|        return $name !== '' ? $name : ($this->id ? 'Usuário #' . $this->id : 'Usuário');
405|    }
406|
407|    public function hasRole(string $role): bool
408|    {
409|        return in_array($role, $this->getRoles());
410|    }
411|
412|    public function isSuperAdmin(): bool
413|    {
414|        return $this->hasRole('ROLE_SUPER_ADMIN');
415|    }
416|
417|    public function getCompany(): ?Company
418|    {
419|        return $this->company;
420|    }
421|
422|    public function setCompany(?Company $company): self
423|    {
424|        $this->company = $company;
425|        return $this;
426|    }
427|
428|    public function getProfile(): ?Profile
429|    {
430|        return $this->profile;
Request #8 deepseek-v4-flash P:28.26K C:2.06K CR:27.01K CW:0 17036ms
Reasoning
The user fixture has no roles set (new User with default null roles) → roles empty (unless candidate). So isContractorPlatformAdmin returns false. Then canManage false. So guarded tests would return 403. Hmm, but wait—maybe there's something about how these tests were passing pre-#658. Let me look at the pre-#658 behavior of the controller: canManage may have previously checked the permission tag via the `permissionTagByMemberService` directly, without needing member from repository? Actually, PermissionTagByMemberService::getPermissionTag($member, $product). So it still requires member + product objects. Hmm. Given the mocks provided, the resolution always ends null. So none of these write tests can pass with a 200 currently. But the PR claims they now pass. So either: 1. The test suite would only have errors (exceptions), not assertion failures, because the previous code's failure happened during canManage in `resolveContractorPermissionTag`, which calls findOneBy on null → TypeError? Actually in PHP 8, calling a method on null returns Error "Call to a member function findOneBy() on null". That Error is uncaught → the whole test errors out, regardless of assertions. So before the fix, all these guarded tests "error out". After the fix, they would return 403, failing assertions — unless the tests expected 403. Wait, but the tests do NOT expect 403; they expect 200/422/409 etc. So the fix only converts errors into assertion failures. So the test file would still not fully pass... Unless canManage returns true somehow. Let me double check resolveContractorPermissionTag again. It does `$member = $repo->findOneBy(...)`. Since ObjectRepository mock returns null, member null → return null. Hold on, but actually: `$this->entityManager->getRepository(...)` mock method 'getRepository' returns the SAME ObjectRepository mock for both CompanyMembers::class and Product::class. But maybe the mocked EM... no wait — there is no mocking of return value per class. It always returns a fresh ObjectRepository mock that returns null for findOneBy. So yes, resolveContractorPermissionTag returns null, and thus canManage false. So how could the PR author claim EmpresasParceirasControllerTest passes? Maybe the tests' file has changed also because of prior commits at #658 that might have introduced tests asserting 403? No. Wait, maybe the tests were passing pre-#658 because the controller had different permission logic. Since #658 was the "hotfix empresas parceiras 403", likely before, canManage relied on something else, and after it got stricter with EM-based member lookups. In #658, they'd have updated the tests to mock the EM so the constructor call works, and maybe the tests changed to assert... Actually, the "chore" PR is #??? fixing the pipeline. We only see part. OK, let me step back. Our job: review this diff in isolation. The change: ```php $entityManager = $this->createMock(EntityManagerInterface::class); $entityManager->method('getRepository')->willReturn( $this->createMock(ObjectRepository::class) ); ``` Now the controller constructor receives this EM. Actions that call `canManage()`/`canAccess()` will call getRepository → repo mock → findOneBy null → resolveContractorPermissionTag returns null → guarded actions 403. But wait — maybe that's intended? Look at each test case expecting 200/422: They'd fail. Actually, wait. Let me re-check: is `resolveContractorPermissionTag` even invoked in tests? It requires the user from container to be a User. In `containerWithUser($user)`, the token returns the user. Good. But is the user needed for other steps? If user null in some tests, then canAccess... For instance, testRequirementSaveReturns422OnValidationError uses user. So it will hit canManage. So it seems tests would return 403. Then testRequirementSavePersistsAndReturnsRequirement: assert 200 → fail. Unless... the tests pass because the mocked ObjectRepository's `findOneBy` is configured? No — in controller() helper, they create the mock inline without config. Since getRepository is stubbed with willReturn a generic mock, findOneBy returns null. Hmm, but wait — is `resolveContractorPermissionTag` maybe not executed because user fixture has no role and maybe an early `$this->getUser()` returns null due to container token? No. Let me look again at how tests previously (before #658) got a 200 for requirementSave. Pre-#658 canManage probably used `$this->permissionTagByMemberService` without the repository stuff; but the mocked permission service returns null unless the test stubs it. So how did tests pass? Perhaps pre-#658, canManage did NOT depend on permission tag at all (maybe allowed all authenticated with company? or no guard) — the hotfix "empresas parceiras 403" suggests they were fixing a bug where users got 403 incorrectly (i.e., requiring too much). Hmm. Alternatively, maybe tests used to stub the PermissionTag service. But currently the controller() helper creates a plain mock and doesn't stub getPermissionTag. Anyway, since these tests were presumably green on some baseline before #658 (or not), and the PR is intended to make them green, our review should focus on the actual diff. If the actual diff is insufficient (tests still fail) we can flag it — but we can't run tests to confirm. Actually wait. Let me reconsider. Maybe the tests in this file exercise canManage etc. in a way that was already broken but the PR claims these exact tests pass. We cannot run. So the question: is the fix adequate for the error it intends to fix? It fixes the "call to member function findOneBy on null" Error. Whether assertions then pass depends on controller logic. Let me actually check whether there's another subtlety: `PermissionTagByMemberService` mock is created in the controller() helper; maybe `getPermissionTag` default returns null → tag null → canManage false. Yes. But hold on — perhaps the actual hotfix #658 already updated these tests (this test file) to account for the new permission model, e.g., by configuring the EM in the test to return a real member and product and permission service returning a tag. But that is not what we see: we see a generic ObjectRepository returning null. So maybe the tests DID not pass and were among the 17 errors, and this change transforms them from errors to assertion failures, and the author didn't actually run...? The author's "Como testar" says run and expect all tests pass. Hmm wait — perhaps I'm wrong that actions reach resolveContractorPermissionTag when the controller is not a platform admin. Let me look again at canManage. Yes. Wait, actually maybe the tests were passing before because the user() creates a User and these tests DID configure `$this->controller(...)` helper which uses mocked PermissionTagByMemberService returning null, meaning before #658 the requirementSave probably called only requirementService->save and returned 200 regardless of permission check... which would indicate pre-#658 canManage was permissive (not doing tag checks) OR the check was something else entirely, e.g., simply `$this->getUser() instanceof User`. OK given ambiguity, maybe we need to look at how canManage/canAccess looked before #658. Since we can't run git, but we might find other tests referencing the same controller and permission behavior. Let me search for other tests that exercise the same controller with a configured EM that returns member/product and stubbed PermissionTag service, to see the pattern of what a correct test setup should look like. Actually, there is a similar pattern to consider: This whole test file appears to be newly written in #658 (the "hotfix" added EM to the controller's constructor). Maybe the test file was written to test side effects and they bypass permission by making the user a platform admin? But user() doesn't set roles. Hmm. Wait, maybe there's a `containerWithUser` plus `security.token_storage` and AbstractController::getUser() works. And AbstractController::createAccessDeniedException requires container with exception controller service; but not reached. Let me re-read the test file - testRequirementSavePersistsAndReturnsRequirement expects success with payload valid. If canManage returned 403, that test would fail. So it seems these tests currently fail assertions... but the PR claims they pass. Something is off in my analysis. Let me check: does requirementSave in controller... `if (!$this->canManage()) return 403`. And canManage depends on the permission tag. But maybe `isContractorPlatformAdmin` returns true because `User` has default roles? Let me check ROLE constants and roles default property in User.
Tool Calls (2)
code_search
Show Details
{"search_text": "ROLE_SUPER_ADMIN|ROLE_MANAGER|private \\$roles|protected \\$roles", "file_patterns": ["src/Entity/User.php"], "use_perl_regexp": true}
File: src/Entity/User.php
Match lines: 6
55|    const ROLE_MANAGER = 'ROLE_MANAGER';
92|    private $roles = [];
414|        return $this->hasRole('ROLE_SUPER_ADMIN');
503|        return $this->hasRole('ROLE_MANAGER');
519|        return $this->hasRole('ROLE_MANAGER_VIEWER');
524|        return $this->hasRole('ROLE_MANAGER_GESTOR');

file_read
Show Details
{"file_path": "src/Entity/User.php", "start_line": 1, "end_line": 130}
File: src/Entity/User.php (Total lines: 1529)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 1-130
1|<?php
2|
3|namespace App\Entity;
4|
5|use App\Repository\UserRepository;
6|use DateTime;
7|use DateTimeInterface;
8|use Doctrine\Common\Collections\ArrayCollection;
9|use Doctrine\Common\Collections\Collection;
10|use Doctrine\ORM\Mapping as ORM;
11|use Symfony\Bridge\Doctrine\Validator\Constraints\UniqueEntity;
12|use Symfony\Component\HttpFoundation\File\UploadedFile;
13|use Symfony\Component\Security\Core\User\EquatableInterface;
14|use Symfony\Component\Security\Core\User\PasswordAuthenticatedUserInterface;
15|use Symfony\Component\Security\Core\User\UserInterface;
16|use Symfony\Component\Serializer\Annotation\Groups;
17|/**
18| * REGRAS DE IDENTIDADE E CONTATO:
19| *
20| * - User::email é opcional somente para membros cadastrados pelo acesso imediato.
21| * - Um usuário sem email autentica pelo CPF normalizado de User::profile.
22| * - Email não é uma chave universal de usuário. Para localizar login, use
23| *   UserRepository::findOneByLoginIdentifier(); para relações internas, use User::id.
24| * - Nunca use getUserIdentifier() como nome, email de contato ou valor de auditoria:
25| *   ele pode retornar CPF. Use getDisplayName(), getEmail() com guarda de null ou
26| *   getAuditIdentifier(), respectivamente.
27| * - Todo envio deve ignorar getEmail() null/vazio sem impedir o restante do fluxo.
28| * - Permissões administrativas concedidas a um membro não tornam o email obrigatório.
29| * - Há CPFs duplicados legados no banco. O cadastro imediato deve consultar
30| *   UserRepository::countUsersByCpf() e nunca criar uma nova duplicidade.
31| *
32| * @ORM\Entity(repositoryClass=UserRepository::class)
33| * @UniqueEntity(fields={"email"}, message="There is already an account with this email")
34| */
35|class User implements UserInterface, PasswordAuthenticatedUserInterface, EquatableInterface, \JsonSerializable
36|{
37|    /**
38|     * User Generico  >> ROLE_USER
39|     * Registro desde Lead registration >> ROLE_LEAD
40|     * Participa en proceso selectivo  >> ROLE_CANDIDATE
41|     * Participa en proceso de treinamento  >> ROLE_TRAINING
42|     * Participa en Pesquisa  >> ROLE_SURVEY
43|     * Evaluador  >> ROLE_REVIEWER
44|     */
45|    //constant('EVALUATOR_STATUS_DISABLED', e.user)
46|    const EVALUATOR_STATUS_DISABLED = 0; //constant('EVALUATOR_REQUIRED_VALIDATION', monitoredEvaluationSchedule.admin)
47|    const EVALUATOR_STATUS_ENABLED = 1;
48|    const EVALUATOR_REQUIRED_VALIDATION = 2; //constant('EVALUATOR_REQUIRED_VALIDATION', u)
49|    const EVALUATOR_NOT_REQUIRED_VALIDATION = 3;
50|    const EVALUATOR_ZAP_SIGN_PENDING = 4;
51|
52|    const ROLE_SURVEY = 'ROLE_SURVEY';
53|    const ROLE_LEAD = 'ROLE_LEAD';
54|    const ROLE_COMPANY_TRIAL = 'ROLE_COMPANY_TRIAL';
55|    const ROLE_MANAGER = 'ROLE_MANAGER';
56|    const ROLE_USER = 'ROLE_USER';
57|    const ROLE_CANDIDATE = 'ROLE_CANDIDATE';
58|    const ROLE_TRAINING = 'ROLE_TRAINING';
59|    const ROLE_REVIEWER = 'ROLE_REVIEWER';
60|
61|    /**
62|     * CEO / CFO / diretor financeiro — camada financeira opcional (alerta Concentração, §3.4).
63|     */
64|    const ROLE_METAHUMAN_CLIENT_STRATEGIC_FINANCE = 'ROLE_METAHUMAN_CLIENT_STRATEGIC_FINANCE';
65|
66|    /**
67|     * Exportação de memo jurídico §8.9 — Comitê 6 assédio (Model v3).
68|     */
69|    const ROLE_METAHUMAN_HARASSMENT_LEGAL_MEMO_EXPORT = 'ROLE_METAHUMAN_HARASSMENT_LEGAL_MEMO_EXPORT';
70|
71|    /**
72|     * @ORM\Id
73|     * @ORM\GeneratedValue
74|     * @ORM\Column(type="integer")
75|     * @Groups({"user_id"})
76|     */
77|    private $id;
78|
79|    /**
80|     * @ORM\Column(type="string", length=180, unique=true, nullable=true)
81|     */
82|    private $email;
83|
84|    /**
85|     * @ORM\Column(type="string", length=180, nullable=true)
86|     */
87|    private $avatar;
88|
89|    /**
90|     * @ORM\Column(type="json")
91|     */
92|    private $roles = [];
93|
94|    /**
95|     * @var string The hashed password
96|     * @ORM\Column(type="string")
97|     */
98|    private $password;
99|
100|    /**
101|     * @var string
102|     * @ORM\Column(type="boolean", nullable=true)
103|     */
104|    private $isClientUser;
105|    /**
106|     * @var string
107|     * @ORM\Column(type="boolean", nullable=true)
108|     */
109|    private $isGlobalUser;
110|    /**
111|     * @var string
112|     * @ORM\Column(type="string", nullable=true)
113|     */
114|    private $layout_profile;
115|    /**
116|     * @var string
117|     * @ORM\Column(type="boolean", nullable=true)
118|     */
119|    private $enabled;
120|
121|    /**
122|     * @var datetime
123|     * @ORM\Column(type="datetime", nullable=true)
124|     */
125|    private $last_login;
126|
127|    /**
128|     * @var string
129|     * @ORM\Column(type="boolean", nullable=true)
130|     */
Request #9 deepseek-v4-flash P:31.98K C:2.04K CR:30.21K CW:0 16408ms
Reasoning
So the user fixture has no roles, so isContractorPlatformAdmin returns false and resolveContractorPermissionTag returns null (mock findOneBy returns null). So canManage false. Given this, all guarded actions in this test file would return 403, and assertions for 200/422/409 would fail. That suggests this test file as a whole wouldn't pass even with this fix, unless the tests previously (before the guard was added, i.e., pre-#658 controller) passed. But this test file is in the changed files of the PR — meaning the file was modified in this PR only to mock the entity manager for the controller constructor. So the tests and controller coexist in this branch. Perhaps these tests were already failing in the pipeline with the Error. Now they will fail with assertion failures... or maybe they would actually pass because... hmm. Wait, wait. Let me reconsider: maybe the mocks returning null from findOneBy are fine because canManage is FALSE and some tests expect 403? No test in this file asserts 403. Every test asserts 200/400/409/422. Hmm, so this is suspicious. However, I should be careful. Let me review the diff as given: only the import and mock setup. The key question is whether the mock configuration is correct given the controller's current behavior. Actually, maybe the deeper reality is that these tests genuinely could never pass unless the user is a platform admin or repositories return entities AND the PermissionTag service returns a tag. Since the mock permission service returns null, tests can't pass even if findOneBy returned entities. So the whole test suite for these controller actions is expecting permission to pass... meaning pre-#658, the controller probably didn't have this permission guard, OR the tests used a PermissionTag mock configured to return something. But in the current code, it's not configured. Unless... the `user()` fixture returns User with roles; but user(10,...) only sets email and company. Given the contradiction, maybe my reading of "canManage returns 403" is correct and the author's claim is wrong, OR the test file's other test cases test scenarios that don't reach canManage. Let's systematically check each test and controller method flow: 1. testRequirementSavePersistsAndReturnsRequirement: requirementSave requires canManage → 403 if false. Expect 200. Fails. 2. testRequirementSaveReturns422OnValidationError: same → 403, expected 422. Fails. 3. testRequirementSaveRejectsInvalidPayload: same → 403, expected 400. Fails. 4. testRequirementDeleteReturns409WhenLinked: requirementDelete → canManage → 403. Expected 409. Fails. 5. testRequirementDeleteRemovesWhenNotLinked: → 403. Fails. 6. testRequirementSetActiveRequiresActiveField: → 403. Fails. 7. testCompanySavePersistsAndReturnsCompany: companySave → 403. Fails. 8. testCompanyDeleteReturns409WhenInUse: → 403. Fails. 9. testCompanyProvidersLinkPersistsMembers: → 403. Fails. 10. testCompaniesListReturnsStats: companiesList → jsonIfCannotAccess → 403. Fails. 11. testCompanyRequirementEvidenceUploadRejectsMissingFile: → 403. Fails. So basically ALL the tests in this file currently fail... Wait, but that can't be consistent with this test file existing and passing pre-#658. Before #658 the controller constructor didn't have EM (probably the guard used a member service with the user or company only), and the PermissionTagByMemberService mock returning null? Hmm, but even then canManage would return false if it depended on the permission tag. So maybe pre-#658 the guard was just checking ROLE or company membership, e.g., via User roles. Wait — but #658 was a "hotfix 403" meaning it FIXED a bug where legitimate users got 403? Actually "hotfix empresas parceiras 403" probably fixed an issue causing 403 errors for valid users. Hmm. Hmm, maybe I'm overanalyzing. Let's search git for the controller before the hotfix. We cannot access git history. But we have the current code plus tests. The point of the review: to comment on the diff. This diff is a test mock configuration. Actually, let me reconsider: maybe these tests were indeed all red in the pipeline (17 errors). The background says "Pipeline #12538 com 17 erros e 3 falhas — essa PR corrige os 17 erros e 1 das 3 falhas." And this test file is part of the fix. The author says running the whole test class passes. But based on my analysis, canManage returns false, causing all tests to fail. UNLESS the mocked entity manager findOneBy actually gets stubbed... Wait, actually! Let me re-look: could it be that these tests pass because they never reach `canManage` since the user is null... no, most tests pass a user. Hmm, wait, maybe the guard isn't 403... Let me re-read requirementSave: `if (!$this->canManage())`. canManage → false when tag null. So 403. So indeed all these actions return 403 in tests with default mocks. This makes me think maybe I'm misunderstanding the test runner expectations, or maybe the tests were all green previously because the controller previously didn't call resolveContractorPermissionTag but something else simpler. And the #658 hotfix changed controller. And the test file may have been ALREADY updated in #658 to mock things... Actually maybe #658 also changed these tests' constructor invocation to add the EM mock (the "- $this->createMock(EntityManagerInterface::class)," line was likely added in #658 or in a prior commit; and now replaced with the configured mock). The current diff shows replacing a plain mock with one that returns an ObjectRepository. Given the tests were written in #658 presumably to pass with the new controller behavior... but they don't set roles to platform admin nor stub the member lookups. So they'd fail at canManage regardless. Unless #658 ALSO changed the tests to pass the user as super admin. Not present. OK, maybe I should verify by running? We can't. Given the uncertainty, what should the review comment be? Let me consider: Is there a real defect in the newly added mock code? The mock returns `ObjectRepository` (interface from doctrine/persistence). `getRepository` in `EntityManagerInterface` has return type `ObjectRepository`? Actually the signature is: ```php public function getRepository($className); ``` with `@return ObjectRepository` docblock in Doctrine\Persistence\ObjectManager. In Doctrine\ORM\EntityManagerInterface: ```php public function getRepository($className): \Doctrine\Persistence\ObjectRepository; ``` Return type declared? In Doctrine ORM 2.x, EntityManagerInterface::getRepository has `@return ObjectRepository` annotation but maybe not native return type. Mocking with createMock(ObjectRepository::class) is fine anyway. But the created generic `ObjectRepository` mock's `findOneBy()` returns null, and methods `find`, `findAll`, `findBy` return null. If code relies on `find()` returning array... Probably fine given only findOneBy used. The real question: whether the mock should return actual CompanyMembers/Product entities so canManage can pass. If the author claims all tests pass, but code shows guards require entities, maybe the fix is incomplete and tests still fail. But maybe the guard resolution returns null and canManage false BUT these tests were also failing before with the Error, so it's an improvement? The author claims green. Hmm, but hold on. Let me re-examine: maybe `containerWithUser` returns the token storage; and `AbstractController::getUser()` uses the token. Yes. Wait, maybe the crucial detail: this `controller()` helper is only used by tests that exist in this file. All 11 tests. If all of them currently fail (either Error before or 403 assertion failure after), then this fix would not make the file pass. That would be a severe review comment: "this fix only prevents the fatal error; the mocked repo's findOneBy returns null so resolveContractorPermissionTag() returns null, canManage() is false and every guarded action returns 403. Tests still fail." But wait—maybe the permission tag service mock returning null means canManage returns false. However, maybe these tests previously passed BEFORE the guard was introduced in #658, but #658 is the cause of these test failures; and the pipeline fix PR is about addressing 17 errors (which includes these). So after the fix, maybe the tests now pass? Let me check if the guard canManage/canAccess existed in pre-#658. If these were new actions added in #658, tests were newly written too... OK, given the substantial uncertainty, let's actually check the diff of EmpresasParceirasControllerTest within #658 by... we can't. But perhaps there are other test files for the same controller in feature/Integration? Let me search for other tests referencing EmpresasParceirasController or resolveContractorPermissionTag to see how they configure mocks, giving the intended pattern.
Tool Calls (2)
code_search
Show Details
{"search_text": "resolveContractorPermissionTag"}
File: src/Controller/Contractor/EmpresasParceirasController.php
Match lines: 4
607|        return $this->resolveContractorPermissionTag() instanceof PermissionTag;
632|        $tag = $this->resolveContractorPermissionTag();
660|        $tag = $this->resolveContractorPermissionTag();
674|    private function resolveContractorPermissionTag(): ?PermissionTag

code_search
Show Details
{"search_text": "EmpresasParceirasController("}
File: tests/Unit/Product/EmpresasParceiras/EmpresasParceirasControllerTest.php
Match lines: 1
282|        $controller = new EmpresasParceirasController(

Request #10 deepseek-v4-flash P:34.18K C:10.2K CR:33.92K CW:0 82543ms
Reasoning
Only one test file. Let me check how the controller is wired and whether canManage is actually required to return true for those flows in the tests. But maybe there's a possibility: maybe the User fixture in these tests is from `$this->user(...)`, and the test previously passed because the controller previously called `$this->permissionTagByMemberService` etc. Actually, I realize we should consider the git history of this test file within this branch: the file was changed only in this PR. Let's see if these tests actually pass now. Perhaps the tests currently pass because of some other behavior: Actually, wait. Let me re-read `canManage()`. It first checks `isContractorPlatformAdmin()`. If user isn't platform admin it checks the tag. But what about `resolveContractorPermissionTag()`: ```php $user = $this->getUser(); if (!$user instanceof User) return null; $company = $user->getCompany(); if (!$company instanceof Company) return null; $member = $this->entityManager->getRepository(CompanyMembers::class)->findOneBy([...]); if (!$member instanceof CompanyMembers) return null; $product = $this->entityManager->getRepository(Product::class)->findOneBy([...]); if (!$product instanceof Product) return null; return $this->permissionTagByMemberService->getPermissionTag($member, $product); ``` So even if the repository mocks returned a CompanyMembers and Product, getPermissionTag mock returns null. So canManage false regardless. Unless the test's `PermissionTagByMemberService` mock returns something. It's not configured. So indeed, no test in the file can exercise a successful write with canManage true. UNLESS the test user is platform admin (not). So all tests return 403/403/403. Wait, this really suggests the tests are inherently failing — perhaps they were failing in the pipeline as 17 errors and this PR, by making findOneBy not throw, reveals assertion failures... The author claims the 4 test files pass. Something doesn't add up. Unless the pipeline's "17 errors" are all within this test file due to the fatal error in every test (each counts as error), and after fix, they become... assertion failures and would count as failures ("3 falhas"). The author says "essa PR corrige os 17 erros e 1 das 3 falhas" — so 2 failures remain (other modules). So this fix should turn errors into passes? Hmm. Actually maybe there is some mock interplay: PHPUnit's createMock for a class method with return type declarations: When you create a mock of ObjectRepository and call findOneBy, it returns null. But then resolveContractorPermissionTag returns null. Then canManage false. I really should test my assumption by checking the actual behavior of user fixture and canManage guard - I've done that. So logically tests fail. But maybe I'm missing the fact that these tests were passing BEFORE #658 because the guard `canManage` before #658 may have been something like `return $this->getUser() !== null` (any user), and #658 introduced a 403 hotfix that tightened or loosened it... Actually "hotfix 403" likely refers to "empresas parceiras 403" bug: legit users receiving 403. The hotfix probably introduced a correct permission check (previously overly strict, maybe checking `user.isSuperAdmin || company.isAdminMember` via an un-mocked repo service that returned nothing in tests). OK. Regardless of the history, the diff we review must be assessed against the current controller code. Under the current code, the new mock makes findOneBy return null → permission resolution returns null → all guarded actions produce 403. Given the tests in this same file assert success (200/409/422/400/...), they can't pass. This seems like a genuine defect in the fix — but is that within our mandate? The review instructions: "Focus on issues in newly added code", and "Avoid commenting on correct code or unchanged code". The newly added code is the mock. If the mock's configuration is insufficient for the tests to actually verify intended behavior (i.e., it makes permission checks silently fail → all tests produce 403 but they don't assert 403), then the test suite is still failing, meaning the fix does not achieve the PR goal. But hold on — maybe I have the direction wrong: maybe tests do expect 403 in some scenarios? No, they don't. Hmm, wait. Actually, let me reconsider whether canManage() could return TRUE given a user with a company... No. It's a hard requirement on the permission tag. Let me double-check `isContractorPlatformAdmin`: user->isSuperAdmin() false; user->getRoles() returns [] for new User (roles=[] default) so no ROLE_MANAGER. false. So, resolveContractorPermissionTag is reached; member lookup returns null. So false. Conclusion: All controller actions called by the tests in this file will return 403 and fail assertions. So the test file won't pass unless additional stubbing is introduced (e.g., repo findOneBy returns CompanyMembers & Product, and permission service returns PermissionTag). Wait, but if the tests only assert on flows AFTER canManage passes... yes. Hmm, but wait. Wait wait wait. Let me reconsider whether requirementSave would ever return 200 in any test given mock PermissionTagByMemberService null. But if user is platform admin (ROLE_MANAGER), canManage true without EM lookups. In that case, the EM mock returning null repo is fine and test proceeds to service. That would work: the fix could set the user roles. But user() doesn't set roles. So not. OK. So at this point I strongly suspect that with this change the test suite still fails (now with assertion mismatches, not fatal errors). This is a high-value review finding about an incomplete test mock. However, I must be careful about the risk of being wrong — the author and PR say the tests pass. Let me check whether there's something about `resolveCompany`/`resolveUser` usage. Actually requirementSave calls resolveCompany then resolveUser then service... but canManage is checked FIRST at line 95. So 403 occurs before any service call. Given all this, unless the `user()` fixture populates roles elsewhere... Let me look at the user fixture more closely; no roles set. Maybe the Company entity returned by user->getCompany() matters for canManage? canManage for non-admin path: tagName from getPermissionTag. Not reached. Hmm. Alright, let me search whether the test suite has separate features that stub the entity manager differently, e.g., an EmpresasParceiras feature test or integration test that configures a member and product. That could give a hint of how #658's controller intended tests to be configured. But it's not strictly needed for review. Actually, let me look at the changed files list again — other changed files in this update: SsmaEventValidator.php, GlobalPermissionListener tests. These are not in the review group. The review group only has this one test file. So our comment should be on this file only. Let me also consider that these tests may have been passing in the pipeline before #658? But they're part of the SAME test file that was updated in #658? Actually, the test file references constructor with EM; the mock for getRepository was missing (returning null). If #658 was the one that added the EM parameter to controller and updated this test to add the mock EM (which existed as a plain mock in the pre-diff version), then #658 would have run pipeline tests; those likely failed with "Call to a member function findOneBy() on null" and the pipeline (CI gate) failed. So #658 merged with failing tests? The PR description says pipeline failures were introduced "após o merge das PRs #661 e #658". So #658 merged with failing tests (CI on new_staging2 is broken now). This chore PR fixes them. So after this PR, we need to see whether EmpresasParceirasControllerTest fully passes. Based on the mock behavior I've analyzed, it will not; all tests will return 403. Actually, would all of them return 403? Let's sanity check testRequirementSaveRejectsInvalidPayload: it asserts 400 with 'not-json'. canManage false → 403 (before parsing json). So 403 not 400. Fails. Hmm so is my analysis airtight? The only way tests could pass is if canManage returns true — impossible with current mocks... unless `PermissionTagByMemberService` mock is configured somewhere else. In controller() helper it's `$this->createMock(PermissionTagByMemberService::class)`. So yes, all tests get 403 responses. This strongly suggests the author's assertion that the file passes is false — OR the tests did something different pre-#658 and this diff is partially wrong (i.e., the intent was to make the permission resolution succeed). Hmm, wait. But maybe canManage is not expected to pass because the tests were written when the guard didn't exist (before #658) and the "correct" fix is to make user a platform admin OR provide the member/product entities. The author only added the repo mock, which prevents the fatal error but leaves the flow returning 403. So, an incomplete fix that leaves tests failing. Let me verify my analysis by simulating quickly: If findOneBy returns null, and the member lookup null → return null → canAccess false → jsonIfCannotAccess returns 403 JSON. companiesList returns 403, etc. I'll flag this as a high/medium severity maintainability/test issue: mock of EntityManager's getRepository now returns an ObjectRepository whose findOneBy returns null by default, which means `resolveContractorPermissionTag()` silently resolves to null, making canManage()/canAccess() always return false for non-admin fixture users. Result: every guarded action in the test returns 403, so assertions expecting 200/400/409/422 still fail. To restore previous test behavior, the repo should be configured to return CompanyMembers/Product entities (and permission service a tag) or the fixture user needs ROLE_MANAGER. Hold on, wait. Actually, wait. Let me reconsider: maybe BEFORE #658 controller didn't even have canManage at all, and tests called service methods directly. Actually, requirementSave in current controller includes the guard at the top. If before #658 the tests were green, then #658 introduced the guard AND updated tests, but pipeline breaks because the EM wasn't configured with a repo. It could be that #658's intent was to grant access, not deny. Actually, let me look at the "hotfix 403" name again — "hotfix empresas parceiras 403". A hotfix to fix a bug where Empresas Parceiras returned 403. Maybe the bug was that employees without a PermissionTag got 403 even though they should access if member of company with tag... Whatever. Let me try to figure out what the controller looked like before by looking at the merge base? Not available. Let me instead consider this from the test author's intent in this PR: they only needed to stop the fatal null error. They might not run all the tests... but they claim they do and they pass. Perhaps there is some code in the test that configures the PermissionTag... no. I think there's a real chance the tests DO NOT pass. But I must be honest about the possibility that my analysis is incomplete. Is there any chance that canManage in tests never runs because getUser() returns null? No, they pass $user. Let me verify what `AbstractController::getUser()` does with token. It uses `security.token_storage` from the container and calls getToken()->getUser(). Works. One more consideration: Mocked ObjectRepository: The method findOneBy in the ObjectRepository interface has signature `findOneBy(array $criteria)` returns `?object`. createMock returns mock object. PHPUnit's default: findBy etc return null. Yes. So, canManage always false. So in every test in the file that exercises a guarded action, response status is 403. Actually wait — would they really reach canManage? requirementSave line 93-97. Yes. OK. So the finding stands: this mock fix prevents the fatal error but doesn't make the guarded flows succeed, so the tests continue failing — actually they'd now return 403 consistently. The PR claims all 4 test files pass, and test 1 expects 200. So the test would fail with "Failed asserting that 403 matches expected 200". Hmm, but this is a claim about test results that I cannot directly verify. The instructions say: "Be objective and neutral, make judgments based on facts and logic" and "Before making a non-local claim, use file_read and code_search to verify callers, input sources...". I verified the controller flow. The reasoning is strong. But wait, is it possible that before this PR, these tests were ERRORING at a later point (after canManage)? No—before the fix, getRepository returned null, so canManage → resolveContractorPermissionTag → findOneBy on null → Error thrown before returning 403. So the tests errored. That means canManage never even returned false; the error happened during tag resolution. So before the fix, tests error at resolveContractorPermissionTag. After the fix, tag resolution returns null, canManage false, and tests would get 403 → assertions fail. So the PR just converts Errors into failed assertions. Unless the tests asserting success are actually never run because... no, all 11 are run. Therefore the correct review feedback: the mock setup needs to also make findOneBy return CompanyMembers and Product entities (and the permission service return a PermissionTag), or set the fixture user as ROLE_MANAGER/platform admin, so canManage()/canAccess() evaluate to true and the guarded flows under test actually execute. Alternatively, the tests should assert 403 if the intent is testing denied access (but they don't). Hmm, but this is a strong claim. Let me double check the guard in requirementSave is canManage (line 95), yes. And requirementSave test expects 200 and success true (line 39-42). 403 would also return a JSON with success false... fails. Wait, wait. Let me reconsider something: perhaps these tests were previously passing and I should look at the ORIGINAL controller code before #658 to know how canManage worked. Let me look for any other place with similar permission tag resolution that is older, like `PermissionTagByMemberService` used elsewhere, to see pattern. But more directly: maybe #658 added EM to resolveContractorPermissionTag but these controller actions previously used a different guard that didn't need EM. I can't easily verify the previous guard. But it doesn't matter for the review: In the current code (which is what the tests run against), the new mock results in 403 for every guarded action. If the tests are expected to pass with success statuses, this mock is insufficient. Hmm, but actually — could it be that these tests were written in this same branch and the author actually DID run them and they pass? For that to happen, canManage must return true. The only path to true without member/product/tag is isContractorPlatformAdmin. Maybe the test base user() builds a User that... no. Actually — wait! Maybe `containerWithUser` plus Symfony test framework: there is `Security` that when user has company... no. Alright. Let me also check: maybe these tests are not supposed to pass against current code, but the ones listed in "Como testar" are only the 4 files, and EmpresasParceirasControllerTest is listed. So author says they pass. Given the code analysis, I strongly believe this specific fix is insufficient and the test file will still be red (as assertion failures). I'll raise this as a finding. But let me be more careful before flagging as high severity. Let me look at how canManage behaved in the controller before #658 — perhaps the tests never needed canManage to pass because the actions weren't guarded? That would make my claim weaker because... no, regardless of history, the tests run against CURRENT code. Since the current code guards with canManage, and canManage is false with current mocks, the tests fail. If the tests previously passed, it means the guard previously didn't exist or was different — but the point remains: after this PR, they can't pass unless the mock is configured further. Hmm, wait. Unless the guard is bypassed because of how `$this->getUser()` interacts with roles... Let me double-check `user(10, $company)` for testRequirementSavePersistsAndReturnsRequirement: user created `new User()`, then `setEmail`, `setCompany`. Roles property default []. So no ROLE_MANAGER. So canManage false. Yes. Wait, could the mocked ObjectRepository method 'findOneBy' actually be configured by other tests? The `controller()` helper creates a fresh ObjectRepository mock. So no. Let me now consider a potential different framing: Perhaps the intent of the diff is simply that all tests are now expected to return 403, because the user isn't allowed. But tests assert 200 etc. That would be inconsistent, but the PR author claims the test file passes. This contradiction is the review finding. However, I want to be cautious: maybe I misidentified which `user()` each test uses, or maybe canManage's platform admin path is true because company/... Let me also check if `User::getRoles()` returns array_unique of `roles` default [] → []. isSuperAdmin checks hasRole('ROLE_SUPER_ADMIN') → in_array false. In array_unique, etc. So false. isContractorPlatformAdmin false. Then canManage uses resolveContractorPermissionTag: member null → returns null → not PermissionTag → false. So 403. So actually, before this PR's fix, those tests errored at findOneBy on null. But there must have been a time when the tests passed (before #658)? If before #658, requirementSave wasn't guarded by canManage... Let me search for evidence: maybe there's an older version of the guard used somewhere else e.g., canAccess previously was `$this->getUser() instanceof User && ...`. Without history we can't confirm. Given the strength of code analysis: the changed mock still doesn't permit a successful path; canManage will be false → 403. Let me double-check with a second example that requires canAccess not canManage, e.g., companiesList. jsonIfCannotAccess → canAccess → false → 403 JSON. Expected 200. Fails. So the conclusion is robust given the current controller. Alright, but hold on—maybe the whole test file existed and passed before the hotfix, meaning the guard previously didn't exist at all, and the tests ARE still valid in that the actions in the test call a controller method but the guard is new. For the fix to make the tests pass, the author would have needed to grant permission to the fixture user, e.g., by mocking EM to return CompanyMembers & Product entities and the permission service to return a PermissionTag mock. But they didn't. Instead they made findOneBy return null, meaning "user not found in company" → denied. So a succinct finding: "O mock atual remove o erro fatal mas faz resolveContractorPermissionTag() retornar null; logo canManage()/canAccess() serão false para usuários sem ROLE_MANAGER e todas as actions testadas responderão 403, não os status esperados (200/400/409/422). É necessário configurar findOneBy para retornar CompanyMembers/Product e o PermissionTagByMemberService para retornar um PermissionTag (ou usar fixture com ROLE_MANAGER) para os testes exercitarem o fluxo autorizado." Severity: high (breaks the PR's stated goal; tests still red). Category: test. But wait — is it possible that the actual tests pass because these tests were intended to check 403? Let me re-read testRequirementSavePersistsAndReturnsRequirement: yes asserts success true. So the guarded test suite expects authorized flows. Hmm, let me reconsider once more the possibility that this file previously passed. If it did, then canManage previously returned true with these exact same fixtures. What would canManage have looked like to return true given a user + company but no member/product/tag and no roles? Perhaps the old guard checked if the user had any PermissionTag in the company (querying permission tags directly). It could have been that the mocked PermissionTagByMemberService... no, mock returns null. Alternatively the old guard might not have existed and #658 ADDED it plus EM constructor. Then #658's author should also have updated tests to mock EM with repositories... Instead the current file got the plain EM mock (maybe the #658 author did it quickly and CI failed; then this chore PR improves the mock to prevent fatal). But the tests still can't pass without member/product/tag. Wait, unless #658's intent was the tests to verify denied access (403) in some and success in others? Not present. OK here's another thought: could the pipeline 17 errors include tests in this file ERRORING, and the author, after applying the fix, RAN the file and saw... maybe they only ran the specific filters? No—"Como testar 1: Rodar php bin/phpunit ... EmpresasParceirasControllerTest.php". Expect all pass. I'm confident enough to report the finding as high severity test bug. Let me phrase carefully and propose a suggestion. Actually — wait. Before finalizing, I want to double check whether there is possibly a `setUp` in the test file that configures user roles via reflection (like the setPrivateProperty), or maybe PermissionTag... We read the full file: no setUp; methods directly. Let me also check the EmpresasParceirasTestCase container: it's anonymous implementing ContainerInterface; AbstractController::getUser(): In Symfony 5.4+ uses `security.token_storage`. OK. But actually: does `controller()` get called before the actions for every test? Yes, all 11 tests call `$this->controller(...)->someAction(...)`. So all 11 tests use the new EM mock. Now consider testCompaniesListReturnsStats: canAccess → resolveContractorPermissionTag (member null) → false → 403. Expected success: true. Fails. Therefore all 11 tests fail (except perhaps... no). Hmm, but if all 11 fail with 403, then before the fix, they all errored. So there was never a passing state with the current controller + this test file. That is a coherent story: #658 broke these tests (they were written before guard existed, or written by #658 author but broken), and this PR attempts to fix but only partially. Let me now reconsider: maybe #658 actually reworked canAccess/canManage, and the current test file (written in #658?) expects to mock EM repos to return entities. The fix in this PR uses a generic repo mock returning null, which is wrong — it should return CompanyMembers and Product entities for the specific entity classes. But note: getRepository is called with different class names and both need distinct return values, or at least findOneBy should return a CompanyMembers for the member query and a Product for the product query. With a single generic repo returning null, this is insufficient for a successful permission resolution. Alright. Now, could the author have intended the tests to verify 403? For instance, "testRequirementDeleteReturns409WhenLinked" requires the guard to pass for the 409... Indeed 409 requires canManage true. So no. Therefore I will report this. Let me also consider a secondary more subtle issue: `ObjectRepository` import from `Doctrine\Persistence\ObjectRepository` and using `createMock(ObjectRepository::class)` for getRepository returns is fine. But when repository is needed for CompanyMembers and Product lookups... For an EntityManager mock, getRepository receives the entity class as argument. Using a single generic repo and a single generic mock return is common. Not an issue per se. But is there a mismatch that in production `getRepository(CompanyMembers::class)` returns `CompanyMembersRepository` (which has more methods)? Here code only calls findOneBy from ObjectRepository interface, so it's fine. Now, another subtle concern: `findOneBy` returning null makes `resolveContractorPermissionTag` return null. Wait, actually re-examine: could the mock's findOneBy return null and canManage false but then tests like `testRequirementSaveReturns422OnValidationError` expect 422; now they get 403. So yes. Alright. However, I need to think about whether the review comment is best framed as "tests will still fail". I cannot run the tests; but the code analysis strongly implies it. Severity: high. This is a test-only PR fixing pipeline errors, so if the fix is incomplete, it blocks the PR's purpose. But wait — let me reconsider a scenario where the tests could pass: What if `canManage`/`canAccess` previously (before #658) returned true unconditionally for authenticated users with a company, and the fixture user is such a user. And maybe #658's hotfix only added the EM usage to a permission check that's only invoked when... hmm, but we see the current code—the guard checks canManage first. Since I can't reconcile the author's claim with the current code, the review finding stands: the mock does not allow authorized flows. Let me search maybe whether this test file, pre-#658, existed with these same tests but passing against a controller without the guard? That would validate that the tests were designed for an unguarded/loosely-guarded controller, and the guard in #658 broke them. If the correct fix for #658 is actually that canManage should return true for these users (i.e., the guard should accept them), then the test fix is a workaround masking a 403 regression. Indeed: if resolveContractorPermissionTag returns null for a user whose company has the product but no PermissionTag... hmm. Actually, wait: In the test, permission resolution would fail because the mock returns no member. In a real integration, a member of the company would exist. The hotfix #658 maybe changed the permission model so members with tag "Membro" can't manage, but read access allowed. In tests, the fixture user is a company user who should be able to access (they are presumably "admin"?). But no member record is set up in the test DB (unit tests). So the test needs the repo to return something. The #658 author should have mocked findOneBy to return member/product and permission tag service to return a tag. This PR's fix instead just returns a generic repo that always returns null — silently turning all authorized flows into 403. If the tests then assert 200/409/422, they FAIL. So maybe the author's own test-run claim is inaccurate, OR maybe... let me think again about what tests would pass. All 11 would fail at the first action with 403. If the author ran only the file, they'd see 11 failures. Unless canManage returns true because the PermissionTag mock is created with `$this->createMock(PermissionTagByMemberService::class)`, and `getPermissionTag` is NOT stubbed, so default null... yes. So they can't pass. This is a contradiction with the claim "Resultado esperado: todos os 4 conjuntos de testes passam". Hmm, hmm, hold on. Let me reconsider canManage for the read path. Let me examine testCompaniesListReturnsStats more concretely: user 10 with company 1. companiesList → jsonIfCannotAccess() → canAccess() = isContractorPlatformAdmin() || resolveContractorPermissionTag() instanceof PermissionTag. Both false → returns 403 response. So test fails. So yes. Now, could the failure mode have been that before this fix these same tests ERRORED and counted among the "17 erros", and after the fix they'll produce failures (assertions), which the author hasn't yet run (didn't re-run)? The PR says "1 das 3 falhas" fixed... Maybe they consider the test file fixed because no more fatals, but they haven't actually verified the assertions? Unlikely. I'm going to trust the code analysis and flag. Let me now consider whether there's an even more likely explanation: maybe the object returned by findOneBy in the real flow is a CompanyMembers and the `getPermissionTag` mock returns null, but canManage also has fallback: `if tag null return false`. So no. Alright, I'll write the comment. But before that, let me consider if I should flag anything else. Another potential issue: The `controller()` private helper is used by tests that pass their own EM to the services. But the controller EM mock is separate. Fine. Also note: This is a test file change; possibly non-blocking for production but blocks pipeline. Since PR goal is to fix pipeline, if tests remain failing this blocks. Severity high. Let me now craft the precise comment, referencing the added lines: ```php $entityManager = $this->createMock(EntityManagerInterface::class); $entityManager->method('getRepository')->willReturn( $this->createMock(ObjectRepository::class) ); ``` Comment: O ObjectRepository mock não tem findOneBy configurado; por padrão retorna null. No controller atual, `canManage()`/`canAccess()` chamam `resolveContractorPermissionTag()`, que usa getRepository(CompanyMembers)->findOneBy(...) e depois Product; com null o método retorna null e o guard retorna 403 para todas as actions testadas. Consequentemente os testes que esperam 200/400/409/422 continuarão falhando (a mudança apenas converte o Error "Call to a member function findOneBy() on null" em resposta 403). Seria preciso configurar findOneBy para retornar CompanyMembers/Product e o PermissionTagByMemberService para retornar um PermissionTag, ou usar um usuário fixture com ROLE_MANAGER, para exercitar o fluxo autorizado. Hmm, wait. Wait. Let me reconsider once more: maybe the tests pass because before #658, the guards weren't there, and the fix for the pipeline should not include the guard invocation in tests... In other words maybe #658 ALSO should be reverted? No—the controller is not changed in this PR. Let me make sure the tests' intended statuses aren't 403 anywhere. Re-reading tests: testRequirementSavePersistsAndReturnsRequirement expects 200; Returns422 expects 422; RejectsInvalidPayload 400; DeleteReturns409 409; DeleteRemovesWhenNotLinked 200; SetActive 422; CompanySave 200; CompanyDelete 409; CompanyProvidersLink 200; CompaniesList 200; EvidenceUpload 400. So yes, all need authorized access. Now, the reviewer checklist said to "review files individually" and "focus primarily on actual code logic". This is the only file in review_files. One more sanity check: Could `$this->containerWithUser($user)` token user be a mock where getUser returns user and user->getCompany() returns Company and user->getRoles()...? The user() creates a REAL User entity. Roles empty. Yes. I am fairly convinced. But let me reflect on the risk that the test author actually ran and passed... If all 11 fail, they'd obviously notice. So maybe I'm wrong somewhere. Let me re-check `PermissionTagByMemberService` — maybe getPermissionTag method signature; maybe the mock's method is never invoked and instead the check uses `$tag` returned by resolveContractorPermissionTag which uses `$this->permissionTagByMemberService->getPermissionTag($member, $product)`; with member null it returns null BEFORE calling service. Unless... could findOneBy on the ObjectRepository mock actually return a value because PHPUnit mock default for method that is not stubbed with `willReturn` returns null for `findOneBy`. Yes default null. Hmm, unless the repository mock is `ObjectRepository` interface and `findOneBy` has return type `?object`... returns null. Alright. Wait, maybe the user fixture in tests has company set and `resolveContractorPermissionTag` checks `if (!$member instanceof CompanyMembers) return null;` - fine. OK, another possibility: Maybe these tests don't actually reach canManage because the controller, when constructed in tests, has its methods called directly, and canManage → resolveContractorPermissionTag → getRepository returns... hold on, we configured getRepository to return an ObjectRepository mock. Fine. So yes, 403. I'll report. But hold on, maybe the actual controller guard for these actions is not canManage? Let me re-verify requirementSave at line 93-96: yes canManage. Let me also double check companySave: canManage. companiesList: jsonIfCannotAccess → canAccess. yes. Now, is canAccess possible true via isContractorPlatformAdmin? No. Alright, time to write the finding. Actually, wait — one more consideration: could `resolveContractorPermissionTag()` ever be FALSE for all tests but canManage true because of `$this->getUser()` being null in some? No user always set. OK. Hmm, actually let me reconsider whether `Company` set in user matters... no. Let me reconsider the claim that these tests previously passed. Actually the PR says the pipeline had 17 errors introduced after merge #661 and #658. The 17 errors were probably across these test files (all 11 in this file plus others from SSMA). After fixing with this PR, the author says these tests pass. If my analysis says they can't, then maybe #658 changed the guard so that canManage works when repo returns null? No, it's the opposite; the guard requires non-null member. Wait, actually maybe resolveContractorPermissionTag is not what's used pre-#658 for these flows, and these tests were GREEN before #658 because the guard was NOT using the EM. In that case, #658 introduced EM usage (resolveContractorPermissionTag) making the tests break. To make them green again, one needs the EM repo to return the member and product. This PR only returns a null-object repo. But then, if I look at it from the perspective of "regressões funcionais", the deeper concern: #658's permission model requires the user to be found as an active member. In the actual product, users accessing Empresas Parceiras are company members, so the repository would return them. For unit tests, the mock should simulate that. Using null-returning repo mocks means the test no longer covers the intended paths (it covers a 403-denied path that doesn't match the assertions). So report. But actually, wait. Let me re-read: 403 response means the action doesn't reach the service, so assertions fail at the first line `assertSame(200, ...)`. So all 11 tests would fail. If that were the case, running the file would show 11 failures, and the author would presumably not claim success. Since I cannot run, I'll phrase it as a strong suspicion with reasoning. Hmm, actually, let me consider whether maybe the fix DID intend the opposite: maybe the test's user `user(10, $company)` previously DID pass because there was no guard at all; then #658 added guard, and the author is trying to make tests pass by mocking the member lookups to return entities — but they got the direction wrong. This seems like a legitimate, concrete flaw. Alternatively — big alternative: Perhaps the guard code in this controller is NEW in the current branch being reviewed (uncommitted) and the tests were written to match a guard that uses EM and expects `getRepository` to return repo with `findOneBy` returning null, and that the intended behavior for these specific fixture users IS denied (403). But the tests assert 200 etc., so that contradicts. Unless those tests were already failing before #658 as well. OK, decision: report as medium-high. Actually, let me reduce risk by examining whether there's maybe a `setRoles` call anywhere in the fixture, e.g., the `user()` helper in the base test case sets ROLE_MANAGER if the id is within some range? We saw user() in EmpresasParceirasTestCase — no roles. But wait, the controller() helper's `containerWithUser` gets user. Also could setPrivateProperty be used to add roles? No. Alright. Now let me think about a second possible angle to report: Type of mock: `Doctrine\Persistence\ObjectRepository` mock. `EntityManagerInterface::getRepository` may return something typed as `ObjectRepository` in ORM 2, but in newer Doctrine (ORM 3?), the return type of getRepository is `ObjectRepository`? fine. Additionally, controller also uses `$this->entityManager` for nothing else? Search within controller for `entityManager->` occurrences: only in resolveContractorPermissionTag (getRepository twice). We saw them at lines 686-697. Good. So comment anchored to lines: existing_code: ``` $entityManager = $this->createMock(EntityManagerInterface::class); $entityManager->method('getRepository')->willReturn( $this->createMock(ObjectRepository::class) ); ``` Wait, comment placement: this block is at lines 277-280 in the file, but the diff only added lines: The diff shows added lines: ``` + $entityManager = $this->createMock(EntityManagerInterface::class); + $entityManager->method('getRepository')->willReturn( + $this->createMock(ObjectRepository::class) + ); ``` And context line `$controller = new EmpresasParceirasController(` unchanged. And the diff shows the removal of `$this->createMock(EntityManagerInterface::class),` replaced with `$entityManager,`. So the added lines are exactly the three lines. Let me write a comment about the incomplete mock. But let me reconsider once more the possibility that canManage true requires member with specific... Since the whole thing rests on null vs entity, maybe instead of recommending that, I should recommend asserting what the guard returns or configuring the repo. The suggestion code: e.g., ```php $memberRepository = $this->createMock(ObjectRepository::class); $memberRepository->method('findOneBy')->willReturn($this->companyMember(1, $company)); ``` But wait, both the CompanyMembers and Product queries use the same repo mock (since getRepository always returns the same mock). With a single mock returning CompanyMembers for both findOneBy calls, the Product lookup would return a CompanyMembers which is not a Product → `!$product instanceof Product` → return null → canManage false. So to truly make the authorized flow work, getRepository needs class-based returns: ```php $entityManager->method('getRepository') ->willReturnMap([ [CompanyMembers::class, $memberRepo], [Product::class, $productRepo], ]); ``` where memberRepo->findOneBy returns a CompanyMembers and productRepo->findOneBy returns a Product, plus the permission service mock returns a PermissionTag. That's a more involved suggestion. Given complexity, suggestion code could be just pointing to the needed approach. But the code_comment tool requires suggestion_code optional. I can omit it, or give a minimal one. Actually, wait: do we even know the user should be allowed? In real usage, a member must have an active PermissionTag; the tag determines manage vs read. In tests, flows like requirementSave (write/manage) need a manage tag. So mock must provide an appropriate PermissionTag with e.g. canManage. That's complex. The simplest alternative for the tests is to make fixture user a platform admin (ROLE_MANAGER) so canManage bypasses everything. That would make the tests exercise service flows as before. That's likely the minimal change to match original test behavior before #658. Given all this complexity, my comment should mention: "os testes vão continuar falhando pois 403 será retornado" and suggest configuring properly. Good. Now, one more question: could the tests fail before this fix but pass now because the failure "Call to a member function findOneBy() on null" occurs BEFORE canManage? Actually where does the call happen? In canManage → resolveContractorPermissionTag, first statement after company check: getRepository(CompanyMembers)->findOneBy. With old plain EM mock, getRepository returns null → error at findOneBy. That error propagates up through canManage and the controller action → test error. Yes. So the tests before: error. After: 403. So they can't turn green with this alone. Wait—actually, I realize there's still one missing piece: are these tests maybe testing read access only via actions where canAccess uses `resolveContractorPermissionTag()` which also returns null → 403. So read tests also 403. So final: report high severity. Hmm, actually, before I finalize, let me reconsider the possibility that the guard code itself is NEW and DIFFERENT from what tests were written against: maybe before #658, the guard was `if (!$this->getUser())`. Whatever — doesn't change the analysis. Let me also think: is it possible that these unit tests use PHPUnit mock of EntityManagerInterface where `getRepository` returns the ObjectRepository mock, and `findOneBy` default returns null BUT PHPUnit's `createMock(ObjectRepository::class)` for interface creates a mock where `findOneBy` returns null. Yes. OK. Also I should keep the review concise. Only one file in review group. But the instructions say "Review every file listed in <review_files> individually" — just one file here. Let me also decide severity: The impact: the PR's goal (fix pipeline errors) likely not achieved for this file; and if my analysis is wrong (if tests do pass), then no issue. I'm reasonably confident. Severity: high. Also, add note: If the intent was to keep testing the authorized flows, use class-aware repository map returning CompanyMembers/Product plus a PermissionTag from the permission service; alternatively make the fixture user ROLE_MANAGER so isContractorPlatformAdmin() short-circuits. Let me craft the comment content in pt-BR: "O mock de `ObjectRepository` não configura `findOneBy`, então retorna `null` por padrão. No controller atual, `canManage()`/`canAccess()` passam por `resolveContractorPermissionTag()`, que faz `getRepository(CompanyMembers::class)->findOneBy(...)`; com retorno `null`, o método devolve `null` e o guard responde 403 em todas as ações. Como os testes deste arquivo esperam 200/400/409/422 (fluxos autorizados), a troca apenas converte o antigo erro `Call to a member function findOneBy() on null` em respostas 403 — as asserções continuam falhando. É preciso que `findOneBy` retorne um `CompanyMembers` (e depois `Product`) e que o `PermissionTagByMemberService` devolva um `PermissionTag`, ou tornar o usuário fixture um admin de plataforma (`ROLE_MANAGER`) para que `isContractorPlatformAdmin()` passe e o fluxo autorizado seja exercitado." Category: test. Severity: high. Also note: To double-check correctness, since the repo mock is shared for both CompanyMembers and Product queries and always returns same object, a single return can't satisfy both instanceof checks. I'll include this in the comment. Before writing, maybe I should double-check the git diff to capture the exact added lines for the anchor: From the diff: ``` @@ -273,11 +274,16 @@ \App\Service\Contractor\ContractorProviderCompanyService $companyService, ?\App\Entity\User $user, ): EmpresasParceirasController { + $entityManager = $this->createMock(EntityManagerInterface::class); + $entityManager->method('getRepository')->willReturn( + $this->createMock(ObjectRepository::class) + ); + $controller = new EmpresasParceirasController( ``` So existing_code should be the added three lines. Let me use: ``` $entityManager = $this->createMock(EntityManagerInterface::class); $entityManager->method('getRepository')->willReturn( $this->createMock(ObjectRepository::class) ); ``` That matches the added lines. Should I include suggestion_code? Perhaps not necessary. But I could provide a minimal hint. Keep it simple, no suggestion code, or with something like making the user a platform admin. But suggestion_code must be lines of code that can replace. Provide suggestion only if straightforward. Given the required fix spans several places, I'll skip suggestion_code. Wait, but let me reconsider severity. If my hypothesis is wrong because tests DO pass for some reason I overlooked, flagging at high would be a false positive. Let me attempt a final sanity check by re-reading the guard once more, and also verifying there isn't an additional overload such as `canManage` being overridden by a trait or something... The controller is final, and it extends AbstractController. `canManage` private method defined at line 626. resolveContractorPermissionTag at 674. getRepository calls at 686 and 696. Given user not platform admin, member null. Right. Now, also confirm user roles: user fixture doesn't call setRoles; `roles` property default [] from declaration `private $roles = [];`. So getRoles returns []. Great. One more thing to consider: The PR is "chore(tests)" and may merge with broken tests already failing; perhaps the real evaluation is whether this diff is harmful to production. It's test only; no production impact. The core concern is whether the change achieves its goal and the tests truly pass, which it doesn't. That is a legitimate review finding. Also, consider other changed files not in the review group (SsmaEventValidator etc.) — out of scope. We shouldn't comment there. Now produce the code_comment. Additionally, I should perhaps give the whole file a pass and note if there are no other issues. Only one comment then task_done. Let me also re-evaluate whether there are any other issues in the added lines: e.g., unused import if the mock is not used elsewhere — used. `ObjectRepository` used. Fine. Potential style: The helper `entityManagerWithConnection()` in the base class already configures getRepository to return a repo with `findBy` returning []. Could reuse, but not a bug. Let me write the final comment in pt-BR.
Vou examinar o contexto completo para validar o comportamento do mock adicionado. Já confirmei no controller que `canManage()`/`canAccess()` dependem de `resolveContractorPermissionTag()`, que consulta `getRepository(CompanyMembers::class)->findOneBy(...)` e `getRepository(Product::class)->findOneBy(...)`. Vou verificar como o `PermissionTagByMemberService` é usado e confirmar o caminho de permissão.
Tool Calls (2)
code_search
Show Details
{"search_text": "function getPermissionTag"}
File: src/Command/TestMembrosEsocialPermissaoCommand.php
Match lines: 1
149|    private function getPermissionTag(CompanyMembers $companyMember, Product $product): ?PermissionTag

File: src/Command/TestPesquisaEstruturalPermissaoCommand.php
Match lines: 1
214|    private function getPermissionTagName(CompanyMembers $companyMember, Product $product): string

File: src/Controller/Api/CompanyApiController.php
Match lines: 1
1289|    public function getPermissionTags(): JsonResponse

File: src/Entity/PermissionTagSuggestion.php
Match lines: 1
52|    public function getPermissionTag(): PermissionTag

File: src/Entity/TagProductPermissions.php
Match lines: 1
54|    public function getPermissionTag(): ?PermissionTag

File: src/Service/FieldExtractorService.php
Match lines: 2
195|    public function getPermissionTagUserFields(PermissionTag $permissionTagUser) {
217|    public function getPermissionTagsFields(array $permissionTags) {

File: src/Service/PermissionTabService.php
Match lines: 1
308|    public function getPermissionTags(): array

File: src/Service/PermissionTagByMemberService.php
Match lines: 2
173|    public function getPermissionTag(CompanyMembers $companyMember, Product $product): ?PermissionTag
338|    public function getPermissionTagGestor(): ?PermissionTag

File: src/Twig/GlobalPermissionExtension.php
Match lines: 1
96|    public function getPermissionTag()

File: src/Twig/MemberPermissionExtension.php
Match lines: 1
1555|    public function getPermissionTagName(string $productSlug): string

File: templates/permissions_tags/member_tab_permissions.html.twig
Match lines: 2
1019|    function getPermissionTagEditWrapper() {
1451|        function getPermissionTagVisual(name, fallbackBackgroundColor, fallbackLetterColor) {

file_read
Show Details
{"file_path": "src/Service/PermissionTagByMemberService.php"}
File: src/Service/PermissionTagByMemberService.php (Total lines: 548)
IS_TRUNCATED: true
LINE_RANGE: 1-500
1|<?php
2|
3|namespace App\Service;
4|
5|use Doctrine\ORM\EntityManagerInterface;
6|use Doctrine\ORM\EntityNotFoundException;
7|
8|use Symfony\Bundle\FrameworkBundle\Controller\AbstractController;
9|
10|use App\Entity\PermissionTagByMember;
11|use App\Entity\Company;
12|use App\Entity\CompanyMembers;
13|use App\Entity\Product;
14|use App\Entity\PermissionTag;
15|use App\Entity\User;
16|use App\Entity\CompanyTeam;
17|use App\Repository\CompanyMembersRepository;
18|
19|class PermissionTagByMemberService extends AbstractController
20|{
21|    private $entityManager;
22|    private string $ssmaParentProductSlug;
23|
24|    public function __construct(EntityManagerInterface $entityManager, string $ssmaParentProductSlug = 'saude-e-seguranca')
25|    {
26|        $this->entityManager = $entityManager;
27|        $this->ssmaParentProductSlug = $ssmaParentProductSlug;
28|    }
29|
30|    /**
31|     * Cria um novo PermissionTagByMember e persiste no banco de dados.
32|     *
33|     * @param int $companyMemberID
34|     * @param int $productID
35|     * @param int $tagID
36|     * @return PermissionTagByMember Retorna o objeto recém-criado.
37|     */
38|    public function createPermissionTagByMember(int $companyMemberID, int $productID, int $tagID): PermissionTagByMember
39|    {
40|        // Criação do novo objeto PermissionTagByMember
41|        $permissionTagByMember = new PermissionTagByMember();
42|
43|        // Preenchendo as propriedades do objeto
44|        $permissionTagByMember->setCompanyMemberID($companyMemberID);
45|        $permissionTagByMember->setProductID($productID);
46|        $permissionTagByMember->setTagID($tagID);
47|
48|        // Persistir o objeto no banco de dados
49|        $this->entityManager->persist($permissionTagByMember);
50|        $this->entityManager->flush(); // Salva a entidade no banco
51|
52|        // Retornando o objeto recém-criado
53|        return $permissionTagByMember;
54|    }
55|
56|    /**
57|     * Exclui um PermissionTagByMember pelo ID.
58|     *
59|     * @param int $permissionTagID ID do PermissionTagByMember a ser excluído.
60|     * @return bool Retorna true se a exclusão for bem-sucedida, false caso contrário.
61|     */
62|    public function deletePermissionTagByMember(int $permissionTagID): bool
63|    {
64|        // Procurar pelo PermissionTagByMember usando o ID
65|        $permissionTag = $this->entityManager->getRepository(PermissionTagByMember::class)->find($permissionTagID);
66|
67|        // Verifica se o objeto foi encontrado
68|        if (!$permissionTag) {
69|            // Lança exceção caso o PermissionTag não seja encontrado
70|            throw new EntityNotFoundException('Permission tag with ID ' . $permissionTagID . ' not found.');
71|        }
72|
73|        // Iniciar uma transação para garantir que a exclusão seja atômica
74|        $this->entityManager->beginTransaction();
75|
76|        try {
77|            // Remove o PermissionTagByMember
78|            $this->entityManager->remove($permissionTag);
79|            $this->entityManager->flush(); // Aplica a remoção no banco de dados
80|
81|            // Commit da transação
82|            $this->entityManager->commit();
83|
84|            return true;
85|        } catch (\Exception $e) {
86|            // Em caso de erro, desfaz as alterações e lança o erro
87|            $this->entityManager->rollback();
88|            throw $e;  // Re-lança a exceção para ser tratada em outro lugar
89|        }
90|    }
91|
92|    /**
93|     * Retorna o tagID associado a um membro da empresa para um produto específico.
94|     *
95|     * @param int $companyMemberID ID do membro da empresa.
96|     * @param int $productID ID do produto.
97|     * @return int|null Retorna o tagID associado ao membro e ao produto, ou null se não houver relação.
98|     */
99|    public function getTagIDByMemberAndProduct(int $companyMemberID, int $productID): ?int
100|    {
101|        // Consultar a tabela PermissionTagByMember para encontrar a relação
102|        $permissionTag = $this->entityManager->getRepository(PermissionTagByMember::class)
103|            ->findOneBy([
104|                'companyMemberID' => $companyMemberID,
105|                'productID' => $productID
106|            ]);
107|
108|        // Se não encontrar nenhuma relação, retorna null
109|        if (!$permissionTag) {
110|            return null;
111|        }
112|
113|        return $permissionTag->getTagID();
114|    }
115|
116|    public function getProductPermission(User $user, string $productSlug): ?PermissionTag
117|    {
118|        // Primeiro, buscar o produto pela slug
119|        $product = $this->entityManager->getRepository(Product::class)
120|            ->findOneBy(['slug' => $productSlug]);
121|
122|        if (!$product) {
123|            if (!str_starts_with($productSlug, 'ssma-')) {
124|                return null;
125|            }
126|
127|            $product = $this->entityManager->getRepository(Product::class)
128|                ->findOneBy(['slug' => $this->ssmaParentProductSlug]);
129|
130|            if (!$product) {
131|                return null;
132|            }
133|        }
134|
135|        // Buscar o CompanyMember do usuário
136|        $companyMember = $this->entityManager->getRepository(CompanyMembers::class)
137|            ->findOneBy(['user' => $user, 'company' => $user->getCompany()]);
138|
139|        if (!$companyMember) {
140|            return null;
141|        }
142|
143|        // Buscar a permissão através da tabela PermissionTagByMember
144|        $permissionTagByMember = $this->entityManager->getRepository(PermissionTagByMember::class)
145|            ->findOneBy([
146|                'companyMemberID' => $companyMember->getId(),
147|                'productID' => $product->getId()
148|            ]);
149|
150|        if (!$permissionTagByMember) {
151|            if (str_starts_with($productSlug, 'ssma-')) {
152|                $parentPermission = $this->getProductPermission($user, $this->ssmaParentProductSlug);
153|                if ($parentPermission instanceof PermissionTag) {
154|                    return $parentPermission;
155|                }
156|            }
157|
158|            // Se não tem permissão customizada, usar a permissão global
159|            $globalPermissionTagId = $companyMember->getGlobalPermissionTag();
160|            if ($globalPermissionTagId) {
161|                return $this->entityManager->getRepository(PermissionTag::class)->find($globalPermissionTagId);
162|            }
163|            
164|            return null;
165|        }
166|
167|        // Buscar a tag de permissão
168|        return $this->entityManager->getRepository(PermissionTag::class)
169|            ->find($permissionTagByMember->getTagID());
170|    }
171|
172|
173|    public function getPermissionTag(CompanyMembers $companyMember, Product $product): ?PermissionTag
174|    {
175|        $ptbmRepo = $this->entityManager->getRepository(PermissionTagByMember::class);
176|        $tagRepo  = $this->entityManager->getRepository(PermissionTag::class);
177|
178|        // getGlobalPermissionTag() devolve ?PermissionTag (objecto Doctrine), extraímos o ID aqui
179|        $globalTag   = $companyMember->getGlobalPermissionTag();
180|        $globalTagId = $globalTag instanceof PermissionTag ? (int) $globalTag->getId() : null;
181|
182|        // 1. Registo explícito no produto específico (atribuído via "Editar Tags" pelo gestor)
183|        $ptbm = $ptbmRepo->findOneBy([
184|            'companyMemberID' => $companyMember->getId(),
185|            'productID'       => $product->getId(),
186|        ]);
187|
188|        if ($ptbm) {
189|            $storedTag = $tagRepo->find($ptbm->getTagID());
190|
191|            if ($storedTag instanceof PermissionTag) {
192|                if (!str_starts_with((string) $product->getSlug(), 'ssma-')) {
193|                    return $storedTag;
194|                }
195|
196|                // Tag de gestão no PTBM do produto prevalece sobre global Membro/Inspetor.
197|                // Regressão Aura: Gestor Administrador na matriz SSMA + global Membro + stored==parent
198|                // era tratado como auto-propagação e descartava a tag de gestão.
199|                if (in_array((string) $storedTag->getName(), [
200|                    'Gestor Administrador',
201|                    'Gestor de Equipe',
202|                    'Supervisor de Equipe',
203|                    'Supervisor',
204|                ], true)) {
205|                    return $storedTag;
206|                }
207|
208|                // Produtos SSMA: detectar se o registo foi auto-criado (cópia da tag do produto-pai)
209|                // ou se foi explicitamente atribuído pelo gestor.
210|                // Se a tag do produto e a tag do produto-pai (saude-e-seguranca) são iguais
211|                // e ambas diferem da tag global actual, foi auto-propagação → usa tag global.
212|                $parentTagId = $this->getTagIDByMemberAndProduct(
213|                    $companyMember->getId(),
214|                    $this->getSsmaParentProductId()
215|                );
216|
217|                $storedId           = (int) $storedTag->getId();
218|                $storedMatchesParent = $parentTagId !== null && $storedId === (int) $parentTagId;
219|                $parentMatchesGlobal = $parentTagId !== null && $globalTagId !== null && (int) $parentTagId === $globalTagId;
220|
221|                if ($globalTagId !== null && $storedId !== $globalTagId) {
222|                    // Stored difere da global — verificar se é assignment explícito ou propagação automática.
223|                    //
224|                    // É explícito (respeitar) quando:
225|                    //   stored != parent  →  admin atribuiu este produto de forma diferente do pai
226|                    // É automático (preferir global) quando:
227|                    //   stored == parent  →  propagação do pai, que por sua vez diverge da global
228|                    //   OU não há parent PTBM (stored foi auto-criado a partir de global antigo)
229|                    $isExplicitAssignment = $parentTagId !== null && $storedId !== (int) $parentTagId;
230|
231|                    if (!$isExplicitAssignment) {
232|                        // Auto-propagado ou sem pai → usa tag global actual
233|                        $resolvedGlobal = $tagRepo->find($globalTagId);
234|                        if ($resolvedGlobal instanceof PermissionTag) {
235|                            return $resolvedGlobal;
236|                        }
237|                    }
238|                    // Se é explícito: respeita o stored ($isExplicitAssignment = true)
239|                }
240|
241|                return $storedTag;
242|            }
243|        }
244|
245|        // 2. Sem registo explícito: herdar dinamicamente do produto-pai (ssma-* → saude-e-seguranca)
246|        if (str_starts_with((string) $product->getSlug(), 'ssma-')) {
247|            $parentTag = $this->getSsmaParentPermissionTag($companyMember, $product);
248|            if ($parentTag instanceof PermissionTag) {
249|                return $parentTag;
250|            }
251|        }
252|
253|        // 3. Fallback: tag global do membro
254|        if ($globalTagId !== null) {
255|            $resolvedGlobal = $tagRepo->find($globalTagId);
256|            if ($resolvedGlobal instanceof PermissionTag) {
257|                return $resolvedGlobal;
258|            }
259|        }
260|
261|        // 4. Último recurso: tag "Membro"
262|        return $tagRepo->findOneBy(['name' => 'Membro']);
263|    }
264|
265|    /**
266|     * ID do produto-pai SSMA (saude-e-seguranca) em cache local por request.
267|     */
268|    private ?int $ssmaParentProductId = null;
269|
270|    private function getSsmaParentProductId(): int
271|    {
272|        if ($this->ssmaParentProductId === null) {
273|            $p = $this->entityManager->getRepository(Product::class)->findOneBy(['slug' => 'saude-e-seguranca']);
274|            $this->ssmaParentProductId = $p ? (int) $p->getId() : 0;
275|        }
276|
277|        return $this->ssmaParentProductId;
278|    }
279|
280|    private function getSsmaParentPermissionTag(CompanyMembers $companyMember, Product $product): ?PermissionTag
281|    {
282|        $slug = (string) $product->getSlug();
283|        if (!str_starts_with($slug, 'ssma-')) {
284|            return null;
285|        }
286|
287|        $parentProduct = $this->entityManager->getRepository(Product::class)
288|            ->findOneBy(['slug' => $this->ssmaParentProductSlug]);
289|        if (!$parentProduct instanceof Product || $parentProduct->getId() === $product->getId()) {
290|            return null;
291|        }
292|
293|        $parentPermissionTagId = $this->getTagIDByMemberAndProduct($companyMember->getId(), $parentProduct->getId());
294|        if (!$parentPermissionTagId) {
295|            return null;
296|        }
297|
298|        return $this->entityManager->getRepository(PermissionTag::class)->find($parentPermissionTagId);
299|    }
300|
301|    public function getGlobalPermissionTag(CompanyMembers $companyMember): ?PermissionTag
302|    {
303|        $repo  = $this->entityManager->getRepository(PermissionTag::class);
304|        $tagId = $companyMember->getGlobalPermissionTag();
305|
306|        $tag = $tagId
307|            ? $repo->find($tagId)
308|            : null;
309|
310|        if (! $tag) {
311|            $tag = $repo->findOneBy(['name' => 'Membro']);
312|
313|            if ($tag) {
314|                $companyMember->setGlobalPermissionTag($tag);
315|                $this->entityManager->flush();
316|            }
317|        }
318|
319|        return $tag;
320|    }
321|    
322|    public function getPermissionsByMember(CompanyMembers $companyMember): array
323|    {
324|        $customPermissionTags = $this->entityManager->getRepository(PermissionTagByMember::class)->findBy(['companyMemberID' => $companyMember->getId()]);
325|
326|        return $customPermissionTags;
327|    }
328|
329|    public function getCompanyMember(User $user, Company $company): ?CompanyMembers
330|    {
331|        return $this->entityManager->getRepository(CompanyMembers::class)->findOneBy([
332|            'company' => $company,
333|            'user' => $user,
334|            'isRemoved' => 0,
335|        ]);
336|    }
337|
338|    public function getPermissionTagGestor(): ?PermissionTag
339|    {
340|        $permissionTag = $this->entityManager->getRepository(PermissionTag::class)->findOneBy(['name' => 'Gestor Administrador']);
341|        return $permissionTag;
342|    }
343|
344|    public function getUserTeamMemberIds(CompanyMembers $companyMember, Company $company): array
345|    {
346|        // Obtém os times do usuário como string (Exemplo: "82,86")
347|        $teamsString = trim((string) ($companyMember->getTeams() ?? ''));
348|
349|        // Sem times definidos: apenas o próprio utilizador compõe o escopo.
350|        if ($teamsString === '') {
351|            $uid = $companyMember->getUser()?->getId();
352|
353|            return $uid !== null ? [(int) $uid] : [];
354|        }
355|
356|        // Converte a string em IDs de equipa e ignora segmentos vazios (evita LIKE inválido ",%").
357|        $teamsArray = array_values(array_filter(array_map('trim', explode(',', $teamsString)), static fn (string $t): bool => $t !== ''));
358|        if ($teamsArray === []) {
359|            $uid = $companyMember->getUser()?->getId();
360|
361|            return $uid !== null ? [(int) $uid] : [];
362|        }
363|
364|        // Remove o dd() e melhorar a query
365|        $query = $this->entityManager->createQueryBuilder()
366|            ->select('cm')
367|            ->from(CompanyMembers::class, 'cm')
368|            ->where('cm.company = :company')
369|            ->andWhere('cm.isRemoved = 0') // Apenas membros ativos
370|            ->setParameter('company', $company);
371|
372|        // 🔧 MELHOR LÓGICA: Para cada time, busca quem tem esse time
373|        $orConditions = [];
374|        foreach ($teamsArray as $index => $teamId) {
375|            $paramName = ':team_' . $index;
376|            
377|            // Busca exata por ID do time (no início, meio ou fim da string)
378|            $orConditions[] = $query->expr()->orX(
379|                $query->expr()->like('cm.teams', $paramName . '_start'), // Começa com o team
380|                $query->expr()->like('cm.teams', $paramName . '_middle'), // Tem o team no meio
381|                $query->expr()->eq('cm.teams', $paramName . '_exact') // É exatamente o team
382|            );
383|            
384|            // Define os parâmetros para as diferentes posições
385|            $query->setParameter($paramName . '_start', $teamId . ',%');     // "82,%"
386|            $query->setParameter($paramName . '_middle', '%,' . $teamId . ',%'); // "%,82,%"
387|            $query->setParameter($paramName . '_exact', $teamId);           // "82"
388|            
389|            // Também para o final da string
390|            $orConditions[] = $query->expr()->like('cm.teams', $paramName . '_end');
391|            $query->setParameter($paramName . '_end', '%,' . $teamId);      // "%,82"
392|        }
393|
394|        if (!empty($orConditions)) {
395|            $query->andWhere($query->expr()->orX(...$orConditions));
396|        }
397|
398|        // Executa a consulta
399|        $companyTeamMembers = $query->getQuery()->getResult();
400|        
401|        // Obtém os usuários associados aos membros encontrados
402|        $userTeamIds = [];
403|        foreach ($companyTeamMembers as $member) {
404|            if ($member->getUser()) {
405|                $userTeamIds[] = (int) $member->getUser()->getId();
406|            }
407|        }
408|
409|        return array_values(array_unique(array_filter($userTeamIds, static fn (int $id): bool => $id > 0)));
410|    }
411|
412|    public function getTeamInvitationIds(CompanyMembers $companyMember, Company $company): array
413|    {
414|        // Obtém os times do usuário como string (Exemplo: "4,6")
415|        $teamsString = $companyMember->getTeams();
416|
417|        // Retorna um array vazio se não houver times
418|        if (empty($teamsString)) {
419|            return [];
420|        }
421|
422|        // Converte a string em um array de times
423|        $teamsArray = array_map('trim', explode(',', $teamsString));
424|
425|        // Cria a consulta para buscar membros da empresa que pertencem aos mesmos times
426|        $query = $this->entityManager->createQueryBuilder()
427|            ->select('cm')
428|            ->from(CompanyMembers::class, 'cm')
429|            ->where('cm.company = :company')
430|            ->setParameter('company', $company);
431|
432|        // Adiciona condições para buscar os times
433|        if (!empty($teamsArray)) {
434|            $orConditions = [];
435|
436|            foreach ($teamsArray as $index => $team) {
437|                $paramName = ':team_' . $index;
438|                $orConditions[] = $query->expr()->like('cm.teams', $paramName);
439|                $query->setParameter($paramName, '%' . $team . '%');
440|            }
441|
442|            $query->andWhere($query->expr()->orX(...$orConditions));
443|        }
444|
445|        // Executa a consulta e obtém os membros da empresa que pertencem aos mesmos times
446|        $companyTeamMembers = $query->getQuery()->getResult();
447|
448|        // Obtém os IDs dos convites associados aos membros encontrados
449|        $invitationIds = array_map(
450|            fn($member) => $member->getInvitation() ? $member->getInvitation()->getId() : null, 
451|            $companyTeamMembers
452|        );
453|
454|        // Remove valores nulos do array final
455|        return array_filter($invitationIds);
456|    }
457|
458|    public function getCompanyMemberTemsIds(CompanyMembers $companyMember): array
459|    {
460|        // Obtém os times do usuário como string (Exemplo: "4,6")
461|        $teamsString = $companyMember->getTeams();
462|    
463|        // Retorna um array vazio se não houver times
464|        if (empty($teamsString)) {
465|            return [];
466|        }
467|    
468|        // Converte a string em um array de times
469|        $teamsArray = array_map('trim', explode(',', $teamsString));
470|
471|        return $teamsArray;
472|    }
473|
474|    public function getCompanyMemberTemsNames(CompanyMembers $companyMember, Company $company): array
475|    {
476|        try {
477|            // Pega os IDs dos times do membro
478|            $teamIds = $this->getCompanyMemberTemsIds($companyMember);
479|            
480|            if (empty($teamIds)) {
481|                return ["Não informado"];
482|            }
483|
484|            // Busca os times usando o repositório
485|            $teamRepository = $this->entityManager->getRepository(CompanyTeam::class);
486|            $teams = $teamRepository->findBy(['id' => $teamIds, 'company' => $company]);
487|            
488|            // Cria array com os nomes dos times
489|            $teamNames = [];
490|            foreach ($teams as $team) {
491|                $teamNames[] = $team->getName();
492|            }
493|            
494|            return $teamNames;
495|            
496|        } catch (\Exception $e) {
497|            // Log do erro se necessário
498|            return ["Erro ao carregar equipes"];
499|        }
500|    }

Note: Results truncated to 500 lines. Please narrow your line range.
Request #11 deepseek-v4-flash P:50.68K C:969 CR:44.29K CW:0 7752ms
Reasoning
Confirmed: `PermissionTagByMemberService::getPermissionTag` is what resolveContractorPermissionTag calls. In the controller helper, the mock of `PermissionTagByMemberService` returns null by default. So under the new mock setup: - getRepository returns ObjectRepository mock - findOneBy returns null (not stubbed) - resolveContractorPermissionTag → null - canManage / canAccess → false - All guarded actions → 403 The tests assert 200/400/409/422 etc. So they'd fail on the status assertions. Wait — but then before the fix the tests errored (fatal), so the author didn't introduce a regression relative to current state; but the claimed goal ("all tests pass") isn't achieved. Hmm, hold on. Let me reconsider whether the tests in this file might actually have been passing before #658, meaning the controller's guard previously didn't use the permission tag lookups. The test helper at that time presumably passed EM mock that returns null repo... If the guard didn't use EM (i.e., canManage was based on something else, e.g., a repository from `requirementService`'s own EM, or the permission was simply `true`), then these tests were green. #658 introduced the EM-based permission resolution → tests broke. The proper fix: provide the EM mock returning member/product and a permission tag. Now the author's fix: generic ObjectRepository returning null → member lookup null → 403 for every guarded action. So the tests would definitely fail. Unless the intended test behavior is that these users ARE denied and tests assert 403? They don't. So I'm confident enough to flag. Let me also note that the repository mock is shared for both CompanyMembers and Product queries, so even stubbing a generic findOneBy to return one entity would fail the instanceof Product check for the second query — the getRepository mock needs class-aware stubbing (e.g., willReturnMap) or separate return values. I'll write one comment with these points. Severity: I'll use "high" since it defeats the purpose of the PR for this file (tests remain failing, in the form of assertion failures). Category: "test". Let me anchor existing_code to the three added lines exactly as in the diff. Let me write concise pt-BR comment.
Analisei o fluxo completo. Vou registrar o achado principal sobre o mock configurado.
Tool Calls (1)
code_comment
Show Details
{"comments": [{"content": "O mock de `ObjectRepository` não configura `findOneBy`, então ele retorna `null` por padrão. No controller atual, toda action do arquivo passa primeiro por `canManage()`/`canAccess()` → `resolveContractorPermissionTag()`, que faz `getRepository(CompanyMembers::class)->findOneBy(...)`; com retorno `null`, o método devolve `null` e o guard responde **403**. Como os testes deste arquivo esperam 200/400/409/422 (fluxos autorizados), esta mudança apenas converte o antigo erro `Call to a member function findOneBy() on null` em respostas 403 — as asserções de status continuam falhando e o objetivo do PR (fazer o arquivo passar) não é atingido. Além disso, o mesmo repo é usado para `CompanyMembers` e `Product`; mesmo que `findOneBy` fosse configurado para retornar uma entidade, a segunda consulta (`Product`) exigiria um retorno diferente. Sugestão: configurar `getRepository` de forma consciente da classe (ex.: `willReturnMap` com `CompanyMembers`/`Product`) retornando entidades válidas e fazer o mock de `PermissionTagByMemberService` devolver um `PermissionTag`, ou usar usuário fixture com `ROLE_MANAGER` para que `isContractorPlatformAdmin()` libere o fluxo autorizado que as asserções esperam.", "existing_code": "        $entityManager = $this->createMock(EntityManagerInterface::class);\n        $entityManager->method('getRepository')->willReturn(\n            $this->createMock(ObjectRepository::class)\n        );", "category": "test", "severity": "high", "path": "tests/Unit/Product/EmpresasParceiras/EmpresasParceirasControllerTest.php"}]}
(async)
Request #12 deepseek-v4-flash P:51.66K C:474 CR:51.58K CW:0 4459ms
Reasoning
The comment was added. Now, this review group has only one file, and I've reviewed it. Let me finalize with task_done. Actually, let me double-check the whole file once more for other issues to be thorough: The added import and the mock are the only new lines. The rest is unchanged. Given the guidance "Focus primarily on actual code logic", my comment is the only one. Let me call task_done.
Revisei o arquivo `tests/Unit/Product/EmpresasParceiras/EmpresasParceirasControllerTest.php` na íntegra, bem como o fluxo correspondente em `EmpresasParceirasController` e no `PermissionTagByMemberService` para validar o comportamento do mock. **Resumo da revisão:** - A única alteração nova no arquivo (além do `use`) é a configuração do `EntityManagerInterface` para retornar um `ObjectRepository` genérico. - O `ObjectRepository` criado não tem `findOneBy` estubado → retorna `null` por padrão. - No controller atual, todas as actions testadas passam por `canManage()`/`canAccess()`, que dependem de `resolveContractorPermissionTag()` — com o `findOneBy` retornando `null`, a resolução de permissão falha silenciosamente e o guard responde 403 para todas as ações. - Como os testes esperam status 200/400/409/422, a mudança apenas converte o antigo erro fatal em respostas 403 — as asserções de status continuariam falhando, o que contradiz o objetivo declarado da PR. Registrei o comentário com a orientação de correção (repo ciente da classe via `willReturnMap` + `PermissionTag` no serviço de permissão, ou fixture de usuário com `ROLE_MANAGER`). Nenhum outro problema foi identificado no diff revisado.
Tool Calls (1)
task_done
Show Details
{"state": "DONE"}
Request #13 deepseek-v4-flash P:6.4K C:331 CR:6.14K CW:0 2554ms
Reasoning
Let me understand the task. I need to review the code changes in the review file `tests/Unit/Product/EmpresasParceiras/EmpresasParceirasControllerTest.php`. The other changed files (SsmaEventValidator.php, GlobalPermissionListener tests) are not in the review group, so I should focus only on the review file. Let me read the file and understand the context. The confirmed finding already says: the mock of ObjectRepository does not configure `findOneBy`, so it returns null by default. In the current controller, every action passes through canManage()/canAccess() → resolveContractorPermissionTag(), which does getRepository(CompanyMembers::class)->findOneBy(...); with null return... The finding was already confirmed, so I should not repeat it. Let me read the file to understand the code and look for other issues.
Tool Calls (2)
file_read
Show Details
{"file_path": "tests/Unit/Product/EmpresasParceiras/EmpresasParceirasControllerTest.php"}
File: tests/Unit/Product/EmpresasParceiras/EmpresasParceirasControllerTest.php (Total lines: 299)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 1-299
1|<?php
2|
3|declare(strict_types=1);
4|
5|namespace App\Tests\Unit\Product\EmpresasParceiras;
6|
7|use App\Controller\Contractor\EmpresasParceirasController;
8|use App\Entity\Contractor\ContractorDocumentRequirementHistory;
9|use App\Entity\Contractor\ContractorProviderCompanyHistory;
10|use App\Repository\Contractor\ContractorDocumentRequirementRepository;
11|use App\Repository\Contractor\ContractorProviderCompanyRequirementRepository;
12|use App\Service\PermissionTagByMemberService;
13|use Doctrine\ORM\EntityManagerInterface;
14|use Doctrine\Persistence\ObjectRepository;
15|use Symfony\Component\HttpFoundation\Request;
16|
17|/**
18| * Testes de efeito colateral do EmpresasParceirasController com services reais
19| * e dependências mockadas (classes final não são mockáveis no PHPUnit).
20| */
21|final class EmpresasParceirasControllerTest extends EmpresasParceirasTestCase
22|{
23|    public function testRequirementSavePersistsAndReturnsRequirement(): void
24|    {
25|        $company = $this->company(1);
26|        $user = $this->user(10, $company);
27|        $payload = $this->validRequirementPayload();
28|
29|        $entityManager = $this->entityManagerWithConnection();
30|        $entityManager->expects(self::atLeastOnce())->method('persist');
31|        $entityManager->expects(self::once())->method('flush');
32|
33|        $response = $this->controller(
34|            $this->makeRequirementService(['entityManager' => $entityManager]),
35|            $this->makeProviderCompanyService(),
36|            $user,
37|        )->requirementSave($this->jsonRequest($payload));
38|
39|        self::assertSame(200, $response->getStatusCode());
40|        $data = $this->decode($response);
41|        self::assertTrue($data['success']);
42|        self::assertSame('ASO Admissional', $data['requirement']['titulo']);
43|    }
44|
45|    public function testRequirementSaveReturns422OnValidationError(): void
46|    {
47|        $response = $this->controller(
48|            $this->makeRequirementService(),
49|            $this->makeProviderCompanyService(),
50|            $this->user(10, $this->company(1)),
51|        )->requirementSave($this->jsonRequest(['categoria' => 'contrato']));
52|
53|        self::assertSame(422, $response->getStatusCode());
54|        self::assertSame('Título é obrigatório.', $this->decode($response)['message']);
55|    }
56|
57|    public function testRequirementSaveRejectsInvalidPayload(): void
58|    {
59|        $entityManager = $this->createMock(EntityManagerInterface::class);
60|        $entityManager->expects(self::never())->method('flush');
61|
62|        $response = $this->controller(
63|            $this->makeRequirementService(['entityManager' => $entityManager]),
64|            $this->makeProviderCompanyService(),
65|            $this->user(10, $this->company(1)),
66|        )->requirementSave(Request::create('/', 'POST', [], [], [], [], 'not-json'));
67|
68|        self::assertSame(400, $response->getStatusCode());
69|    }
70|
71|    public function testRequirementDeleteReturns409WhenLinked(): void
72|    {
73|        $company = $this->company(1);
74|        $requirement = $this->documentRequirement(7, $company);
75|
76|        $requirementRepository = $this->createMock(ContractorDocumentRequirementRepository::class);
77|        $requirementRepository->method('findOneByCompanyAndId')->willReturn($requirement);
78|
79|        $companyRequirementRepository = $this->createMock(ContractorProviderCompanyRequirementRepository::class);
80|        $companyRequirementRepository->method('countByRequirement')->willReturn(2);
81|
82|        $entityManager = $this->createMock(EntityManagerInterface::class);
83|        $entityManager->expects(self::never())->method('remove');
84|
85|        $response = $this->controller(
86|            $this->makeRequirementService([
87|                'entityManager' => $entityManager,
88|                'requirementRepository' => $requirementRepository,
89|                'companyRequirementRepository' => $companyRequirementRepository,
90|            ]),
91|            $this->makeProviderCompanyService(),
92|            $this->user(10, $company),
93|        )->requirementDelete(7, $this->jsonRequest(['motivo' => 'teste']));
94|
95|        self::assertSame(409, $response->getStatusCode());
96|        self::assertSame(2, $this->decode($response)['linked_count']);
97|    }
98|
99|    public function testRequirementDeleteRemovesWhenNotLinked(): void
100|    {
101|        $company = $this->company(1);
102|        $requirement = $this->documentRequirement(7, $company);
103|
104|        $requirementRepository = $this->createMock(ContractorDocumentRequirementRepository::class);
105|        $requirementRepository->method('findOneByCompanyAndId')->willReturn($requirement);
106|
107|        $companyRequirementRepository = $this->createMock(ContractorProviderCompanyRequirementRepository::class);
108|        $companyRequirementRepository->method('countByRequirement')->willReturn(0);
109|
110|        $entityManager = $this->createMock(EntityManagerInterface::class);
111|        $entityManager->expects(self::once())->method('persist')->with(self::isInstanceOf(ContractorDocumentRequirementHistory::class));
112|        $entityManager->expects(self::exactly(2))->method('flush');
113|        $entityManager->expects(self::once())->method('remove')->with($requirement);
114|
115|        $response = $this->controller(
116|            $this->makeRequirementService([
117|                'entityManager' => $entityManager,
118|                'requirementRepository' => $requirementRepository,
119|                'companyRequirementRepository' => $companyRequirementRepository,
120|            ]),
121|            $this->makeProviderCompanyService(),
122|            $this->user(10, $company),
123|        )->requirementDelete(7, $this->jsonRequest(['motivo' => 'motivo teste']));
124|
125|        self::assertSame(200, $response->getStatusCode());
126|        self::assertTrue($this->decode($response)['success']);
127|    }
128|
129|    public function testRequirementSetActiveRequiresActiveField(): void
130|    {
131|        $company = $this->company(1);
132|        $requirement = $this->documentRequirement(3, $company);
133|
134|        $requirementRepository = $this->createMock(ContractorDocumentRequirementRepository::class);
135|        $requirementRepository->method('findOneByCompanyAndId')->willReturn($requirement);
136|
137|        $entityManager = $this->entityManagerWithConnection();
138|        $entityManager->expects(self::never())->method('flush');
139|
140|        $response = $this->controller(
141|            $this->makeRequirementService([
142|                'entityManager' => $entityManager,
143|                'requirementRepository' => $requirementRepository,
144|            ]),
145|            $this->makeProviderCompanyService(),
146|            $this->user(10, $company),
147|        )->requirementSetActive(3, $this->jsonRequest(['active' => 'invalido']));
148|
149|        self::assertSame(422, $response->getStatusCode());
150|    }
151|
152|    public function testCompanySavePersistsAndReturnsCompany(): void
153|    {
154|        $company = $this->company(1);
155|        $user = $this->user(10, $company);
156|        $member = $this->companyMember(20, $company);
157|        $payload = $this->validCompanyPayload(20);
158|
159|        $companyMembersRepository = $this->createMock(\App\Repository\CompanyMembersRepository::class);
160|        $companyMembersRepository->method('findOneBy')->willReturn($member);
161|
162|        $entityManager = $this->createMock(EntityManagerInterface::class);
163|        $entityManager->expects(self::atLeastOnce())->method('persist');
164|        $entityManager->expects(self::once())->method('flush');
165|
166|        $response = $this->controller(
167|            $this->makeRequirementService(),
168|            $this->makeProviderCompanyService([
169|                'entityManager' => $entityManager,
170|                'companyMembersRepository' => $companyMembersRepository,
171|            ]),
172|            $user,
173|        )->companySave($this->jsonRequest($payload));
174|
175|        self::assertSame(200, $response->getStatusCode());
176|        self::assertSame('Empresa Parceira LTDA', $this->decode($response)['company']['razao_social']);
177|    }
178|
179|    public function testCompanyDeleteReturns409WhenInUse(): void
180|    {
181|        $company = $this->company(1);
182|        $providerCompany = $this->providerCompany(4, $company);
183|        $this->providerCompanyMember(1, $providerCompany, $this->companyMember(30, $company));
184|
185|        $companyRepository = $this->createMock(\App\Repository\Contractor\ContractorProviderCompanyRepository::class);
186|        $companyRepository->method('findOneByCompanyAndId')->willReturn($providerCompany);
187|
188|        $entityManager = $this->createMock(EntityManagerInterface::class);
189|        $entityManager->expects(self::never())->method('remove');
190|
191|        $response = $this->controller(
192|            $this->makeRequirementService(),
193|            $this->makeProviderCompanyService([
194|                'entityManager' => $entityManager,
195|                'companyRepository' => $companyRepository,
196|            ]),
197|            $this->user(10, $company),
198|        )->companyDelete(4, $this->jsonRequest(['motivo' => 'teste']));
199|
200|        self::assertSame(409, $response->getStatusCode());
201|        self::assertSame('Empresa em uso.', $this->decode($response)['message']);
202|    }
203|
204|    public function testCompanyProvidersLinkPersistsMembers(): void
205|    {
206|        $company = $this->company(1);
207|        $user = $this->user(10, $company);
208|        $providerCompany = $this->providerCompany(4, $company);
209|        $member = $this->companyMember(30, $company);
210|
211|        $companyRepository = $this->createMock(\App\Repository\Contractor\ContractorProviderCompanyRepository::class);
212|        $companyRepository->method('findOneByCompanyAndId')->willReturn($providerCompany);
213|
214|        $companyMembersRepository = $this->createMock(\App\Repository\CompanyMembersRepository::class);
215|        $companyMembersRepository->method('findOneBy')->willReturn($member);
216|
217|        $entityManager = $this->createMock(EntityManagerInterface::class);
218|        $entityManager->expects(self::once())
219|            ->method('persist')
220|            ->with(self::isInstanceOf(\App\Entity\Contractor\ContractorProviderCompanyMember::class));
221|        $entityManager->expects(self::once())->method('flush');
222|
223|        $response = $this->controller(
224|            $this->makeRequirementService(),
225|            $this->makeProviderCompanyService([
226|                'entityManager' => $entityManager,
227|                'companyRepository' => $companyRepository,
228|                'companyMembersRepository' => $companyMembersRepository,
229|            ]),
230|            $user,
231|        )->companyProvidersLink(4, $this->jsonRequest(['provider_ids' => [30]]));
232|
233|        self::assertSame(200, $response->getStatusCode());
234|        self::assertSame(1, $this->decode($response)['company']['prestadores_count']);
235|    }
236|
237|    public function testCompaniesListReturnsStats(): void
238|    {
239|        $company = $this->company(1);
240|        $providerCompany = $this->providerCompany(1, $company);
241|
242|        $companyRepository = $this->createMock(\App\Repository\Contractor\ContractorProviderCompanyRepository::class);
243|        $companyRepository->method('findByCompany')->willReturn([$providerCompany]);
244|
245|        $response = $this->controller(
246|            $this->makeRequirementService(),
247|            $this->makeProviderCompanyService(['companyRepository' => $companyRepository]),
248|            $this->user(10, $company),
249|        )->companiesList();
250|
251|        $data = $this->decode($response);
252|        self::assertTrue($data['success']);
253|        self::assertCount(1, $data['companies']);
254|        self::assertSame(1, $data['stats']['total']);
255|    }
256|
257|    public function testCompanyRequirementEvidenceUploadRejectsMissingFile(): void
258|    {
259|        $entityManager = $this->createMock(EntityManagerInterface::class);
260|        $entityManager->expects(self::never())->method('flush');
261|
262|        $response = $this->controller(
263|            $this->makeRequirementService(),
264|            $this->makeProviderCompanyService(['entityManager' => $entityManager]),
265|            $this->user(10, $this->company(1)),
266|        )->companyRequirementEvidenceUpload(1, 2, Request::create('/', 'POST'));
267|
268|        self::assertSame(400, $response->getStatusCode());
269|        self::assertSame('Arquivo inválido.', $this->decode($response)['message']);
270|    }
271|
272|    private function controller(
273|        \App\Service\Contractor\ContractorDocumentRequirementService $requirementService,
274|        \App\Service\Contractor\ContractorProviderCompanyService $companyService,
275|        ?\App\Entity\User $user,
276|    ): EmpresasParceirasController {
277|        $entityManager = $this->createMock(EntityManagerInterface::class);
278|        $entityManager->method('getRepository')->willReturn(
279|            $this->createMock(ObjectRepository::class)
280|        );
281|
282|        $controller = new EmpresasParceirasController(
283|            $requirementService,
284|            $companyService,
285|            $this->createMock(PermissionTagByMemberService::class),
286|            $entityManager,
287|        );
288|        $controller->setContainer($this->containerWithUser($user));
289|
290|        return $controller;
291|    }
292|
293|    /** @param array<string, mixed> $payload */
294|    private function jsonRequest(array $payload): Request
295|    {
296|        return Request::create('/', 'POST', [], [], [], [], json_encode($payload, JSON_THROW_ON_ERROR));
297|    }
298|}
299|
file_read_diff
Show Details
{"path_array": ["src/Service/Ssma/SsmaEventValidator.php", "tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/GlobalPermissionListenerOccurrenceCreateWriteTest.php", "tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/GlobalPermissionListenerPreventionWriteTest.php"]}
==== FILE: src/Service/Ssma/SsmaEventValidator.php ====
diff --git a/src/Service/Ssma/SsmaEventValidator.php b/src/Service/Ssma/SsmaEventValidator.php
--- a/src/Service/Ssma/SsmaEventValidator.php
+++ b/src/Service/Ssma/SsmaEventValidator.php
@@ -713,18 +713,14 @@ final class SsmaEventValidator
         }
 
         $descVal = array_key_exists('descaracterizado', $d) ? (string) $d['descaracterizado'] : '';
-        // Caracterizar é do médico no aprofundamento dedicado — não na criação.
-        // Sim/Não + comentário só são obrigatórios quando há suspeita de descaracterização marcada.
+        // Médico sempre informa caracterização no aprofundamento dedicado.
         if (!empty($data['aprofundamento_only'])) {
-            $hasSuspect = !empty($d['descaracter_suspect']) && $d['descaracter_suspect'] !== '0';
-            if ($hasSuspect) {
-                if (!\in_array($descVal, ['0', '1'], true)) {
-                    $errors[] = 'Informe se o evento é caracterizado como acidente (Sim/Não).';
-                } else {
-                    $comment = trim((string) ($d['descaracter_comment'] ?? ''));
-                    if ($comment === '') {
-                        $errors[] = 'Comentário de caracterização do acidente é obrigatório.';
-                    }
+            if (!\in_array($descVal, ['0', '1'], true)) {
+                $errors[] = 'Informe se o evento é caracterizado como acidente (Sim/Não).';
+            } else {
+                $comment = trim((string) ($d['descaracter_comment'] ?? ''));
+                if ($comment === '') {
+                    $errors[] = 'Comentário de caracterização do acidente é obrigatório.';
                 }
             }
         }
==== FILE: tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/GlobalPermissionListenerOccurrenceCreateWriteTest.php ====
diff --git a/tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/GlobalPermissionListenerOccurrenceCreateWriteTest.php b/tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/GlobalPermissionListenerOccurrenceCreateWriteTest.php
--- a/tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/GlobalPermissionListenerOccurrenceCreateWriteTest.php
+++ b/tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/GlobalPermissionListenerOccurrenceCreateWriteTest.php
@@ -20,6 +20,7 @@ use App\Service\Ssma\SsmaOccurrenceTypeConfigService;
 use App\Service\Ssma\SsmaPreventionMutatePermissionService;
 use App\Service\Ssma\SsmaRefusalRightMutatePermissionService;
 use App\Service\Ssma\SsmaRefusalRightService;
+use App\Service\Ssma\SsmaStakeholderActionPermissionService;
 use App\Repository\SsmaOccurrenceCreatePermissionRepository;
 use Doctrine\ORM\EntityManagerInterface;
 use Doctrine\Persistence\ObjectRepository;
@@ -140,7 +141,14 @@ final class GlobalPermissionListenerOccurrenceCreateWriteTest extends SsmaTestCa
                 $permissionService,
                 $authorizationChecker,
             ),
-            $this->createMock(SsmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService::class),
+            new SsmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService(
+                $entityManager,
+                new SsmaStakeholderActionPermissionService(
+                    $permissionService,
+                    new SsmaOccurrenceStakeholderAccessChecker($entityManager),
+                    $authorizationChecker,
+                ),
+            ),
             new SsmaOccurrenceCreatePermissionService(
                 $entityManager,
                 $this->createMock(SsmaOccurrenceCreatePermissionRepository::class),
==== FILE: tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/GlobalPermissionListenerPreventionWriteTest.php ====
diff --git a/tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/GlobalPermissionListenerPreventionWriteTest.php b/tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/GlobalPermissionListenerPreventionWriteTest.php
--- a/tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/GlobalPermissionListenerPreventionWriteTest.php
+++ b/tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/GlobalPermissionListenerPreventionWriteTest.php
@@ -20,6 +20,7 @@ use App\Service\Ssma\SsmaOccurrenceTypeConfigService;
 use App\Service\Ssma\SsmaPreventionMutatePermissionService;
 use App\Service\Ssma\SsmaRefusalRightMutatePermissionService;
 use App\Service\Ssma\SsmaRefusalRightService;
+use App\Service\Ssma\SsmaStakeholderActionPermissionService;
 use App\Repository\SsmaOccurrenceCreatePermissionRepository;
 use Doctrine\ORM\EntityManagerInterface;
 use Doctrine\Persistence\ObjectRepository;
@@ -157,7 +158,14 @@ final class GlobalPermissionListenerPreventionWriteTest extends SsmaTestCase
                 $permissionService,
                 $authorizationChecker,
             ),
-            $this->createMock(SsmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService::class),
+            new SsmaActionPlanMutatePermissionService(
+                $entityManager,
+                new SsmaStakeholderActionPermissionService(
+                    $permissionService,
+                    new SsmaOccurrenceStakeholderAccessChecker($entityManager),
+                    $authorizationChecker,
+                ),
+            ),
             new SsmaOccurrenceCreatePermissionService(
                 $entityManager,
                 $this->createMock(SsmaOccurrenceCreatePermissionRepository::class),

Request #14 deepseek-v4-flash P:11.67K C:859 CR:6.66K CW:0 6124ms
Reasoning
Let me understand the context. The review file is `tests/Unit/Product/EmpresasParceiras/EmpresasParceirasControllerTest.php`. The confirmed finding covers the issue that the mock of ObjectRepository doesn't configure `findOneBy` returning null. Wait, actually, let me read the confirmed finding more carefully: "1. tests/Unit/Product/EmpresasParceiras/EmpresasParceirasControllerTest.php code: $entityManager = $this->createMock(EntityManagerInterface::class); $entityManager->method('getRepository')->willReturn( $this->createMock(ObjectRepository::class) ); issue: O mock de `ObjectRepository` não configura `findOneBy`, então ele retorna `null` por padrão. No controller atual, toda action do arquivo passa primeiro por `canManage()`/`canAccess()` → `resolveContractorPermissionTag()`, que faz `getRepository(CompanyMembers::class)->findOneBy(...)`; com retorno `n...`" So the confirmed finding is truncated but the point is: the mock of ObjectRepository doesn't configure `findOneBy` so it returns null, which means the permission check path may... Actually wait, this was the purpose of the change - the change was to add the ObjectRepository mock to avoid "Call to a member function findOneBy() on null". But the finding says that the mock returns null by default for findOneBy, which means... resolveContractorPermissionTag() may handle null by denying or returning... Hmm. Actually wait, let me think. The change here is: create a mock EntityManager whose `getRepository` returns a generic `ObjectRepository` mock. Then the controller uses `$this->em->getRepository(CompanyMembers::class)->findOneBy(...)` returns null (the mock default). That null is the member. The permission check likely denies access if member is null? That would break tests. But actually, previously (before this diff) it was a `createMock(EntityManagerInterface::class)` that returns null from `getRepository`, causing "Call to a member function findOneBy() on null". Now with ObjectRepository mock, `findOneBy` returns null, no crash. But then the behavior depends on how the controller handles null member. Since the confirmed finding says "No controller atual, toda action do arquivo passa primeiro por canManage()/canAccess() → resolveContractorPermissionTag(), que faz getRepository(CompanyMembers::class)->findOneBy(...); com retorno null..." — that finding was already identified and confirmed, and I'm told not to repeat it. Let me review this file for other issues beyond the confirmed finding. The change adds a mock EntityManager returning a generic ObjectRepository mock in the `controller()` helper. But wait — note that in tests like `testCompanySavePersistsAndReturnsCompany`, the caller passes their own mock entityManager via the service (makeProviderCompanyService with 'entityManager' => $entityManager). The `controller()` helper's internal $entityManager is for the controller itself. The controller's EntityManager is a different one from the services' one. The services are constructed separately with their own EM. But the confirmed finding is about the controller-level mock not configuring `findOneBy` — the PermissionTagByMemberService is mocked, so resolveContractorPermissionTag is on the controller? Let me check the controller to understand. Let me read EmpresasParceirasController.php to see how the entity manager is used. Actually wait — in the controller, the diff adds a new constructor param EntityManagerInterface. Let me read the controller.
Tool Calls (2)
file_find
Show Details
{"query_name": "EmpresasParceirasController.php"}
src/Controller/Contractor/EmpresasParceirasController.php
file_find
Show Details
{"query_name": "EmpresasParceirasTestCase.php"}
tests/Unit/Product/EmpresasParceiras/EmpresasParceirasTestCase.php
Request #15 deepseek-v4-flash P:12.58K C:129 CR:12.42K CW:0 1597ms
Reasoning
Let me read the controller to see how the EntityManager is used, and the test case.
Tool Calls (2)
file_read
Show Details
{"file_path": "src/Controller/Contractor/EmpresasParceirasController.php"}
File: src/Controller/Contractor/EmpresasParceirasController.php (Total lines: 730)
IS_TRUNCATED: true
LINE_RANGE: 1-500
1|<?php
2|
3|declare(strict_types=1);
4|
5|namespace App\Controller\Contractor;
6|
7|use App\Entity\Company;
8|use App\Entity\CompanyMembers;
9|use App\Entity\PermissionTag;
10|use App\Entity\Product;
11|use App\Entity\User;
12|use App\Service\Contractor\ContractorDocumentRequirementService;
13|use App\Service\Contractor\ContractorProviderCompanyService;
14|use App\Service\PermissionTagByMemberService;
15|use Doctrine\ORM\EntityManagerInterface;
16|use Symfony\Bundle\FrameworkBundle\Controller\AbstractController;
17|use Symfony\Component\HttpFoundation\BinaryFileResponse;
18|use Symfony\Component\HttpFoundation\File\UploadedFile;
19|use Symfony\Component\HttpFoundation\JsonResponse;
20|use Symfony\Component\HttpFoundation\Request;
21|use Symfony\Component\HttpFoundation\Response;
22|use Symfony\Component\HttpFoundation\ResponseHeaderBag;
23|
24|final class EmpresasParceirasController extends AbstractController
25|{
26|    private const CONTRACTOR_PRODUCT_SLUG = 'ssma-contractor';
27|
28|    public function __construct(
29|        private ContractorDocumentRequirementService $requirementService,
30|        private ContractorProviderCompanyService $companyService,
31|        private PermissionTagByMemberService $permissionTagByMemberService,
32|        private EntityManagerInterface $entityManager,
33|    ) {
34|    }
35|
36|    public function index(): Response
37|    {
38|        $this->assertCanAccess();
39|
40|        $company = $this->resolveCompany();
41|        $contractorCompanies = $this->companyService->listForFrontend($company);
42|
43|        return $this->render('contractor/index.html.twig', [
44|            'contractorRequirements' => $this->requirementService->listForFrontend($company),
45|            'contractorCompanies' => $contractorCompanies,
46|            'contractorCompanyStats' => $this->companyService->computeStats($contractorCompanies),
47|            'contractorDocumentoStatus' => ContractorProviderCompanyService::DOCUMENTO_STATUS,
48|            'contractorCategorias' => ContractorDocumentRequirementService::CATEGORIAS,
49|            'contractorAreas' => ContractorDocumentRequirementService::AREAS,
50|            'contractorCompanyTypes' => ContractorDocumentRequirementService::COMPANY_TYPES,
51|            'contractorValidadeTipos' => ContractorDocumentRequirementService::VALIDADE_TIPOS,
52|            'contractorValidadeUnidades' => ContractorDocumentRequirementService::VALIDADE_UNIDADES,
53|            'contractorRegrasBloqueio' => ContractorDocumentRequirementService::REGRAS_BLOQUEIO,
54|            'contractorBloqueioParcialTipos' => ContractorDocumentRequirementService::BLOQUEIO_PARCIAL_TIPOS,
55|            'contractorBloqueioParcialOptions' => $this->requirementService->listPartialBlockingOptions($company),
56|            'contractorInternalResponsibleOptions' => $this->companyService->listInternalResponsibleOptions($company),
57|            'contractorCanManage' => $this->canManage(),
58|            'contractorCanManagePermissions' => $this->canManagePermissions(),
59|        ]);
60|    }
61|
62|    public function requirementsList(): JsonResponse
63|    {
64|        if ($response = $this->jsonIfCannotAccess()) {
65|            return $response;
66|        }
67|
68|        $company = $this->resolveCompany();
69|
70|        return $this->json([
71|            'success' => true,
72|            'requirements' => $this->requirementService->listForFrontend($company),
73|        ]);
74|    }
75|
76|    public function requirementDetail(int $id): JsonResponse
77|    {
78|        if ($response = $this->jsonIfCannotAccess()) {
79|            return $response;
80|        }
81|
82|        $company = $this->resolveCompany();
83|
84|        try {
85|            $detail = $this->requirementService->getDetail($company, $id);
86|        } catch (\RuntimeException $exception) {
87|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => $exception->getMessage()], 404);
88|        }
89|
90|        return $this->json(['success' => true] + $detail);
91|    }
92|
93|    public function requirementSave(Request $request): JsonResponse
94|    {
95|        if (!$this->canManage()) {
96|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => 'Sem permissão.'], 403);
97|        }
98|
99|        $company = $this->resolveCompany();
100|        $user = $this->resolveUser();
101|        $payload = json_decode($request->getContent(), true);
102|
103|        if (!is_array($payload)) {
104|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => 'Payload inválido.'], 400);
105|        }
106|
107|        try {
108|            $requirement = $this->requirementService->save($company, $user, $payload);
109|        } catch (\InvalidArgumentException $exception) {
110|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => $exception->getMessage()], 422);
111|        }
112|
113|        return $this->json([
114|            'success' => true,
115|            'requirement' => $requirement,
116|        ]);
117|    }
118|
119|    public function requirementDelete(int $id, Request $request): JsonResponse
120|    {
121|        if (!$this->canManage()) {
122|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => 'Sem permissão.'], 403);
123|        }
124|
125|        $company = $this->resolveCompany();
126|        $user = $this->resolveUser();
127|        $payload = json_decode($request->getContent(), true);
128|        $motivo = is_array($payload) ? ($payload['motivo'] ?? null) : null;
129|
130|        try {
131|            $linkedCount = $this->requirementService->countLinkedCompanies($company, $id);
132|            if ($linkedCount > 0) {
133|                return $this->json([
134|                    'success' => false,
135|                    'message' => 'Requisito em uso por empresas parceiras.',
136|                    'linked_count' => $linkedCount,
137|                ], 409);
138|            }
139|
140|            $this->requirementService->delete($company, $user, $id, is_string($motivo) ? $motivo : null);
141|        } catch (\RuntimeException $exception) {
142|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => $exception->getMessage()], 404);
143|        }
144|
145|        return $this->json(['success' => true]);
146|    }
147|
148|    public function requirementSetActive(int $id, Request $request): JsonResponse
149|    {
150|        if (!$this->canManage()) {
151|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => 'Sem permissão.'], 403);
152|        }
153|
154|        $company = $this->resolveCompany();
155|        $user = $this->resolveUser();
156|        $payload = json_decode($request->getContent(), true);
157|
158|        if (!is_array($payload)) {
159|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => 'Payload inválido.'], 400);
160|        }
161|
162|        $active = filter_var($payload['active'] ?? null, FILTER_VALIDATE_BOOLEAN, FILTER_NULL_ON_FAILURE);
163|        if ($active === null) {
164|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => 'Campo active é obrigatório.'], 422);
165|        }
166|
167|        $motivo = isset($payload['motivo']) ? (string) $payload['motivo'] : null;
168|
169|        try {
170|            $requirement = $this->requirementService->setActive($company, $user, $id, $active, $motivo);
171|        } catch (\RuntimeException $exception) {
172|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => $exception->getMessage()], 404);
173|        }
174|
175|        return $this->json([
176|            'success' => true,
177|            'requirement' => $requirement,
178|        ]);
179|    }
180|
181|    public function requirementUsage(int $id): JsonResponse
182|    {
183|        if ($response = $this->jsonIfCannotAccess()) {
184|            return $response;
185|        }
186|
187|        $company = $this->resolveCompany();
188|
189|        try {
190|            $linkedCount = $this->requirementService->countLinkedCompanies($company, $id);
191|        } catch (\RuntimeException $exception) {
192|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => $exception->getMessage()], 404);
193|        }
194|
195|        return $this->json([
196|            'success' => true,
197|            'linked_count' => $linkedCount,
198|            'in_use' => $linkedCount > 0,
199|        ]);
200|    }
201|
202|    public function companiesList(): JsonResponse
203|    {
204|        if ($response = $this->jsonIfCannotAccess()) {
205|            return $response;
206|        }
207|
208|        $company = $this->resolveCompany();
209|        $companies = $this->companyService->listForFrontend($company);
210|
211|        return $this->json([
212|            'success' => true,
213|            'companies' => $companies,
214|            'stats' => $this->companyService->computeStats($companies),
215|        ]);
216|    }
217|
218|    public function companyDetail(int $id): JsonResponse
219|    {
220|        if ($response = $this->jsonIfCannotAccess()) {
221|            return $response;
222|        }
223|
224|        $company = $this->resolveCompany();
225|
226|        try {
227|            $detail = $this->companyService->getDetail($company, $id);
228|        } catch (\RuntimeException $exception) {
229|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => $exception->getMessage()], 404);
230|        }
231|
232|        return $this->json(['success' => true] + $detail);
233|    }
234|
235|    public function companyDelete(int $id, Request $request): JsonResponse
236|    {
237|        if (!$this->canManage()) {
238|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => 'Sem permissão.'], 403);
239|        }
240|
241|        $company = $this->resolveCompany();
242|        $user = $this->resolveUser();
243|        $payload = json_decode($request->getContent(), true);
244|        $motivo = is_array($payload) ? ($payload['motivo'] ?? null) : null;
245|
246|        try {
247|            $linkedCount = $this->companyService->countLinkedRecords($company, $id);
248|            if ($linkedCount > 0) {
249|                return $this->json([
250|                    'success' => false,
251|                    'message' => 'Empresa em uso.',
252|                    'linked_count' => $linkedCount,
253|                ], 409);
254|            }
255|
256|            $this->companyService->delete($company, $user, $id, is_string($motivo) ? $motivo : null);
257|        } catch (\RuntimeException $exception) {
258|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => $exception->getMessage()], 404);
259|        }
260|
261|        return $this->json(['success' => true]);
262|    }
263|
264|    public function companySetActive(int $id, Request $request): JsonResponse
265|    {
266|        if (!$this->canManage()) {
267|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => 'Sem permissão.'], 403);
268|        }
269|
270|        $company = $this->resolveCompany();
271|        $user = $this->resolveUser();
272|        $payload = json_decode($request->getContent(), true);
273|
274|        if (!is_array($payload)) {
275|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => 'Payload inválido.'], 400);
276|        }
277|
278|        $active = filter_var($payload['active'] ?? null, FILTER_VALIDATE_BOOLEAN, FILTER_NULL_ON_FAILURE);
279|        if ($active === null) {
280|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => 'Campo active é obrigatório.'], 422);
281|        }
282|
283|        $motivo = isset($payload['motivo']) ? (string) $payload['motivo'] : null;
284|
285|        try {
286|            $providerCompany = $this->companyService->setActive($company, $user, $id, $active, $motivo);
287|        } catch (\RuntimeException $exception) {
288|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => $exception->getMessage()], 404);
289|        }
290|
291|        return $this->json([
292|            'success' => true,
293|            'company' => $providerCompany,
294|        ]);
295|    }
296|
297|    public function companyUsage(int $id): JsonResponse
298|    {
299|        if ($response = $this->jsonIfCannotAccess()) {
300|            return $response;
301|        }
302|
303|        $company = $this->resolveCompany();
304|
305|        try {
306|            $linkedCount = $this->companyService->countLinkedRecords($company, $id);
307|        } catch (\RuntimeException $exception) {
308|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => $exception->getMessage()], 404);
309|        }
310|
311|        return $this->json([
312|            'success' => true,
313|            'linked_count' => $linkedCount,
314|            'in_use' => $linkedCount > 0,
315|        ]);
316|    }
317|
318|    public function companySave(Request $request): JsonResponse
319|    {
320|        if (!$this->canManage()) {
321|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => 'Sem permissão.'], 403);
322|        }
323|
324|        $company = $this->resolveCompany();
325|        $user = $this->resolveUser();
326|        $payload = json_decode($request->getContent(), true);
327|
328|        if (!is_array($payload)) {
329|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => 'Payload inválido.'], 400);
330|        }
331|
332|        try {
333|            $providerCompany = $this->companyService->save($company, $user, $payload);
334|        } catch (\InvalidArgumentException $exception) {
335|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => $exception->getMessage()], 422);
336|        } catch (\RuntimeException $exception) {
337|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => $exception->getMessage()], 404);
338|        }
339|
340|        return $this->json([
341|            'success' => true,
342|            'company' => $providerCompany,
343|        ]);
344|    }
345|
346|    public function companyProviders(int $id): JsonResponse
347|    {
348|        if ($response = $this->jsonIfCannotAccess()) {
349|            return $response;
350|        }
351|
352|        $company = $this->resolveCompany();
353|
354|        try {
355|            $data = $this->companyService->getProviders($company, $id);
356|        } catch (\RuntimeException $exception) {
357|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => $exception->getMessage()], 404);
358|        }
359|
360|        return $this->json(['success' => true] + $data);
361|    }
362|
363|    public function companyProvidersLink(int $id, Request $request): JsonResponse
364|    {
365|        if (!$this->canManage()) {
366|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => 'Sem permissão.'], 403);
367|        }
368|
369|        $company = $this->resolveCompany();
370|        $user = $this->resolveUser();
371|        $payload = json_decode($request->getContent(), true);
372|        $providerIds = is_array($payload) ? ($payload['provider_ids'] ?? []) : [];
373|
374|        if (!is_array($providerIds)) {
375|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => 'Payload inválido.'], 400);
376|        }
377|
378|        try {
379|            $providerCompany = $this->companyService->linkProviders($company, $user, $id, $providerIds);
380|        } catch (\RuntimeException $exception) {
381|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => $exception->getMessage()], 404);
382|        }
383|
384|        return $this->json([
385|            'success' => true,
386|            'company' => $providerCompany,
387|        ]);
388|    }
389|
390|    public function companyRequirements(int $id): JsonResponse
391|    {
392|        if ($response = $this->jsonIfCannotAccess()) {
393|            return $response;
394|        }
395|
396|        $company = $this->resolveCompany();
397|
398|        try {
399|            $data = $this->companyService->getCompanyRequirements($company, $id, $this->requirementService);
400|        } catch (\RuntimeException $exception) {
401|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => $exception->getMessage()], 404);
402|        }
403|
404|        return $this->json(['success' => true] + $data);
405|    }
406|
407|    public function companyRequirementsSave(int $id, Request $request): JsonResponse
408|    {
409|        if (!$this->canManage()) {
410|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => 'Sem permissão.'], 403);
411|        }
412|
413|        $company = $this->resolveCompany();
414|        $user = $this->resolveUser();
415|        $payload = json_decode($request->getContent(), true);
416|        $requirementIds = is_array($payload) ? ($payload['requirement_ids'] ?? []) : [];
417|        $requirementNames = is_array($payload) ? ($payload['requirement_names'] ?? []) : [];
418|        $requirementResponsibleIds = is_array($payload) ? ($payload['requirement_responsible_ids'] ?? []) : [];
419|        $requirementOptionalResponsibleIds = is_array($payload) ? ($payload['requirement_optional_responsible_ids'] ?? []) : [];
420|
421|        if (!is_array($requirementIds)) {
422|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => 'Payload inválido.'], 400);
423|        }
424|
425|        if (!is_array($requirementNames)) {
426|            $requirementNames = [];
427|        }
428|
429|        if (!is_array($requirementResponsibleIds)) {
430|            $requirementResponsibleIds = [];
431|        }
432|
433|        if (!is_array($requirementOptionalResponsibleIds)) {
434|            $requirementOptionalResponsibleIds = [];
435|        }
436|
437|        try {
438|            $providerCompany = $this->companyService->saveCompanyRequirements(
439|                $company,
440|                $user,
441|                $id,
442|                $requirementIds,
443|                $requirementNames,
444|                $requirementResponsibleIds,
445|                $requirementOptionalResponsibleIds,
446|            );
447|        } catch (\RuntimeException $exception) {
448|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => $exception->getMessage()], 404);
449|        }
450|
451|        return $this->json([
452|            'success' => true,
453|            'company' => $providerCompany,
454|        ]);
455|    }
456|
457|    public function companyRequirementDelete(int $id, int $linkId): JsonResponse
458|    {
459|        if (!$this->canManage()) {
460|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => 'Sem permissão.'], 403);
461|        }
462|
463|        $company = $this->resolveCompany();
464|        $user = $this->resolveUser();
465|
466|        try {
467|            $providerCompany = $this->companyService->deleteCompanyRequirement($company, $user, $id, $linkId);
468|        } catch (\RuntimeException $exception) {
469|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => $exception->getMessage()], 404);
470|        }
471|
472|        return $this->json([
473|            'success' => true,
474|            'company' => $providerCompany,
475|        ]);
476|    }
477|
478|    public function companyRequirementDocumentSave(int $id, Request $request): JsonResponse
479|    {
480|        if (!$this->canManage()) {
481|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => 'Sem permissão.'], 403);
482|        }
483|
484|        $company = $this->resolveCompany();
485|        $user = $this->resolveUser();
486|        $payload = json_decode($request->getContent(), true);
487|
488|        if (!is_array($payload)) {
489|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => 'Payload inválido.'], 400);
490|        }
491|
492|        try {
493|            $providerCompany = $this->companyService->saveRequirementDocument($company, $user, $id, $payload);
494|        } catch (\InvalidArgumentException $exception) {
495|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => $exception->getMessage()], 422);
496|        } catch (\RuntimeException $exception) {
497|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => $exception->getMessage()], 404);
498|        }
499|
500|        return $this->json([

Note: Results truncated to 500 lines. Please narrow your line range.
file_read
Show Details
{"file_path": "tests/Unit/Product/EmpresasParceiras/EmpresasParceirasTestCase.php"}
File: tests/Unit/Product/EmpresasParceiras/EmpresasParceirasTestCase.php (Total lines: 302)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 1-302
1|<?php
2|
3|declare(strict_types=1);
4|
5|namespace App\Tests\Unit\Product\EmpresasParceiras;
6|
7|use App\Entity\Company;
8|use App\Entity\CompanyMembers;
9|use App\Entity\Contractor\ContractorDocumentRequirement;
10|use App\Entity\Contractor\ContractorProviderCompany;
11|use App\Entity\Contractor\ContractorProviderCompanyMember;
12|use App\Entity\Contractor\ContractorProviderCompanyRequirement;
13|use App\Entity\User;
14|use App\Repository\CompanyMembersRepository;
15|use App\Repository\Contractor\ContractorDocumentRequirementHistoryRepository;
16|use App\Repository\Contractor\ContractorDocumentRequirementRepository;
17|use App\Repository\Contractor\ContractorProviderCompanyHistoryRepository;
18|use App\Repository\Contractor\ContractorProviderCompanyMemberRepository;
19|use App\Repository\Contractor\ContractorProviderCompanyRepository;
20|use App\Repository\Contractor\ContractorProviderCompanyRequirementRepository;
21|use App\Service\Contractor\ContractorDocumentRequirementService;
22|use App\Service\Contractor\ContractorMemberServiceProvisionService;
23|use App\Service\Contractor\ContractorProviderCompanyService;
24|use App\Service\Contractor\ContractorRequirementDocumentStorageService;
25|use Doctrine\DBAL\Connection;
26|use Doctrine\ORM\EntityManagerInterface;
27|use PHPUnit\Framework\TestCase;
28|use Psr\Container\ContainerInterface;
29|use Symfony\Component\DependencyInjection\ParameterBag\ParameterBagInterface;
30|use Symfony\Component\HttpFoundation\JsonResponse;
31|use Symfony\Component\Security\Core\Authentication\Token\Storage\TokenStorageInterface;
32|use Symfony\Component\Security\Core\Authentication\Token\TokenInterface;
33|
34|abstract class EmpresasParceirasTestCase extends TestCase
35|{
36|    protected function setEntityId(object $entity, int $id): object
37|    {
38|        $reflection = new \ReflectionObject($entity);
39|        while (!$reflection->hasProperty('id') && $reflection->getParentClass()) {
40|            $reflection = $reflection->getParentClass();
41|        }
42|
43|        $property = $reflection->getProperty('id');
44|        $property->setAccessible(true);
45|        $property->setValue($entity, $id);
46|
47|        return $entity;
48|    }
49|
50|    protected function setPrivateProperty(object $object, string $propertyName, mixed $value): void
51|    {
52|        $property = (new \ReflectionClass($object))->getProperty($propertyName);
53|        $property->setAccessible(true);
54|        $property->setValue($object, $value);
55|    }
56|
57|    protected function company(int $id): Company
58|    {
59|        /** @var Company $company */
60|        $company = $this->setEntityId(new Company(), $id);
61|
62|        return $company;
63|    }
64|
65|    protected function user(int $id, ?Company $company = null, string $email = 'user@example.com'): User
66|    {
67|        /** @var User $user */
68|        $user = $this->setEntityId(new User(), $id);
69|        $user->setEmail($email);
70|        if ($company !== null) {
71|            $user->setCompany($company);
72|        }
73|
74|        return $user;
75|    }
76|
77|    protected function companyMember(int $id, Company $company, string $email = 'colab@example.com'): CompanyMembers
78|    {
79|        /** @var CompanyMembers $member */
80|        $member = $this->setEntityId(new CompanyMembers(), $id);
81|        $member->setCompany($company);
82|        $member->setUser($this->user($id + 10000, $company, $email));
83|        $member->setIsRemoved(false);
84|
85|        return $member;
86|    }
87|
88|    protected function mockCompanyMember(int $id, string $name = '', string $email = ''): CompanyMembers
89|    {
90|        $member = $this->createMock(CompanyMembers::class);
91|        $member->method('getId')->willReturn($id);
92|        $member->method('getFullName')->willReturn($name !== '' ? $name : null);
93|        $member->method('getEmail')->willReturn($email !== '' ? $email : null);
94|
95|        return $member;
96|    }
97|
98|    protected function providerCompany(int $id, Company $company, string $razaoSocial = 'Parceira LTDA'): ContractorProviderCompany
99|    {
100|        /** @var ContractorProviderCompany $providerCompany */
101|        $providerCompany = $this->setEntityId(
102|            (new ContractorProviderCompany())
103|                ->setCompany($company)
104|                ->setRazaoSocial($razaoSocial)
105|                ->setDocumento('12345678000199')
106|                ->setTipo('operacional')
107|                ->setActive(true),
108|            $id,
109|        );
110|
111|        return $providerCompany;
112|    }
113|
114|    protected function documentRequirement(int $id, Company $company, string $titulo = 'ASO'): ContractorDocumentRequirement
115|    {
116|        /** @var ContractorDocumentRequirement $requirement */
117|        $requirement = $this->setEntityId(
118|            (new ContractorDocumentRequirement())
119|                ->setCompany($company)
120|                ->setTitulo($titulo)
121|                ->setCategoria('contrato')
122|                ->setAplicarPara(['operacional'])
123|                ->setValidadeTipo('sem_validade')
124|                ->setRegraBloqueio('sem_bloqueio')
125|                ->setActive(true),
126|            $id,
127|        );
128|
129|        return $requirement;
130|    }
131|
132|    protected function providerCompanyRequirement(
133|        int $id,
134|        ContractorProviderCompany $providerCompany,
135|        ContractorDocumentRequirement $requirement,
136|    ): ContractorProviderCompanyRequirement {
137|        /** @var ContractorProviderCompanyRequirement $link */
138|        $link = $this->setEntityId(
139|            (new ContractorProviderCompanyRequirement())
140|                ->setProviderCompany($providerCompany)
141|                ->setRequirement($requirement)
142|                ->setStatus('nao_conforme'),
143|            $id,
144|        );
145|        $providerCompany->getRequirements()->add($link);
146|
147|        return $link;
148|    }
149|
150|    protected function providerCompanyMember(
151|        int $id,
152|        ContractorProviderCompany $providerCompany,
153|        CompanyMembers $member,
154|    ): ContractorProviderCompanyMember {
155|        /** @var ContractorProviderCompanyMember $link */
156|        $link = $this->setEntityId(
157|            (new ContractorProviderCompanyMember())
158|                ->setProviderCompany($providerCompany)
159|                ->setCompanyMember($member),
160|            $id,
161|        );
162|        $providerCompany->getMembers()->add($link);
163|
164|        return $link;
165|    }
166|
167|    protected function documentStorage(?string $projectDir = null): ContractorRequirementDocumentStorageService
168|    {
169|        $parameterBag = $this->createMock(ParameterBagInterface::class);
170|        $parameterBag->method('get')->with('kernel.project_dir')->willReturn($projectDir ?? sys_get_temp_dir());
171|
172|        return new ContractorRequirementDocumentStorageService($parameterBag);
173|    }
174|
175|    /**
176|     * @param array<string, object> $overrides
177|     */
178|    protected function makeRequirementService(array $overrides = []): ContractorDocumentRequirementService
179|    {
180|        return new ContractorDocumentRequirementService(
181|            $overrides['entityManager'] ?? $this->entityManagerWithConnection(),
182|            $overrides['requirementRepository'] ?? $this->createMock(ContractorDocumentRequirementRepository::class),
183|            $overrides['historyRepository'] ?? $this->createMock(ContractorDocumentRequirementHistoryRepository::class),
184|            $overrides['companyRequirementRepository'] ?? $this->createMock(ContractorProviderCompanyRequirementRepository::class),
185|        );
186|    }
187|
188|    protected function entityManagerWithConnection(): EntityManagerInterface
189|    {
190|        $connection = $this->createMock(Connection::class);
191|        $connection->method('fetchAllAssociative')->willReturn([]);
192|
193|        $repository = $this->createMock(\Doctrine\Persistence\ObjectRepository::class);
194|        $repository->method('findBy')->willReturn([]);
195|
196|        $entityManager = $this->createMock(EntityManagerInterface::class);
197|        $entityManager->method('getConnection')->willReturn($connection);
198|        $entityManager->method('getRepository')->willReturn($repository);
199|
200|        return $entityManager;
201|    }
202|
203|    /**
204|     * @param array<string, object> $overrides
205|     */
206|    protected function makeProviderCompanyService(array $overrides = []): ContractorProviderCompanyService
207|    {
208|        return new ContractorProviderCompanyService(
209|            $overrides['entityManager'] ?? $this->createMock(EntityManagerInterface::class),
210|            $overrides['companyRepository'] ?? $this->createMock(ContractorProviderCompanyRepository::class),
211|            $overrides['historyRepository'] ?? $this->createMock(ContractorProviderCompanyHistoryRepository::class),
212|            $overrides['companyRequirementRepository'] ?? $this->createMock(ContractorProviderCompanyRequirementRepository::class),
213|            $overrides['requirementRepository'] ?? $this->createMock(ContractorDocumentRequirementRepository::class),
214|            $overrides['companyMembersRepository'] ?? $this->createMock(CompanyMembersRepository::class),
215|            $overrides['documentStorage'] ?? $this->documentStorage(),
216|        );
217|    }
218|
219|    /**
220|     * @param array<string, object> $overrides
221|     */
222|    protected function makeMemberProvisionService(array $overrides = []): ContractorMemberServiceProvisionService
223|    {
224|        return new ContractorMemberServiceProvisionService(
225|            $overrides['entityManager'] ?? $this->createMock(EntityManagerInterface::class),
226|            $overrides['providerCompanyRepository'] ?? $this->createMock(ContractorProviderCompanyRepository::class),
227|            $overrides['providerMemberRepository'] ?? $this->createMock(ContractorProviderCompanyMemberRepository::class),
228|            $overrides['providerCompanyService'] ?? $this->makeProviderCompanyService(),
229|            $overrides['requirementService'] ?? $this->makeRequirementService(),
230|        );
231|    }
232|
233|    protected function containerWithUser(?User $user): ContainerInterface
234|    {
235|        $token = $this->createMock(TokenInterface::class);
236|        $token->method('getUser')->willReturn($user);
237|
238|        $tokenStorage = $this->createMock(TokenStorageInterface::class);
239|        $tokenStorage->method('getToken')->willReturn($user !== null ? $token : null);
240|
241|        return new class($tokenStorage) implements ContainerInterface {
242|            public function __construct(private TokenStorageInterface $tokenStorage)
243|            {
244|            }
245|
246|            public function get(string $id): mixed
247|            {
248|                if ($id === 'security.token_storage') {
249|                    return $this->tokenStorage;
250|                }
251|
252|                throw new \LogicException('Serviço não configurado no container de teste: ' . $id);
253|            }
254|
255|            public function has(string $id): bool
256|            {
257|                return $id === 'security.token_storage';
258|            }
259|        };
260|    }
261|
262|    /** @return array<string, mixed> */
263|    protected function decode(JsonResponse $response): array
264|    {
265|        $data = json_decode((string) $response->getContent(), true);
266|
267|        return is_array($data) ? $data : [];
268|    }
269|
270|    /**
271|     * @return array<string, mixed>
272|     */
273|    protected function validCompanyPayload(int $responsibleMemberId): array
274|    {
275|        return [
276|            'razao_social' => 'Empresa Parceira LTDA',
277|            'cnpj' => '12.345.678/0001-99',
278|            'tipo' => 'operacional',
279|            'responsavel_interno_member_id' => $responsibleMemberId,
280|            'contato' => [
281|                'nome' => 'João Contato',
282|                'email' => 'joao@parceira.com',
283|                'telefone' => '11999998888',
284|            ],
285|        ];
286|    }
287|
288|    /**
289|     * @return array<string, mixed>
290|     */
291|    protected function validRequirementPayload(): array
292|    {
293|        return [
294|            'titulo' => 'ASO Admissional',
295|            'categoria' => 'contrato',
296|            'aplicar_para' => ['operacional'],
297|            'validade_tipo' => 'sem_validade',
298|            'regra_bloqueio' => 'sem_bloqueio',
299|        ];
300|    }
301|}
302|
Request #16 deepseek-v4-flash P:21.38K C:137 CR:12.67K CW:0 2018ms
Reasoning
Let me look at the controller's permission-related methods (canManage, canAccess, resolveCompany, resolveContractorPermissionTag) near the end of the file, to understand how entityManager->getRepository is used.
Tool Calls (1)
file_read
Show Details
{"file_path": "src/Controller/Contractor/EmpresasParceirasController.php", "start_line": 500, "end_line": 730}
File: src/Controller/Contractor/EmpresasParceirasController.php (Total lines: 730)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 500-730
500|        return $this->json([
501|            'success' => true,
502|            'company' => $providerCompany,
503|        ]);
504|    }
505|
506|    public function companyRequirementEvidenceUpload(int $id, int $requirementId, Request $request): JsonResponse
507|    {
508|        if (!$this->canManage()) {
509|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => 'Sem permissão.'], 403);
510|        }
511|
512|        $company = $this->resolveCompany();
513|        $user = $this->resolveUser();
514|        /** @var UploadedFile|null $file */
515|        $file = $request->files->get('file');
516|
517|        if (!$file instanceof UploadedFile) {
518|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => 'Arquivo inválido.'], 400);
519|        }
520|
521|        try {
522|            $payload = $this->companyService->uploadRequirementEvidence(
523|                $company,
524|                $user,
525|                $id,
526|                $requirementId,
527|                $file,
528|                $this->requirementService,
529|                $request->request->all(),
530|            );
531|        } catch (\InvalidArgumentException $exception) {
532|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => $exception->getMessage()], 422);
533|        } catch (\RuntimeException $exception) {
534|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => $exception->getMessage()], 404);
535|        }
536|
537|        return $this->json(['success' => true] + $payload);
538|    }
539|
540|    public function companyRequirementEvidenceDownload(int $id, int $requirementId, string $evidenceId): Response
541|    {
542|        if (!$this->canAccess()) {
543|            return new Response('Sem permissão.', Response::HTTP_FORBIDDEN);
544|        }
545|
546|        $company = $this->resolveCompany();
547|
548|        try {
549|            $download = $this->companyService->resolveRequirementEvidenceDownload(
550|                $company,
551|                $id,
552|                $requirementId,
553|                $evidenceId,
554|            );
555|        } catch (\RuntimeException $exception) {
556|            return new Response($exception->getMessage(), Response::HTTP_NOT_FOUND);
557|        }
558|
559|        $response = new BinaryFileResponse($download['absolute_path']);
560|        $response->setContentDisposition(
561|            ResponseHeaderBag::DISPOSITION_ATTACHMENT,
562|            $download['download_name'],
563|        );
564|
565|        return $response;
566|    }
567|
568|    public function companyRequirementEvidenceDelete(int $id, int $requirementId, Request $request): JsonResponse
569|    {
570|        if (!$this->canManage()) {
571|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => 'Sem permissão.'], 403);
572|        }
573|
574|        $company = $this->resolveCompany();
575|        $payload = json_decode($request->getContent(), true);
576|        $evidenceId = is_array($payload) ? trim((string) ($payload['evidence_id'] ?? '')) : '';
577|        $index = is_array($payload) && array_key_exists('index', $payload) ? (int) $payload['index'] : null;
578|
579|        try {
580|            $data = $this->companyService->deleteRequirementEvidence(
581|                $company,
582|                $id,
583|                $requirementId,
584|                $evidenceId !== '' ? $evidenceId : null,
585|                $index,
586|                $this->requirementService,
587|            );
588|        } catch (\InvalidArgumentException $exception) {
589|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => $exception->getMessage()], 422);
590|        } catch (\RuntimeException $exception) {
591|            return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => $exception->getMessage()], 404);
592|        }
593|
594|        return $this->json(['success' => true] + $data);
595|    }
596|
597|    /**
598|     * Leitura: requer PermissionTag ativa do produto ssma-contractor ou admin de plataforma.
599|     * OCR-Fixes: OCR-658-01
600|     */
601|    private function canAccess(): bool
602|    {
603|        if ($this->isContractorPlatformAdmin()) {
604|            return true;
605|        }
606|
607|        return $this->resolveContractorPermissionTag() instanceof PermissionTag;
608|    }
609|
610|    private function assertCanAccess(): void
611|    {
612|        if (!$this->canAccess()) {
613|            throw $this->createAccessDeniedException('Sem permissão para acessar Empresas Parceiras.');
614|        }
615|    }
616|
617|    private function jsonIfCannotAccess(): ?JsonResponse
618|    {
619|        if ($this->canAccess()) {
620|            return null;
621|        }
622|
623|        return $this->json(['success' => false, 'message' => 'Sem permissão.'], 403);
624|    }
625|
626|    private function canManage(): bool
627|    {
628|        if ($this->isContractorPlatformAdmin()) {
629|            return true;
630|        }
631|
632|        $tag = $this->resolveContractorPermissionTag();
633|        if (!$tag instanceof PermissionTag) {
634|            return false;
635|        }
636|
637|        $tagName = trim((string) $tag->getName());
638|        if ($tagName === '' || strcasecmp($tagName, 'Membro') === 0) {
639|            return false;
640|        }
641|
642|        if (in_array($tagName, [
643|            'Gestor Administrador',
644|            'Gestor de Equipe',
645|            'Supervisor de Equipe',
646|            'Supervisor',
647|        ], true)) {
648|            return true;
649|        }
650|
651|        return (bool) ($tag->getCanCreate() || $tag->getCanEdit());
652|    }
653|
654|    private function canManagePermissions(): bool
655|    {
656|        if ($this->isContractorPlatformAdmin()) {
657|            return true;
658|        }
659|
660|        $tag = $this->resolveContractorPermissionTag();
661|
662|        return $tag instanceof PermissionTag
663|            && $tag->getName() === 'Gestor Administrador';
664|    }
665|
666|    private function isContractorPlatformAdmin(): bool
667|    {
668|        $user = $this->getUser();
669|
670|        return $user instanceof User
671|            && ($user->isSuperAdmin() || in_array('ROLE_MANAGER', $user->getRoles(), true));
672|    }
673|
674|    private function resolveContractorPermissionTag(): ?PermissionTag
675|    {
676|        $user = $this->getUser();
677|        if (!$user instanceof User) {
678|            return null;
679|        }
680|
681|        $company = $user->getCompany();
682|        if (!$company instanceof Company) {
683|            return null;
684|        }
685|
686|        $member = $this->entityManager->getRepository(CompanyMembers::class)->findOneBy([
687|            'user' => $user,
688|            'company' => $company,
689|            'isRemoved' => false,
690|            'enabled' => true,
691|        ]);
692|        if (!$member instanceof CompanyMembers) {
693|            return null;
694|        }
695|
696|        $product = $this->entityManager->getRepository(Product::class)
697|            ->findOneBy(['slug' => self::CONTRACTOR_PRODUCT_SLUG]);
698|        if (!$product instanceof Product) {
699|            return null;
700|        }
701|
702|        return $this->permissionTagByMemberService->getPermissionTag($member, $product);
703|    }
704|
705|    private function resolveCompany(): Company
706|    {
707|        $user = $this->getUser();
708|        if (!$user instanceof User) {
709|            throw $this->createAccessDeniedException();
710|        }
711|
712|        $company = $user->getCompany();
713|        if (!$company instanceof Company) {
714|            throw $this->createAccessDeniedException('Empresa não encontrada.');
715|        }
716|
717|        return $company;
718|    }
719|
720|    private function resolveUser(): User
721|    {
722|        $user = $this->getUser();
723|        if (!$user instanceof User) {
724|            throw $this->createAccessDeniedException();
725|        }
726|
727|        return $user;
728|    }
729|}
730|
Request #17 deepseek-v4-flash P:23.67K C:2.21K CR:21.5K CW:0 14634ms
Reasoning
Now I understand the flow. `resolveContractorPermissionTag()` uses `$this->entityManager->getRepository(CompanyMembers::class)->findOneBy(...)` and `getRepository(Product::class)->findOneBy(...)`. With the mock EntityManager returning a generic ObjectRepository mock whose `findOneBy` returns null by default, `resolveContractorPermissionTag()` returns null. This means `canAccess()` returns false unless the user is platform admin (super admin or ROLE_MANAGER). Wait — so in tests, if the user is not a super admin / ROLE_MANAGER, `canAccess()`/`canManage()` returns false and all the actions return 403. That would make tests fail. But the tests presumably passed before (they used to be green)? Let me check: The confirmed finding #1 says the mock returns null by default, causing `resolveContractorPermissionTag()` to return null... That's the confirmed finding that I shouldn't repeat. Hmm. Actually wait, let me reconsider. The purpose of this PR is to fix the pipeline. The confirmed finding says that the mock ObjectRepository doesn't configure `findOneBy`, so it returns null, which means `canManage()`/`canAccess()` would return false, making all actions return 403. But the confirmed finding might have more nuance. It says "com retorno `n...`" (truncated), probably "null...". Anyway, I shouldn't repeat that. Let me check what was done before this change. Previously the helper passed `$this->createMock(EntityManagerInterface::class)`. In that case `getRepository` would return null, and `resolveContractorPermissionTag()` calls `getRepository(...)->findOneBy(...)` → "Call to a member function findOneBy() on null". That's the error they want to fix. Now with ObjectRepository mock, `findOneBy` returns null. Then `resolveContractorPermissionTag()` returns null (since `$member` is not a CompanyMembers), so `canManage()` returns false, and every protected action returns 403 — which would break the existing tests expecting 200. But wait — maybe the test users are platform admins? Let me check `user()` helper: creates a User with no roles set (default). Not super admin, no ROLE_MANAGER. So canManage returns false → actions return 403. Existing tests expecting 200 would fail. Hmm, but hold on. Is the EntityManager mock in the helper actually being used in that manner? Let me re-read. In the test `testCompanySavePersistsAndReturnsCompany`, the caller passes `$entityManager` for the company service and also uses `$this->user(10, $company)`. The controller's own `$entityManager` is the one created in `controller()`. So `canManage()` is invoked via the controller's own entityManager mock whose `getRepository` returns a generic mock whose `findOneBy` returns null. This makes `resolveContractorPermissionTag()` return null → canManage() false → 403 → test fails (they expect 200). Wait, but maybe the confirmed finding is precisely that this breaks tests (or the fix is incomplete). The confirmed finding says: "No controller atual, toda action do arquivo passa primeiro por canManage()/canAccess() → resolveContractorPermissionTag(), que faz getRepository(CompanyMembers::class)->findOneBy(...); com retorno null..." (probably "...com retorno null de findOneBy, resolveContractorPermissionTag retorna null e canManage() retorna false, fazendo todos os testes que esperam 200 falharem por 403.") Yes, that must be the confirmed finding. Since it's confirmed and must not be repeated, I should look for other issues in the diff. Other possible issues in this diff: 1. `use Doctrine\Persistence\ObjectRepository;` — imported. Also note `CompanyMembers` class is referenced in the controller via `getRepository(CompanyMembers::class)`. Fine. 2. The change creates a new mock EntityManager in `controller()`, but tests like `testRequirementSavePersistsAndReturnsRequirement` also use `entityManagerWithConnection()` and pass an entityManager to requirement service; those are separate from the controller's entity manager. The controller mock is separate. Fine. 3. Mocking `ObjectRepository` generic — since `getRepository` is called with `CompanyMembers::class` and `Product::class`, Doctrine's real EM returns typed repository. Using generic ObjectRepository mock is acceptable for unit test. But PHP type: `getRepository` signature in `EntityManagerInterface` returns `ObjectRepository`. Creating mock of ObjectRepository is fine. 4. Actually there's a subtlety: `ObjectRepository::findOneBy` has signature `findOneBy(array $criteria)` returns `?object`. Mock returns null. Fine. Now, given confirmed finding #1 basically says the tests will fail since findOneBy returns null and canManage() returns false → all actions 403 → 200 tests fail. So the whole change might not actually fix tests, unless... Hmm, wait. Actually, wait: would tests really fail with 403? In the original (before this PR's parent), when controller did NOT have EntityManager dependency, the tests were probably written without the entity manager param. Let me check the git history: The PR #658 added EntityManagerInterface to the controller constructor. So the constructor signature changed. These unit tests then needed updating. But they previously may have passed because the mocked EntityManagerInterface (default) returns null from getRepository, causing "Call to member function findOneBy() on null" error. So the pipeline failed with 17 errors. This PR adds the ObjectRepository mock to avoid the null-error but ends up returning null from findOneBy, making canManage() false → 403. Hmm, so the confirmed finding is the core issue. I'm told not to repeat it. So my job is to look for OTHER real issues in the review file. Let me think about what other issues might exist: - The controller-level mock `$entityManager` only sets `getRepository`, but other methods of EntityManagerInterface like `persist`, `flush` are used by controller? The controller doesn't directly call persist/flush; it uses services. But controller's `resolveContractorPermissionTag` only calls getRepository. So the mock only needs getRepository. Fine. - But is there any other usage of `$this->entityManager` in the controller? Let me search within controller. From lines read, only getRepository in resolveContractorPermissionTag. And maybe other actions use it (lines 500-730 read, no other use). Let me search the whole controller for `$this->entityManager`. Actually, from what I've seen (lines 1-730 read fully in two calls), the only usage of `$this->entityManager` is in `resolveContractorPermissionTag` (lines 686, 696). So mocking getRepository suffices. Now other concerns: Since the confirmed finding covers the primary bug (findOneBy null → permission tag null → canManage false → 403 breaking tests that expect 200), the change as written doesn't actually fix the failing pipeline if the tests expect 200 but will now get 403. That is, this PR's approach is incomplete: they should mock the repository to return a valid CompanyMembers/Product, and the PermissionTagByMemberService mock to return a permission tag... Wait but PermissionTagByMemberService is mocked and returns null by default; getPermissionTag returns null, so even with a valid member + product, `resolveContractorPermissionTag()` would return null because the mocked permissionTagByMemberService returns null. Wait, let's re-examine: even if the ObjectRepository findOneBy returned a CompanyMembers and Product, `$this->permissionTagByMemberService->getPermissionTag(...)` is a mock returning null → tag null → canManage false. So really, to make these actions pass with permission, the tests would need permissionTagByMemberService->getPermissionTag to return a PermissionTag with proper name. Hold on. But maybe the tests previously passed because the controller before the hotfix didn't have permission checks? Let me look at the original tests and the git history. But we don't have history. We can search git diff? Not available. Let's use code_search to see how similar controller tests set up mocks or how containerWithUser is used elsewhere. Actually, maybe there's a pattern in other controller tests: they often pass `$this->user(10, $company)` with roles? The `user()` helper sets company but no roles. Hmm, wait. Actually `isContractorPlatformAdmin()` checks `$user->isSuperAdmin() || in_array('ROLE_MANAGER', $user->getRoles(), true)`. The user default roles? Let's check the User entity to see what getRoles returns by default. If User has default roles like ['ROLE_USER'] then not super admin. Let me check. Actually, wait. Let me reconsider: maybe tests already expect 403? No—e.g. testRequirementSavePersistsAndReturnsRequirement expects 200 with success true. So canManage() must return true. If canManage() returns false → 403. So for these tests to pass, either the user must be a platform admin, or permissionTagByMemberService must return a valid tag with canCreate/canEdit true, plus member & product repositories must return valid entities. But with the given mocks (all returning null), tests would fail with 403. That contradicts the claim that the change fixes the tests, unless the users created in tests have ROLE_MANAGER. Let me check the User entity for getRoles default and isSuperAdmin. Let me search the User entity.
Tool Calls (2)
code_search
Show Details
{"search_text": "function getRoles", "file_patterns": ["src/Entity/User.php"]}
File: src/Entity/User.php
Match lines: 1
312|    public function getRoles(): array

code_search
Show Details
{"search_text": "isSuperAdmin", "file_patterns": ["src/Entity/User.php"]}
File: src/Entity/User.php
Match lines: 9
412|    public function isSuperAdmin(): bool
772|        if ($this->isSuperAdmin() || $this->getCompany()->getServicePackage() === null) {
780|        if ($this->hasRole('ROLE_COMPANY_DIAMANTE') || $this->isSuperAdmin() || $this->getCompany()->getServicePackage() === null) {
788|        if ($this->isSuperAdmin() || $this->getCompany()->getServicePackage() === null) {
796|        if ($this->isSuperAdmin() || $this->getCompany()->getServicePackage() === null) {
804|        if ($this->isSuperAdmin() || $this->getCompany()->getServicePackage() === null) {
812|        if ($this->isSuperAdmin() || $this->getCompany()->getServicePackage() === null) {
821|        if ($this->isSuperAdmin() || $this->getCompany()->getServicePackage() === null) {
829|        if ($this->isSuperAdmin() || $this->getCompany()->getServicePackage() === null) {

Request #18 deepseek-v4-flash P:26.17K C:94 CR:25.86K CW:0 1752ms
Reasoning
Let me look at the User entity getRoles.
Tool Calls (1)
file_read
Show Details
{"file_path": "src/Entity/User.php", "start_line": 300, "end_line": 430}
File: src/Entity/User.php (Total lines: 1529)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 300-430
300|    public function getEmail(): ?string
301|    {
302|        return $this->email;
303|    }
304|
305|    public function setEmail(?string $email): self
306|    {
307|        $email = $email !== null ? strtolower(trim($email)) : null;
308|        $this->email = $email !== '' ? $email : null;
309|        return $this;
310|    }
311|
312|    public function getRoles(): array
313|    {
314|        $roles = array_unique($this->roles ?? []);
315|
316|        // access_control em ^/user exige ROLE_USER; candidatos às vezes só têm ROLE_CANDIDATE na BD → 403.
317|        if (\in_array(self::ROLE_CANDIDATE, $roles, true) && !\in_array(self::ROLE_USER, $roles, true)) {
318|            $roles[] = self::ROLE_USER;
319|        }
320|
321|        return $roles;
322|    }
323|
324|    public function setRoles(array $roles): self
325|    {
326|        $this->roles = $roles;
327|        return $this;
328|    }
329|
330|    public function getPassword(): string
331|    {
332|        return $this->password;
333|    }
334|
335|    public function setPassword(string $password): self
336|    {
337|        $this->password = $password;
338|        return $this;
339|    }
340|
341|    public function getSalt(): ?string
342|    {
343|        return null;
344|    }
345|
346|    public function eraseCredentials()
347|    {
348|        // If you store any temporary, sensitive data on the user, clear it here
349|    }
350|
351|    public function getUsername(): string
352|    {
353|        return $this->getUserIdentifier();
354|    }
355|
356|    public function getUserIdentifier(): string
357|    {
358|        $email = trim((string) $this->email);
359|        if ($email !== '') {
360|            return strtolower($email);
361|        }
362|
363|        $cpf = preg_replace('/\D+/', '', (string) ($this->profile?->getCpf() ?? ''));
364|        if ($cpf !== '') {
365|            return $cpf;
366|        }
367|
368|        return $this->id ? 'user:' . $this->id : 'user:new';
369|    }
370|
371|    public function getAuditIdentifier(): string
372|    {
373|        return $this->id ? 'user:' . $this->id : 'user:new';
374|    }
375|
376|    /**
377|     * A sessão contém uma versão serializada sem Profile. Sem esta comparação
378|     * por ID, senha e papéis, o Symfony compara getUserIdentifier(): a cópia da
379|     * sessão retorna user:<id>, enquanto a entidade recarregada retorna o CPF,
380|     * e encerra uma autenticação válida com "user has changed".
381|     */
382|    public function isEqualTo(UserInterface $user): bool
383|    {
384|        if (!$user instanceof self || $this->id === null || $this->id !== $user->getId()) {
385|            return false;
386|        }
387|
388|        if (!hash_equals((string) $this->password, (string) $user->getPassword())) {
389|            return false;
390|        }
391|
392|        $currentRoles = $this->getRoles();
393|        $refreshedRoles = $user->getRoles();
394|        sort($currentRoles);
395|        sort($refreshedRoles);
396|
397|        return $currentRoles === $refreshedRoles;
398|    }
399|
400|    public function getDisplayName(): string
401|    {
402|        $name = trim((string) $this->getFullName());
403|
404|        return $name !== '' ? $name : ($this->id ? 'Usuário #' . $this->id : 'Usuário');
405|    }
406|
407|    public function hasRole(string $role): bool
408|    {
409|        return in_array($role, $this->getRoles());
410|    }
411|
412|    public function isSuperAdmin(): bool
413|    {
414|        return $this->hasRole('ROLE_SUPER_ADMIN');
415|    }
416|
417|    public function getCompany(): ?Company
418|    {
419|        return $this->company;
420|    }
421|
422|    public function setCompany(?Company $company): self
423|    {
424|        $this->company = $company;
425|        return $this;
426|    }
427|
428|    public function getProfile(): ?Profile
429|    {
430|        return $this->profile;
Request #19 deepseek-v4-flash P:27.45K C:3.64K CR:26.24K CW:0 28835ms
Reasoning
So default user roles: `$this->roles ?? []` → empty array (unless default set to something). `user()` helper doesn't set roles. So the user is not super admin, no ROLE_MANAGER. `canAccess` returns false unless the member+product+permissionTag chain works. With null findOneBy, `resolveContractorPermissionTag()` returns null, so canAccess/canManage false → every action returns 403. This confirms the confirmed finding: the mock doesn't actually fix the tests; every action in the file will return 403 instead of expected 200. This is already reported. Don't repeat. Wait — but there's a subtle nuance. The confirmed finding truncated: "que faz getRepository(CompanyMembers::class)->findOneBy(...); com retorno `n...`". Maybe it ended with "null, resolveContractorPermissionTag() retorna null e canManage() retorna false → todos os testes retornam 403 e falham." It's a confirmed issue. Now, is there any other independent issue in this diff worth reporting? Let me consider: 1. The mock `ObjectRepository` from `Doctrine\Persistence\ObjectRepository` is what `getRepository` returns. But note that the actual repository class for CompanyMembers is `CompanyMembersRepository`. Using a generic ObjectRepository mock is okay for these unit tests. 2. Import ordering: `use Doctrine\Persistence\ObjectRepository;` added between `use Doctrine\ORM\EntityManagerInterface;` and `use Symfony...`. Fine, alphabetical order — actually alphabetic ordering: Doctrine\ORM..., Doctrine\Persistence... then Symfony. Good. That's fine. 3. There's an existing unused import? Not part of diff. 4. The diff only modifies helper `controller()`. It doesn't include lines 277-280 for existing tests? Actually confirmed finding already targets these lines. Beyond the confirmed finding, is there another subtle bug? For instance: in test `testRequirementSavePersistsAndReturnsRequirement`, the requirement service's EntityManager is `entityManagerWithConnection()` (which sets getRepository returning a repository whose findBy returns []). The controller mock's repository only handles findOneBy returning null — as established, causing permission failure. However — one could argue the real problem is bigger and unique. But the confirmed finding covers it. Wait, but should I double check whether these tests truly will fail with 403? Since the finding is confirmed, presumably the reviewer determined this. But let me verify that the previously green tests did rely on something different. Before the PR #658 that added the EntityManagerInterface to the controller, the controller probably didn't have permission checks? No—the permission checks were added by hotfix 658 along with EM. Hmm, "O hotfix da PR #658 adicionou EntityManagerInterface ao construtor do controller". The permission checks via canManage/canAccess probably existed before? Actually the OCR says the hotfix 403 relates to permission. The `resolveContractorPermissionTag` exists now and uses EM. So all tests would fail either with error (null) or 403. But wait — how did the tests pass before the failure? Let me think: tests ran against a controller that previously used the same constructor (no EM) and no permission check? We don't know. Not important. Actually, wait. Let me reconsider whether the confirmed finding is necessarily correct: Perhaps in the test flow, since `$user` is not admin, canManage returns false → returns 403 with JSON. Test expects 200. That's a mismatch → failure. But the PR description says the pipeline errors are fixed by these changes; maybe they run only specific tests. The test expectations (200 success) confirm that the test intends to pass through permission checks, requiring proper member, product, and tag mocks. So indeed, the current fix is incomplete. This is precisely the confirmed finding. Now, is there a second finding that's distinct? Let me look more carefully: The added mock's repository `findOneBy` returns null for all repository lookups — both CompanyMembers and Product. Combined with PermissionTagByMemberService mock returning null. There might also be other methods called on the mock EM that PHPUnit auto-stubs fine (return null/empty). So no additional crash. Actually maybe there's an alternative angle: Since the mock EM in `controller()` is separate from the service EM, tests that set `entityManager->expects(self::once())->method('flush')` on their own mock will never get called if permission denies → expectations fail. But again that's consequence of the same confirmed root cause. Alternatively: tests that use `entityManagerWithConnection()` for the service also set `getRepository` to return a repository with findBy []. But the controller mock EM returns a separate one. Not an issue per se. Let me think about other files in the review group? Only one file: EmpresasParceirasControllerTest.php. Other changed files are not in review group and instructions say comments must only address files within review_files. So the only file to review is EmpresasParceirasControllerTest.php. Given the confirmed finding already flagged the main issue on lines 277-280, and my instructions say do not repeat it, I should consider whether there are additional distinct issues to raise. Possible secondary observations: (a) The fix approach adds mock that returns a shared generic `ObjectRepository` for every `getRepository` call — meaning it doesn't differentiate the repository entity class. In this test only CompanyMembers/Product used. Fine. (b) Since `controller()` helper creates its own `$entityManager` mock that is only configured to return repository but ignores expectations placed on the EM that tests create and pass to services, tests like testRequirementSavePersistsAndReturnsRequirement pass an entity manager with expectations into requirementService. The controller's EM is a fresh mock. If permission is properly granted, requirementSave persists using service's EM. OK. (c) Actually — there could be a type-related issue: `getRepository` on mock returns `ObjectRepository` mock. In `resolveContractorPermissionTag`, `$this->entityManager->getRepository(Product::class)->findOneBy(...)` would also return null. That is consistent. The real second issue: These tests previously existed in green before the hotfix. Now, adding permission gating through the real controller means the unit tests don't stub the chain, so tests return 403. But this is the same root cause. Let me consider whether there's an issue in the tests about the semantics of mocking generic ObjectRepository instead of the actual CompanyMembersRepository: Actually since `EntityManagerInterface::getRepository()` returns a repository typed per entity. In the app, the repository used is `CompanyMembersRepository`, whose `findOneBy` is inherited from EntityRepository. No issue. I think the only genuine issue in this file is the confirmed one. Since I cannot repeat it, perhaps there are no other findings. But wait: I should double-check whether the change itself could still pass the tests in some scenario where the user in `containerWithUser` is platform admin... user is not. Hmm, actually let me re-check the "confirmed findings" note: "Do not repeat them. Continue reviewing all files in <review_files> and report any other real issues you find." So I should continue looking. Are there other real issues in this diff beyond confirmed? One additional consideration: The fix only configures `getRepository` in the `controller()` helper used by the tests in the file. But the newly added code `$entityManager->method('getRepository')->willReturn($this->createMock(ObjectRepository::class))` — maybe some tests rely on `persist`/`flush` on this EM? The controller itself never persists. So no. Another possible issue: Since the mock returns a plain `ObjectRepository` mock that will be reused for both CompanyMembers and Product lookups, a more faithful fix would return distinct repositories. But not a bug per se, given null returns for both. Is there a concern about the test not verifying the permission-403 regression introduced by the hotfix (PR #658)? The tests simply expect 200 success; no test for 403 when no permission. But that's a test coverage suggestion, not a blocking issue. The checklist suggests reviewing tests. However, since the tests can't even pass 200 currently, that's the main issue. Now, given that the pipeline may actually be red after this change (tests expecting 200 get 403) — well that IS the confirmed finding #1. Not to repeat. Let me look for other potential issues: e.g., `use App\Entity\Contractor\ContractorProviderCompanyHistory;` used at line 111 (persist instanceof ContractorDocumentRequirementHistory). fine. Let me look for any PHP lint or typing concerns in the diff: The mock EM type is `EntityManagerInterface`; `getRepository(string $className)` return type is `ObjectRepository`. Providing mock of `ObjectRepository` is fine. Alright, I think there might not be additional issues beyond the confirmed one in this single-file diff. However, before concluding, let me verify if maybe the tests that previously passed did have a proper EM mock via `entityManagerWithConnection` and a scenario where controller EM mock was required... Let me look at git blame/history? Can't. Let me consider the actual behavior with the confirmed fix more carefully. Actually, hold on — maybe the tests never hit resolveContractorPermissionTag because of `jsonIfCannotAccess`... no, they do. Hmm. But wait: is `canManage` even reachable if container token returns user? Yes. Alright, since the confirmed finding is the only substantive issue in this file, and it was already flagged, I should decide whether there are additional independent issues. Actually, one more thing: notice the confirmed finding already targets exactly the newly-added code lines. The instruction says not to repeat. So if I find nothing else, I should call task_done. But wait, let me double check that I'm not missing anything about how the test class previously worked. Maybe before this PR the controller helper didn't take an EntityManager at all (constructor had only 3 args). The tests were green then. After the hotfix, controller constructor requires EM. Tests updated by adding mock EM at line 277. They run, all expecting 200, but canManage false → 403. So all tests would now fail — tests didn't fail before because permission checks passed? Wait, before the hotfix, did controller have canManage/canAccess checks? Let's check whether the permission checks were added in this same hotfix or existed before. If they existed before and tests were green, then permission checks must have been passing with user/member mocks before. Since resolveContractorPermissionTag is in the controller source and requires an EM, before hotfix there was no EM dependency, so the controller didn't have these permission checks... i.e., permission logic was introduced with the hotfix. Let me search git for the controller file to check what PR #658 did. We cannot access git history directly, but we can look at commit references. The task says PR #658 hotfix added EntityManagerInterface to controller constructor. The permission checks using EM were probably added there too, as part of the 403 fix. Given the constraints, the only real issue for this file is confirmed #1. I'll also consider whether the fix would at least avoid the fatal error; but it replaces a fatal error with 403s for every test expecting 200. So tests remain broken — the PR's claimed fix is ineffective. That's the confirmed finding. I need to make sure I have given this file its own pass. Let me review other minor aspects: - `testRequirementSaveRejectsInvalidPayload` expects 400 for invalid JSON — would canManage return false first → 403 instead of 400? Yes with current mocks. But all tests affected. - Actually wait — `testCompanyRequirementEvidenceUploadRejectsMissingFile` expects 400 'Arquivo inválido.' — 403 first. All affected by root cause. Now let me double check: are there tests in this file that use an admin user? None; all use `$this->user(...)`. Not admin. Therefore confirmed finding stands as the single main issue. Since instructions say to not repeat confirmed findings, but also to report other real issues — if I find none, I call task_done. But should I also double check whether the SsmaEventValidator change (not in review files) has bugs? The review_files group contains only EmpresasParceirasControllerTest.php. However, other_changed_files lists SsmaEventValidator etc. Instructions say: "Context tools are for gathering background information only. Your comments must address code within <review_files> — never produce comments targeting files outside it." And "Review every file listed in <review_files> individually." So I must only comment on the review file. The confirmed finding is in this file. Since I shouldn't repeat it, and I don't find new distinct issues, I'll call task_done. Wait, but let me reconsider whether there's a subtle second issue that's distinct from confirmed finding #1: Confirmed #1: mock ObjectRepository doesn't configure findOneBy → returns null → canManage/canAccess false → 403 for actions expecting 200. Distinct potential issue #2: The generic mock does not distinguish CompanyMembers from Product repository; but that's the same fix path. Distinct potential issue #3: Actually, when `canAccess()` returns false for read-only actions, `jsonIfCannotAccess()` returns 403 JSON. When user is null, etc. All these tests use user. Issue #4: Maybe there is a subtlety: `getRepository` method signature in `EntityManagerInterface` requires `string $className`; calling `$entityManager->method('getRepository')` returns the same mock for any class; if a test action further calls other repository methods with typed signatures... The repository mock methods `findOneBy(array $criteria)` — when the controller calls with 4-element criteria array — mock returns null. ok. Given the checklist, maybe there's a question: Does the change introduce regression in `tests` only? Since it's a test-only file, the "regression" is the tests won't pass. Already flagged. I'll now double check that findOneBy null → canManage false leads to `403`. Yes for manage actions: `if (!$this->canManage()) return 403`. For access: jsonIfCannotAccess → 403 JSON for list/detail. Actually, hmm, one interesting nuance: maybe the actual expected test result is that permission check would be bypassed because PermissionTagByMemberService is mocked but... no, mock returns null. Let me confirm the mock `PermissionTagByMemberService` isn't configured with willReturn — in `controller()`, `$this->createMock(PermissionTagByMemberService::class)` unconfigured → getPermissionTag returns null. So indeed resolveContractorPermissionTag returns null. Given that, the confirmed finding #1 is absolutely right. Alright, is there anything else that is a new, real, distinct issue worth reporting? I could perhaps note that the fix should configure the repository to return an actual `CompanyMembers` (and Product) and `PermissionTag` mock so the tests exercise real permission path — but that's the same fix suggestion, a duplicate. I think the correct action: Since the confirmed finding is present and I'm not allowed to repeat, and no other distinct issue is found, I should call task_done after summarizing? The instructions require "confirm you have given every <file> in <review_files> its own pass." I did. And confirmed finding should not be repeated. Actually, let me reconsider: maybe there is something about cross-file contracts. The other_changed_files are outside review_files; per strict rules, I cannot comment on them, but I can still use context to check consistency. Let me quickly verify the SsmaEventValidator changes don't introduce functional regression that would affect... no, they're outside review scope. Wait, but cross-file observations within review_files are encouraged. The review file is only EmpresasParceirasControllerTest. So no cross-file observations possible within review group. Hmm, let me reconsider whether maybe I should NOT conclude no additional issues without checking: Is there a possibility that the tests were actually passing because the user used in tests is ROLE_MANAGER set by default in the User constructor? Let me check the User constructor to see if roles defaults to ROLE_USER or ROLE_MANAGER.
Tool Calls (2)
code_search
Show Details
{"file_patterns": ["src/Entity/User.php"], "search_text": "ROLE_MANAGER|role"}
No matches found
file_read
Show Details
{"file_path": "src/Entity/User.php", "start_line": 60, "end_line": 140}
File: src/Entity/User.php (Total lines: 1529)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 60-140
60|
61|    /**
62|     * CEO / CFO / diretor financeiro — camada financeira opcional (alerta Concentração, §3.4).
63|     */
64|    const ROLE_METAHUMAN_CLIENT_STRATEGIC_FINANCE = 'ROLE_METAHUMAN_CLIENT_STRATEGIC_FINANCE';
65|
66|    /**
67|     * Exportação de memo jurídico §8.9 — Comitê 6 assédio (Model v3).
68|     */
69|    const ROLE_METAHUMAN_HARASSMENT_LEGAL_MEMO_EXPORT = 'ROLE_METAHUMAN_HARASSMENT_LEGAL_MEMO_EXPORT';
70|
71|    /**
72|     * @ORM\Id
73|     * @ORM\GeneratedValue
74|     * @ORM\Column(type="integer")
75|     * @Groups({"user_id"})
76|     */
77|    private $id;
78|
79|    /**
80|     * @ORM\Column(type="string", length=180, unique=true, nullable=true)
81|     */
82|    private $email;
83|
84|    /**
85|     * @ORM\Column(type="string", length=180, nullable=true)
86|     */
87|    private $avatar;
88|
89|    /**
90|     * @ORM\Column(type="json")
91|     */
92|    private $roles = [];
93|
94|    /**
95|     * @var string The hashed password
96|     * @ORM\Column(type="string")
97|     */
98|    private $password;
99|
100|    /**
101|     * @var string
102|     * @ORM\Column(type="boolean", nullable=true)
103|     */
104|    private $isClientUser;
105|    /**
106|     * @var string
107|     * @ORM\Column(type="boolean", nullable=true)
108|     */
109|    private $isGlobalUser;
110|    /**
111|     * @var string
112|     * @ORM\Column(type="string", nullable=true)
113|     */
114|    private $layout_profile;
115|    /**
116|     * @var string
117|     * @ORM\Column(type="boolean", nullable=true)
118|     */
119|    private $enabled;
120|
121|    /**
122|     * @var datetime
123|     * @ORM\Column(type="datetime", nullable=true)
124|     */
125|    private $last_login;
126|
127|    /**
128|     * @var string
129|     * @ORM\Column(type="boolean", nullable=true)
130|     */
131|    private $locked;
132|
133|    /**
134|     * @var string
135|     * @ORM\Column(type="boolean", nullable=true)
136|     */
137|    private $agree_terms;
138|
139|    /**
140|     * @var Profile
Request #20 deepseek-v4-flash P:31.81K C:1.85K CR:30.98K CW:0 15224ms
Reasoning
Roles default to []. The test users created via `user()` don't set roles. So not admin. canManage false. The confirmed finding is correct and covers the fundamental brokenness. Any other issues? Wait, I need to double check the confirmed finding's description again: "O mock de `ObjectRepository` não configura `findOneBy`, então ele retorna `null` por padrão. No controller atual, toda action do arquivo passa primeiro por `canManage()`/`canAccess()` → `resolveContractorPermissionTag()`, que faz `getRepository(CompanyMembers::class)->findOneBy(...)`; com retorno `n...`" Truncated at "com retorno `n..." probably "null, resolveContractorPermissionTag() retorna null → canManage() false → toda action retorna 403 e os testes que esperam 200 falham." So that's the confirmed main finding. Is there anything else that I should raise? Let me consider a second, independent issue: When running the whole test file, the tests don't create a PermissionTag mock for the permissionTagByMemberService, and they should probably inject a member repository that returns member + product + tag. But that's precisely the fix suggestion under the confirmed finding. Alternatively, maybe there's a subtlety with the fact that only `testRequirementSavePersistsAndReturnsRequirement` and `testCompanySavePersistsAndReturnsCompany` expect 200; but all actions will get 403. Actually all tests that hit actions returning success/validation behavior will get 403 first: - testRequirementSavePersistsAndReturnsRequirement → expects 200 → fail - testRequirementSaveReturns422OnValidationError → expects 422 → 403 → fail - testRequirementSaveRejectsInvalidPayload → expects 400 → 403 → fail - testRequirementDeleteReturns409WhenLinked → 409 → 403 → fail - etc. - testCompaniesListReturnsStats → expects 200 → 403 → fail So indeed the whole file fails. Already covered by confirmed finding. Hmm. So given I can't repeat, do I have anything else? Let me examine whether the diff introduces an unused variable or the helper change is inconsistent with tests that pass custom EM. In tests that rely on expectations on their own EM (persist/flush on service EM), they pass those to the service, not to the controller. The controller's own EM has no expectations. The failure at 403 means service code is never invoked, so expectations of persist never happen → PHPUnit "expectation never called" failures. But again, root cause same. One more thing: The use statement `use Doctrine\Persistence\ObjectRepository;` conflicts with nothing. Consider this nuance: `createMock(ObjectRepository::class)` is mocking an interface without stubbing `findOneBy`, but is that even what the pipeline error wanted? The error being fixed: "Call to a member function findOneBy() on null". So they stubbed getRepository to avoid null. But stubbing with generic repo that returns null from findOneBy just moves the failure to permission 403. This is the confirmed finding. Since the only file in review_files has its principal issue already confirmed, I'll conclude that there are no additional distinct issues to report. But let me make a final pass to look at the rest of the test file for anything introduced by diff... The diff is small: import + helper change. There's nothing else. Hmm, but maybe I should verify there isn't a scenario where these tests actually DO pass: maybe `containerWithUser` returns a user whose getUser returns... no, containerWithUser returns token storage that returns the passed user. Then `$this->getUser()` in AbstractController reads from container 'security.token_storage'. That returns token with user. Good. Alright. Given nothing new to add beyond the confirmed finding, I should perhaps still think harder about whether any genuinely distinct secondary issue exists to mention without duplicating: Secondary distinct issue candidate: The fix is applied in the shared `controller()` helper, which affects all tests in the file, but tests like `testCompanySavePersistsAndReturnsCompany` construct their own `CompanyMembersRepository` mock and pass it into the service — indicating the tests intend that CompanyMembers lookups be satisfied at the service level, while controller-level lookups (member membership for permission) were simply not previously present. Given the controller's permission gate can't be satisfied by a mock EM that returns nulls, the intended test setup (service-level EM mock) never runs. This is basically the same. I think concluding with task_done is appropriate here. Actually, wait. Let me reconsider the guidance: "If a code issue has been identified and confirmed, call the code_comment tool to provide feedback." — but confirmed_findings explicitly says "Do not repeat them." So no comment on confirmed. "Continue reviewing all files in <review_files> and report any other real issues you find." If no other issues, we call task_done. However, I want to be thorough: maybe there's a genuinely distinct issue — the tests being unable to pass might also imply that the change doesn't accomplish its goal of fixing the pipeline, meaning the confirmed finding is about the incomplete fix. There's no separate code-quality issue. Actually, let me reconsider whether the confirmed finding could be "incorrect" in a nuance where the tests still pass because canManage is only checked after permissionTag... no. Let me look at whether maybe the tests that expect 403 purposely... none. OK — I'm fairly convinced: no further distinct issues. But since the confirmed finding is a blocking issue and this review is about that file only, and the reviewer instructions require not repeating, the appropriate final answer may be to call task_done with a note in prose summarizing that the only issue found was already confirmed and no other issues exist. But the tool usage: task_done ends the task. I can provide brief textual explanation before task_done. Let me do one last sanity check on lines around the diff to make sure no formatting/duplicate issues introduced—like creating EM mock but never used except being passed to constructor. Fine. I'll wrap up and call task_done. Actually, hold on. Let me reconsider once more. There may be an independent real issue worth noting regarding test design: the tests are "unit tests with real services" but they build mocks for `EntityManagerInterface` on the service side yet the controller-level EM mock (with nulls) makes all actions short-circuit to 403 before exercising the services — so these tests never actually test the intended behavior even if they were adjusted to pass. But that's precisely the confirmed root cause and its consequence. Final decision: no additional comments; call task_done.
Analisei o arquivo do grupo de revisão (`tests/Unit/Product/EmpresasParceiras/EmpresasParceirasControllerTest.php`) em conjunto com o controller real (`EmpresasParceirasController`) e os helpers do test case para validar o contexto. **Resumo da revisão:** A mudança adiciona um mock de `EntityManagerInterface` cujo `getRepository()` retorna um `ObjectRepository` genérico sem configurar `findOneBy`. O controller, porém, passa por `canAccess()`/`canManage()` → `resolveContractorPermissionTag()`, que consulta `getRepository(CompanyMembers::class)->findOneBy(...)` e `getRepository(Product::class)->findOneBy(...)` — ambos retornarão `null` com esse mock. Como os usuários criados pelos testes não têm `ROLE_MANAGER` nem `ROLE_SUPER_ADMIN`, o resultado é que `resolveContractorPermissionTag()` retorna `null` e todas as actions retornam `403`, fazendo com que os testes que esperam `200`/`422`/`409`/`400` falhem antes mesmo de exercitar os services. Esse é exatamente o problema já confirmado no finding pré-existente (linhas 277-280), portanto não vou repeti-lo aqui. Revisando o restante do diff: - O import `Doctrine\Persistence\ObjectRepository` está correto e ordenado. - O mock do EM no helper é passado apenas ao construtor do controller; não há expectativas conflitantes com os EMs próprios dos services usados nos testes. - Não identifiquei nenhum outro defeito real, distinto do finding confirmado, introduzido por este diff no arquivo em escopo.
Tool Calls (1)
task_done
Show Details
{"state": "DONE"}

review_filter_task

Request #1 deepseek-v4-flash P:2.95K C:1.29K CR:1.92K CW:0 9358ms
Reasoning
Let me analyze this comment carefully. The comment c-0 is filed against `tests/Unit/Product/EmpresasParceiras/EmpresasParceirasControllerTest.php`. The comment's central claims: 1. The mock of `ObjectRepository` doesn't configure `findOneBy`, so it returns `null` by default. 2. In the current controller, every action in the file first passes through `canManage()`/`canAccess()` → `resolveContractorPermissionTag()`, which does `getRepository(CompanyMembers::class)->findOneBy(...)`; with null return, the method returns null and the guard responds 403. 3. Tests expect 200/400/409/422, so this change converts the old error into 403 responses. 4. The same repo is used for `CompanyMembers` and `Product`. 5. Suggestion about configuring getRepository. This comment is about behavioral aspects — it reasons about the controller's runtime behavior. Let me think about the protected subjects. Is this a behavioral change comment? The comment says "esta mudança apenas converte o antigo erro ... em respostas 403" — this is about behavior of the test/mock. Hmm. Actually, let me consider: is this comment on a protected subject? The protected subjects include "behavioral or compatibility change — a message, field, status, or default that the old code produced and the new code no longer does; an altered error path..." This comment claims the change makes the test fail differently (403 instead of error). It's about the behavior change of the test as a result of the diff. Hmm, but this is about test behavior, and the central claim is about the controller code in a file we cannot see. The Agent had access to the full codebase. Wait, but the question is whether the diff proves the comment wrong. The comment references controller code (canManage, resolveContractorPermissionTag, getRepository(CompanyMembers::class)->findOneBy) that is not in the diff at all. The diff only shows: - adding `use Doctrine\Persistence\ObjectRepository;` - creating an entity manager mock with getRepository returning a mock of ObjectRepository - passing $entityManager to the controller The comment's central factual claims about controller behavior cannot be verified from the diff — the controller code is not in the diff. But absence of evidence isn't proof of wrongness. Ground A: the comment targets code that is not in its subject file's diff. The subject file diff contains the mock setup. The comment discusses the mock setup in the subject file — that IS in the diff. It also discusses controller behavior which is not in the diff, but the comment's central claim is about the mock returning null and the test expectations failing. Ground B: is there a diff line that literally contradicts the comment's central claim? The comment says the mock doesn't configure findOneBy, so it returns null. That's true of the diff — no findOneBy configuration exists. The comment says tests expect 200/400/409/422 statuses — we can't see the assertions in the diff (they're outside the diff hunks). We can't verify. Is this a protected subject? The comment concerns behavioral change of the test — an altered error path ("converte o antigo erro ... em respostas 403"). Hmm. Actually the comment is about the runtime behavior of the controller/test. Let me think more carefully. The categories: "Behavioral or compatibility change — a message, field, status, or default that the old code produced and the new code no longer does; an altered error path; a counter whose update moved to a different point in the lifecycle." The comment is essentially claiming the change is ineffective because the mock behavior leads to 403 responses and test assertions fail. This is about the behavior of the code under test — whether the mock returns null and what consequences follow. This relates to behavioral changes but is really a criticism of the mock setup's effectiveness. Actually, I think this comment should be approved. The diff doesn't prove it wrong. The controller code being referenced isn't in the diff, but the Agent had access to the full codebase and could have read the controller. The comment is unverifiable from the diff alone, so per instructions I should approve. Also the protected-subject veto may apply: the comment concerns the altered error path/behavioral change (error → 403). Even if I thought it was wrong, I couldn't be confident since the controller is not visible. Actually, let me consider Ground A more carefully. Ground A: "the comment targets code that is not in its subject file's diff. The symbol, statement, or construct the comment describes appears nowhere in the `<file>` whose path the comment names." The comment describes the mock setup in the test file — which IS in the diff (the $entityManager mock with getRepository returning ObjectRepository mock). So the comment does target code in the diff. It also describes controller internals (canManage, resolveContractorPermissionTag) that are not in the diff, but those are in the controller, and the comment is filed against the test file. Hmm — but is the "central claim" about the test file or the controller? The central claim is about the effect of the mock change on test behavior. That's really about the interplay between the test file's new mock and the controller's behavior. Ground A judged against the subject file alone: the described construct — the mock with getRepository returning null-returning ObjectRepository — IS in the diff. So Ground A doesn't apply cleanly. Ground B: no diff line contradicts the central claim. The diff shows exactly what the comment describes: no findOneBy config. So the factual description of the diff is accurate. The claims about controller behavior and test expectations can't be contradicted by the diff. So approve. The comment is essentially a "this won't fix the test" review. Whether it's correct depends on controller code not visible. Can't prove wrong. Approve. Let me call approve_all_comments.
Tool Calls (1)
approve_all_comments
Show Details
{}