Session: d6bee0e2-e65d-4dff-b0e5-8b83184a2e51

CWD: /var/lib/metahuman-ocr-worker/work/job-86/worktree Branch: HEAD Mode: range From: origin/new_staging2 To: origin/hotfix/ssma-descaracter-suspeita-criacao-card Model: deepseek-v4-flash Duration: 9m21s Files: 2 Status: complete

Coverage

2
Selected
2
Completed
0
Reused
0
Failed
0
Waived

Token Usage

2.18M
Prompt Tokens
68.85K
Completion Tokens
2.25M
Total Tokens
53
LLM Requests
2.09M
Cache Read
0
Cache Write
File breakdown 1 files
FilePromptCompletionCache ReadCache WriteTotal
templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_ev_injured_person_box.ht… 2.18M 68.85K 2.09M0 2.25M

Review Comments (3 findings)

Severity:
Category:
templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig 3 comments
maintainability medium L1304
Este template já concentra milhares de linhas de HTML, CSS e JS de tela, e este diff continua adicionando regra de exibição (CSS perto da linha 1305) e lógica de sincronização (`evSyncDescaracterStageUi`) dentro do próprio arquivo. Cada ajuste novo nesse arquivo aumenta o custo de manutenção e o risco de regressão cruzada entre os fluxos (criação, edição e aprofundamento compartilham o mesmo form). Sempre que possível, mova essa lógica para `public/js/` e o CSS para um arquivo dedicado, mesmo em PRs pequenas como esta.
Existing Code
/* Sim/Não de descaracterização fica oculto fora do aprofundamento — só o checkbox de suspeita aparece na criação. */
bug medium L1305-L1307
Marcar a caixa "Há suspeita..." na criação deixa a seção Sim/Não aparecer pela metade: o JS remove o `d-none` do `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap`, mas a regra nova esconde só os botões, o comentário e o aviso de permissão — o rótulo "Caracterizado como acidente?" (com o ícone de ajuda) fica visível sem nenhum controle embaixo. Isso contradiz a regra declarada de que, na criação, apenas o checkbox deve aparecer. Inclua o `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` na regra `:not(.is-doctor-aprof)` para a seção inteira permanecer oculta fora do aprofundamento técnico.
Existing Code
#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-toggle,
#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-comment-wrap,
#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm {
Suggested Change
#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap,
#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-toggle,
#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-comment-wrap,
#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm {
bug low L2928
Exibir o checkbox de suspeita em cada card na criação torna comum o caso de mais de um acidentado com marcações diferentes, mas o valor salvo continua sendo um único flag global (`ev_descaracter_suspect`): o handler de cada card espelha o estado nesse checkbox global e a serialização (`evReadCardInjuryData`) lê o global para todos os cards. Desmarcar um card com vários marcados apaga a suspeita dos demais, e marcar um card acaba marcando todos — no aprofundamento a suspeita é restaurada igualmente para todos os cards. Se a suspeita for por card (como a UI sugere), persista por card; caso contrário, deixe explícito que é por evento para evitar divergência de dado.
Existing Code
            el.classList.toggle('d-none', !isAp);
Files Reviewed 2 files
  • templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_ev_injured_person_box.html.twig
  • templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig
Conversations 1 files
templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_ev_injured_person_box.html.twig,templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig 53 requests

main_task

Request #1 deepseek-v4-flash P:6.56K C:438 CR:2.69K CW:0 3081ms
Reasoning
Let me analyze the code changes in the review files. The task is to review a change that makes the "suspeita de descaracterização" checkbox appear on the injured person card during occurrence creation (not just in technical deepening). Let me understand the changes: 1. `templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_ev_injured_person_box.html.twig` - just a comment update. 2. `templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig`: - CSS change: Instead of hiding the whole `.ev-inj-descaracter` block outside doctor aprofundamento, it now hides only `.ev-inj-descaracter-toggle`, `.ev-inj-descaracter-comment-wrap`, and `.ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm`. - JS change: `evSyncDescaracterStageUi` - the condition changed from `!isAp || !isDoctorAprof` to `!isAp` for showing the `.ev-inj-descaracter` section. I need to check the context of these changes to understand if there are issues. Let me look at the relevant sections of the files. Let me read the files to understand the structure.
Tool Calls (2)
file_read
Show Details
{"file_path": "templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_ev_injured_person_box.html.twig", "start_line": 130, "end_line": 280}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_ev_injured_person_box.html.twig (Total lines: 225)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 130-225
130|                    <div class="form-group ev-inj-classification-row">
131|                        <label>Classificação de Ocorrência <span class="text-danger">*</span></label>
132|                        <select class="form-control ev-inj-injury-classification">
133|                            <option value="" disabled selected>Selecione</option>
134|                            <option value="FAC" data-leave="NAO">FAC — Primeiros socorros</option>
135|                            <option value="MTC" data-leave="NAO">MTC — Tratamento médico</option>
136|                            <option value="RWC" data-leave="NAO">RWC — Trabalho restrito</option>
137|                            <option value="FAT" data-leave="TOTAL">FAT — Fatalidade</option>
138|                            <option value="LTI_INCAPACITANTE" data-leave="TOTAL">LTI — Afastamento</option>
139|                            <option value="LTI_FATALIDADE" data-leave="TOTAL" class="d-none">LTI — Fatalidade (legado)</option>
140|                            <option value="LTI" data-leave="TOTAL" class="d-none">LTI — Afastamento (legado)</option>
141|                        </select>
142|                    </div>
143|                </div>
144|                <div class="col-6">
145|                    <div class="form-group">
146|                        <label>Tipo de CAT</label>
147|                        <select class="form-control ev-inj-work-leave" disabled aria-readonly="true" tabindex="-1">
148|                            <option value="">Selecione a classificação</option>
149|                            <option value="NAO">Sem afastamento</option>
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 — visível na criação e no aprofundamento para Acidente Pessoal. Na criação: só checkbox de suspeita; Sim/Não e comentário ficam ocultos via CSS até o aprofundamento. #}
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|
file_read
Show Details
{"file_path": "templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig", "start_line": 1280, "end_line": 1360}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig (Total lines: 7710)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 1280-1360
1280|#form-event-new .ev-inj-consequence-row .form-control,
1281|#form-event-new .ev-inj-consequence-row select.form-control {
1282|    height: calc(1.5em + 0.75rem + 2px);
1283|    min-height: calc(1.5em + 0.75rem + 2px);
1284|    padding: 0.375rem 0.75rem;
1285|    font-size: 1rem;
1286|    line-height: 1.5;
1287|    box-sizing: border-box;
1288|}
1289|#form-event-new .ev-inj-descaracter-toggle {
1290|    gap: 8px;
1291|}
1292|#form-event-new .ev-inj-descaracter-btn.active {
1293|    background: #1a6e7f !important;
1294|    color: #fff !important;
1295|    border-color: #1a6e7f !important;
1296|}
1297|#form-event-new .ev-inj-descaracter-btn[disabled] {
1298|    opacity: 0.45;
1299|    cursor: not-allowed;
1300|}
1301|#form-event-new .ev-inj-descaracter {
1302|    padding-bottom: 4px;
1303|}
1304|/* Sim/Não de descaracterização fica oculto fora do aprofundamento — só o checkbox de suspeita aparece na criação. */
1305|#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-toggle,
1306|#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-comment-wrap,
1307|#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm {
1308|    display: none !important;
1309|}
1310|#form-event-new .ev-inj-descaracter-toggle.is-invalid {
1311|    outline: 2px solid #dc3545;
1312|    outline-offset: 2px;
1313|    border-radius: 8px;
1314|}
1315|/* Botão seta = mesmo padrão das Configurações (.ssma-config-tipo-action-btn) */
1316|#form-event-new .ssma-config-tipo-action-btn {
1317|    display: inline-flex;
1318|    align-items: center;
1319|    justify-content: center;
1320|    width: 36px;
1321|    height: 36px;
1322|    padding: 0;
1323|    border: 0;
1324|    border-radius: 8px;
1325|    background: transparent;
1326|    color: #6c757d;
1327|    cursor: pointer;
1328|}
1329|#form-event-new .ssma-config-tipo-action-btn:hover {
1330|    background: rgba(15, 23, 42, 0.06);
1331|    color: #495057;
1332|}
1333|#form-event-new .ssma-config-tipo-action-btn:focus,
1334|#form-event-new .ssma-config-tipo-action-btn:active {
1335|    outline: none;
1336|    box-shadow: none;
1337|}
1338|#form-event-new .ssma-section-chevron {
1339|    transition: transform .2s;
1340|}
1341|#form-event-new .ssma-config-tipo-action-btn[aria-expanded="false"] .ssma-section-chevron {
1342|    transform: rotate(180deg);
1343|}
1344|#modalEventNew-offcanvas-wrapper .ev-ap-pessoa-caixinha .custom-modern-select.open .custom-modern-options {
1345|    z-index: 40;
1346|}
1347|#form-event-new .ev-inj-card.is-expanded {
1348|    order: 99;
1349|}
1350|#form-event-new #ev_injured_person_boxes {
1351|    display: flex;
1352|    flex-direction: column;
1353|}
1354|#form-event-new #ev_injured_person_boxes.is-invalid {
1355|    outline: 2px solid #dc3545;
1356|    outline-offset: 4px;
1357|    border-radius: 8px;
1358|    padding: 4px;
1359|}
1360|/* Colaborador acidentado: mesmo padrão de _custom_select da Abordagem */
Request #2 deepseek-v4-flash P:9.8K C:123 CR:6.91K CW:0 1631ms
Reasoning
Now let me look at the JS `evSyncDescaracterStageUi` function and its surrounding context to understand the flow.
Tool Calls (1)
file_read
Show Details
{"file_path": "templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig", "start_line": 2800, "end_line": 3100}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig (Total lines: 7710)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 2800-3100
2800|        if (primary && !details[primary]) {
2801|            details[primary] = { attendance_date: evTodayDateInputValue(), had_injury: true, body_parts: [] };
2802|            evSetInjuredDetailsObj(details);
2803|            ids = Object.keys(details);
2804|        }
2805|
2806|        evParkBodyMapBlock();
2807|        evClearCanonicalInjuryIds();
2808|        wrap.innerHTML = '';
2809|
2810|        ids.forEach(function (pid) {
2811|            // Sempre cria colapsada; expandir só via lápis (ou validação).
2812|            evCreateInjuredPersonCard(pid, details[pid] || {}, false);
2813|        });
2814|        // Respeita primary já salvo; senão marca o primeiro.
2815|        var preferred = primary || '';
2816|        if (preferred && wrap.querySelector('.ev-injured-person-box[data-person-id="' + preferred.replace(/"/g, '') + '"]')) {
2817|            evSelectPrimaryInjuredPerson(preferred);
2818|        } else {
2819|            evEnsurePrimaryInjuredMarked();
2820|        }
2821|        evSyncInjuredPersonDetailsHidden();
2822|        evSyncPrimaryInjuredPersonId();
2823|        evFilterInjuredPersonSelect();
2824|        evUpdateInjuredPersonsEmptyState();
2825|        if (evCurrentStep === 'aprofundamento' && evSelectedType() === 'ACIDENTE_PESSOAL') {
2826|            window.requestAnimationFrame(function () {
2827|                if (typeof evEnsurePrimaryInjuredCardExpanded === 'function') {
2828|                    evEnsurePrimaryInjuredCardExpanded();
2829|                }
2830|            });
2831|        }
2832|    }
2833|    var evDraftTimer = null;
2834|    function evPersistDraftSoon() {
2835|        if (evDraftTimer) clearTimeout(evDraftTimer);
2836|        evDraftTimer = setTimeout(evPersistDraftNow, 400);
2837|    }
2838|    function evPersistDraftNow() {
2839|        var mode = (document.getElementById('ev_form_mode') || {}).value || 'create';
2840|        if (mode !== 'create') return;
2841|        try {
2842|            var form = document.getElementById('form-event-new');
2843|            if (!form) return;
2844|            var data = {};
2845|            Array.prototype.forEach.call(form.elements, function (el) {
2846|                if (!el.name && !el.id) return;
2847|                var key = el.id || el.name;
2848|                if (!key) return;
2849|                if (el.type === 'checkbox' || el.type === 'radio') {
2850|                    data[key] = !!el.checked;
2851|                } else {
2852|                    data[key] = el.value;
2853|                }
2854|            });
2855|            data.__people_ids = (document.getElementById('ev_people_ids') || {}).value || '';
2856|            data.__witness_ids = (document.getElementById('ev_witness_ids') || {}).value || '';
2857|            data.__injured_details = (document.getElementById('ev_injured_person_details') || {}).value || '';
2858|            sessionStorage.setItem(EV_DRAFT_KEY, JSON.stringify(data));
2859|        } catch (e) {}
2860|    }
2861|    function evClearDraft() {
2862|        try { sessionStorage.removeItem(EV_DRAFT_KEY); } catch (e) {}
2863|    }
2864|    function evRestoreDraftIfAny() {
2865|        try {
2866|            var raw = sessionStorage.getItem(EV_DRAFT_KEY);
2867|            if (!raw) return false;
2868|            var data = JSON.parse(raw);
2869|            if (!data || typeof data !== 'object') return false;
2870|            Object.keys(data).forEach(function (key) {
2871|                if (key.indexOf('__') === 0) return;
2872|                var el = document.getElementById(key);
2873|                if (!el) return;
2874|                if (el.type === 'checkbox' || el.type === 'radio') {
2875|                    el.checked = !!data[key];
2876|                } else {
2877|                    el.value = data[key];
2878|                }
2879|            });
2880|            if (data.__people_ids) {
2881|                var pe = document.getElementById('ev_people_ids');
2882|                if (pe) pe.value = data.__people_ids;
2883|            }
2884|            if (data.__witness_ids) {
2885|                var we = document.getElementById('ev_witness_ids');
2886|                if (we) we.value = data.__witness_ids;
2887|            }
2888|            if (data.__injured_details) {
2889|                var ie = document.getElementById('ev_injured_person_details');
2890|                if (ie) ie.value = data.__injured_details;
2891|            }
2892|            // Remonta caixinhas após restaurar o JSON do draft.
2893|            setTimeout(function () {
2894|                if (typeof evRenderInjuredPersonBoxes === 'function') evRenderInjuredPersonBoxes();
2895|            }, 0);
2896|            return true;
2897|        } catch (e) {
2898|            return false;
2899|        }
2900|    }
2901|
2902|    function evCanDescharacterizeAccident() {
2903|        return window.SSMA_CAN_DESCARACTERIZE === true || window.SSMA_CAN_DESCARACTERIZE === 'true';
2904|    }
2905|
2906|    function evIsDescaracterSuspectChecked() {
2907|        var el = document.getElementById('ev_descaracter_suspect');
2908|        return !!(el && el.checked);
2909|    }
2910|
2911|    function evIsCreateMode() {
2912|        return ((document.getElementById('ev_form_mode') || { value: 'create' }).value === 'create');
2913|    }
2914|
2915|    function evSyncDescaracterStageUi() {
2916|        var isAp = evSelectedType() === 'ACIDENTE_PESSOAL';
2917|        var isDoctorAprof = !!evAprofundamentoOnlyMode;
2918|        var form = document.getElementById('form-event-new');
2919|        if (form) form.classList.toggle('is-doctor-aprof', isDoctorAprof);
2920|        // Checkbox global de suspeita (etapa 1) fica sempre oculto — suspeita agora é por card no aprofundamento.
2921|        var suspectWrap = document.getElementById('ev-suspeita-wrap');
2922|        if (suspectWrap) {
2923|            suspectWrap.classList.add('d-none');
2924|        }
2925|        document.querySelectorAll('.ev-inj-descaracter').forEach(function (el) {
2926|            // Seção de descaracterização aparece sempre que é Acidente Pessoal (criação e aprofundamento).
2927|            // Na criação: só o checkbox de suspeita fica visível (Sim/Não oculto via CSS fora do aprofundamento).
2928|            el.classList.toggle('d-none', !isAp);
2929|        });
2930|        // Sincroniza Sim/Não de cada card com o estado do checkbox de suspeita do próprio card.
2931|        document.querySelectorAll('.ev-injured-person-box').forEach(function (card) {
2932|            var suspChk = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-suspect-chk');
2933|            var yesNoWrap = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap');
2934|            if (suspChk && yesNoWrap) {
2935|                yesNoWrap.classList.toggle('d-none', !suspChk.checked);
2936|            }
2937|        });
2938|    }
2939|
2940|    function evSyncDescaracterUi() {
2941|        var hidden = document.getElementById('ev_descaracterizado');
2942|        var canSn = evCanDescharacterizeAccident();
2943|        var cur = String((hidden || {}).value || '');
2944|
2945|        evSyncDescaracterStageUi();
2946|
2947|        // Pré-seleciona "Sim" quando o profissional não tem permissão de descaracterização
2948|        // e o campo ainda está vazio. Ele só pode dizer "Sim" de qualquer forma, então
2949|        // pré-preencher evita a validação falhar sem o usuário perceber o que falta.
2950|        if (!canSn && cur === '' && evAprofundamentoOnlyMode && hidden) {
2951|            hidden.value = '0';
2952|            cur = '0';
2953|            document.querySelectorAll('.ev-injured-person-box').forEach(function (c) {
2954|                c.setAttribute('data-descaracterizado', '0');
2955|            });
2956|        }
2957|
2958|        document.querySelectorAll('.ev-injured-person-box').forEach(function (card) {
2959|            var noPerm = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm');
2960|            var cardDesc = card.getAttribute('data-descaracterizado') || cur;
2961|            if (noPerm) noPerm.classList.toggle('d-none', canSn);
2962|            card.querySelectorAll('.ev-inj-descaracter-btn').forEach(function (b) {
2963|                var val = b.getAttribute('data-descaracter-val');
2964|                // Sem permissão: "Não" fica visível mas desabilitado — o par Sim/Não precisa aparecer.
2965|                if (val === '1' && !canSn) {
2966|                    b.disabled = true;
2967|                    b.classList.remove('d-none');
2968|                    b.setAttribute('title', 'Sem permissão para descaracterizar o acidente.');
2969|                } else {
2970|                    b.disabled = false;
2971|                    b.classList.remove('d-none');
2972|                    b.removeAttribute('title');
2973|                }
2974|            });
2975|            if (window.SsmaShared && typeof window.SsmaShared.toggleYesNo === 'function') {
2976|                window.SsmaShared.toggleYesNo(card.querySelectorAll('.ev-inj-descaracter-btn'), cardDesc !== '' ? cardDesc : null, {
2977|                    valueAttr: 'data-descaracter-val'
2978|                });
2979|            }
2980|        });
2981|    }
2982|
2983|    /** Etapa 0: admin Aura + membro — esconde título/status só na criação; na edição volta. */
2984|    function evApplyAuraTitleStatusVisibility(mode) {
2985|        var row = document.getElementById('ev-title-status-row');
2986|        if (!row) return;
2987|        var hideOnCreate = !!window.SSMA_HIDE_EVENT_TITLE_STATUS_ON_CREATE
2988|            || !!window.SSMA_IS_AURA_ADMIN;
2989|        var hide = hideOnCreate && mode === 'create';
2990|        row.classList.toggle('d-none', hide);
2991|        var statusEl = document.getElementById('ev_status');
2992|        if (statusEl) {
2993|            if (hide) {
2994|                statusEl.removeAttribute('required');
2995|                if (!statusEl.value) statusEl.value = 'ABERTO';
2996|            } else {
2997|                statusEl.setAttribute('required', 'required');
2998|            }
2999|        }
3000|    }
3001|
3002|    function evSyncAaIdentFields(type) {
3003|        var wrap = document.getElementById('ev-aa-ident-fields');
3004|        if (!wrap) return;
3005|        var show = type === 'ACIDENTE_AMBIENTAL';
3006|        wrap.classList.toggle('d-none', !show);
3007|    }
3008|
3009|    function evSyncContainmentTimeEnabled() {
3010|        var done = document.getElementById('ev_containment_done');
3011|        var time = document.getElementById('ev_containment_time');
3012|        if (!done || !time) return;
3013|        time.disabled = !done.checked;
3014|        if (!done.checked) time.value = '';
3015|    }
3016|
3017|    // true se a data/hora informada cair em um dia de calendário posterior a hoje (local).
3018|    function evIsEventDatetimeFutureDay(value) {
3019|        if (!value) return false;
3020|        var evWhen = new Date(value);
3021|        if (isNaN(evWhen.getTime())) return true;
3022|        var now = new Date();
3023|        var todayStart = new Date(now.getFullYear(), now.getMonth(), now.getDate());
3024|        var eventDayStart = new Date(evWhen.getFullYear(), evWhen.getMonth(), evWhen.getDate());
3025|        return eventDayStart.getTime() > todayStart.getTime();
3026|    }
3027|
3028|    function evCheckFormValidityScoped(MV) {
3029|        var form = document.getElementById('form-event-new');
3030|        if (!form) return true;
3031|        var ok = true;
3032|        Array.prototype.forEach.call(form.elements, function (el) {
3033|            if (!evIsElementVisibleForValidation(el)) {
3034|                return;
3035|            }
3036|            if (el.type === 'button' || el.type === 'submit') {
3037|                return;
3038|            }
3039|            if (typeof el.checkValidity === 'function' && el.willValidate && !el.checkValidity()) {
3040|                ok = false;
3041|                if (MV && window.jQuery) MV.markInvalid(window.jQuery(el));
3042|            }
3043|        });
3044|        return ok;
3045|    }
3046|
3047|    /** Membro que relatou o evento (ROS: Relatado por ou usuário logado; QA: 1ª pessoa envolvida). */
3048|    function evReporterMemberIdForAprofundamento(type) {
3049|        type = type || evSelectedType();
3050|        if (type === 'ROS') {
3051|            var reportedBy = String((document.getElementById('ev_manager') || { value: '' }).value || '').trim();
3052|            if (reportedBy) {
3053|                return reportedBy;
3054|            }
3055|            return EV_LOGGED_MEMBER_ID ? String(EV_LOGGED_MEMBER_ID) : '';
3056|        }
3057|        if (type === 'QUASE_ACIDENTE') {
3058|            var qaPerson = String((document.getElementById('ev_person_id_qa') || { value: '' }).value || '').trim();
3059|            if (qaPerson) {
3060|                return qaPerson;
3061|            }
3062|            var peopleIds = String((document.getElementById('ev_people_ids') || { value: '' }).value || '').trim();
3063|            if (peopleIds) {
3064|                return peopleIds.split(',')[0].trim();
3065|            }
3066|            return EV_LOGGED_MEMBER_ID ? String(EV_LOGGED_MEMBER_ID) : '';
3067|        }
3068|        return '';
3069|    }
3070|
3071|    /** Gestor direto (superior) do membro que relatou — preenche o Aprofundamento. */
3072|    function evIsLoggedUserDirectManagerOfReporter(type) {
3073|        if (!EV_LOGGED_MEMBER_ID) {
3074|            return false;
3075|        }
3076|        var reporterId = evReporterMemberIdForAprofundamento(type);
3077|        if (!reporterId) {
3078|            return false;
3079|        }
3080|        var meta = (window.SSMA_EV_MEMBERS_BY_ID || {})[String(reporterId)];
3081|        if (!meta || meta.superior_id == null || meta.superior_id === '') {
3082|            return false;
3083|        }
3084|        return String(meta.superior_id) === String(EV_LOGGED_MEMBER_ID);
3085|    }
3086|
3087|    function evIsAprofundamentoFinalized() {
3088|        return !!evAprofundamentoFinalized;
3089|    }
3090|
3091|    function evCanEditAprofundamento(type) {
3092|        type = type || evSelectedType();
3093|        if (!evRequiresAprofundamento(type)) {
3094|            return false;
3095|        }
3096|        if (evIsAprofundamentoFinalized() && !EV_IS_ADMIN_APROFUNDAMENTO) {
3097|            return false;
3098|        }
3099|        // Admin (roles de gestão / flag backend)
3100|        if (EV_IS_ADMIN_APROFUNDAMENTO) {
Request #3 deepseek-v4-flash P:14K C:1.79K CR:9.86K CW:0 11418ms
Reasoning
Now let me understand the full context. Let me examine what happens to the checkbox state and how it's used elsewhere in this form. Also, I want to understand if the checkbox is visible at creation and gets hidden again, and how the form serializes. Key questions: 1. `evSyncDescaracterStageUi` is now showing `.ev-inj-descaracter` for `isAp` regardless of mode (create or aprofundamento). The section contains: - checkbox `.ev-inj-suspect-chk` — visible on creation - `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` — contains toggle, comment wrap, and no-perm paragraph. 2. CSS hides `.ev-inj-descaracter-toggle`, `.ev-inj-descaracter-comment-wrap`, `.ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm` when the form does NOT have `.is-doctor-aprof` class. Since these elements are inside `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap`, but the wrap itself... wait, let me look. Wait — the `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` has `d-none` class by default and is toggled based on suspect checkbox. Inside the wrap are `.ev-inj-descaracter-toggle`, `.ev-inj-descaracter-comment-wrap`, `.ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm`. Wait, the no-perm paragraph is a sibling of the comment wrap within the yesno-wrap. Actually looking at the code: ```html <div class="ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap d-none"> <label>...</label> <div class="ev-inj-descaracter-toggle d-flex align-items-center mb-3" role="group">...</div> <div class="form-group mb-0 ev-inj-descaracter-comment-wrap"> <label>Comentário</label> <textarea class="form-control ... ev-inj-descaracter-comment" ...></textarea> </div> <p class="ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm small text-muted mb-0 mt-2 d-none">...</p> </div> ``` Hmm, so `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` itself, in the creation flow, is hidden via CSS? Wait, the CSS now hides only `.ev-inj-descaracter-toggle`, `.ev-inj-descaracter-comment-wrap`, `.ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm`. But not the `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` itself, nor the label "Caracterizado como acidente?". Wait — is that a bug? Let's think. In creation mode (not aprofundamento), if the user checks the suspect checkbox, the JS at line 2931-2937 toggles `yesNoWrap` visibility: `yesNoWrap.classList.toggle('d-none', !suspChk.checked);`. So if checked, the `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` becomes visible, which shows the label "Caracterizado como acidente?" and then inside, the toggle (Sim/Não), comment wrap, and no-perm are hidden by CSS. So the user would see the label "Caracterizado como acidente?" but no Sim/Não buttons. That seems like a UI bug — a label with no controls underneath. Wait, let's re-read. When the suspect checkbox is checked during creation: - `evSyncDescaracterStageUi` runs toggling yesNoWrap visibility based on checkbox checked state. - `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` loses `d-none`. - The label "Caracterizado como acidente?" becomes visible. - The Sim/Não toggle is hidden by CSS rule `#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-toggle`. - The comment wrap is hidden. - The no-perm paragraph is hidden. So the user sees the label "Caracterizado como acidente?" with nothing underneath it. That looks like a UI glitch. Hmm, but wait — is the yesno-wrap display controlled by `d-none` class only? Yes: `classList.toggle('d-none', !suspChk.checked)`. And CSS uses `display:none !important` on the inner elements. But the yesno-wrap is a block-level `div`. If `d-none` is removed, it shows. So yes, the label will be visible but the controls won't be. Actually, wait. Let me double check the CSS rule targets `#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof)`. This is inside the modal for event creation. The `.is-doctor-aprof` class is toggled based on `isDoctorAprof = !!evAprofundamentoOnlyMode` at line 2917-2919. So in the aprofundamento flow, the class would be present and CSS would allow toggles to show. Now the question: when creation happens and the user checks the suspect checkbox, what happens in JS that listens to the suspect checkbox? Let me search for ev-inj-suspect-chk handling and evSyncDescaracterUi callbacks. Let me search for the functions that listen to the suspect checkbox change, plus how the yesno-wrap display is synchronized. Also, there's the question of whether the toggle is inside yesno-wrap; CSS hides the toggle, but the yesno-wrap label is shown. That's a potential UI glitch — "Caracterizado como acidente?" appears without buttons. Hmm wait, let me re-read the layout more carefully: ```html <div class="ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap d-none"> <label class="d-block small mb-2 font-weight-bold"> Caracterizado como acidente? <i class="fas fa-info-circle ..."></i> </label> <div class="ev-inj-descaracter-toggle d-flex ..."> <button ...>Sim</button> <button ...>Não</button> </div> <div class="form-group mb-0 ev-inj-descaracter-comment-wrap"> ... </div> <p class="ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm ... d-none">...</p> </div> ``` Yes. If the label is above toggle but they only hide the toggle and comment, on creation when suspect is checked, the "Caracterizado como acidente?" label + tooltip icon would appear with nothing below. Also, the tooltip on the icon says Sim/Não behavior. This is likely a visible UI artifact. Actually wait, let me check whether the CSS also intended to hide the whole yesno wrap but left the label. Let's check git history or previous version: The previous CSS was: ``` #form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter { display: none !important; } ``` That hid the entire section during creation. The new CSS hides only toggle, comment, and no-perm. So during creation after this PR, if a user checks the suspect checkbox, `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` would show because the JS (line 2935) removes `d-none` when the checkbox is checked. Then the label would appear above hidden controls. Let me verify what triggers `evSyncDescaracterStageUi` and whether the yesno wrap's label visible while controls hidden is an issue. Let me search the file for where evSyncDescaracterStageUi is invoked and where the suspect checkbox change event is bound.
Tool Calls (2)
code_search
Show Details
{"search_text": "evSyncDescaracterStageUi", "file_patterns": ["templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig"]}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig
Match lines: 6
2915|    function evSyncDescaracterStageUi() {
2945|        evSyncDescaracterStageUi();
3321|        evSyncDescaracterStageUi();
3396|        evSyncDescaracterStageUi();
5286|        evSyncDescaracterStageUi();
5734|                evSyncDescaracterStageUi();

code_search
Show Details
{"search_text": "ev-inj-suspect-chk", "file_patterns": ["templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig", "templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_ev_injured_person_box.html.twig"]}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_ev_injured_person_box.html.twig
Match lines: 1
194|                <input class="form-check-input ev-inj-suspect-chk" type="checkbox">

File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig
Match lines: 3
2932|            var suspChk = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-suspect-chk');
5741|            if (!e.target || !e.target.classList.contains('ev-inj-suspect-chk')) return;
6482|            var chk = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-suspect-chk');

Request #4 deepseek-v4-flash P:16.05K C:217 CR:15.74K CW:0 1825ms
Reasoning
Let me look at lines around 3300-3420, 5280-5300, 5720-5770, 6470-6500 to understand events.
Tool Calls (2)
file_read
Show Details
{"file_path": "templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig", "start_line": 3300, "end_line": 3420}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig (Total lines: 7710)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 3300-3420
3300|            alert.classList.toggle('d-none', !readonly);
3301|            if (evIsAprofundamentoFinalized() && !EV_IS_ADMIN_APROFUNDAMENTO) {
3302|                alert.innerHTML = '<i class="fas fa-lock mr-2"></i>Aprofundamento finalizado. Somente um administrador ou gestor administrador pode alterar.';
3303|            } else {
3304|                alert.innerHTML = '<i class="fas fa-exclamation-triangle mr-2"></i>O aprofundamento é preenchido pelo profissional responsável (gestor direto do colaborador ou equipe técnica SSMA).';
3305|            }
3306|        }
3307|        var controls = document.querySelectorAll(
3308|            '#ev-technical-section input, #ev-technical-section select, #ev-technical-section textarea,' +
3309|            '#ev-spec-type-card input, #ev-spec-type-card select, #ev-spec-type-card textarea,' +
3310|            '#ev-gravity-wrap input, #ev-gravity-wrap select,' +
3311|            '#ev-corrective-actions-section input, #ev-corrective-actions-section select, #ev-corrective-actions-section textarea, #ev-corrective-actions-section button,' +
3312|            '#ev-step-aprofundamento .ev-inj-descaracter-btn'
3313|        );
3314|        Array.prototype.forEach.call(controls, function (el) {
3315|            if (!el || el.type === 'hidden') return;
3316|            if (el.classList && el.classList.contains('ev-inj-descaracter-suspect-ro')) return;
3317|            el.disabled = !!readonly;
3318|        });
3319|        // Reaplica bloqueio Sem dano — o loop acima zera disabled de todos os selects.
3320|        evSyncInjuryTypeByConsequence();
3321|        evSyncDescaracterStageUi();
3322|    }
3323|
3324|    function evUpdateFooter() {
3325|        var type = evSelectedType();
3326|        var canEditAprofundamento = evCanEditAprofundamento(type);
3327|        var back = document.getElementById('ev-btn-back');
3328|        var cancel = document.getElementById('ev-btn-cancel');
3329|        var save = document.getElementById('ev-btn-save');
3330|        var draft = document.getElementById('ev-btn-draft');
3331|        var label = document.getElementById('ev-btn-label');
3332|        if (draft) {
3333|            draft.classList.toggle('d-none', !evAprofundamentoOnlyMode || evCurrentStep !== 'aprofundamento');
3334|        }
3335|        if (evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) {
3336|            if (back) back.classList.add('d-none');
3337|            if (cancel) cancel.classList.remove('d-none');
3338|            if (!label || !save) return;
3339|            if (evIsAprofundamentoFinalized() && !EV_IS_ADMIN_APROFUNDAMENTO) {
3340|                save.disabled = true;
3341|                save.classList.add('d-none');
3342|                if (draft) draft.classList.add('d-none');
3343|                return;
3344|            }
3345|            save.classList.remove('d-none');
3346|            save.disabled = false;
3347|            label.textContent = evIsAprofundamentoFinalized() ? 'Salvar alterações' : 'Finalizar';
3348|            return;
3349|        }
3350|        if (back) back.classList.toggle('d-none', evCurrentStep !== 'aprofundamento');
3351|        if (cancel) cancel.classList.toggle('d-none', evCurrentStep === 'aprofundamento');
3352|        if (!label || !save) return;
3353|        save.classList.remove('d-none');
3354|        save.disabled = false;
3355|        if (evCurrentStep === 'general') {
3356|            label.innerHTML = (evRequiresAprofundamento(type) && evCanEditAprofundamento(type))
3357|                ? 'Aprofundamento <i class="fas fa-chevron-right ml-1"></i>'
3358|                : ((document.getElementById('ev_form_mode') || { value: 'create' }).value === 'edit'
3359|                    ? 'Salvar alterações'
3360|                    : 'Registrar');
3361|            return;
3362|        }
3363|        label.textContent = (document.getElementById('ev_form_mode') || { value: 'create' }).value === 'edit'
3364|            ? 'Salvar alterações'
3365|            : 'Registrar';
3366|        // Registrar nunca fica bloqueado por falta de permissão de aprofundamento.
3367|        save.disabled = false;
3368|    }
3369|
3370|    function evSetStep(step) {
3371|        if (evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) {
3372|            step = 'aprofundamento';
3373|        }
3374|        evCurrentStep = step === 'aprofundamento' ? 'aprofundamento' : 'general';
3375|        var general = document.getElementById('ev-step-general');
3376|        var apro = document.getElementById('ev-step-aprofundamento');
3377|        if (general) {
3378|            general.classList.toggle('d-none', evCurrentStep !== 'general');
3379|            general.classList.toggle('is-readonly', !!evAprofundamentoOnlyMode);
3380|        }
3381|        if (apro) apro.classList.toggle('d-none', evCurrentStep !== 'aprofundamento');
3382|        document.querySelectorAll('#ev-steps-bar .insp-step-seg').forEach(function (bar) {
3383|            var key = bar.getAttribute('data-ev-progress');
3384|            if (evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) {
3385|                bar.classList.toggle('is-active', key === 'aprofundamento');
3386|                bar.classList.toggle('active', key === 'aprofundamento');
3387|            } else {
3388|                bar.classList.toggle('is-active', key === 'general' || key === evCurrentStep);
3389|                bar.classList.toggle('active', key === 'general' || key === evCurrentStep);
3390|            }
3391|        });
3392|        var body = document.querySelector('#modalEventNew-offcanvas-wrapper .offcanvas-body');
3393|        if (body) body.scrollTop = 0;
3394|        evSetAprofundamentoReadonly(!evCanEditAprofundamento(evSelectedType()));
3395|        evUpdateFooter();
3396|        evSyncDescaracterStageUi();
3397|        if (evCurrentStep === 'aprofundamento') {
3398|            var stepType = evSelectedType();
3399|            evSyncCriticalityField(stepType);
3400|            if (evRequiresAccidentTechnical(stepType)) {
3401|                evSyncDerivedSeverityFromConsequence();
3402|            }
3403|            if (stepType === 'ACIDENTE_PESSOAL') {
3404|                window.requestAnimationFrame(function () {
3405|                    var cardAp = evEnsurePrimaryInjuredCardExpanded();
3406|                    if (cardAp && evCardHadInjury(cardAp)) {
3407|                        evEnsureBodyMapForCard(cardAp);
3408|                    }
3409|                });
3410|            } else if (evHadInjuryForValidation()) {
3411|                evEnsureBodyMapForCard(evGetActiveInjuredCardForBodyMap());
3412|            }
3413|        }
3414|    }
3415|
3416|    function evInitTypeSelectFromConfig() {
3417|        var cfg = window.ssmaOccurrenceTypeConfig || { types: [] };
3418|        var allowedTypes = window.SSMA_ALLOWED_CREATE_TYPES || [];
3419|        var createMode = window.__ssmaEvCreateMode || null;
3420|        var sel = document.getElementById('ev_type');
file_read
Show Details
{"file_path": "templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig", "start_line": 5700, "end_line": 5790}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig (Total lines: 7710)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 5700-5790
5700|        if (leaveEl) {
5701|            leaveEl.addEventListener('change', syncLtiAvailability);
5702|        }
5703|
5704|        document.addEventListener('ev:formLoaded', syncLtiAvailability);
5705|        window.evSyncLtiAvailability = syncLtiAvailability;
5706|    }());
5707|
5708|    (function () {
5709|        var consEl = document.getElementById('ev_consequence');
5710|        if (consEl) {
5711|            consEl.addEventListener('change', function () {
5712|                evSyncDerivedSeverityFromConsequence();
5713|                evSyncInjuryTypeByConsequence();
5714|            });
5715|        }
5716|        var potEl = document.getElementById('ev_potential_consequence');
5717|        if (potEl) {
5718|            potEl.addEventListener('change', evPersistDraftSoon);
5719|        }
5720|        var derivedSel = document.getElementById('ev_derived_criticality_select');
5721|        if (derivedSel) {
5722|            derivedSel.addEventListener('change', function () {
5723|                var hidden = document.getElementById('ev_derived_criticality');
5724|                var critSel = document.getElementById('ev_criticality');
5725|                if (hidden) hidden.value = this.value || '';
5726|                if (critSel && this.value) critSel.value = this.value;
5727|                evPersistDraftSoon();
5728|            });
5729|        }
5730|        // Descaracterização: suspeita na 1ª etapa; caracterizado na caixinha (aprofundamento).
5731|        var suspectChk = document.getElementById('ev_descaracter_suspect');
5732|        if (suspectChk) {
5733|            suspectChk.addEventListener('change', function () {
5734|                evSyncDescaracterStageUi();
5735|                evSyncInjuredPersonDetailsHidden();
5736|                evPersistDraftSoon();
5737|            });
5738|        }
5739|        // Checkbox de suspeita por card (aprofundamento): mostra/oculta Sim/Não do próprio card.
5740|        document.addEventListener('change', function (e) {
5741|            if (!e.target || !e.target.classList.contains('ev-inj-suspect-chk')) return;
5742|            var card = e.target.closest('.ev-injured-person-box');
5743|            if (!card) return;
5744|            var yesNoWrap = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap');
5745|            if (yesNoWrap) yesNoWrap.classList.toggle('d-none', !e.target.checked);
5746|            // Atualiza o data-descaracter-suspect do card para serialização.
5747|            card.setAttribute('data-descaracter-suspect', e.target.checked ? '1' : '0');
5748|            // Espelha no campo global usado pelo payload (evIsDescaracterSuspectChecked).
5749|            var globalChk = document.getElementById('ev_descaracter_suspect');
5750|            if (globalChk) globalChk.checked = e.target.checked;
5751|            evSyncInjuredPersonDetailsHidden();
5752|            evPersistDraftSoon();
5753|        });
5754|        var contDone = document.getElementById('ev_containment_done');
5755|        if (contDone) {
5756|            contDone.addEventListener('change', function () {
5757|                evSyncContainmentTimeEnabled();
5758|                evPersistDraftSoon();
5759|            });
5760|        }
5761|        var form = document.getElementById('form-event-new');
5762|        if (form) {
5763|            form.addEventListener('change', evPersistDraftSoon);
5764|            form.addEventListener('input', evPersistDraftSoon);
5765|        }
5766|        document.addEventListener('ev:formLoaded', function () {
5767|            evSyncCriticalityField(evSelectedType());
5768|            evSyncDerivedSeverityFromConsequence();
5769|            evSyncInjuryTypeByConsequence();
5770|            evSyncInjuryClassificationByLeave();
5771|            if (typeof window.initAllCustomSelectWrappers === 'function') {
5772|                window.initAllCustomSelectWrappers();
5773|            }
5774|            evFilterInjuredPersonSelect();
5775|            evSyncDescaracterUi();
5776|            evSyncContainmentTimeEnabled();
5777|        });
5778|        document.addEventListener('ev:peopleTagsChanged', function () {
5779|            evFilterInjuredPersonSelect();
5780|            evSyncInjuredCardsFromInvolved();
5781|        });
5782|        // jQuery .on: o _custom_select dispara change via $.trigger (não chega em addEventListener nativo em alguns casos).
5783|        if (window.jQuery) {
5784|            window.jQuery(document)
5785|                .off('change.evInjuredAdd', '#ev_person_id')
5786|                .on('change.evInjuredAdd', '#ev_person_id', function () {
5787|                    var wrap = this.closest ? this.closest('.custom-modern-select-wrapper') : null;
5788|                    if (wrap) wrap.classList.remove('is-invalid');
5789|                    evAddInjuredPersonFromSelect();
5790|                });
Request #5 deepseek-v4-flash P:19.45K C:532 CR:16.26K CW:0 4000ms
Reasoning
Now I see that at line 5740-5753 there's a change listener on `.ev-inj-suspect-chk`. When the checkbox is checked, yesNoWrap becomes visible (d-none removed). Since the yesNoWrap contains the label "Caracterizado como acidente?" and the Sim/Não toggle (which is now hidden by CSS in the creation mode). So in the creation mode, when a user checks "Há suspeita de descaracterização do acidente?", the following UI would show: - Label "Caracterizado como acidente?" with tooltip icon - (toggle hidden) - (comment hidden) - (no-perm hidden) That label with no controls would be a UI glitch. Hmm, wait — maybe the CSS intends to hide the label too? No. The new CSS hides only `.ev-inj-descaracter-toggle`, `.ev-inj-descaracter-comment-wrap`, `.ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm`. There is no `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` in CSS. Also the label is inside `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap`. So when yesNoWrap is visible, the label appears. Hmm. But wait — is there also validation attached? On saving creation, if the suspect checkbox is checked, is any field required? Let me check how creation handles `descaracter_suspect`. Let me search for the serialization of the suspect and see. Actually, let me first look at the place where a new injured person card is created (evCreateInjuredPersonCard) and what default the checkbox gets. And look at line 6482 usage of ev-inj-suspect-chk.
Tool Calls (2)
file_read
Show Details
{"file_path": "templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig", "start_line": 6450, "end_line": 6560}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig (Total lines: 7710)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 6450-6560
6450|            if (typeof window.setCustomSelectValue === 'function') {
6451|                window.setCustomSelectValue('ev_person_id', '');
6452|            }
6453|        }
6454|        evFilterInjuredPersonSelect();
6455|        evRenderInjuredPersonBoxes();
6456|
6457|        if (type === 'ACIDENTE_PESSOAL') {
6458|            // Re-sync depois das tags + details: garante caixinhas médicas mesmo se
6459|            // setTagSelectValues rodou antes do hidden ou membro não estava no select.
6460|            syncBodyRegionVisibility();
6461|            evSyncInjuryFieldsByConsequence();
6462|            if (typeof window.evSyncLtiAvailability === 'function') { window.evSyncLtiAvailability(); }
6463|            evSyncInjuredCardsFromInvolved();
6464|            // Se sync ainda não viu pessoas nas tags, remonta a partir dos details salvos.
6465|            var wrapAfter = document.getElementById('ev_injured_person_boxes');
6466|            var hasMedCards = !!(wrapAfter && wrapAfter.querySelector('.ev-injured-person-box[data-person-id]'));
6467|            if (!hasMedCards && Object.keys(evGetInjuredDetailsObj() || {}).length) {
6468|                evRenderInjuredPersonBoxes();
6469|            }
6470|            if (evCurrentStep === 'aprofundamento' && typeof evEnsurePrimaryInjuredCardExpanded === 'function') {
6471|                evEnsurePrimaryInjuredCardExpanded();
6472|            }
6473|        }
6474|
6475|        // ── Descaracterização ────────────────────────────────
6476|        // Restaura suspeita por card a partir do det ou do injured_person_details do card primário.
6477|        var suspectRaw = det.descaracter_suspect != null ? det.descaracter_suspect : data.descaracter_suspect;
6478|        var suspectOn = suspectRaw === true || suspectRaw === 1 || suspectRaw === '1';
6479|        evSetChk('ev_descaracter_suspect', suspectOn);
6480|        // Propaga suspeita para cada card (checkbox editável no aprofundamento).
6481|        document.querySelectorAll('.ev-injured-person-box').forEach(function (card) {
6482|            var chk = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-suspect-chk');
6483|            if (chk) chk.checked = suspectOn;
6484|            card.setAttribute('data-descaracter-suspect', suspectOn ? '1' : '0');
6485|            var yesNoWrap = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap');
6486|            if (yesNoWrap) yesNoWrap.classList.toggle('d-none', !suspectOn);
6487|        });
6488|        var descVal = det.descaracterizado != null ? det.descaracterizado : data.descaracterizado;
6489|        if (descVal === true || descVal === 1) descVal = '1';
6490|        if (descVal === false || descVal === 0) descVal = '0';
6491|        evSetVal('ev_descaracterizado', descVal == null ? '' : String(descVal));
6492|        evSyncDescaracterUi();
6493|
6494|        // ── Evidências já anexadas ──────────────────────────
6495|        var evidences = Array.isArray(det.evidences) ? det.evidences : (Array.isArray(data.evidences) ? data.evidences : []);
6496|        evEvidences = evidences.map(function (e) {
6497|            return {
6498|                name: e.name || e.filename || '',
6499|                path: e.path || '',
6500|                persisted: true
6501|            };
6502|        });
6503|        evEvidenceRenderList();
6504|
6505|        // ── Labels do modal ─────────────────────────────────
6506|        var btnLbl = document.getElementById('ev-btn-label');
6507|        var modalTitle = document.getElementById('ev-modal-title');
6508|        if (modalTitle) modalTitle.textContent = 'Editar ocorrência';
6509|        evApplyAuraTitleStatusVisibility('edit');
6510|        evSetStep('general');
6511|        $('#ev_manager').trigger('change');
6512|    };
6513|
6514|    /**
6515|     * Abre o offcanvas no aprofundamento (especialista).
6516|     * Admin/gestor administrador edita tudo desde informações gerais — não trava o 1º passo.
6517|     */
6518|    window.EvModal.openAprofundamento = function (data) {
6519|        data = data || {};
6520|        if (EV_IS_ADMIN_APROFUNDAMENTO && window.OccurrenceModal && typeof window.OccurrenceModal.openEdit === 'function') {
6521|            window.OccurrenceModal.openEdit(data);
6522|            return;
6523|        }
6524|        var EV_GET_URL = '{{ path('ssma_event_get', {id: '__EV_ID__'})|e('js') }}';
6525|
6526|        function openWith(full) {
6527|            window.EvModal.populateForEdit(full || data);
6528|            evAprofundamentoOnlyMode = true;
6529|            evAprofundamentoFinalizeIntent = true;
6530|            var modalTitle = document.getElementById('ev-modal-title');
6531|            if (modalTitle) modalTitle.textContent = 'Aprofundamento técnico';
6532|            if (typeof evEnsureCorrectiveActionsSeed === 'function') {
6533|                evEnsureCorrectiveActionsSeed();
6534|            }
6535|            evSetStep('aprofundamento');
6536|            // Sincroniza a UI de descaracterização agora que evAprofundamentoOnlyMode=true.
6537|            // Isso também pré-seleciona "Sim" quando o profissional não pode descaracterizar.
6538|            evSyncDescaracterUi();
6539|            if (typeof window.openOffcanvasmodalEventNew === 'function') {
6540|                window.openOffcanvasmodalEventNew();
6541|            }
6542|        }
6543|
6544|        var eventId = data.id;
6545|        if (!eventId || String(eventId) === 'undefined') {
6546|            openWith(data);
6547|            return;
6548|        }
6549|        fetch(EV_GET_URL.replace('__EV_ID__', encodeURIComponent(String(eventId))), {
6550|            method: 'GET',
6551|            credentials: 'same-origin',
6552|            headers: { 'X-Requested-With': 'XMLHttpRequest' }
6553|        })
6554|            .then(function (res) { return res.json(); })
6555|            .then(function (result) {
6556|                var fullData = (result && result.success && result.event) ? result.event : data;
6557|                openWith(fullData);
6558|            })
6559|            .catch(function () {
6560|                openWith(data);
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
2933|            var yesNoWrap = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap');
5744|            var yesNoWrap = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap');
6485|            var yesNoWrap = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap');

Request #6 deepseek-v4-flash P:21.8K C:427 CR:19.97K CW:0 3319ms
Reasoning
Now let's examine potential UI issues. Key observation: - When the suspect checkbox is checked during creation (not aprofundamento), `evSyncDescaracterStageUi` (line 2925-2937) shows `.ev-inj-descaracter` section and toggles `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` visibility based on checkbox. But CSS hides `.ev-inj-descaracter-toggle`, `.ev-inj-descaracter-comment-wrap`, `.ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm` while the "Caracterizado como acidente?" label + info icon remain visible. Wait — is the label visible? The label is inside `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap`. The CSS does NOT hide the yesno-wrap nor the label. So when the user checks the suspect in creation, the label "Caracterizado como acidente?" would appear with the tooltip icon, but with no Sim/Não controls and no comment beneath. That is a UI glitch. But wait — does the checkbox even toggle the yesno-wrap in creation? In the change handler at 5740, when checking suspect, yesNoWrap classList d-none removed. Then yesNoWrap visible, which contains label and (CSS hidden) toggle/comment/no-perm. So yes, glitch. But hold on — let me double-check: maybe the CSS rules target the label as well, or maybe there's a design where the label is hidden too by additional CSS I haven't seen. Let's search for other CSS related to `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` or the label in CSS of the file.
Tool Calls (1)
code_search
Show Details
{"file_patterns": ["templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig"], "search_text": "ev-inj-descaracter"}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig
Match lines: 32
1289|#form-event-new .ev-inj-descaracter-toggle {
1292|#form-event-new .ev-inj-descaracter-btn.active {
1297|#form-event-new .ev-inj-descaracter-btn[disabled] {
1301|#form-event-new .ev-inj-descaracter {
1305|#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-toggle,
1306|#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-comment-wrap,
1307|#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm {
1310|#form-event-new .ev-inj-descaracter-toggle.is-invalid {
1392|.ev-step-panel.is-readonly .ev-inj-descaracter-btn {
1396|#form-event-new .ev-inj-descaracter-suspect-ro {
1401|#form-event-new .ev-inj-descaracter-suspect-ro-wrap .form-check-label {
2201|            descaracter_comment: (card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-comment') || {}).value || '',
2208|            var cardBtns = card.querySelectorAll('.ev-inj-descaracter-btn.active');
2257|        var comm = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-comment');
2598|        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) {
2624|        card.querySelectorAll('.ev-inj-descaracter-btn').forEach(function (btn) {
2633|                var toggle = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-toggle');
2640|        card.querySelectorAll('.ev-inj-descaracter-comment').forEach(function (ta) {
2649|            window.jQuery(card).find('.ev-inj-descaracter-tip').tooltip({ container: 'body' });
2925|        document.querySelectorAll('.ev-inj-descaracter').forEach(function (el) {
2933|            var yesNoWrap = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap');
2959|            var noPerm = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm');
2962|            card.querySelectorAll('.ev-inj-descaracter-btn').forEach(function (b) {
2976|                window.SsmaShared.toggleYesNo(card.querySelectorAll('.ev-inj-descaracter-btn'), cardDesc !== '' ? cardDesc : null, {
3312|            '#ev-step-aprofundamento .ev-inj-descaracter-btn'
3316|            if (el.classList && el.classList.contains('ev-inj-descaracter-suspect-ro')) return;
5744|            var yesNoWrap = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap');
6024|                    var toggle = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-toggle');
6025|                    var comm = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-comment');
6057|                            || (focusCard && focusCard.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter'))
6485|            var yesNoWrap = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap');
7119|                ? String((primaryCard.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-comment') || {}).value || '').trim()

Request #7 deepseek-v4-flash P:23.05K C:241 CR:22.14K CW:0 2053ms
Reasoning
Let me look at the serialization logic around line 2180-2270 to understand how the suspect checkbox gets into payload and whether the "Caracterizado" data matters on creation. Also line 6000-6070 (validation?) and line 2600-2660 (card rendering).
Tool Calls (2)
file_read
Show Details
{"file_path": "templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig", "start_line": 2180, "end_line": 2275}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig (Total lines: 7710)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 2180-2275
2180|            had.name = 'ev_had_injury';
2181|            if (!had.id) had.id = EV_INJ_CANONICAL_IDS.had;
2182|            if (hadLabel) hadLabel.setAttribute('for', had.id);
2183|        }
2184|    }
2185|
2186|    function evReadCardInjuryData(card) {
2187|        if (!card) return {};
2188|        var isActive = card.classList.contains('is-expanded');
2189|        var data = {
2190|            attendance_date: (card.querySelector('.ev-inj-attendance') || {}).value || '',
2191|            breve_relato: (card.querySelector('.ev-inj-relato') || {}).value || '',
2192|            had_injury: !!(card.querySelector('.ev-inj-had-injury') || {}).checked,
2193|            injury_type: (card.querySelector('.ev-inj-injury-type') || {}).value || '',
2194|            injury_severity: (card.querySelector('.ev-inj-injury-severity') || {}).value || '',
2195|            work_leave: (card.querySelector('.ev-inj-work-leave') || {}).value || '',
2196|            injury_classification: (card.querySelector('.ev-inj-injury-classification') || {}).value || '',
2197|            consequence: (card.querySelector('.ev-inj-consequence') || {}).value || '',
2198|            potential_consequence: (card.querySelector('.ev-inj-potential-consequence') || {}).value || '',
2199|            descaracter_suspect: evIsDescaracterSuspectChecked() ? 1 : 0,
2200|            descaracterizado: '',
2201|            descaracter_comment: (card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-comment') || {}).value || '',
2202|            body_parts: []
2203|        };
2204|        var cardDescHidden = card.getAttribute('data-descaracterizado');
2205|        if (cardDescHidden !== null && cardDescHidden !== '') {
2206|            data.descaracterizado = cardDescHidden;
2207|        } else {
2208|            var cardBtns = card.querySelectorAll('.ev-inj-descaracter-btn.active');
2209|            if (cardBtns.length) {
2210|                data.descaracterizado = cardBtns[0].getAttribute('data-descaracter-val') || '';
2211|            }
2212|        }
2213|        if (isActive) {
2214|            data.body_parts = evCollectActiveBodyParts();
2215|            var bld = document.getElementById('ev_body_location_detail');
2216|            data.body_location_detail = bld && bld.value ? String(bld.value).trim() : '';
2217|        } else {
2218|            var prev = evGetInjuredDetailsObj()[card.getAttribute('data-person-id')] || {};
2219|            data.body_parts = Array.isArray(prev.body_parts) ? prev.body_parts : [];
2220|            data.body_location_detail = prev.body_location_detail || '';
2221|        }
2222|        return data;
2223|    }
2224|
2225|    function evApplyCardInjuryData(card, saved) {
2226|        if (!card || !saved) return;
2227|        var att = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-attendance');
2228|        if (att) att.value = saved.attendance_date || evTodayDateInputValue();
2229|        var rel = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-relato');
2230|        if (rel) rel.value = saved.breve_relato || '';
2231|        var had = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-had-injury');
2232|        if (had) had.checked = saved.had_injury === undefined ? true : !!saved.had_injury;
2233|        var type = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-injury-type');
2234|        if (type && saved.injury_type) type.value = saved.injury_type;
2235|        var sev = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-injury-severity');
2236|        if (sev && saved.injury_severity) sev.value = saved.injury_severity;
2237|        var leave = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-work-leave');
2238|        if (leave) leave.value = saved.work_leave === 'PARCIAL' ? 'TOTAL' : (saved.work_leave || '');
2239|        var klass = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-injury-classification');
2240|        if (klass) {
2241|            var ic = saved.injury_classification || '';
2242|            if (ic === 'LTI_FATALIDADE') ic = 'FAT';
2243|            if (ic) klass.value = ic;
2244|        }
2245|        if (typeof evSyncCardCatFromClassification === 'function') {
2246|            evSyncCardCatFromClassification(card);
2247|        }
2248|        var cons = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-consequence');
2249|        if (cons && saved.consequence) cons.value = saved.consequence;
2250|        var pot = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-potential-consequence');
2251|        if (pot && saved.potential_consequence) pot.value = saved.potential_consequence;
2252|        if (typeof evFilterCardConsequences === 'function') evFilterCardConsequences(card);
2253|        if (typeof evSyncCardDerivedSeverity === 'function') evSyncCardDerivedSeverity(card);
2254|        if (typeof evSyncCardPotentialGteReal === 'function') evSyncCardPotentialGteReal(card);
2255|        var descVal = saved.descaracterizado != null ? String(saved.descaracterizado) : '';
2256|        if (descVal !== '') card.setAttribute('data-descaracterizado', descVal);
2257|        var comm = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-comment');
2258|        if (comm) comm.value = saved.descaracter_comment || '';
2259|        evRenderInjuredPersonSummary(card, card.getAttribute('data-person-id'));
2260|        evUpdateInjuredCardSummary(card);
2261|        if (typeof syncInjuryFieldsForCard === 'function') syncInjuryFieldsForCard(card);
2262|    }
2263|
2264|    function evSyncInjuredPersonDetailsHidden() {
2265|        var wrap = document.getElementById('ev_injured_person_boxes');
2266|        if (!wrap) return;
2267|        // Merge: não apaga pessoas que ainda têm caixinha / dados salvos.
2268|        var out = evGetInjuredDetailsObj();
2269|        var seen = {};
2270|        wrap.querySelectorAll('.ev-injured-person-box[data-person-id]').forEach(function (card) {
2271|            var id = String(card.getAttribute('data-person-id') || '');
2272|            if (!id) return;
2273|            seen[id] = true;
2274|            out[id] = evReadCardInjuryData(card);
2275|        });
file_read
Show Details
{"file_path": "templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig", "start_line": 5980, "end_line": 6080}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig (Total lines: 7710)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 5980-6080
5980|                && typeof evExpandInjuredCard === 'function') {
5981|                evExpandInjuredCard(firstInjCard);
5982|            }
5983|            var primaryInjured = (typeof evGetPrimaryInjuredPersonId === 'function')
5984|                ? evGetPrimaryInjuredPersonId()
5985|                : '';
5986|            if (!primaryInjured) {
5987|                if (boxesWrap) boxesWrap.classList.add('is-invalid');
5988|                var header = document.getElementById('ev-injured-persons-header');
5989|                if (header) header.classList.add('is-invalid');
5990|            }
5991|            var primaryCardForVal = evGetPrimaryInjuredCard();
5992|            var primaryConsEl = primaryCardForVal ? primaryCardForVal.querySelector('.ev-inj-consequence') : null;
5993|            var primaryPotEl = primaryCardForVal ? primaryCardForVal.querySelector('.ev-inj-potential-consequence') : null;
5994|            var hadInj = evHadInjuryForValidation();
5995|            var semDano = ((primaryConsEl || {}).value || '') === 'SEM_DANO';
5996|            if (boxesWrap) {
5997|                boxesWrap.querySelectorAll('.ev-injured-person-box[data-person-id]').forEach(function (card) {
5998|                    var cons = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-consequence');
5999|                    var pot = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-potential-consequence');
6000|                    if (cons && !cons.value) mark(cons);
6001|                    if (pot && !pot.value) mark(pot);
6002|                });
6003|            }
6004|            if (!(document.getElementById('ev_barrier_type_ap') || {}).value) mark('#ev_barrier_type_ap');
6005|            if (hadInj && !semDano) {
6006|                var injCard = primaryCardForVal || evGetPrimaryInjuredCard();
6007|                var typeEl = injCard
6008|                    ? injCard.querySelector('.ev-inj-injury-type')
6009|                    : document.getElementById('ev_injury_type');
6010|                var sevEl = injCard
6011|                    ? injCard.querySelector('.ev-inj-injury-severity')
6012|                    : document.getElementById('ev_injury_severity');
6013|                if (typeEl && !typeEl.value) mark(typeEl);
6014|                if (sevEl && !sevEl.value) mark(sevEl);
6015|                var classEl = injCard ? injCard.querySelector('.ev-inj-injury-classification') : null;
6016|                if (classEl && !classEl.value) mark(classEl);
6017|            }
6018|            if (boxesWrap && evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) {
6019|                var descaracterInvalid = false;
6020|                var focusCard = null;
6021|                var focusEl = null;
6022|                boxesWrap.querySelectorAll('.ev-injured-person-box[data-person-id]').forEach(function (card) {
6023|                    var desc = card.getAttribute('data-descaracterizado') || '';
6024|                    var toggle = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-toggle');
6025|                    var comm = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-comment');
6026|                    if (toggle) toggle.classList.remove('is-invalid');
6027|                    if (desc === '0' || desc === '1') {
6028|                        if (comm && !String(comm.value || '').trim()) {
6029|                            mark(comm);
6030|                            descaracterInvalid = true;
6031|                            if (!focusCard) {
6032|                                focusCard = card;
6033|                                focusEl = comm;
6034|                            }
6035|                        }
6036|                    } else {
6037|                        if (toggle) {
6038|                            toggle.classList.add('is-invalid');
6039|                            if (MV) MV.markInvalid($(toggle));
6040|                        }
6041|                        if (comm) mark(comm);
6042|                        ok = false;
6043|                        descaracterInvalid = true;
6044|                        if (!focusCard) {
6045|                            focusCard = card;
6046|                            focusEl = toggle || comm || card;
6047|                        }
6048|                    }
6049|                });
6050|                if (descaracterInvalid) {
6051|                    window.__ssmaEvSkipGenericValidationToast = true;
6052|                    if (focusCard && typeof evExpandInjuredCard === 'function') {
6053|                        evExpandInjuredCard(focusCard);
6054|                    }
6055|                    window.setTimeout(function () {
6056|                        var target = focusEl
6057|                            || (focusCard && focusCard.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter'))
6058|                            || focusCard;
6059|                        if (target && typeof target.scrollIntoView === 'function') {
6060|                            try { target.scrollIntoView({ block: 'center', behavior: 'smooth' }); } catch (eScroll) {}
6061|                        }
6062|                    }, 80);
6063|                    if (typeof showToast === 'function') {
6064|                        showToast(
6065|                            'No card do acidentado (acima da Ação), responda “Caracterizado como acidente?” e preencha o comentário.',
6066|                            'Aprofundamento',
6067|                            'fas fa-exclamation-circle',
6068|                            'bg-warning'
6069|                        );
6070|                    }
6071|                }
6072|            }
6073|        } else if (type === 'ACIDENTE_MATERIAL') {
6074|            if (!(document.getElementById('ev_asset_type') || {}).value) mark('#ev_asset_type');
6075|            if (!(document.getElementById('ev_consequence') || {}).value) mark('#ev_consequence');
6076|            if (!(document.getElementById('ev_potential_consequence') || {}).value) mark('#ev_potential_consequence');
6077|            if (!(document.getElementById('ev_barrier_type_am') || {}).value) mark('#ev_barrier_type_am');
6078|        } else if (type === 'ACIDENTE_AMBIENTAL') {
6079|            if (!(document.getElementById('ev_environmental_medium') || {}).value) {
6080|                mark('#ev_environmental_medium');
Request #8 deepseek-v4-flash P:26.48K C:2.95K CR:23.17K CW:0 20163ms
Reasoning
Interesting. There's a subtle behavior to verify. Let me examine the serialization at line 2199: ```js descaracter_suspect: evIsDescaracterSuspectChecked() ? 1 : 0, ``` `evIsDescaracterSuspectChecked()` reads `#ev_descaracter_suspect` global checkbox. In the change handler at 5749-5750, when card checkbox is checked, it mirrors to the global checkbox. But wait — this handler for `.ev-inj-suspect-chk` runs for all cards. If there are multiple injured person cards, each card has its own suspect checkbox, but there is a single global `#ev_descaracter_suspect`. The mirroring makes global checked if any card checked. So per-card data is lost on serialization when multiple cards exist? Let me check evReadCardInjuryData line 2199 uses `evIsDescaracterSuspectChecked()` (global) rather than card's own checkbox. But line 5747 sets `data-descaracter-suspect` attribute on the card, and line 6484 uses it for restore. Hmm, but evReadCardInjuryData uses the global checkbox not the card's own checkbox, so if there are multiple people and one checked, all cards get descaracter_suspect = 1. But wait, does the backend use per-card details for descaracter? The requirement text says "Quando marcado na criação, o payload envia descaracter_suspect: 1 (sync com campo global já existia desde #636)." Actually, in the global payload there is a single `ev_descaracter_suspect`. And per-card details include `descaracter_suspect` too. That's pre-existing behavior from #636 though. The current change doesn't touch those lines, so let me not focus on them unless they're newly affected. Since these lines aren't modified in this PR, they are context only. But the change of visibility might introduce new interactions in the creation flow that previously did not have the checkbox available. Let me think about the actual regression risk of this PR. Now let's focus on the changes in this PR: Change 1 (CSS): ``` -/* Caracterizar só no aprofundamento do médico — nunca na criação (etapa 1 ou 2). */ -#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter { +/* Sim/Não de descaracterização fica oculto fora do aprofundamento — só o checkbox de suspeita aparece na criação. */ +#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-toggle, +#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-comment-wrap, +#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm { display: none !important; } ``` Change 2 (JS): ``` - // Seção de descaracterização só aparece no aprofundamento do especialista. - el.classList.toggle('d-none', !isAp || !isDoctorAprof); + // Seção de descaracterização aparece sempre que é Acidente Pessoal (criação e aprofundamento). + // Na criação: só o checkbox de suspeita fica visível (Sim/Não oculto via CSS fora do aprofundamento). + el.classList.toggle('d-none', !isAp); ``` Potential issue #1: On creation when user checks suspect checkbox, `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` gets shown (JS line 5744-5745 and 2931-2937), revealing the label "Caracterizado como acidente?" with tooltip icon while its controls (Sim/Não) are hidden by CSS. That results in a dangling label in creation UI. Wait — actually, in the creation context, is there any visibility of `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap`? Let's verify. The change handler toggles yesNoWrap d-none based on checkbox checked regardless of stage. In creation when user checks suspect: - `.ev-inj-descaracter` section is shown (isAp true). - `.ev-inj-suspect-chk` checkbox is shown. - `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` becomes visible (d-none removed) because checked. - Inside yesno-wrap: label "Caracterizado como acidente?" visible; Sim/Não toggle hidden by CSS; comment wrap hidden by CSS; no-perm hidden by CSS. So the user sees "Caracterizado como acidente? (i)" with nothing underneath. Is that a UI bug that matters? The PR intends: only checkbox visible during creation. But the label of Sim/Não section leaks. It's cosmetic, but it's a visible inconsistency/confusing UI. Since Sim/Não is gated by CSS `display:none !important`, the label still shows because the CSS doesn't hide it. The intended behavior, per PR description, is: on creation only the checkbox appears; Sim/Não should not appear. Showing a dangling label violates that. This is a legitimate UI finding. Severity: low/medium. But we should double check: perhaps `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` has `d-none` default class; during creation the label would only appear if checked. The requirement says Sim/Não "não deve aparecer (só no aprofundamento)" when user checks. With dangling label, it partially appears. I think it's worth flagging. Let me verify CSS has no other rule that would hide label inside yesno-wrap in creation mode. Search for "yesno-wrap" in CSS only found JS. And "ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap" appears in JS at lines 2933, 5744, 6485. CSS rule only targets toggle, comment-wrap, no-perm. So the label leaks. Wait, let me double-check HTML: the label is direct child of yesno-wrap, preceding toggle. So yes, when yesno-wrap shown, label is visible. Actually, hold on. Let me reconsider — do we know that the change handler will show yesno-wrap during creation? The suspect checkbox toggling is bound at document level change; it fires whenever checkbox checked, creation or aprofundamento. There's no condition limiting it to aprofundamento. So yes. Potential issue #2: Validation logic in aprofundamento (line 6018: `if (boxesWrap && evAprofundamentoOnlyMode)`) forces user to answer Sim/Não and comment whenever a suspect checkbox is checked... but that's only aprofundamento. During creation, does the suspect checkbox being checked cause required validation? Actually no, since validation of descaracter is only in aprofundamento mode. But is there a risk that a user on creation checks "Há suspeita de descaracterização?" and then the backend requires descaracterizado on creation? We'd need to check the backend controller. Since it's a frontend-only diff, backend unchanged. But maybe the backend validation expects that when descaracter_suspect = 1, some approval fields... But since the checkbox appears now at creation where previously not available, a user could now set suspect = 1 on creation; previously only set in aprofundamento. Then backend may respond to descaracter_suspect=1 by applying validations/transitions that were previously only triggered in aprofundamento flows. Need to check backend handling of descaracter_suspect on create. But the PR description says: "Quando marcado na criação, o payload envia descaracter_suspect: 1 (sync com campo global já existia desde #636)." And says product wants it visible at creation. So presumably intended. Hmm. Still, we don't know the backend. We can search for the controller handling descaracter_suspect to see if there's a problem. Let me search the codebase. Potential issue #3: The `is-doctor-aprof` CSS class gating. In creation mode, form does not have `.is-doctor-aprof`, so the CSS hides toggle, comment, no-perm. But wait — this CSS rule is scoped to `#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof)`. But what about the edit mode (etapa 1/2), when editing an event created earlier? Also during aprofundamento, form has `.is-doctor-aprof` class only when `evAprofundamentoOnlyMode` is true. What about editing a full event (openEdit), where the modal has step general + aprofundamento, and the user could go to aprofundamento step (not `evAprofundamentoOnlyMode`)? Let me check `is-doctor-aprof` usage. The class is toggled at line 2919: `form.classList.toggle('is-doctor-aprof', isDoctorAprof);` where `isDoctorAprof = !!evAprofundamentoOnlyMode`. So `is-doctor-aprof` is only set in the aprofundamento-only flow (specialist opening aprofundamento). In normal flow (admin opens edit → modal with steps general/aprofundamento, `evAprofundamentoOnlyMode` false), the class is NOT present even when user navigates to the aprofundamento step inside the modal. In that case, the CSS would hide the Sim/Não toggle, comment, no-perm within the aprofundamento step too! Wait, is that true? Let's check whether the aprofundamento flow inside the normal modal uses evAprofundamentoOnlyMode=false. Look at line 6520-6523: `EvModal.openAprofundamento` — if admin, it calls `OccurrenceModal.openEdit(data)` which is the normal edit flow with steps. For admin/gestor admin, normal edit modal with steps. In that flow, would Sim/Não appear on the aprofundamento step? The CSS rule would hide toggles because form lacks `.is-doctor-aprof`. Hmm, but is the CSS applied inside the aprofundamento step only, or does it also apply to the general step (which would be same form)? The toggle elements are in injured person cards which appear... where? Let's check where ev_injured_person_box partial is included. Cards appear in step "general"? Or step aprofundamento? Actually the injured person cards with the descaracter section — the CSS selector applies to elements inside `#form-event-new`. The cards might be shown in both steps (section?). Let me look for where the partial is included and which step contains it. Actually, the previous CSS `#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter { display:none !important }` hid the whole descaracter block whenever not doctor-aprof. In normal edit mode with steps, if user goes to aprofundamento step within the same form, would the descaracter section show? If the form never gets `.is-doctor-aprof` unless aprofundamento-only, then in normal edit-with-steps aprofundamento, descaracter would be hidden — meaning the previous behavior hid the entire descaracter section for admins editing normally too?? That can't be; maybe admins navigate to the step where the cards are visible, and `.is-doctor-aprof` is not present, but... Let me check where `.is-doctor-aprof` gets applied and whether it's applied on step change within the modal (evSetStep). Looking at evSetStep 3396 `evSyncDescaracterStageUi()` which toggles `.is-doctor-aprof` only based on evAprofundamentoOnlyMode. Hmm. So in the normal edit flow for an admin (not aprofundamento-only mode), navigating to aprofundamento step within the modal would not set the class. So CSS hides descaracter toggles in that context — possibly a regression. But wait: is that a flow that existed before? The old CSS hid the entire block whenever not `is-doctor-aprof`. Since a normal edit flow without evAprofundamentoOnlyMode never has that class, the entire descaracter block would be hidden for admins editing via openEdit too, even in aprofundamento step. That suggests maybe previously the descaracter section was only shown in aprofundamento-only mode (specialist). For admins, maybe they see the descaracter fields via a different mechanism (ev-inj-suspect-chk is inside the card shown in general step? no...). I'm going too deep speculating. The key thing is to figure out the actual UI contexts where injured person cards exist: they are created/edited in "general" step and also in aprofundamento step? Actually, from line 2806-2831: render injured person boxes. From line 3377: `general` step and `apro` step. Let's find where `ev_injured_person_box` template partial is included within the modal, to know which step it's in.
Tool Calls (2)
code_search
Show Details
{"file_patterns": ["templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig"], "search_text": "ev_injured_person_box"}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig
Match lines: 31
659|            <div id="ev_injured_person_boxes" class="mb-3"></div>
663|                {% include 'ssma/occurrence/partials/_ev_injured_person_box.html.twig' with {
1350|#form-event-new #ev_injured_person_boxes {
1354|#form-event-new #ev_injured_person_boxes.is-invalid {
1808|            document.querySelectorAll('#ev_injured_person_boxes .ev-injured-person-box[data-person-id]').forEach(function (c) {
1949|        var wrap = document.getElementById('ev_injured_person_boxes');
2265|        var wrap = document.getElementById('ev_injured_person_boxes');
2290|        var wrap = document.getElementById('ev_injured_person_boxes');
2311|        var wrap = document.getElementById('ev_injured_person_boxes');
2325|        var wrap = document.getElementById('ev_injured_person_boxes');
2353|        var wrap = document.getElementById('ev_injured_person_boxes');
2388|        var boxesWrap = document.getElementById('ev_injured_person_boxes');
2396|        var wrap = document.getElementById('ev_injured_person_boxes');
2409|        document.querySelectorAll('#ev_injured_person_boxes .ev-injured-person-box[data-person-id]').forEach(function (c) {
2450|        var wrap = document.getElementById('ev_injured_person_boxes');
2505|        var wrap = document.getElementById('ev_injured_person_boxes');
2517|        var wrap = document.getElementById('ev_injured_person_boxes');
2534|        var wrap = document.getElementById('ev_injured_person_boxes');
2550|        var wrap = document.getElementById('ev_injured_person_boxes');
2560|        var wrap = document.getElementById('ev_injured_person_boxes');
2654|        var wrap = document.getElementById('ev_injured_person_boxes');
2713|        var wrap = document.getElementById('ev_injured_person_boxes');
2758|            var wrap = document.getElementById('ev_injured_person_boxes');
2789|        var wrap = document.getElementById('ev_injured_person_boxes');
4795|            document.querySelectorAll('#ev_injured_person_boxes .ev-injured-person-box[data-person-id]').forEach(function (card) {
4878|        var injBoxes = document.getElementById('ev_injured_person_boxes');
5522|        var wrap = document.getElementById('ev_injured_person_boxes');
5558|            && !!card.closest('#ev_injured_person_boxes');
5891|            '.is-invalid, .custom-modern-select-wrapper.is-invalid, #ev_injured_person_boxes.is-invalid'
5977|            var boxesWrap = document.getElementById('ev_injured_person_boxes');
6465|            var wrapAfter = document.getElementById('ev_injured_person_boxes');

code_search
Show Details
{"file_patterns": ["templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig"], "search_text": "is-doctor-aprof"}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig
Match lines: 4
1305|#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-toggle,
1306|#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-comment-wrap,
1307|#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm {
2919|        if (form) form.classList.toggle('is-doctor-aprof', isDoctorAprof);

Request #9 deepseek-v4-flash P:30.27K C:115 CR:29.31K CW:0 1347ms
Reasoning
Let me look at lines 650-680 to see where the injured person box partial is included.
Tool Calls (1)
file_read
Show Details
{"file_path": "templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig", "start_line": 600, "end_line": 760}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig (Total lines: 7710)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 600-760
600|            <div class="form-row" id="ev-strategic-nature-row">
601|                <div class="col-12">
602|                    <div class="form-group">
603|                        <label for="ev_strategic_nature">Dimensão da ocorrência <span class="text-danger">*</span></label>
604|                        <select class="form-control" id="ev_strategic_nature" name="ev_strategic_nature" required>
605|                            <option value="RELACIONAMENTO">Relacionamento</option>
606|                            <option value="PROCESSO">Processo</option>
607|                            <option value="INFRAESTRUTURA">Infraestrutura</option>
608|                            <option value="SEGURANCA" selected>Segurança</option>
609|                            <option value="COMPORTAMENTO">Comportamento</option>
610|                            <option value="AMBIENTAL">Ambiental</option>
611|                        </select>
612|                    </div>
613|                </div>
614|            </div>
615|            {# AP: Tipo de barreira no lugar da Dimensão (lista Brenda + ícone de ajuda). #}
616|            <div id="ev-ap-barrier-row" class="d-none">
617|                {% include 'ssma/occurrence/partials/_ev_shared_barrier.html.twig' with {
618|                    _barrier_suffix: '_ap',
619|                    _hide_failed_barrier: true,
620|                    _show_barrier_help: true
621|                } %}
622|            </div>
623|        </div>
624|
625|        {# ── ACIDENTE PESSOAL ─────────────────── #}
626|        <div id="ev-block-ap" class="ev-type-block d-none">
627|            {# Etapa 8: campos da pessoa (mapa, CAT, descaracter) agrupados na caixinha #}
628|            <div id="ev-ap-pessoa-caixinha" class="ev-ap-pessoa-caixinha mb-3">
629|            <div class="form-row">
630|                <div class="col-12">
631|                    <div class="form-group mb-2" id="ev-injured-persons-header">
632|                        <label class="mb-1">Colaborador(es) acidentado(s) <span class="text-danger">*</span></label>
633|                    </div>
634|                    {# Select oculto — só compatibilidade JS (primary id / legado). UI = cards (Brenda). #}
635|                    <div class="d-none" id="ev-person-id-select-wrap" aria-hidden="true">
636|                        {% set ev_person_options = [{'value': '', 'text': 'Selecione a pessoa (entre as envolvidas)'}] %}
637|                        {% for member in allMembers %}
638|                            {% set ev_person_options = ev_person_options|merge([{
639|                                'value': member.id,
640|                                'text': member.name
641|                            }]) %}
642|                        {% endfor %}
643|                        {% include 'components/ui/_custom_select.html.twig' with {
644|                            id: 'ev_person_id',
645|                            name: 'ev_person_id',
646|                            label: 'Selecione a pessoa (entre as envolvidas)',
647|                            options: ev_person_options
648|                        } %}
649|                    </div>
650|                </div>
651|                <input type="hidden" id="ev_person_type" name="ev_person_type" value="COLABORADOR">
652|            </div>
653|            <p id="ev-injured-person-empty" class="small text-muted mb-2">
654|                Nenhuma pessoa em <strong>Pessoas envolvidas</strong>. Adicione quem participou do evento para registrar os acidentados.
655|            </p>
656|            <p id="ev-injured-person-summary" class="small text-muted mb-2 d-none">
657|                <i class="fas fa-info-circle mr-1"></i><span id="ev-injured-person-summary-text"></span>
658|            </p>
659|            <div id="ev_injured_person_boxes" class="mb-3"></div>
660|            <input type="hidden" id="ev_injured_person_details" name="ev_injured_person_details" value="">
661|            {# Fonte para clone (div oculta — mais confiável que <template> no offcanvas) #}
662|            <div id="ev-injured-person-box-tpl" class="d-none" aria-hidden="true">
663|                {% include 'ssma/occurrence/partials/_ev_injured_person_box.html.twig' with {
664|                    person_id: '',
665|                    person_name: '',
666|                    attendance_date: '',
667|                    breve_relato: ''
668|                } %}
669|            </div>
670|
671|            {# Body map fica estacionado aqui e é movido para dentro da caixinha do acidentado #}
672|            <div id="ev-body-map-park" class="d-none" aria-hidden="true">
673|            <div id="ev-body-map-block" class="d-none mt-2 ev-ap-body-map-field">
674|                <p class="mb-1 ev-ap-body-map-title">Partes do corpo</p>
675|                <div id="ev-body-map-wrap" class="w-100">
676|                    <div id="ev-body-map-host" class="ssma-ev-body-map-host d-flex justify-content-center mb-3"></div>
677|                    {# Um float por lado (mão esq/dir, pé esq/dir) — posição via JS (data-region no SVG) #}
678|                    <div id="ev_extremity_hand_float_esq" class="ev-extremity-float d-none" aria-hidden="true">
679|                        <div class="ev-ef-label">Mão esq. <span class="ev-ef-subtitle">dedo(s)</span></div>
680|                        <div class="ev-ef-checks">
681|                            <label class="ev-ef-check-item"><input type="checkbox" class="ev-ef-cb" value="POLEGAR"> Polegar</label>
682|                            <label class="ev-ef-check-item"><input type="checkbox" class="ev-ef-cb" value="INDICADOR"> Indicador</label>
683|                            <label class="ev-ef-check-item"><input type="checkbox" class="ev-ef-cb" value="MEDIO"> Dedo médio</label>
684|                            <label class="ev-ef-check-item"><input type="checkbox" class="ev-ef-cb" value="ANULAR"> Anelar</label>
685|                            <label class="ev-ef-check-item"><input type="checkbox" class="ev-ef-cb" value="MINIMO"> Mínimo</label>
686|                        </div>
687|                        <input type="hidden" id="ev_hand_finger_esq" name="ev_hand_finger_esq" value="">
688|                    </div>
689|                    <div id="ev_extremity_hand_float_dir" class="ev-extremity-float d-none" aria-hidden="true">
690|                        <div class="ev-ef-label">Mão dir. <span class="ev-ef-subtitle">dedo(s)</span></div>
691|                        <div class="ev-ef-checks">
692|                            <label class="ev-ef-check-item"><input type="checkbox" class="ev-ef-cb" value="POLEGAR"> Polegar</label>
693|                            <label class="ev-ef-check-item"><input type="checkbox" class="ev-ef-cb" value="INDICADOR"> Indicador</label>
694|                            <label class="ev-ef-check-item"><input type="checkbox" class="ev-ef-cb" value="MEDIO"> Dedo médio</label>
695|                            <label class="ev-ef-check-item"><input type="checkbox" class="ev-ef-cb" value="ANULAR"> Anelar</label>
696|                            <label class="ev-ef-check-item"><input type="checkbox" class="ev-ef-cb" value="MINIMO"> Mínimo</label>
697|                        </div>
698|                        <input type="hidden" id="ev_hand_finger_dir" name="ev_hand_finger_dir" value="">
699|                    </div>
700|                    <div id="ev_extremity_foot_float_esq" class="ev-extremity-float d-none" aria-hidden="true">
701|                        <div class="ev-ef-label">Pé esq. <span class="ev-ef-subtitle">dedo(s)</span></div>
702|                        <div class="ev-ef-checks">
703|                            <label class="ev-ef-check-item"><input type="checkbox" class="ev-ef-cb" value="HALUX"> Hálux</label>
704|                            <label class="ev-ef-check-item"><input type="checkbox" class="ev-ef-cb" value="SEGUNDO_DEDO"> 2º dedo</label>
705|                            <label class="ev-ef-check-item"><input type="checkbox" class="ev-ef-cb" value="TERCEIRO_DEDO"> 3º dedo</label>
706|                            <label class="ev-ef-check-item"><input type="checkbox" class="ev-ef-cb" value="QUARTO_DEDO"> 4º dedo</label>
707|                            <label class="ev-ef-check-item"><input type="checkbox" class="ev-ef-cb" value="MINIMO_PE"> Mínimo</label>
708|                        </div>
709|                        <input type="hidden" id="ev_foot_toe_esq" name="ev_foot_toe_esq" value="">
710|                    </div>
711|                    <div id="ev_extremity_foot_float_dir" class="ev-extremity-float d-none" aria-hidden="true">
712|                        <div class="ev-ef-label">Pé dir. <span class="ev-ef-subtitle">dedo(s)</span></div>
713|                        <div class="ev-ef-checks">
714|                            <label class="ev-ef-check-item"><input type="checkbox" class="ev-ef-cb" value="HALUX"> Hálux</label>
715|                            <label class="ev-ef-check-item"><input type="checkbox" class="ev-ef-cb" value="SEGUNDO_DEDO"> 2º dedo</label>
716|                            <label class="ev-ef-check-item"><input type="checkbox" class="ev-ef-cb" value="TERCEIRO_DEDO"> 3º dedo</label>
717|                            <label class="ev-ef-check-item"><input type="checkbox" class="ev-ef-cb" value="QUARTO_DEDO"> 4º dedo</label>
718|                            <label class="ev-ef-check-item"><input type="checkbox" class="ev-ef-cb" value="MINIMO_PE"> Mínimo</label>
719|                        </div>
720|                        <input type="hidden" id="ev_foot_toe_dir" name="ev_foot_toe_dir" value="">
721|                    </div>
722|                    <div id="ev_zone_cabeca_float" class="ev-extremity-float ev-zone-float d-none" aria-hidden="true">
723|                        <div class="ev-ef-label">Cabeça <span class="ev-ef-subtitle">detalhe</span></div>
724|                        <div class="ev-ef-checks ev-ef-checks--grid">
725|                            <label class="ev-ef-check-item"><input type="checkbox" class="ev-ef-cb" value="OLHO_ESQ"> Olho esq.</label>
726|                            <label class="ev-ef-check-item"><input type="checkbox" class="ev-ef-cb" value="OLHO_DIR"> Olho dir.</label>
727|                            <label class="ev-ef-check-item"><input type="checkbox" class="ev-ef-cb" value="BOCA"> Boca</label>
728|                            <label class="ev-ef-check-item"><input type="checkbox" class="ev-ef-cb" value="NARIZ"> Nariz</label>
729|                            <label class="ev-ef-check-item"><input type="checkbox" class="ev-ef-cb" value="ORELHA_ESQ"> Orelha esq.</label>
730|                            <label class="ev-ef-check-item"><input type="checkbox" class="ev-ef-cb" value="ORELHA_DIR"> Orelha dir.</label>
731|                            <label class="ev-ef-check-item"><input type="checkbox" class="ev-ef-cb" value="TESTA"> Testa</label>
732|                            <label class="ev-ef-check-item"><input type="checkbox" class="ev-ef-cb" value="MENTO"> Queixo</label>
733|                        </div>
734|                        <input type="hidden" id="ev_cabeca_zones" name="ev_cabeca_zones" value="">
735|                    </div>
736|                    <div id="ev_zone_pescoco_float" class="ev-extremity-float ev-zone-float d-none" aria-hidden="true">
737|                        <div class="ev-ef-label">Pescoço <span class="ev-ef-subtitle">detalhe</span></div>
738|                        <div class="ev-ef-checks">
739|                            <label class="ev-ef-check-item"><input type="checkbox" class="ev-ef-cb" value="PESCOCO_ANT"> À frente</label>
740|                            <label class="ev-ef-check-item"><input type="checkbox" class="ev-ef-cb" value="PESCOCO_POST"> Nuca</label>
741|                            <label class="ev-ef-check-item"><input type="checkbox" class="ev-ef-cb" value="PESCOCO_LAT_ESQ"> Lado esq.</label>
742|                            <label class="ev-ef-check-item"><input type="checkbox" class="ev-ef-cb" value="PESCOCO_LAT_DIR"> Lado dir.</label>
743|                        </div>
744|                        <input type="hidden" id="ev_pescoco_zones" name="ev_pescoco_zones" value="">
745|                    </div>
746|                    <div id="ev_zone_face_float" class="ev-extremity-float ev-zone-float d-none" aria-hidden="true">
747|                        <div class="ev-ef-label">Face <span class="ev-ef-subtitle">detalhe</span></div>
748|                        <div class="ev-ef-checks ev-ef-checks--grid">
749|                            <label class="ev-ef-check-item"><input type="checkbox" class="ev-ef-cb" value="FACE_BOCA"> Boca</label>
750|                            <label class="ev-ef-check-item"><input type="checkbox" class="ev-ef-cb" value="FACE_NARIZ"> Nariz</label>
751|                            <label class="ev-ef-check-item"><input type="checkbox" class="ev-ef-cb" value="FACE_BOCHE_ESQ"> Bochecha esq.</label>
752|                            <label class="ev-ef-check-item"><input type="checkbox" class="ev-ef-cb" value="FACE_BOCHE_DIR"> Bochecha dir.</label>
753|                            <label class="ev-ef-check-item"><input type="checkbox" class="ev-ef-cb" value="FACE_MENTO"> Mento</label>
754|                            <label class="ev-ef-check-item"><input type="checkbox" class="ev-ef-cb" value="FACE_MAXILAR"> Maxilar</label>
755|                        </div>
756|                        <input type="hidden" id="ev_face_zones" name="ev_face_zones" value="">
757|                    </div>
758|                    <div id="ev_zone_olhos_float" class="ev-extremity-float ev-zone-float d-none" aria-hidden="true">
759|                        <div class="ev-ef-label">Olhos <span class="ev-ef-subtitle">detalhe</span></div>
760|                        <div class="ev-ef-checks">
Request #10 deepseek-v4-flash P:34.22K C:214 CR:30.34K CW:0 1874ms
Reasoning
The `ev-injured-person-box-tpl` with the descaracter section is in the "ev-block-ap" section. Where is `ev-block-ap` rendered? Is it inside step-general or step-aprofundamento? Let me look.
Tool Calls (2)
code_search
Show Details
{"file_patterns": ["templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig"], "search_text": "ev-block-ap"}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig
Match lines: 3
626|        <div id="ev-block-ap" class="ev-type-block d-none">
4963|        ACIDENTE_PESSOAL:   ['ev-block-ap'],
4981|        var ap = document.getElementById('ev-block-ap');

code_search
Show Details
{"file_patterns": ["templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig"], "search_text": "ev-step-general|ev-step-aprofundamento|ev-step"}
No matches found
Request #11 deepseek-v4-flash P:34.53K C:126 CR:34.3K CW:0 1862ms
Reasoning
Let me look at the structure around ev-block-ap to see which step (general vs aprofundamento) it belongs to. Let me search for `ev-step` id definitions in the file and check which steps exist.
Tool Calls (1)
code_search
Show Details
{"file_patterns": ["templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig"], "search_text": "ev-step"}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig
Match lines: 44
30|        <div class="insp-steps-bar ev-steps-bar" id="ev-steps-bar" aria-hidden="true">
35|        <div id="ev-step-general" class="ev-step-panel">
36|        <div class="ev-step-general-cards" id="ev-step-general-cards">
395|        </div>{# /ev-step-general-cards #}
397|        </div>{# /ev-step-general #}
399|        <div id="ev-step-aprofundamento" class="ev-step-panel d-none">
909|        </div>{# /ev-step-aprofundamento #}
1002|.ev-steps-bar {
1006|#ev-step-general-cards {
1010|#ev-step-general-cards #ev-card-identificacao { order: 1; }
1012|#ev-step-general-cards.ev-type-ros-layout #ev-card-identificacao.ev-ident-empty {
1015|#ev-step-general-cards #ev-card-contexto      { order: 2; }
1016|#ev-step-general-cards #ev-card-registro      { order: 3; }
1017|#ev-step-general-cards.ev-type-ros-layout #ev-card-registro      { order: 1; }
1018|#ev-step-general-cards.ev-type-ros-layout #ev-card-contexto      { order: 2; }
1019|#ev-step-general-cards.ev-type-ros-layout #ev-card-identificacao { order: 3; }
1077|#modalEventNew-offcanvas-wrapper .ev-steps-bar .insp-step-seg {
1081|#modalEventNew-offcanvas-wrapper .ev-steps-bar .insp-step-seg.active {
1089|.ev-step-panel.is-readonly .form-control,
1090|.ev-step-panel.is-readonly .custom-select,
1091|.ev-step-panel.is-readonly .select2-selection,
1092|.ev-step-panel.is-readonly .ssma-shared-upload-area {
1097|.ev-step-panel.is-readonly .form-check-input,
1098|.ev-step-panel.is-readonly #ev-body-map-host {
1101|.ev-step-panel.is-readonly #ev-body-map-host {
1387|.ev-step-panel.is-readonly .custom-modern-select-trigger {
1392|.ev-step-panel.is-readonly .ev-inj-descaracter-btn {
1419|#modalEventNew-offcanvas-wrapper .ev-steps-bar.ev-steps-bar--single .insp-step-seg[data-ev-progress="aprofundamento"] {
1422|#modalEventNew-offcanvas-wrapper .ev-steps-bar.ev-steps-bar--single .insp-step-seg[data-ev-progress="general"] {
1600|        var bar = document.getElementById('ev-steps-bar');
1603|        bar.classList.toggle('ev-steps-bar--single', !need);
1619|            if (node.id === 'ev-step-aprofundamento' && evCurrentStep === 'general') {
3296|        var panel = document.getElementById('ev-step-aprofundamento');
3312|            '#ev-step-aprofundamento .ev-inj-descaracter-btn'
3375|        var general = document.getElementById('ev-step-general');
3376|        var apro = document.getElementById('ev-step-aprofundamento');
3382|        document.querySelectorAll('#ev-steps-bar .insp-step-seg').forEach(function (bar) {
5092|        var generalCardsWrap = document.getElementById('ev-step-general-cards');
5554|        var panelReadonly = !!(document.getElementById('ev-step-aprofundamento') || {}).classList
5555|            && document.getElementById('ev-step-aprofundamento').classList.contains('is-readonly');
5886|            ? document.getElementById('ev-step-aprofundamento')
5887|            : document.getElementById('ev-step-general');
6166|        var generalPanel = document.getElementById('ev-step-general');
6589|        var generalPanelCreate = document.getElementById('ev-step-general');

Request #12 deepseek-v4-flash P:35.58K C:313 CR:34.56K CW:0 2632ms
Reasoning
Let me look at where ev-block-ap is placed relative to step-general (line 35-397) and step-aprofundamento (399-909). Since ev-block-ap starts at line 626, it seems it's within `ev-step-general`! Let me confirm. ev-step-general opens at 35, closes at 397. ev-block-ap at 626 — wait, that means it's inside step-aprofundamento? But step-aprofundamento starts at 399 and ends at 909. So ev-block-ap (626) is inside step-aprofundamento. Let me verify by reading lines 395-430 and 900-915.
Tool Calls (2)
file_read
Show Details
{"file_path": "templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig", "start_line": 380, "end_line": 440}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig (Total lines: 7710)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 380-440
380|        <div class="form-group">
381|            <label>Evidências</label>
382|            <div id="ev_evidence_area"
383|                 class="border rounded p-3 bg-light d-flex align-items-center flex-wrap text-muted occ-upload-area ssma-shared-upload-area">
384|                <i class="fas fa-paperclip mr-2"></i>
385|                <span>Arraste o(s) arquivo(s) até aqui ou </span>
386|                <label for="ev_evidence_input" class="text-primary mb-0 ml-1 occ-upload-link ssma-shared-upload-link">selecione do computador</label>
387|                <input type="file" id="ev_evidence_input" name="ev_evidence[]"
388|                       multiple class="d-none" accept="image/*,application/pdf,.doc,.docx,.xls,.xlsx">
389|            </div>
390|            <div id="ev_evidence_list" class="mt-2"></div>
391|        </div>
392|
393|        </div>
394|
395|        </div>{# /ev-step-general-cards #}
396|
397|        </div>{# /ev-step-general #}
398|
399|        <div id="ev-step-aprofundamento" class="ev-step-panel d-none">
400|
401|        <div id="ev-aprofundamento-denied-alert" class="alert alert-warning py-2 px-3 d-none" role="alert">
402|            <i class="fas fa-exclamation-triangle mr-2"></i>O aprofundamento é preenchido pelo profissional responsável (gestor direto do colaborador ou equipe técnica SSMA).
403|        </div>
404|
405|        {# ROS / Quase Acidente: Aprofundamento Técnico (classificatório) #}
406|        <div class="card app-card-surface p-3 mb-3 d-none" id="ev-spec-type-card">
407|            <h5 class="ssma-form-section text-primary mb-3 d-none" id="ev-spec-type-card-title" aria-hidden="true">Campos do tipo</h5>
408|
409|        {# ── ROS ──────────────────────────────── #}
410|        {# Risco imediato, Sugestão de melhoria e Visto e resolvido na 1ª etapa (#ev-ros-step1-extra). #}
411|        <div id="ev-block-ros" class="ev-type-block d-none">
412|            <div class="form-row">
413|                <div class="col-12">
414|                    <div class="form-group">
415|                        <label for="ev_deviation_type">Tipo de desvio <span class="text-danger">*</span></label>
416|                        <select class="form-control" id="ev_deviation_type" name="ev_deviation_type">
417|                            <option value="" disabled selected>–</option>
418|                            {# Valores alinhados a App\Enum\Ssma\DeviationTypeEnum #}
419|                            <option value="COMPORTAMENTO">Ato inseguro</option>
420|                            <option value="CONDICAO_INSEGURA">Condição insegura</option>
421|                            <option value="PROCEDIMENTO">Desvio de procedimento</option>
422|                            <option value="FALTA_EPP">Falta de EPI</option>
423|                            <option value="IMPROVISO">Improviso</option>
424|                            <option value="OUTRO">Outro</option>
425|                        </select>
426|                    </div>
427|                </div>
428|            </div>
429|            <div class="form-row">
430|                <div class="col-12">
431|                    <div class="form-group">
432|                        <label for="ev_involvement_type_ros">Envolvimento <span class="text-danger">*</span></label>
433|                        <select class="form-control" id="ev_involvement_type_ros" name="ev_involvement_type">
434|                            <option value="" disabled selected>–</option>
435|                            {# ROS: Saúde / Segurança / Meio Ambiente (App\Enum\Ssma\RosInvolvementTypeEnum) #}
436|                            <option value="SAUDE">Saúde</option>
437|                            <option value="SEGURANCA">Segurança</option>
438|                            <option value="MEIO_AMBIENTE">Meio Ambiente</option>
439|                        </select>
440|                    </div>
file_read
Show Details
{"file_path": "templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig", "start_line": 895, "end_line": 930}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig (Total lines: 7710)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 895-930
895|
896|        </div>{# /ev-technical-section #}
897|
898|        {# Ação imediata — Aprofundamento (lista repetível) #}
899|        <div class="card app-card-surface p-3 mb-0" id="ev-corrective-actions-section">
900|            <div class="d-flex align-items-center justify-content-between mb-2">
901|                <h5 class="ssma-form-section text-primary mb-0">Ação</h5>
902|            </div>
903|            <div id="ev-corrective-actions-list"></div>
904|            <button type="button" class="mhs-btn-secondary btn-sm mt-2" id="ev-corrective-action-add">
905|                <i class="fas fa-plus mr-1"></i>Adicionar ação
906|            </button>
907|        </div>
908|
909|        </div>{# /ev-step-aprofundamento #}
910|
911|        {# ══════════════════════════════════════════
912|           BLOCO 5 — Ação inicial
913|           (visível somente para profissionais técnicos)
914|        ══════════════════════════════════════════ #}
915|        <div id="ev-acao-inicial-section" class="card app-card-surface p-3 mb-0 d-none">
916|        <h5 class="ssma-form-section text-primary">Ação inicial</h5>
917|
918|        <div class="form-group">
919|            <label for="ev_responsible_select">Responsável(is) pela resolução <span class="text-danger">*</span></label>
920|            <select class="form-control" id="ev_responsible_select" name="ev_responsible_select">
921|                <option value="" selected disabled>Selecione o(s) responsável(is)</option>
922|                {% for member in allMembers %}
923|                    <option value="{{ member.id }}" data-name="{{ member.name }}">{{ member.name }}</option>
924|                {% endfor %}
925|            </select>
926|            <div id="ev_responsible_tags" class="d-flex flex-wrap mt-2"></div>
927|        </div>
928|
929|        <div class="form-group">
930|            <label for="ev_approach">Tipo de abordagem <span class="text-danger">*</span></label>
Request #13 deepseek-v4-flash P:37.58K C:595 CR:35.84K CW:0 4951ms
Reasoning
Wait, so `ev-step-general` spans lines 35-397, and `ev-block-ap` starts at line 626 which is after line 397, so it's inside `ev-step-aprofundamento`? But hold on, `ev-block-ap` at 626... let me verify that it's inside step-aprofundamento and not inside general. step-general starts at 35 and ends at 397 (its cards). Actually, ev-step-aprofundamento starts at 399. ev-block-ap starts at 626, so it's inside step-aprofundamento's section! Wait but that's where the "AP: campo pessoa" fields are, which per the code comment on line 627 say "Etapa 8: campos da pessoa (mapa, CAT, descaracter) agrupados na caixinha". Hmm — this contradicts requirement "Novo evento" where the checkbox should appear in the card during the general steps... Hmm. Wait, but let me reconsider. Look at lines 618-628 — the modal structure. Let me re-read what surrounds. At line 397 `</div>` closes ev-step-general. Then line 399 starts ev-step-aprofundamento. The ev-block-ap at line 626 with the injured person cards is inside ev-step-aprofundamento? Actually wait — from the initial file structure at line 30-36: ``` 30| <div class="insp-steps-bar ev-steps-bar" id="ev-steps-bar" aria-hidden="true"> 35| <div id="ev-step-general" class="ev-step-panel"> 36| <div class="ev-step-general-cards" id="ev-step-general-cards"> ``` Wait, I need to verify nesting, but the "ev-block-ap" at line 626 is between 399 and 909, so it's within ev-step-aprofundamento. Hmm, but this doesn't align with the description that the AP fields are on the creation/general step. Actually wait, we need to consider there are possibly TWO modals: `#modalEventNew-offcanvas-wrapper`. The whole file may contain multiple offcanvas structures. There's line 911 BLOCO 5 etc. Let me check where the first `<div id="ev-step-general">` really is — the file might have a different structure. Let me read from the top.
Tool Calls (1)
file_read
Show Details
{"file_path": "templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig", "start_line": 1, "end_line": 60}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig (Total lines: 7710)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 1-60
1|{# Bundle do mapa corporal viaja COM este modal — não depender de index.html.twig. #}
2|{% include 'ssma/partials/_ssma_body_map_entry.html.twig' %}
3|
4|{# Escopo do arquivo inteiro (scripts após endembed não veem variáveis definidas só em modal_body). #}
5|{% set gestoresList = gestores|default([]) %}
6|
7|{% embed 'components/_modal_offcanvas.html.twig' with {
8|   modal_id: 'modalEventNew',
9|   modal_width: '560px',
10|   use_validation_ui: true,
11|   validation_alert_id: 'ev-validation-alert',
12|   validation_alert_message: 'Preencha todos os campos obrigatórios.',
13|   reset_validation_on_close: true
14|} %}
15|
16|    {% block modal_title %}<span id="ev-modal-title">Nova ocorrência</span>{% endblock %}
17|
18|    {% block modal_body %}
19|    <form id="form-event-new" novalidate>
20|        <input type="hidden" id="ev_form_mode"          value="create">
21|        <input type="hidden" id="ev_id"                 value="">
22|        <input type="hidden" id="ev_people_ids"         name="ev_people_ids"        value="">
23|        <input type="hidden" id="ev_responsible_ids"    name="ev_responsible_ids"   value="">
24|        <input type="hidden" id="ev_classifier_dano"    value="">
25|        <input type="hidden" id="ev_classifier_risco"   value="">
26|        <input type="hidden" id="ev_classifier_afetado" value="">
27|
28|        {# gestoresList definido no topo do partial (gestores filtrados por escopo). #}
29|
30|        <div class="insp-steps-bar ev-steps-bar" id="ev-steps-bar" aria-hidden="true">
31|            <div class="insp-step-seg active" data-ev-progress="general"></div>
32|            <div class="insp-step-seg" data-ev-progress="aprofundamento"></div>
33|        </div>
34|
35|        <div id="ev-step-general" class="ev-step-panel">
36|        <div class="ev-step-general-cards" id="ev-step-general-cards">
37|
38|        <div class="card app-card-surface p-3 mb-3" id="ev-card-identificacao">
39|        {# ══════════════════════════════════════════
40|           BLOCO 1 — Identificação do evento
41|        ══════════════════════════════════════════ #}
42|        <h5 class="ssma-form-section text-primary">Identificação do evento</h5>
43|
44|        {# Etapa 0: ocultar Título/Status na criação para membro (sem gestão SSMA). Em edição os campos voltam. #}
45|        {% set ssmaIsAuraAdmin = is_granted('ROLE_MANAGER') or is_granted('ROLE_TENANT') or is_granted('ROLE_SUPER_ADMIN') %}
46|        {# ROS — "Relatado por": tenant admin escolhe livremente; gestor vem pré-selecionado (mas pode trocar); pessoa física comum não vê o campo. #}
47|        {% set ssmaIsTenantAdminUser = is_granted('ROLE_TENANT') or is_granted('ROLE_SUPER_ADMIN') %}
48|        {% set ssmaIsGestorUser = ssma_is_gestor_user|default(false) %}
49|        {% set ssmaIsPessoaFisicaComumUser = ssma_is_pessoa_fisica_comum|default(false) %}
50|        <script>
51|        window.SSMA_IS_AURA_ADMIN = {{ ssmaIsAuraAdmin ? 'true' : 'false' }};
52|        window.SSMA_IS_TENANT_ADMIN_USER = {{ ssmaIsTenantAdminUser ? 'true' : 'false' }};
53|        window.SSMA_IS_GESTOR_USER = {{ ssmaIsGestorUser ? 'true' : 'false' }};
54|        window.SSMA_IS_PESSOA_FISICA_COMUM_USER = {{ ssmaIsPessoaFisicaComumUser ? 'true' : 'false' }};
55|        {% set _ssmaHideTitleStatusOnCreate = ssma_hide_event_title_status_on_create|default(not ssmaCanManageOccurrences|default(false)) or ssmaIsAuraAdmin %}
56|        window.SSMA_HIDE_EVENT_TITLE_STATUS_ON_CREATE = {{ _ssmaHideTitleStatusOnCreate ? 'true' : 'false' }};
57|        window.SSMA_CAN_DESCARACTERIZE = {{ ssmaCanDescharacterizeAccident|default(false) ? 'true' : 'false' }};
58|        {# Só Adm / gestor admin / gestor de equipe deve cadastrar locais de referência. #}
59|        window.SSMA_CAN_MANAGE_LOCATIONS = {{ (
60|            ssmaCanManageConfig|default(false)
Request #14 deepseek-v4-flash P:39.44K C:519 CR:38.14K CW:0 4564ms
Reasoning
So the single form contains: - ev-step-general (lines 35-397) - ev-step-aprofundamento (399-909) But `ev-block-ap` starts at 626 (within ev-step-aprofundamento)?! Wait, that's odd because AP fields include identification of injured person at general stage. Let me check: the ev-block-ap at line 626 seems to belong to the aprofundamento step? Hmm. Wait — but actually, is ev-block-ap (person/injury card) within ev-step-general? Let me search for the section id around line 500-600 to see what's between line 440 and 626. We know ev-step-aprofundamento begins at 399. Between 399 and 909, there are ROS/QA blocks, spec-type card etc. So ev-block-ap at line 626 would be inside aprofundamento. But that seems weird since the person data (colaborador acidentado) — the field to select injured collaborators — should be in the general step. Hmm. Actually, wait. But the template partial `ev_injured_person_box` has fields like "Classificação de Ocorrência", "Tipo de CAT", consequence — which are typical of aprofundamento but also can be in general AP flow. The injured person boxes template is included both as a JS clone source at line 662 within ev-block-ap. So ev-block-ap (with people involved select "Adicione quem participou" etc.) appears within step-aprofundamento? Hmm, that contradicts the flow "Adicionar ao menos uma pessoa em Pessoas envolvidas" then "Expandir o card do acidentado" during Novo evento (criação). Wait — but maybe during "Novo evento" there are multiple cards in step-general where people involved are selected. But the injured person card section (ev-injured-person-box) appears inside step-aprofundamento only? Let me look at lines 560-626 to understand what's above ev-block-ap.
Tool Calls (1)
file_read
Show Details
{"file_path": "templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig", "start_line": 440, "end_line": 628}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig (Total lines: 7710)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 440-628
440|                    </div>
441|                </div>
442|            </div>
443|            {% include 'ssma/occurrence/partials/_ev_shared_barrier.html.twig' with {
444|                _barrier_suffix: '_ros',
445|                _hide_failed_barrier: true,
446|                _show_barrier_help: true
447|            } %}
448|            <div class="form-row mt-1" id="ev-ros-pc-row">
449|                <div class="col-12">
450|                    <div class="form-group">
451|                        <label for="ev_ros_potential_consequence">Consequência potencial <span class="text-danger">*</span></label>
452|                        <select class="form-control" id="ev_ros_potential_consequence" name="ev_ros_potential_consequence">
453|                            <option value="" disabled selected>Selecione a consequência</option>
454|                            {% include 'ssma/occurrence/partials/_ev_consequence_options.html.twig' %}
455|                        </select>
456|                    </div>
457|                    {# Gravidade espelha a consequência potencial (mesmo valor) #}
458|                    <div id="ev-ros-derived-severity-wrap" class="mt-2">
459|                        <label class="text-muted small d-block mb-1">Gravidade da ocorrência (automática)</label>
460|                        <span id="ev-ros-derived-severity-badge" class="ssma-shared-tag"
461|                              style="background:rgba(108,117,125,0.10);color:#6c757d;border-color:#adb5bd;">—</span>
462|                    </div>
463|                </div>
464|            </div>
465|        </div>
466|
467|        {# ── QUASE ACIDENTE ───────────────────── #}
468|        <div id="ev-block-qa" class="ev-type-block d-none">
469|            <div class="form-row">
470|                <div class="col-12">
471|                    <div class="form-group">
472|                        <label for="ev_involvement_type_qa">Envolvimento <span class="text-danger">*</span></label>
473|                        <select class="form-control" id="ev_involvement_type_qa" name="ev_involvement_type">
474|                            <option value="" disabled selected>–</option>
475|                            <option value="PERSON">Pessoa</option>
476|                            <option value="EQUIPMENT">Equipamento</option>
477|                            <option value="ENVIRONMENT">Ambiente</option>
478|                            <option value="PROCESS">Processo</option>
479|                        </select>
480|                    </div>
481|                </div>
482|            </div>
483|
484|            <div id="ev-qa-person-row" class="form-row d-none">
485|                <div class="col-6">
486|                    <div class="form-group">
487|                        <label for="ev_person_id_qa">Colaborador envolvido <span class="text-danger">*</span></label>
488|                        {% set ev_person_qa_options = [{'value': '', 'text': 'Selecione a pessoa'}] %}
489|                        {% for member in allMembers %}
490|                            {% set ev_person_qa_options = ev_person_qa_options|merge([{
491|                                'value': member.id,
492|                                'text': member.name
493|                            }]) %}
494|                        {% endfor %}
495|                        {% include 'components/ui/_custom_select.html.twig' with {
496|                            id: 'ev_person_id_qa',
497|                            name: 'ev_person_id_qa',
498|                            label: 'Selecione a pessoa',
499|                            options: ev_person_qa_options
500|                        } %}
501|                    </div>
502|                </div>
503|                <div class="col-6">
504|                    <div class="form-group">
505|                        <label for="ev_person_type_qa">Tipo de vínculo <span class="text-danger">*</span></label>
506|                        <select class="form-control" id="ev_person_type_qa" name="ev_person_type_qa">
507|                            <option value="COLABORADOR" selected>CLT</option>
508|                            <option value="PRESTADOR">PJ / Prestador</option>
509|                            <option value="TERCEIRO">Terceirizado</option>
510|                        </select>
511|                    </div>
512|                </div>
513|            </div>
514|            {% include 'ssma/occurrence/partials/_ev_shared_barrier.html.twig' with {
515|                _barrier_suffix: '_qa',
516|                _hide_failed_barrier: true,
517|                _show_barrier_help: true
518|            } %}
519|            <div class="form-row mt-1" id="ev-qa-pc-row">
520|                <div class="col-12">
521|                    <div class="form-group">
522|                        <label for="ev_qa_potential_consequence">Consequência potencial <span class="text-danger">*</span></label>
523|                        <select class="form-control" id="ev_qa_potential_consequence" name="ev_qa_potential_consequence">
524|                            <option value="" disabled selected>Selecione a consequência</option>
525|                            {% include 'ssma/occurrence/partials/_ev_consequence_options.html.twig' %}
526|                        </select>
527|                    </div>
528|                    <div id="ev-qa-derived-severity-wrap" class="mt-2">
529|                        <label class="text-muted small d-block mb-1">Gravidade da ocorrência (automática)</label>
530|                        <span id="ev-qa-derived-severity-badge" class="ssma-shared-tag"
531|                              style="background:rgba(108,117,125,0.10);color:#6c757d;border-color:#adb5bd;">—</span>
532|                    </div>
533|                </div>
534|            </div>
535|        </div>
536|
537|        </div>{# /ev-spec-type-card #}
538|
539|        {# Gravidade manual legada — oculto quando ROS/QA usam TAG automática #}
540|        <div class="card app-card-surface p-3 mb-3 d-none" id="ev-gravity-wrap">
541|            <div class="form-group mb-0">
542|                <label for="ev_criticality">Gravidade da Ocorrência <span class="text-danger">*</span></label>
543|                <select class="form-control" id="ev_criticality" name="ev_criticality">
544|                    <option value="" disabled selected>Selecione</option>
545|                    <option value="LEVE">Leve</option>
546|                    <option value="BAIXO">Baixo</option>
547|                    <option value="MEDIO">Médio</option>
548|                    <option value="ALTO">Alto</option>
549|                    <option value="SEVERO">Severo</option>
550|                </select>
551|            </div>
552|        </div>
553|
554|        {# ══════════════════════════════════════════
555|           BLOCO 4 — Aprofundamento (acidentes)
556|        ══════════════════════════════════════════ #}
557|        <div id="ev-technical-section" class="card app-card-surface p-3 mb-3 d-none">
558|        <h5 class="ssma-form-section text-primary" id="ev-aprofundamento-title">Aprofundamento pelo Profissional da Saúde</h5>
559|
560|        {# Classificação técnica — Consequência real / potencial / Dimensão #}
561|        <div id="ev-classification-wrap">
562|            <div class="form-row" id="ev-global-consequence-row">
563|                <div class="col-6">
564|                    <div class="form-group">
565|                        <label for="ev_consequence">Consequência real <span class="text-danger">*</span></label>
566|                        <select class="form-control" id="ev_consequence" name="ev_consequence" required>
567|                            <option value="" disabled selected>Selecione a consequência</option>
568|                            {% include 'ssma/occurrence/partials/_ev_consequence_options.html.twig' %}
569|                        </select>
570|                        <div id="ev-derived-severity-wrap" class="mt-2 d-none">
571|                            <label class="text-muted small d-block mb-1">
572|                                Gravidade da ocorrência (automática)
573|                                <span id="ev-derived-severity-colab-hint" class="d-none">(definida pela consequência real)</span>
574|                            </label>
575|                            <select class="form-control form-control-sm d-none" id="ev_derived_criticality_select" aria-hidden="true" tabindex="-1">
576|                                <option value="" disabled selected>Selecione</option>
577|                                <option value="LEVE">Leve</option>
578|                                <option value="BAIXO">Baixo</option>
579|                                <option value="MEDIO">Médio</option>
580|                                <option value="ALTO">Alto</option>
581|                                <option value="SEVERO">Severo</option>
582|                            </select>
583|                            <span id="ev-derived-severity-badge" class="ssma-shared-tag"
584|                                  style="background:rgba(108,117,125,0.10); color:#6c757d; border-color:#adb5bd;">—</span>
585|                            <input type="hidden" id="ev_derived_criticality" value="">
586|                        </div>
587|                    </div>
588|                </div>
589|                <div class="col-6">
590|                    <div class="form-group">
591|                        <label for="ev_potential_consequence">Consequência potencial <span class="text-danger">*</span></label>
592|                        <select class="form-control" id="ev_potential_consequence" name="ev_potential_consequence" required>
593|                            <option value="" disabled selected>Selecione a consequência</option>
594|                            {% include 'ssma/occurrence/partials/_ev_consequence_options.html.twig' %}
595|                        </select>
596|                    </div>
597|                </div>
598|            </div>
599|            {# Dimensão: oculto em Material/Ambiental/Pessoal (Brenda). #}
600|            <div class="form-row" id="ev-strategic-nature-row">
601|                <div class="col-12">
602|                    <div class="form-group">
603|                        <label for="ev_strategic_nature">Dimensão da ocorrência <span class="text-danger">*</span></label>
604|                        <select class="form-control" id="ev_strategic_nature" name="ev_strategic_nature" required>
605|                            <option value="RELACIONAMENTO">Relacionamento</option>
606|                            <option value="PROCESSO">Processo</option>
607|                            <option value="INFRAESTRUTURA">Infraestrutura</option>
608|                            <option value="SEGURANCA" selected>Segurança</option>
609|                            <option value="COMPORTAMENTO">Comportamento</option>
610|                            <option value="AMBIENTAL">Ambiental</option>
611|                        </select>
612|                    </div>
613|                </div>
614|            </div>
615|            {# AP: Tipo de barreira no lugar da Dimensão (lista Brenda + ícone de ajuda). #}
616|            <div id="ev-ap-barrier-row" class="d-none">
617|                {% include 'ssma/occurrence/partials/_ev_shared_barrier.html.twig' with {
618|                    _barrier_suffix: '_ap',
619|                    _hide_failed_barrier: true,
620|                    _show_barrier_help: true
621|                } %}
622|            </div>
623|        </div>
624|
625|        {# ── ACIDENTE PESSOAL ─────────────────── #}
626|        <div id="ev-block-ap" class="ev-type-block d-none">
627|            {# Etapa 8: campos da pessoa (mapa, CAT, descaracter) agrupados na caixinha #}
628|            <div id="ev-ap-pessoa-caixinha" class="ev-ap-pessoa-caixinha mb-3">
Request #15 deepseek-v4-flash P:42.97K C:6.48K CR:39.94K CW:0 48159ms
Reasoning
OK. So the AP injured-person boxes live within `ev-step-aprofundamento` — the technical section (ev-technical-section). Wait but in the "Novo evento" (criação) flow, the user goes from step general to step aprofundamento? Actually, the flow: for members with SSMA permission who create events, there is a two-step flow (general → aprofundamento). For "Acidente com Pessoa" requiring aprofundamento, the flow goes to step-aprofundamento, where the injured person cards are added, then saves. Hmm. But the PR says "Novo evento → Adicionar ao menos uma pessoa em Pessoas envolvidas → Expandir o card do acidentado". Cards appear when user is on the aprofundamento step during create flow (evCurrentStep === 'aprofundamento'). Actually, wait: In the create flow, the event might not require aprofundamento at creation (registering only). Hmm. OK regardless, the description in the PR states that the checkbox should show in creation card. The change to `.ev-inj-descaracter` visibility toggling with only `!isAp` means section shows on both creation ("general" step? or any step where cards appear) and aprofundamento. Fine. Now the main question is the regression risk in the aprofundamento-only flow where CSS hides Sim/Não toggle if the form lacks `.is-doctor-aprof`. Wait — for aprofundamento-only mode, `evAprofundamentoOnlyMode = true` → form gets `.is-doctor-aprof` → CSS does not hide. So the aprofundamento-only flow works. But there's the normal editing flow (admin/gestor administrador via openEdit) with both steps; navigating to step aprofundamento inside the modal. In that context `evAprofundamentoOnlyMode` false → `.is-doctor-aprof` absent → CSS hides Sim/Não toggle and comment in the AP cards of the aprofundamento step. Was that a regression introduced? Let's compare to the old CSS: Old CSS: `#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter { display:none !important; }` — hid the whole descaracter block when not in aprofundamento-only mode. So in normal edit flow, even navigating to step-aprofundamento, the descaracter block was hidden. That seems odd but was pre-existing behavior (maybe a known limitation). New CSS: In normal edit flow (not aprofundamento-only), hide toggle/comment/no-perm but show the checkbox section. So for an admin editing an AP event in normal edit mode, at the aprofundamento step they would see only the checkbox, not Sim/Não. Same as old behavior in terms of Sim/Não visibility. So not a regression relative to old CSS in that flow. Wait but old CSS hid the whole block including checkbox in that flow; new one shows checkbox. But that's a bigger scope; also the checkbox in that flow... The new behavior shows the checkbox even in normal editing (admin) which might be intended or not. Actually, in the normal "editar" flow, the suspect checkbox now appears during step "general"? The injured boxes are located in ev-block-ap, inside `ev-technical-section` which is inside `ev-step-aprofundamento`. Wait no: the `ev-block-ap` is inside ev-technical-section (line 557)? Let's verify: `ev-technical-section` starts line 557, ends line 896 `{# /ev-technical-section #}`. ev-block-ap at 626-... is inside ev-technical-section? Yes ev-block-ap within ev-technical-section which ends at 896. Wait ev-block-ap at 626 and ev-technical-section ends 896. And ev-spec-type-card... hmm wait, but earlier we saw ROS blocks at 411 and QA at 468 inside `ev-spec-type-card` (406-537). ev-block-ap 626-~890? Actually ev-block-ap might end near line 890. Anyway, both ev-spec-type-card and ev-technical-section are inside ev-step-aprofundamento (399-909). So the AP injured person cards (where the descaracter checkbox is) are located only in the aprofundamento step panel. But in the creation flow, when creating an AP event requiring aprofundamento, the user may be taken through the aprofundamento step? Hmm, in the "novo evento" flow there are two steps: general and aprofundamento? Wait no: in the create flow, save goes from step general to step aprofundamento when event requires aprofundamento (see evUpdateFooter: label "Aprofundamento" when general step, evRequiresAprofundamento && evCanEditAprofundamento). Hmm actually that's when editing an existing event requiring aprofundamento. Wait — that suggests for create mode, the save button label is "Registrar" at general step, meaning a normal member registers the event without aprofundamento in the same modal? But evCurrentStep === 'aprofundamento' is also reachable in create mode? Actually openAprofundamento is only for specialist flow (evAprofundamentoOnlyMode=true). Hmm, actually let me not go down this rabbit hole too far. The PR description itself explains the intended flows: "Novo evento" (criação) checkbox visible; "Aprofundamento técnico" Sim/Não visible. And they explain the CSS approach: creation mode hides toggle via CSS since form lacks `.is-doctor-aprof`. The test steps in the PR: 1. SSMA → Ocorrências → Novo evento. 2. Tipo Acidente com Pessoa. 3. Add people. 4. Expandir o card do acidentado. 5. Checkbox appears. 6. Mark checkbox → Sim/Não should NOT appear (only in aprofundamento). 7. Save and open Aprofundamento técnico → Sim/Não appears normally. 8. ROS → block doesn't appear. Now the "dangling label" issue I identified: When marking the checkbox during creation, yesNoWrap shows → "Caracterizado como acidente?" label (with icon) becomes visible, but buttons hidden. That seems to contradict test step 6. Let me double check: yesNoWrap visibility is toggled by: - change listener (5740-5745): on suspect change → yesNoWrap.classList.toggle('d-none', !e.target.checked). - evSyncDescaracterStageUi (2930-2937): toggles yesNoWrap d-none based on checkbox. Both are unconditional of stage. So on creation, checking the checkbox reveals yesNoWrap, which includes the label. Sim/Não toggle hidden by CSS, comment hidden by CSS, no-perm hidden by CSS. The label "Caracterizado como acidente?" remains visible. And that label has tooltip. So the UI shows that label but not buttons. That's a glitch contradicting "Sim/Não não deve aparecer" (well, the label appears but not buttons; the label is part of the Sim/Não UI). Wait, is it really a problem though? Let me re-check the requirement from the doc: "Na criação: só o checkbox." So showing "Caracterizado como acidente?" label alone on creation would be a defect. This suggests CSS should also hide `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` in creation mode or the JS shouldn't reveal it in creation. But wait — actually maybe they intentionally want to hide yesnoWrap via CSS by including `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` in the selector. The current CSS rule doesn't include it. Hmm, but do we have evidence that the label would show? Yes. Let me double check CSS specificity: `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` has classes `ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap d-none`. The d-none class is Bootstrap. When d-none removed (JS), the div is visible. The new CSS only hides the inner elements. The label is a direct child of yesno-wrap, before the toggle. So the label will show. Yes. Hold on — actually, is the label visually confusing enough to warrant a review comment? Yes — this is a genuine regression relative to the intended behavior: users on creation check the box and see "Caracterizado como acidente?" label with the info icon but no buttons or comment. This is a UI defect. Let me double check whether perhaps the CSS intends to hide the label by also hiding the whole `ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap`? Let me reconsider: maybe they intended to hide the yesno-wrap section, but they wrote the CSS to hide elements inside it (toggle, comment wrap, no-perm). They forgot about the "Caracterizado como acidente?" label. So my suggestion: add `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` to the CSS hide list (or the label element). But wait, is hiding yesno-wrap in creation going to break the JS toggling? The JS toggles d-none on yesnoWrap on checkbox change. CSS `display:none !important` would override the class removal; when user enters aprofundamento, the class is re-added; the d-none removal happens in JS when checked... hmm order matters, but at aprofundamento, CSS rule no longer applies so yesnoWrap would show based on d-none class state. Wait, but there's a subtlety: if in creation the user checks the suspect, the JS removes d-none from yesnoWrap. Then later, when saving and opening aprofundamento-only mode, evSyncDescaracterUi is called and sets yesNoWrap classList.toggle('d-none', !suspectOn) based on card state. So it would re-hide if unchecked, show if checked. Fine. So the glitch: on creation when user checks suspect, yesno-wrap becomes visible (label visible, controls hidden by CSS). It looks broken. Actually wait — hold on. Let me reconsider: are the controls hidden by CSS with `display:none !important` overriding everything, but the wrap itself `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` is visible? Let me read the markup again carefully: ``` <div class="ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap d-none"> <label class="d-block small mb-2 font-weight-bold"> Caracterizado como acidente? <i ...></i> </label> <div class="ev-inj-descaracter-toggle d-flex align-items-center mb-3" role="group" aria-label="...">...</div> <div class="form-group mb-0 ev-inj-descaracter-comment-wrap"> <label class="small mb-1">Comentário ...</label> <textarea ...></textarea> </div> <p class="ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm ... d-none">...</p> </div> ``` The label is the direct child of the wrapper, not separately hidden. CSS: `#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-comment-wrap`, `.ev-inj-descaracter-toggle`, `.ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm` hidden. The label remains. So when creation user checks the suspect box, they'll see "Caracterizado como acidente? ⓘ" with nothing under it. The tooltip might mention "Sim = é acidente..." even though there are no buttons. This is a solid finding to flag: severity medium (cosmetic but a broken UI and contradicts declared behavior). Category: bug/other. And I should suggest adding `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` (or its label) to CSS hide rule, but that might also hide things... wait but we need Sim/Não to still be shown in aprofundamento; the CSS rule is only for `:not(.is-doctor-aprof)`, so adding the yesno-wrap to the rule is fine. Hmm, but actually wait: if we hide yesno-wrap entirely during creation, then on creation when user checks suspect, nothing shows below — correct per spec (only the checkbox). Then the JS toggling the d-none would not visually matter because CSS overrides; when they open aprofundamento, the wrap state is toggled by JS based on the card attribute. That works. Now, there's another subtle bug I want to check: In creation mode (not aprofundamento-only), the descaracter section is visible (because isAp). But what about when creating an event where the user proceeds to the "aprofundamento" step within the create modal? Wait — during creation, is the aprofundamento step accessible? Hmm the PR's test says step 6 marks and saves, then step 7 open aprofundamento as separate flow. OK. Actually, wait. There is an important issue: the CSS rule hides toggle/comment/no-perm when the form does NOT have `.is-doctor-aprof`. In the create/edit modal (not aprofundamento-only), when the user moves to step aprofundamento (in editing an AP event by a manager? Actually editing existing events requiring aprofundamento — the general flow — clicking save on general step navigates to aprofundamento step in the same modal — see evUpdateFooter lines 3355-3360: if general step, label "Aprofundamento →", meaning the user goes to the aprofundamento step in same modal without evAprofundamentoOnlyMode). In that scenario (manager editing event and going to the aprofundamento step in the same modal), `.is-doctor-aprof` is false, so CSS hides the Sim/Não toggle and comment. Was that the case before this change? Before, the whole block was hidden, meaning the manager editing in that flow could not characterize Sim/Não either. So it's not a new regression per se, but it's a pre-existing limitation. Since the PR only intends to keep Sim/Não "only in aprofundamento", and the aprofundamento step within the normal edit flow isn't gated, the toggles remain hidden even there. Hmm, but in the prior PR #636, the CSS rule was precisely to hide the entire block outside doctor-aprof. So toggles were hidden for the manager edit flow too. But wait, were the Sim/Não buttons previously functional in that "step-aprofundamento inside same modal" flow for admins? Actually maybe admins see these. Let me look at where evAprofundamentoOnlyMode gets set to true, because for a manager editing in the modal, when they reach the aprofundamento step, is evAprofundamentoOnlyMode set? Hmm. Let me look for how the edit modal handles steps for AP events: evSetStep('aprofundamento') with evAprofundamentoOnlyMode false? Let me find where evCurrentStep transitions. In evUpdateFooter: in non-aprofOnly mode, clicking save at general step changes label to "Aprofundamento" (i.e., goes to aprofundamento step) if evRequiresAprofundamento(type) && evCanEditAprofundamento(type). So the step-aprofundamento is reachable in normal modal flow for admins/managers editing events. In that flow, descaracter section visible? Under OLD CSS, no (block hidden since no .is-doctor-aprof). Under NEW CSS, the checkbox is visible but Sim/Não hidden. So in that flow, if an admin is editing AP event at the aprofundamento step, they'd now see the checkbox but no Sim/Não. If the event was previously caracterizado (descaracterizado value), the checkbox state is restored and visible but the Sim/Não toggle is hidden — this would hide previously recorded info (e.g., data-descaracterizado=0 with comment). Admin can't edit it there. This may be a real usability regression but it's a limited flow; hmm. But hold on — is the suspect checkbox only in the card within the aprofundamento step? Since the descaracter section is inside ev-block-ap which is inside ev-technical-section inside step-aprofundamento. So cards only appear in aprofundamento step panel, regardless of create/edit mode? Wait, that can't be: during creation, injured person data is gathered on the aprofundamento step? Hmm, "Novo evento" creation flow: The form has steps general and aprofundamento. Wait — but creation for a member (simple) is only step general? Hmm. Actually wait, actually let me reconsider. Maybe the flow is: for events requiring technical aprofundamento, there are two flows: 1. Regular member registers (general step only, saves event in status 'registrado'), then specialist does aprofundamento in separate modal. 2. Manager/admin (who can do aprofundamento themselves) can, in one flow, go from general to aprofundamento step to complete the whole event before saving (evUpdateFooter shows "Aprofundamento →" when can edit aprofundamento). In the creation (member) flow, injured person cards appear where? During registration, the member adds people and the cards... The cards exist inside step-aprofundamento? That would mean that in the member's creation flow they don't see the cards at all? But the PR says during "Novo evento" the cards appear and the checkbox is on the card. So the card must be visible during creation. Maybe the cards (ev-injured-person-box) are rendered inside `#ev_injured_person_boxes` which is inside ev-block-ap (step-aprofundamento), and during create, the AP flow shows the aprofundamento step within the same modal because the "Acidente com Pessoa" requires the injury details to be registered at creation (step 2). Hmm, I'm getting lost in flow details. Let me re-read the PR: "O checkbox 'Há suspeita...' só aparecia no Aprofundamento técnico... deveria aparecer também no card do acidentado durante o registro ('Novo evento')". So indeed during "Novo evento" creation the card is visible in that modal (in whatever step — maybe creation flow includes an aprofundamento-like step where injury cards appear and are saved into details). OK. Since the cards are only within step-aprofundamento panel, and the creation flow includes reaching that step (evSetStep('aprofundamento') when clicking through), the checkbox is visible during creation step. Wait, but note that during creation mode (member), the save goes directly after step general (Registrar) — without passing through the aprofundamento step in the modal? Hmm no. Let me actually check evCanEditAprofundamento and evRequiresAprofundamento, and look at the JS flow of creation with AP. This is getting complicated. But it doesn't really matter for the main findings. Let me re-approach: rather than dissect the entire flow, I'll evaluate the diff itself for direct logical issues: 1. The CSS change hides toggle/comment/no-perm when not doctor-aprof, leaving the label "Caracterizado como acidente?" visible whenever the yesno-wrap is shown (which happens when suspect checkbox is checked, even during creation). → Definite UI glitch when suspect checked during creation. Worth a comment with fix suggestion: also hide `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` in that rule (or ensure JS does not reveal it during creation). Actually wait — could the intended behavior be that in creation, yesno-wrap is shown (label visible) but the toggle hidden? That seems obviously wrong UI, so the author likely overlooked hiding the yesno-wrap or the label. Let me confirm there's no additional CSS elsewhere that hides the label in creation. We searched `ev-inj-descaracter` matches only; the label has no dedicated class besides the wrapper. And `yesno-wrap` CSS? Let me search for `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` in CSS block specifically... We searched; matches only JS at 2933, 5744, 6485. So yes no CSS hides the wrap or the label in creation mode. Confirmed glitch. 2. Second potential issue: When the user checks the suspect box during creation but then unchecks before saving, details sync correctly? The change handler mirrors to global checkbox `ev_descaracter_suspect`. And `evReadCardInjuryData` uses `evIsDescaracterSuspectChecked()` (global). Fine. 3. Third issue: Data integrity. In creation mode, the card is stored in `ev_injured_person_details` JSON with `descaracter_suspect: 0/1` and `descaracterizado: ''`, `descaracter_comment: ''`. That's already pre-existing from #636. When later aprofundamento opens, `populateForEdit` sets suspectOn from details and sets global checkbox. Then the specialist sees Sim/Não. Good. But here's a subtle data bug: `evReadCardInjuryData` at line 2199 uses the GLOBAL `#ev_descaracter_suspect` state for ALL cards (`descaracter_suspect: evIsDescaracterSuspectChecked() ? 1 : 0`). So if a user has two injured persons and checks the suspect box only on the second card, the change handler at 5749 sets global checkbox = checked (since second card checked). Then reading both cards' data sets descaracter_suspect = 1 for both cards. On aprofundamento, both cards would have suspect checked. That is pre-existing behavior, not introduced by this PR. Skip. But note: with the new checkbox now available in creation flow, users might mark suspects for multiple injured people at creation time, and this bug could be hit more often. But the bug existed since #636; the change amplifies the exposure. Still, might be worth noting? Since the requirement explicitly mentions "Quando marcado na criação, o payload envia descaracter_suspect: 1 (sync com campo global já existia desde #636)" — the authors are aware the global field is used. Since the per-card data bug predates the PR, and the PR doesn't touch serialization, I'll consider mentioning only if related to this diff. 4. Fourth issue — aprofundamento regression. In `evSyncDescaracterStageUi`, isDoctorAprof is derived from `evAprofundamentoOnlyMode`. Wait, in openAprofundamento, evAprofundamentoOnlyMode set to true AFTER populateForEdit? Let's see line 6528: `evAprofundamentoOnlyMode = true;` is set in openWith after populateForEdit(data). Then evSetStep('aprofundamento') triggers evSyncDescaracterStageUi; since evAprofundamentoOnlyMode now true, form gets is-doctor-aprof; section shows if isAp; toggles not hidden by CSS. Good. But during populateForEdit (line 6492) evSyncDescaracterUi is called BEFORE evAprofundamentoOnlyMode = true (line 6528). At that time, CSS `:not(.is-doctor-aprof)` hides toggles but form class isn't set yet. Then when openWith sets evAprofundamentoOnlyMode = true and calls evSetStep('aprofundamento') → evSyncDescaracterStageUi sets class; later also evSyncDescaracterUi called at 6538. OK, transient only. But for non-doctor mode (i.e., normal edit by manager, or the step-aprofundamento within the same create/edit modal) evAprofundamentoOnlyMode stays false → form never gets is-doctor-aprof → Sim/Não toggles stay hidden by CSS forever, even when user is on the aprofundamento step inside that same modal, and even for users who DO have descaracterization permission. Is that a regression introduced by this PR? Under old CSS (before this PR), the descaracter section was hidden entirely in non-doctor-aprof contexts, so Sim/Não toggles were also hidden. So behavior for the toggle is unchanged in these contexts; the new behavior only additionally shows the checkbox. But the checkbox is likely only visible/meaningful for the flow where cards are shown. Since cards are only in step-aprofundamento, and in a normal edit with steps, the checkbox being visible but toggles hidden may be confusing, but it's not a regression of toggle behavior. Hmm, wait. Actually is there a flow where cards show in a context that isn't doctor-aprof? Creation flow. During creation of AP event (novo evento), the user (registrar) adds the injury card and marks suspect. That's the main intended flow of this PR. In that flow Sim/Não hidden - intended. So fine. The admin edit flow: cards appear in the aprofundamento step (since ev-block-ap within step-aprofundamento). Admin editing with steps navigates to aprofundamento step → sees the checkbox but not Sim/Não. Under old behavior they'd see nothing of descaracter (hidden). So for admins who have permission to descaracterize, they can no longer access Sim/Não in that modal flow? But wait — admin with EV_IS_ADMIN_APROFUNDAMENTO → openAprofundamento delegates to OccurrenceModal.openEdit → normal flow → in the aprofundamento step, is-doctor-aprof absent → toggles hidden. So if an admin wants to characterize/descaracterize an AP event via the modal edit, they'd previously also not see the Sim/Não block. Hmm. So unchanged. But then where does an admin descaracterize? In the aprofundamento-only flow? But line 6521: if admin → openEdit, so admins never enter aprofundamento-only flow; they use the normal edit modal. And there, per CSS, the toggles are hidden... under OLD CSS, the entire descaracter block was hidden, meaning admins in normal edit modal couldn't access Sim/Não either. Was that intended? Seems plausible the flow relies on `.is-doctor-aprof` to be set also within the normal edit modal's aprofundamento step. But since evSyncDescaracterStageUi only toggles based on evAprofundamentoOnlyMode, is-doctor-aprof is false in normal edit modal. So even before this PR, Sim/Não could never be used in the normal edit modal. This is a pre-existing potential bug/limitation, not introduced here. I shouldn't dig too deep. But wait, the CSS change DOES change which flows hide the block; the checkbox becomes visible in more flows. Under the new CSS, checkbox visible for any AP context including the general step of creation where cards are in a collapsed state? Let's check the card default collapsed state; the descaracter section within the card would be visible in the collapsed card? Let's look at the card structure: the descaracter section at the end of the card content (ev-inj-...). In a collapsed card, are inner details hidden? Look at evCreateInjuredPersonCard and how the card body is shown when expanded. If collapsed cards hide content, no issue. Let me look at the structure of the injured person card to understand: lines 100-224 of partial. The card is one div. The descaracter section at the bottom is always in DOM but inside content section which may be hidden until expanded. Since cards are created collapsed, and the checkbox visibility requirement says user must expand the card to see the checkbox. Good. Now potential issue: the suspect checkbox at creation is shown within expanded card content. In creation mode, the yesno-wrap toggling reveals the label glitch. I've established that. Let me also verify the `evSyncDescaracterStageUi` toggle of `.ev-inj-descaracter` uses only `isAp` now. But there's another consideration: `isAp` is `evSelectedType() === 'ACIDENTE_PESSOAL'`. Fine. Let me also double check the CSS class `is-doctor-aprof` being on `#form-event-new`... yes toggled at line 2919. Now, is there any CSS specificity issue where `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` being displayed has `d-none` removed but there is still `d-none` on some inner elements? no. Let me verify the `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` label is indeed visible: When the suspect checkbox is checked during creation, the change listener at 5740 runs and toggles yesNoWrap 'd-none' off. Then CSS only hides toggle/comment/no-perm. Label visible → dangling text. Confirmed bug candidate #1. Severity: Since it's a UI-level visual defect contradicting the stated product behavior ("Sim/Não não deve aparecer"), I'd rate medium. Suggestion: add `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` (or just the label) to the hide rule, or hide the whole yesno-wrap during creation. Wait, careful: hiding the entire `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` would also hide the label, leaving nothing below the checkbox — matches desired behavior. But when the user later enters aprofundamento in the same session (creation → save → open aprofundamento is a new modal load), the CSS no longer applies. Good. However, if within a create/edit flow the user transitions from creation (checkbox) to the aprofundamento step in the same modal (e.g., when creating as a user who can do aprofundamento in one flow?) then the class `is-doctor-aprof` is not added unless evAprofundamentoOnlyMode is true. Hmm, does evAprofundamentoOnlyMode get set in the modal when user clicks through steps? Let me look at how user advances from general to aprofundamento within the modal in create flow. Search for evCurrentStep set to 'aprofundamento'.
Tool Calls (1)
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
1548|    var evAprofundamentoOnlyMode = false;
2917|        var isDoctorAprof = !!evAprofundamentoOnlyMode;
2950|        if (!canSn && cur === '' && evAprofundamentoOnlyMode && hidden) {
3333|            draft.classList.toggle('d-none', !evAprofundamentoOnlyMode || evCurrentStep !== 'aprofundamento');
3335|        if (evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) {
3371|        if (evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) {
3379|            general.classList.toggle('is-readonly', !!evAprofundamentoOnlyMode);
3384|            if (evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) {
6018|            if (boxesWrap && evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) {
6134|        evAprofundamentoOnlyMode = false;
6528|            evAprofundamentoOnlyMode = true;
6536|            // Sincroniza a UI de descaracterização agora que evAprofundamentoOnlyMode=true.
6567|        evAprofundamentoOnlyMode = false;
6660|            if (evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) return;
6679|        if (evAprofundamentoOnlyMode && evIsAprofundamentoFinalized() && !EV_IS_ADMIN_APROFUNDAMENTO) {
6695|        var finalizeAprofundamento = !evAprofundamentoOnlyMode || !!evAprofundamentoFinalizeIntent;
6696|        if (evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) {
6702|        if (evCurrentStep === 'general' && !evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) {
6719|            if (!evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) {
6725|        var softAprofundamentoDraft = evAprofundamentoOnlyMode && !finalizeAprofundamento;
6962|        if (evCurrentStep === 'aprofundamento' && evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) {
7107|            if (!descFromCard && evAprofundamentoOnlyMode && !evCanDescharacterizeAccident()) {
7113|            if (descAnswered && evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) {
7124|            if (!evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) {

Request #16 deepseek-v4-flash P:49.99K C:123 CR:49.41K CW:0 1917ms
Reasoning
Let me look at line 6560-6575 and 6700-6740 to understand step progression in normal mode.
Tool Calls (1)
file_read
Show Details
{"file_path": "templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig", "start_line": 6560, "end_line": 6740}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig (Total lines: 7710)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 6560-6740
6560|                openWith(data);
6561|            });
6562|    };
6563|
6564|    window.EvModal.openCreate = function (opts) {
6565|        opts = opts || {};
6566|        window.__ssmaEvCreateMode = opts.createMode || null;
6567|        evAprofundamentoOnlyMode = false;
6568|        evAprofundamentoFinalizeIntent = true;
6569|        evAprofundamentoFinalized = false;
6570|        // Nova ocorrência sempre começa limpa (não restaura draft de preenchimento anterior).
6571|        var modeEl = document.getElementById('ev_form_mode');
6572|        var idEl = document.getElementById('ev_id');
6573|        if (modeEl) {
6574|            modeEl.value = 'create';
6575|        }
6576|        if (idEl) {
6577|            idEl.value = '';
6578|        }
6579|        var modalTitle = document.getElementById('ev-modal-title');
6580|        if (modalTitle) {
6581|            if (window.__ssmaEvCreateMode === 'ros') {
6582|                modalTitle.textContent = 'Novo ROS';
6583|            } else if (window.__ssmaEvCreateMode === 'event') {
6584|                modalTitle.textContent = 'Novo evento';
6585|            } else {
6586|                modalTitle.textContent = 'Nova ocorrência';
6587|            }
6588|        }
6589|        var generalPanelCreate = document.getElementById('ev-step-general');
6590|        if (generalPanelCreate) generalPanelCreate.classList.remove('is-readonly');
6591|
6592|        if (typeof initEvTagSelectsOnce === 'function') {
6593|            initEvTagSelectsOnce();
6594|        }
6595|        evResetCreateUiState();
6596|        if (typeof evInitTypeSelectFromConfig === 'function') {
6597|            evInitTypeSelectFromConfig();
6598|        }
6599|        evApplyDatetimeMax();
6600|        evApplyAuraTitleStatusVisibility('create');
6601|        if (typeof window.renderEvCategorySelect === 'function') {
6602|            window.renderEvCategorySelect('', '');
6603|        }
6604|
6605|        var typeEl = document.getElementById('ev_type');
6606|        applyTypeBlock((typeEl && typeEl.value) ? typeEl.value : '');
6607|        ensureClassificationDefaults('', true);
6608|        evDefaultDatetimeToday();
6609|
6610|        if (window.SSMA_IS_AURA_ADMIN) {
6611|            evSetVal('ev_title', '');
6612|            evSetVal('ev_status', 'ABERTO');
6613|        }
6614|
6615|        (function applyEvCreateDefaults() {
6616|            var defs = window.SSMA_EVENT_FORM_DEFAULTS || {};
6617|            if (!defs || typeof defs !== 'object') {
6618|                defs = {};
6619|            }
6620|            function apply() {
6621|                if (defs.manager_id) {
6622|                    evSetVal('ev_manager', String(defs.manager_id));
6623|                }
6624|                if (defs.team_id) {
6625|                    evSetVal('ev_team_id', String(defs.team_id));
6626|                }
6627|                ensureClassificationDefaults('', true);
6628|                var $ = window.jQuery;
6629|                if ($) {
6630|                    $('#ev_manager').trigger('change');
6631|                    $('#ev_team_id').trigger('change');
6632|                }
6633|                if (typeof window.EvModal.syncTagHiddens === 'function') {
6634|                    // Evita regravar draft vazio logo após limpar a criação.
6635|                    var _persist = typeof evPersistDraftSoon === 'function' ? evPersistDraftSoon : null;
6636|                    if (_persist) {
6637|                        window.__ssmaEvSkipDraftPersist = true;
6638|                    }
6639|                    window.EvModal.syncTagHiddens();
6640|                    window.__ssmaEvSkipDraftPersist = false;
6641|                }
6642|                evFilterInjuredPersonSelect();
6643|                evSyncDescaracterUi();
6644|                evSyncContainmentTimeEnabled();
6645|                evSyncInjuryClassificationByLeave();
6646|                evSyncDerivedSeverityFromConsequence();
6647|            }
6648|            if (typeof window.requestAnimationFrame === 'function') {
6649|                window.requestAnimationFrame(function () { apply(); });
6650|            } else {
6651|                window.setTimeout(apply, 0);
6652|            }
6653|        })();
6654|        evSetStep('general');
6655|    };
6656|
6657|    var evBackBtn = document.getElementById('ev-btn-back');
6658|    if (evBackBtn) {
6659|        evBackBtn.addEventListener('click', function () {
6660|            if (evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) return;
6661|            evSetStep('general');
6662|        });
6663|    }
6664|
6665|    var evBtnSaveEl = document.getElementById('ev-btn-save');
6666|    var evBtnDraftEl = document.getElementById('ev-btn-draft');
6667|    if (evBtnDraftEl) {
6668|        evBtnDraftEl.addEventListener('click', function () {
6669|            evAprofundamentoFinalizeIntent = false;
6670|            if (evBtnSaveEl) evBtnSaveEl.click();
6671|        });
6672|    }
6673|
6674|    if (!evBtnSaveEl) {
6675|        return;
6676|    }
6677|
6678|    evBtnSaveEl.addEventListener('click', async function () {
6679|        if (evAprofundamentoOnlyMode && evIsAprofundamentoFinalized() && !EV_IS_ADMIN_APROFUNDAMENTO) {
6680|            if (typeof showToast === 'function') {
6681|                showToast('Aprofundamento finalizado. Somente um administrador ou gestor administrador pode alterar.', 'Atenção', 'fas fa-lock', 'bg-warning');
6682|            }
6683|            return;
6684|        }
6685|        var form = document.getElementById('form-event-new');
6686|        var MV   = evModalValidation();
6687|        window.__ssmaEvSkipGenericValidationToast = false;
6688|        if (MV) MV.clearState(EV_MODAL_SCOPE);
6689|
6690|        if (window.EvModal && typeof window.EvModal.syncTagHiddens === 'function') {
6691|            window.EvModal.syncTagHiddens();
6692|        }
6693|
6694|        // Clique no primary = finalizar (quando só-aprofundamento); draft zera a intent antes.
6695|        var finalizeAprofundamento = !evAprofundamentoOnlyMode || !!evAprofundamentoFinalizeIntent;
6696|        if (evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) {
6697|            // Reativa intent padrão após o ciclo (draft seta false antes do click).
6698|            evAprofundamentoFinalizeIntent = true;
6699|            evSetStep('aprofundamento');
6700|        }
6701|
6702|        if (evCurrentStep === 'general' && !evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) {
6703|            if (!evValidateGeneralStep(MV)) {
6704|                if (MV) evShowFieldErrors();
6705|                else { form.reportValidity(); }
6706|                return;
6707|            }
6708|            if (evRequiresAprofundamento(evSelectedType()) && evCanEditAprofundamento(evSelectedType())) {
6709|                evSetStep('aprofundamento');
6710|                evEnsureCorrectiveActionsSeed();
6711|                return;
6712|            }
6713|        }
6714|
6715|        if (evCurrentStep === 'aprofundamento'
6716|            && evRequiresAprofundamento(evSelectedType())
6717|            && !evCanEditAprofundamento(evSelectedType())) {
6718|            // Sem permissão de aprofundamento: registra só o geral (não bloqueia o botão).
6719|            if (!evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) {
6720|                evSetStep('general');
6721|            }
6722|        }
6723|
6724|        var hasErrors = false;
6725|        var softAprofundamentoDraft = evAprofundamentoOnlyMode && !finalizeAprofundamento;
6726|
6727|        var dtEl  = document.getElementById('ev_datetime');
6728|        var dtIso = dtEl && dtEl.value ? dtEl.value : '';
6729|        if (dtIso && /^\d{4}-\d{2}-\d{2}T\d{2}:\d{2}$/.test(dtIso)) {
6730|            dtIso = dtIso + ':00';
6731|        }
6732|        var dtFutureOrInvalid = false;
6733|        if (!softAprofundamentoDraft) {
6734|            if (!dtIso) {
6735|                if (MV) MV.markInvalid(window.jQuery('#ev_datetime'));
6736|                hasErrors = true;
6737|            } else {
6738|                // Data do evento não pode ser inválida nem cair em dia futuro (hoje inteiro é permitido).
6739|                var evWhen = new Date((dtEl && dtEl.value) ? dtEl.value : dtIso);
6740|                if (isNaN(evWhen.getTime()) || evIsEventDatetimeFutureDay(dtEl ? dtEl.value : dtIso)) {
Request #17 deepseek-v4-flash P:52.45K C:3.75K CR:50.05K CW:0 28557ms
Reasoning
Important flow discovery at line 6702-6712: ```js if (evCurrentStep === 'general' && !evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) { if (!evValidateGeneralStep(MV)) {...} if (evRequiresAprofundamento(evSelectedType()) && evCanEditAprofundamento(evSelectedType())) { evSetStep('aprofundamento'); // step-aprofundamento in same modal in NORMAL create mode ... return; } } ``` So during creation (Novo evento) when a user can perform the aprofundamento (manager with permission), the flow: user fills general step → clicks save → goes to step-aprofundamento within the same modal (NOT aprofundamento-only mode) → sees the injured-person cards → marks/checks fields incl. descaracter checkbox. Then clicks save again (Registrar/Finalizar) → the event is created with aprofundamento done. In that flow, evAprofundamentoOnlyMode stays false → form lacks `.is-doctor-aprof` → under NEW CSS the Sim/Não toggle/comment/no-perm are hidden even in step-aprofundamento! Under OLD CSS, the entire descaracter block was hidden in that flow (is-doctor-aprof absent) → the Sim/Não controls were hidden as well. But in the old flow, how could a manager with permission caracterizar during the create flow? They couldn't — since block hidden, only checkbox? Wait, old CSS hid entire block, so even the suspect checkbox was hidden during the create-with-aprofundamento flow? Hmm, then how did #636 (previous PR) describe behavior? The PR background: "PR #636 moveu o checkbox para o aprofundamento." So after #636, in the aprofundamento flow (only-mode?) the checkbox appeared; in the create flow the checkbox was hidden (no doctor-aprof). Wait, but does the aprofundamento step in the create flow (for managers) even show the descaracter block? Under the new CSS (this PR), it shows checkbox only (since no doctor-aprof). Under old, it showed nothing. And in the specialist aprofundamento-only modal, it shows checkbox+Sim/Não. Now, if a manager (with permission) creating an AP event in one flow (general → aprofundamento step) checks "suspeita" on a card, they see dangling label glitch (label visible, no Sim/Não). Under the intended UX, they wouldn't see Sim/Não, so it's consistent with "Sim/Não only in aprofundamento técnico" — but the aprofundamento step inside the create modal IS an aprofundamento step... but the product distinguishes "Aprofundamento técnico" flow (separate) vs registration flow. It's the company rule: during the creation+aprofundamento combined flow (manager), they'd mark only the suspect; then finalize. OK. Actually — wait, but there's a serious validation consequence. Let me look at what happens when saving from step-aprofundamento in normal create flow with suspect checked and toggles hidden. If user checks the suspect checkbox in creation step-aprofundamento, then the payload includes descaracter_suspect=1 but descaracterizado empty. Then saving from that step... Look at lines 6715-6722; if evCanEditAprofundamento true, save continues at 6724. Then validation of the aprofundamento fields happens? For example the descaracter validation at 6018 only applies when evAprofundamentoOnlyMode. So not here. OK so given the intended UX of the PR: Sim/Não only in the "Aprofundamento técnico" (separate specialist modal). And checkbox visible in the registration flow (card during creation). The create flow and edit flow here show cards only within the step-aprofundamento panel in the same modal. In that step during normal create, checkbox visible (per new CSS), Sim/Não hidden (per new CSS). Good. Then when opening the separate "Aprofundamento técnico" modal (specialist), evAprofundamentoOnlyMode=true → is-doctor-aprof → toggle/comment visible. Good. Now, the primary dangling-label glitch still stands when a user checks suspect during the creation flow (normal modal). Also, the same glitch occurs during editing (openEdit). Let me confirm my understanding by re-reading: The `ev-inj-suspect-chk` change handler at 5740 toggles yesNoWrap regardless of stage. So in creation, when checked, yesNoWrap is visible; the inner toggle/comment/no-perm are hidden by CSS; the label stays visible. This looks like a bug in UI. But wait — maybe the author intends the label to show but the Sim/Não buttons to be absent? Unlikely — no, showing a bare label with an empty space looks broken. And the PR test step says "Marcar o checkbox → Sim/Não não deve aparecer (só no aprofundamento)". It doesn't say the label should also not appear, but leaving the label without buttons is clearly an oversight: the label belongs to the Sim/Não group, so the group should be fully hidden. But hold on. Maybe the intent: When user checks the suspect at creation, they want to indicate the suspect. In aprofundamento, upon opening, the yesno-wrap opens showing the label and buttons. In creation, if the yesno-wrap opens, the label "Caracterizado como acidente?" without buttons is indeed weird. I'm fairly confident this is a real defect to flag. The cleanest fix: add the `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` to the CSS hidden list (or just the label). Wait — but if we hide the whole yesno-wrap in creation via CSS, then when a user checks a suspect during creation and saves, the state is saved (descaracter_suspect=1 via global hidden/checkbox), and then aprofundamento shows everything as expected. Good. Alternatively the JS shouldn't show yesno-wrap during creation. But the simplest fix is to include `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` in the CSS selector. Now, second possible finding — the validation for a user who checks suspect in the separate aprofundamento flow and can't descaracterize: line 2950. Fine. Third — let me examine the scenario of an admin edit: admin editing an AP event, opening full edit with steps, goes to aprofundamento step, sees checkbox visible now (new) — and if previously (in specialist flow) an answer descaracterizado=0/1 plus comment had been recorded, those fields are hidden in this admin flow but checkbox shows. But data isn't lost because the values are in data attributes / hidden elements? descaracterizado stored as data-descaracterizado on card; comment stored in textarea (hidden by CSS but retains value). Editing there saves unchanged. If admin doesn't touch, values remain. If admin unchecks suspect in that modal, then... suspects changes; but they cannot answer Sim/Não because controls hidden — meaning the admin cannot complete a descaracterization in this flow. But that pre-existed (#636 and before). Not introduced here. Fourth: There's another subtle issue. With the new CSS only hiding `.ev-inj-descaracter-toggle`, comment, no-perm, but NOT the `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap`... in creation, the "toggle" hidden. Yet the `evSyncDescaracterUi` at 2958-2980 loops over cards and does not touch no-perm? It toggles noPerm d-none based on canSn. That's fine. Now, another angle: When the creation user checks the suspect box and there are MULTIPLE injured person cards, the mirror to global uses the last card's checkbox state... but that pre-existed. Actually wait, does the per-card data now get sent? At line 2199 `descaracter_suspect: evIsDescaracterSuspectChecked() ? 1 : 0` — reading global. Multiple injured cards each read the global. So if user marks suspect on two cards... both true. If user marks on card1 only, card1 true and card2 also true. That means on aprofundamento, card2 would show suspect checked as well, forcing a descaracterizado answer for that person. Since the PR's new UX invites users to mark suspects per card at creation (product wants per card), this per-card sync bug becomes more impactful, potentially forcing specialists to answer Sim/Não for a person who was not marked. But is this bug introduced by this PR? No — the code was already there from #636; but #636's checkbox only appeared in aprofundamento-only where presumably one primary injured card? Actually could have multiple cards in aprofundamento as well. So the bug already existed. This PR changes the UX where per-card checkboxes in creation are encouraged, amplifying the bug. Hmm. Actually, wait — let me re-read. In the change handler (5749): `globalChk.checked = e.target.checked` — mirrors the toggled card to global. If card2 checked while card1 already checked, global stays checked. When card2 is unchecked, global becomes unchecked even if card1 still checked — losing card1's suspect. Then evReadCardInjuryData reads global for every card → card1 suspect lost too. So data per card is inconsistent. This is pre-existing. But since the PR is precisely about making the per-card suspect checkbox available at creation (multi-person likely), I think it's worth flagging as an issue that the diff's feature interacts with. Hmm, but the review instructions say focus primarily on actual code logic and functionality, on newly added code. This is a tricky judgment call. Given the PR description explicitly claims: "Quando marcado na criação, o payload envia descaracter_suspect: 1 (sync com campo global já existia desde #636)" — they acknowledge using the global field. And test scenario only uses one person. So multiple-person scenario is a known limitation not in this PR's scope. But the per-card data attribute on the card does store per-card state. Let me look at evSyncInjuredPersonDetailsHidden to see if per-card descaracter_suspect is set from attribute or global. Line 2199: `descaracter_suspect: evIsDescaracterSuspectChecked() ? 1 : 0`. So all cards' descaracter_suspect derive from the single global checkbox. That means per-card state in details JSON is not really per-card. So in the creation, multiple people marked/unmarked, data is inaccurate. Given that this PR makes the suspect checkbox visible at creation specifically on the injured-person card, and the form supports multiple injured people, this is a scenario worth flagging as a risk. But is it newly introduced? The suspect checkbox appeared only in aprofundamento before. In aprofundamento, the same multi-card issue would occur. So pre-existing. I might mention it as a secondary note but keep focus. Let me decide the final set of comments: 1. (medium) Dangling label: When suspect checkbox is checked during creation/edit (outside aprofundamento-only), `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` becomes visible (JS removes `d-none`), exposing the "Caracterizado como acidente?" label and tooltip while Sim/Não, comment and "sem permissão" remain hidden by the CSS. Result: label without controls, contradicting intended UX "só o checkbox na criação". Fix: include `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` in the CSS hide rule or keep JS from revealing the wrap outside aprofundamento. Anchor: CSS block lines 1305-1308 in new file. 2. Potential issue regarding the "is-doctor-aprof" gating: The CSS rule keys off a single class on the whole form, set only when `evAprofundamentoOnlyMode` is true. But the aprofundamento step is reachable inside the same modal (create/edit flow by a user who can perform aprofundamento), where the form never has `.is-doctor-aprof`. Consequently Sim/Não and comentário are hidden even when the user is on the "Aprofundamento" step inside the normal modal. Under the previous CSS, the entire descaracter section was hidden in that flow, so functionally those controls were already inaccessible there; but now the section (with the suspect checkbox) is shown in that flow while Sim/Não remains hidden — is this intended? Actually the effect of the new behavior: user on aprofundamento step inside create flow checks suspect but can't answer "Caracterizado como acidente?" → saving creates event with suspect=1 but descaracterizado empty. Then the specialist later opens aprofundamento and must answer. Hmm, is that a bug? Possibly intended (registration only records suspect). I'd rather frame this as: since `.is-doctor-aprof` is only set in the aprofundamento-only modal, the rule now hides Sim/Não/comentário in the combined create+aprofundamento flow even for users with permission, causing the dangling label plus inability to caracterizar. Combined with comment 1. Let me think about whether comment 2 has actual impact new to this PR. Under OLD CSS the block was fully hidden in the combined flow; a user with permission who wanted to caracterizar in the same flow couldn't. So the combined flow never offered Sim/Não. So old behavior: no checkboxes either. So this new PR reveals the checkbox in the combined flow but not Sim/Não. Wait — but that's precisely what the PR wants (creation card shows only checkbox). The combined flow is basically "registration + aprofundamento done by same manager", which arguably is where Sim/Não should be available (they're doing aprofundamento). But per the product decision in this PR, in "registration" (criação) only the checkbox. In that combined flow, the manager is still in the "criação" modal (ev_form_mode=create), so maybe product wants only checkbox there too; the Sim/Não answered later in the separate aprofundamento screen. Not necessarily a bug. So I'll focus comment 2 as the important nuance of comment 1: the JS toggling of yesno-wrap happens regardless of stage, so label leaks; the CSS approach of hiding inner elements is fragile. I'll present the dangling-label issue primarily. 3. Third possible finding: Multi-person per-card suspect mirroring to a single global checkbox leads to data loss/mis-attribution when more than one injured person is involved — because `evReadCardInjuryData` uses the single global checkbox (`evIsDescaracterSuspectChecked()`) for every card, not the card's own checkbox. This PR now exposes per-card checkboxes at creation where multiple people are common. Severity? Since PR description acknowledges global-field sync (they think that's fine), but it's actually buggy per-card. Hmm, but the impact: in the creation card each card has its own checkbox and per-card data attribute (`data-descaracter-suspect`), and the change handler does not update that card's own `descaracter_suspect` in the JSON. Let me verify evSyncInjuredPersonDetailsHidden is called on change at 5751. It reads from evReadCardInjuryData which uses the global state. So per-card suspect stored in details JSON equals the global checkbox value. So two people → if only person A marked, details for both A and B have descaracter_suspect:1. Then when specialist opens aprofundamento (populateForEdit line 6477-6484), suspectOn computed from det... Actually 6477 reads from `det` (single det object) — how is per-card details handled? Wait, populateForEdit is for a single event, not per card. But this code at 6477 uses `det.descaracter_suspect != null ? ... : data.descaracter_suspect`. `det` may be the event's per-injured det? Hmm complex. Given time, since this per-card bug existed prior and the PR is intentionally scoped around the global sync, I'll keep comment as a secondary risk but not blocking? Actually, the review instructions say to focus on issues in newly added code, but allow cross-file and context analysis. This PR newly makes the suspect checkbox usable in the card in creation where multiple injured persons are plausible — but the feature behavior might already be documented as single global suspect. Risk of over-commenting. I'll include it with low/medium severity maybe. Wait, let me re-verify the actual behavior for the checkbox on creation: with a single global `#ev_descaracter_suspect` hidden input (checkbox). Let me locate `ev_descaracter_suspect` input.
Tool Calls (2)
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>
2907|        var el = document.getElementById('ev_descaracter_suspect');
5731|        var suspectChk = document.getElementById('ev_descaracter_suspect');
5749|            var globalChk = document.getElementById('ev_descaracter_suspect');
6479|        evSetChk('ev_descaracter_suspect', suspectOn);
7095|            var suspectEl = document.getElementById('ev_descaracter_suspect');

code_search
Show Details
{"file_patterns": ["templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig"], "search_text": "ev-suspeita-wrap"}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig
Match lines: 2
289|        <div class="form-group d-none" id="ev-suspeita-wrap">
2921|        var suspectWrap = document.getElementById('ev-suspeita-wrap');

Request #18 deepseek-v4-flash P:56.49K C:204 CR:56.19K CW:0 2369ms
Reasoning
Let me look at line 285-295 for the global suspect-wrap and line 7090-7130 for payload assembly.
Tool Calls (2)
file_read
Show Details
{"file_path": "templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig", "start_line": 280, "end_line": 300}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig (Total lines: 7710)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 280-300
280|                {% for member in allMembers %}
281|                    <option value="{{ member.id }}" data-name="{{ member.name }}">{{ member.name }}</option>
282|                {% endfor %}
283|            </select>
284|            <div id="ev_witnesses_tags" class="d-flex flex-wrap mt-2"></div>
285|            <input type="hidden" id="ev_witness_ids" name="ev_witness_ids" value="">
286|        </div>
287|
288|        {# AP etapa 1: suspeita. Caracterizado só aparece no aprofundamento (médico). #}
289|        <div class="form-group d-none" id="ev-suspeita-wrap">
290|            <div class="form-check">
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>
293|            </div>
294|        </div>
295|
296|        {# ROS: Risco imediato (SIM/NÃO — gatilho de automação), Sugestão de melhoria, Visto e resolvido. #}
297|        <div class="d-none ev-type-block" id="ev-ros-step1-extra">
298|            <div class="form-group">
299|                <label class="mb-1">É risco imediato? <span class="text-danger">*</span></label>
300|                <div class="d-flex" style="gap:8px;" role="group" aria-label="É risco imediato?">
file_read
Show Details
{"file_path": "templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig", "start_line": 7080, "end_line": 7140}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig (Total lines: 7710)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 7080-7140
7080|                        || typeFromCard
7081|                        || (primaryData && primaryData.injury_type) || '';
7082|                    payload.injury_severity = (document.getElementById('ev_injury_severity') || { value: '' }).value
7083|                        || sevFromCard
7084|                        || (primaryData && primaryData.injury_severity) || '';
7085|                } else {
7086|                    payload.injury_type = '';
7087|                    payload.injury_severity = '';
7088|                }
7089|            }
7090|            payload.injury_classification = (document.getElementById('ev_injury_classification') || { value: '' }).value
7091|                || (primaryData && primaryData.injury_classification) || '';
7092|            payload.work_leave      = (document.getElementById('ev_work_leave') || { value: '' }).value
7093|                || (primaryData && primaryData.work_leave) || '';
7094|            payload.injured_person_details = (document.getElementById('ev_injured_person_details') || { value: '' }).value;
7095|            var suspectEl = document.getElementById('ev_descaracter_suspect');
7096|            var descFromCard = (primaryData && primaryData.descaracterizado !== undefined && primaryData.descaracterizado !== '')
7097|                ? String(primaryData.descaracterizado)
7098|                : '';
7099|            if (!descFromCard && primaryCard) {
7100|                descFromCard = String(primaryCard.getAttribute('data-descaracterizado') || '');
7101|            }
7102|            if (!descFromCard) {
7103|                descFromCard = String((document.getElementById('ev_descaracterizado') || {}).value || '');
7104|            }
7105|            // Fallback: médico sem permissão de descaracterizar nunca pode marcar "Não",
7106|            // então se todas as fontes estiverem vazias, assume "Sim" (é acidente = '0').
7107|            if (!descFromCard && evAprofundamentoOnlyMode && !evCanDescharacterizeAccident()) {
7108|                descFromCard = '0';
7109|            }
7110|            var descAnswered = descFromCard === '0' || descFromCard === '1';
7111|            payload.descaracter_suspect = evIsDescaracterSuspectChecked() ? 1 : 0;
7112|            // Caracterizar só o médico no aprofundamento dedicado.
7113|            if (descAnswered && evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) {
7114|                payload.descaracterizado = descFromCard;
7115|            } else {
7116|                delete payload.descaracterizado;
7117|            }
7118|            var descCommentFromCard = primaryCard
7119|                ? String((primaryCard.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-comment') || {}).value || '').trim()
7120|                : '';
7121|            payload.descaracter_comment = descCommentFromCard
7122|                || (primaryData && primaryData.descaracter_comment ? String(primaryData.descaracter_comment).trim() : '')
7123|                || '';
7124|            if (!evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) {
7125|                delete payload.descaracter_comment;
7126|            }
7127|            if (suspectEl) {
7128|                suspectEl.checked = !!payload.descaracter_suspect;
7129|            }
7130|            if (payload.had_injury) {
7131|                var bodyParts = (typeof evCollectActiveBodyParts === 'function')
7132|                    ? evCollectActiveBodyParts()
7133|                    : [];
7134|                if (!bodyParts.length && primaryData && Array.isArray(primaryData.body_parts)) {
7135|                    bodyParts = primaryData.body_parts;
7136|                }
7137|                if (bodyParts.length) payload.body_parts = bodyParts;
7138|                var bldEl = document.getElementById('ev_body_location_detail');
7139|                var bld = bldEl && bldEl.value ? String(bldEl.value).trim() : '';
7140|                if (!bld && primaryData && primaryData.body_location_detail) bld = primaryData.body_location_detail;
Request #19 deepseek-v4-flash P:58.17K C:610 CR:56.58K CW:0 5208ms
Reasoning
Now I have a clear picture of the payload: - payload.descaracter_suspect is single global value (checked if ANY card or the global checkbox). - descaracterizado only sent in aprofundamento-only mode. - descaracter_comment only sent in aprofundamento-only mode. So at creation, only suspect flag sent globally. When later the specialist opens aprofundamento, per-card suspect restored from stored details (line 6477 uses `det.descaracter_suspect` — where det is the current card's details? Wait, populateForEdit gets `det` from a function...). Let me not chase that; the key is that the primary card's suspect detail may not match the global flag if multiple people exist. This is pre-existing. Now, one more critical consideration: On creation, if the user checks the suspect checkbox, payload sends descaracter_suspect=1. But is the backend expecting descaracter_suspect only in a specific phase? The PR said payload sends descaracter_suspect=1 when checked and it's synced with global field "desde #636". So this is intentional. Now, regarding my main concern (dangling label), I should also double check the CSS rule and confirm that in the creation the `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` is not visible even without marking the suspect (because it has d-none initially) — visible only after marking. Right. Let me also examine the summary line rendering: `evRenderInjuredPersonSummary` / `evUpdateInjuredCardSummary` at line 2259. When suspect checked during creation, summary might display something. Let me look at evRenderInjuredCardSummary or summary to ensure no issues. Actually, wait — in creation the card collapses, and only summary shows. If suspect checked, the summary line may show a badge. Let's search for how summary text includes descaracter. Search for "suspeita" in the file, e.g., 'descaracter_suspect' text rendering.
Tool Calls (2)
code_search
Show Details
{"file_patterns": ["templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig"], "search_text": "descaracter_suspect"}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig
Match lines: 11
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>
2199|            descaracter_suspect: evIsDescaracterSuspectChecked() ? 1 : 0,
2907|        var el = document.getElementById('ev_descaracter_suspect');
5731|        var suspectChk = document.getElementById('ev_descaracter_suspect');
5749|            var globalChk = document.getElementById('ev_descaracter_suspect');
6477|        var suspectRaw = det.descaracter_suspect != null ? det.descaracter_suspect : data.descaracter_suspect;
6479|        evSetChk('ev_descaracter_suspect', suspectOn);
7095|            var suspectEl = document.getElementById('ev_descaracter_suspect');
7111|            payload.descaracter_suspect = evIsDescaracterSuspectChecked() ? 1 : 0;
7128|                suspectEl.checked = !!payload.descaracter_suspect;

code_search
Show Details
{"file_patterns": ["templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig", "templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_ev_injured_person_box.html.twig"], "search_text": "data-descaracter-suspect"}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig
Match lines: 3
5746|            // Atualiza o data-descaracter-suspect do card para serialização.
5747|            card.setAttribute('data-descaracter-suspect', e.target.checked ? '1' : '0');
6484|            card.setAttribute('data-descaracter-suspect', suspectOn ? '1' : '0');

Request #20 deepseek-v4-flash P:59.21K C:3.63K CR:58.75K CW:0 28763ms
Reasoning
OK. I now have a good picture. Let me now carefully decide which issues to report. The changes are only two lines of CSS plus a JS condition plus comments. So the scope is small, and I need to focus on issues caused by these changes. Issue 1 (dangling label): when the suspect checkbox is checked in a context outside `.is-doctor-aprof` (criação / edição), JS reveals `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap`, and because the CSS only hides the buttons/comment/no-perm — but not the wrapper/label — the user sees the label "Caracterizado como acidente?" (with tooltip) with no controls beneath. That contradicts "Na criação: só o checkbox". Fix: include the wrapper `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` (or hide the label) in the CSS rule. Actually we need care: including `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` in the rule would hide the label when user in aprofundamento-only mode? No, the rule is `:not(.is-doctor-aprof)` so it applies only outside that mode. In aprofundamento-only mode, the class is present, so yesno-wrap not hidden. Good. Wait, one more subtlety: If we add `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` to the hide rule, but the JS toggles it with `classList.toggle('d-none', !e.target.checked)` removing d-none on check — the CSS `!important` keeps hidden. Then when the aprofundamento-only modal opens (fresh page or same modal?), is-doctor-aprof gets added and CSS no longer hides it; but JS toggles d-none based on checked state. Good. However if user then unchecks the checkbox while in creation (after it was previously checked and then navigate), the wrap remains hidden anyway. In aprofundamento flow, JS controls it. But wait — there might be a catch: if we hide the yesno-wrap entirely during creation, then a user can't visually confirm anything below. Desired. Alternatively fix in JS at the change handler: only show yesNoWrap when the form has .is-doctor-aprof; else don't. Either works. I'll suggest the CSS fix as primary since the CSS rule is the PR's approach. Issue 2 (possible regression for the combined create+aprofundamento flow / per-flow gating): In flows where `evAprofundamentoOnlyMode` remains false but the user is on the aprofundamento step inside the same modal (e.g., criação de evento por quem também faz o aprofundamento, ou edição completa), the `.is-doctor-aprof` class is never added, so the Sim/Não and comentário remain hidden even on that aprofundamento step, and — now with the section visible — the dangling label scenario appears. This suggests gating by a single form-level class only present in the aprofundamento-only modal is fragile. Is this a genuine new problem? The visibility of the section in those flows is newly added (previously section hidden entirely). The toggles were already hidden there. So the difference introduced is only the checkbox appears. But there's one important regression risk: since this PR now reveals the descaracter section within the normal edit flow on the aprofundamento step for AP events, if a user (e.g., admin who CAN caracterizar) previously answered Sim/Não in aprofundamento (which happens in aprofundamento-only modal), and now opens the event for full edit and expands the card, they see only the suspect checkbox. If they uncheck the suspect, the event's stored `descaracterizado` remains but the payload only sends descaracter_suspect... Actually unchecking the suspect sets suspect off; then in payload descaracter_suspect=0. The stored descaracterizado from the previous aprofundamento would stay? During non-aprof edit, payload deletes descaracterizado and comment (7113-7126). So the old recorded characterization remains in DB? Or is overwritten with null? Not sure. That could be data inconsistency: user unchecks the suspect flag that was previously characterized, without being able to clear/re-answer. This would produce inconsistent data (descaracterizado = "1"/"0" remains but suspect false). Hmm, but that's quite speculative about backend behavior. It's the same as what could occur pre-PR in the combined flow (nobody could access the checkbox in non-doctor-aprof before). So unchecking previously only possible... in the aprofundamento-only flow where the checkbox was visible; there, unchecking the suspect would... the yesnoWrap hides; but descaracterizado value was captured from data attribute and hidden `ev_descaracterizado`? In payload assembly for aprofundamento-only (7113): descAnswered = descFromCard = '0'|'1'. descFromCard from card attribute data-descaracterizado. If the specialist unchecks suspect but the card still has data-descaracterizado='0', then payload would still send descaracterizado = '0'?? Because descAnswered computed from data-descaracterizado attribute regardless of suspect. Hmm pre-existing nuance. I think I'm overanalyzing beyond the diff. Let me keep the review focused: Primary comments: 1. CSS hide rule doesn't include the yesno-wrap/label → dangling label when suspect is checked outside aprofundamento (creation). Medium severity, fix suggestion. Let me also decide whether to comment on the multi-card global checkbox sync. Given this PR exposes the per-card checkbox in the card in creation (where multiple injured people possible) and claims payload sync uses the global checkbox; when multiple people are marked, the global flag only reflects the last toggled card (any card on→global on; any card off→global off, losing earlier cards). Then in the aprofundamento restoration (populateForEdit), all cards get the same global suspectOn — losing per-card mapping. This is a data-integrity issue that becomes reachable due to this PR's new UX. But it was reachable before in aprofundamento-only too, since per-card checkboxes existed there. So not introduced; and PR description explicitly says suspect is global sync (they believe that is intended). Actually, wait — reading the PR text again: "Quando marcado na criação, o payload envia descaracter_suspect: 1 (sync com campo global já existia desde #636)." This indicates per-card marking at creation maps to the single global suspect flag — a documented simplification, probably because the creation step only registers one event-level suspect flag; then in aprofundamento, it's per card. But then restoration at aprofundamento (6477-6484) propagates the single suspect to all cards. If the user marks one of two injured people at creation, in aprofundamento both will show the suspect checked. This might be acceptable-ish given a single global flag, but at least it's worth flagging? It's not introduced in this PR, but the PR makes this UX flow (marking suspect on creation) real for multi-person events. I could include a low-severity note. Actually, I realize I should be careful: This is a cross-flow subtle issue. Since the review checklist says focus on newly added code issues, but "God template" rule applies strongly here too. God template finding: `_modal_event.html.twig` is 7710 lines! It is certainly a "god template" mixing markup, huge CSS and JS (embedded `<script>`). The system-specific rule #1: "God template — maior peso. Se este template já é um god template... qualquer PR que aumente ainda mais essa mistura deve ser sinalizada antes de qualquer outro achado. Lógica de tela deve estar em public/js/, nunca em bloco <script> de 100+ linhas dentro do template." So I must flag this first. This PR modifies a ~7710-line twig with CSS+JS inline. The instructions say flag that this PR continues to add logic inline to a god template. Even though only 10 lines changed, the rule is mandatory. I'll include that as a review comment of category maintainability. Also I need to ensure both files get reviewed: - File 1 `_ev_injured_person_box.html.twig`: only a comment change. Nothing functional; no issue. Maybe no comment needed. - File 2 `_modal_event.html.twig`: CSS + JS changes. Found issues. Let me verify once more that the JS toggle in evSyncDescaracterStageUi (line 2935) only changes d-none on yesnoWrap and doesn't check isDoctorAprof. It's inside the forEach over cards. It will remove d-none if checked in creation. Yes. Now, could the "Caracterizado como acidente?" label actually not be visible because the label is wrapped inside `yesno-wrap` which has a class `d-none` and `evSyncDescaracterStageUi` toggles it? When checked it's shown. So yes label visible. Let me double-check the actual intended display at creation when suspect checked: The PR's test step 6 says "Marcar o checkbox → Sim/Não não deve aparecer (só no aprofundamento)". The dangling label appears — visually it would show "Caracterizado como acidente?" text plus the info circle. That is arguably part of Sim/Não UI. Good catch. Let me also double check that this label is inside the collapsed card's visible content? The descaracter section is at bottom of the card content area. When the card is expanded during creation, the user scrolls to the end and sees checkbox; checking it reveals the label glitch below. Yes. Let me also check whether there might be duplicate IDs on creation with cards: Each card has unique ids? The suspect checkbox is `.ev-inj-suspect-chk` class, no id. Fine. Now let me also confirm whether a `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` is inside the `.ev-inj-descaracter` block in the SAME partial. Yes lines 197-221. Second thing to confirm — `evSyncDescaracterStageUi` hides `#ev-suspeita-wrap` always, and now the per-card section shows on creation when isAp. Also on other types it stays hidden. OK. Now let me determine severity: - Dangling label: medium. It's a UI defect visible to users, contradicting declared behavior. Could be considered low by strict "bug affecting data/function" but it's a visible functional UI inconsistency. I'll mark as medium, category other/bug. - God template: maintainability, high? The rule says signal before any other finding but with weight. I'll report category maintainability severity high? The instructions: "God template — maior peso." I'd rate as high? It's a pre-existing condition but the PR adds to it. I'll note it with medium-high. I'll set severity "medium" for maintainability note but maybe "high" since the rule emphasizes strongest weight. Actually the severity field options are critical/high/medium/low. Since the template is 7710 lines and the change modifies JS inside template (evSyncDescaracterStageUi) and CSS inside template, per rule it should be flagged strongly. But since this is a small change within an existing god template, "bloquear" maybe not. The rule: "qualquer PR que aumente ainda mais essa mistura deve ser sinalizada antes de qualquer outro achado". So flag it; I'll use severity medium as it doesn't block alone but must be signaled. Hmm. I think "medium" is fine with clear explanation; but the rule says maior peso. I'll set it as medium-to-high. Let me pick "medium" because it's maintainability not bug/security. But given instruction "deve ser sinalizada antes de qualquer outro achado" — order of comments matters; I'll place it first. Additionally, I should confirm no per-file cross issue between the partial comment and modal CSS classes used (`ev-inj-descaracter-toggle`, `.ev-inj-descaracter-comment-wrap`, `.ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm`). These classes exist in the partial. Good. Let me also verify `ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm` inside yesno-wrap. Yes line 216. And the JS hides no-perm `classList.toggle('d-none', canSn)` in evSyncDescaracterUi, and the CSS `:not(.is-doctor-aprof)` hides it too. Redundant but fine. Now, is there any scenario where hiding the Sim/Não and comment in creation but NOT the no-perm would... covered. One more important check: In the creation (registro) card, the checkbox value must persist through draft restore; yes checkbox state is included in the JSON draft? evPersistDraftNow serializes form elements by id/name; the card checkboxes have no id/name → they wouldn't be saved in the draft. But the card content is saved through `ev_injured_person_details` hidden field (name) only after evSyncInjuredPersonDetailsHidden, which is invoked on change events (5751). But the draft JSON includes form.elements — including hidden input `ev_injured_person_details`? The code collects all form elements (name or id). Hidden input `ev_injured_person_details` has name and id → value stored in draft at serialization time. On change of suspect checkbox, evSyncInjuredPersonDetailsHidden is called → updates hidden value → then draft persists value. But wait the ordering in evPersistDraftNow happens on change via form change listener at 5763 → after change handler updates hidden. OK. There is one more subtlety regarding the checkbox state not being restored from draft — but that's the draft restore mechanism; since cards remounted after restore via evRenderInjuredPersonBoxes from the details JSON (2894), the checkbox states restored. OK. Now cross-check an important detail: the JS function `evSyncDescaracterStageUi` at 2935 hides yesNoWrap when not checked, but the CSS now hides toggles even in aprofundamento-step-inside-modal contexts (non-doctor-aprof). Actually wait, I need to double check whether the injured person cards only exist in the aprofundamento step, which we established (ev-block-ap inside ev-technical-section inside ev-step-aprofundamento). But in the creation flow, does the user reach step-aprofundamento before saving? For a member creating an AP event requiring aprofundamento but without permission (evCanEditAprofundamento false): in evUpdateFooter general step: label = Registrar (since !canEdit → does not show "Aprofundamento →"). Save at general step: evRequiresAprofundamento && evCanEditAprofundamento false → skip to 6715: step 'general' currently, not aprofundamento → proceeds to payload → event saved with only general data, injured people maybe not even present because they're on aprofundamento step... Hmm but then how did the PR's test show the card during "Novo evento" for members? The requirement says product wants the checkbox in the card at the registro. But the cards are only in the aprofundamento step. When creating, is step-aprofundamento shown for everyone? evSetStep hides general when currentStep === aprofundamento. In create flow the initial step is general. When user picks Acidente com Pessoa, the general step contains AP fields? Wait, ev-block-ap is in ev-step-aprofundamento... but maybe general step AP block is elsewhere (ev-block-ap earlier?). Let me re-verify: we saw at line 626 the AP pessoa block with select of injured collaborators; that block is within step-aprofundamento. Yet the "Pessoas envolvidas" multi-tag is in general step (people/witnesses). The AP block's "Colaborador(es) acidentado(s)" appears in aprofundamento step. But during creation by a member who can't edit aprofundamento... Hmm then how do they see the AP injury card in the registro flow? Possibly AP (Acidente com Pessoa) is created through the manager flow or the modal includes an "aprofundamento" intermediate step during creation for anyone? Let me actually check evRequiresAprofundamento / which flows show step-aprofundamento during creation. Look at applyTypeBlock or the ev-steps-bar toggling. Search evStepsBar single when not requires aprofundamento (line 1600-1620).
Tool Calls (1)
file_read
Show Details
{"file_path": "templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig", "start_line": 1560, "end_line": 1660}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig (Total lines: 7710)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 1560-1660
1560|        return !!(chk && chk.checked);
1561|    }
1562|
1563|    /** Reflete o estado do checkbox #ev_immediate_risk nos botões Sim/Não visíveis. */
1564|    function evSyncImmediateRiskButtonsUI() {
1565|        var riskChk = document.getElementById('ev_immediate_risk');
1566|        var isYes = !!(riskChk && riskChk.checked);
1567|        if (window.SsmaShared && typeof window.SsmaShared.toggleYesNo === 'function') {
1568|            window.SsmaShared.toggleYesNo('.js-ev-immediate-risk-opt', isYes ? '1' : '0');
1569|        }
1570|    }
1571|
1572|    function evRequiresAprofundamento(type) {
1573|        var t = type || evSelectedType();
1574|        if (t === 'ROS' && evIsRosResolvedChecked()) {
1575|            return false;
1576|        }
1577|        return EV_APROFUNDAMENTO_TYPE_KEYS.indexOf(t) !== -1;
1578|    }
1579|
1580|    /** Campos técnicos de acidente (não ROS/QA). */
1581|    function evRequiresAccidentTechnical(type) {
1582|        return EV_APROFUNDAMENTO_ACCIDENT_KEYS.indexOf(type || evSelectedType()) !== -1;
1583|    }
1584|
1585|    function evUpdateAprofundamentoTitle(type) {
1586|        var title = document.getElementById('ev-aprofundamento-title');
1587|        if (!title) return;
1588|        var titles = {
1589|            ROS: 'Campos do ROS',
1590|            QUASE_ACIDENTE: 'Campos do Quase Acidente',
1591|            ACIDENTE_PESSOAL: 'Aprofundamento pelo Profissional da Saúde',
1592|            ACIDENTE_MATERIAL: 'Aprofundamento pela Segurança do Trabalho',
1593|            ACIDENTE_AMBIENTAL: 'Aprofundamento por Especialistas Ambientais'
1594|        };
1595|        title.textContent = titles[type || evSelectedType()] || 'Campos do tipo';
1596|    }
1597|
1598|    /** Barra de progresso: 2 segmentos quando existe Aprofundamento. */
1599|    function evUpdateStepsBarVisibility(type) {
1600|        var bar = document.getElementById('ev-steps-bar');
1601|        if (!bar) return;
1602|        var need = evRequiresAprofundamento(type || evSelectedType());
1603|        bar.classList.toggle('ev-steps-bar--single', !need);
1604|    }
1605|
1606|    /**
1607|     * checkValidity() no form inteiro falha em campos required dentro do painel oculto
1608|     * (ex.: consequência no passo ROS/Quase Acidente). Valida só o escopo correto.
1609|     */
1610|    function evIsElementVisibleForValidation(el) {
1611|        if (!el || el.disabled || el.type === 'hidden') {
1612|            return false;
1613|        }
1614|        var node = el;
1615|        while (node && node !== document.body) {
1616|            if (node.classList && node.classList.contains('d-none')) {
1617|                return false;
1618|            }
1619|            if (node.id === 'ev-step-aprofundamento' && evCurrentStep === 'general') {
1620|                return false;
1621|            }
1622|            node = node.parentElement;
1623|        }
1624|        return true;
1625|    }
1626|
1627|    // Limita o seletor de data do evento ao fim do dia de hoje (não permite dias futuros).
1628|    // Permite qualquer horário dentro de hoje — evita rejeitar "hoje 19:00" quando ainda
1629|    // não são 19h (regra anterior comparava com Date.now() minuto a minuto).
1630|    function evApplyDatetimeMax() {
1631|        var dtEl = document.getElementById('ev_datetime');
1632|        if (!dtEl) return;
1633|        var now = new Date();
1634|        var endOfToday = new Date(now.getFullYear(), now.getMonth(), now.getDate(), 23, 59);
1635|        var localEnd = new Date(endOfToday.getTime() - endOfToday.getTimezoneOffset() * 60000);
1636|        dtEl.setAttribute('max', localEnd.toISOString().slice(0, 16));
1637|    }
1638|
1639|    function evDefaultDatetimeToday() {
1640|        var dtEl = document.getElementById('ev_datetime');
1641|        if (!dtEl) return;
1642|        var now = new Date();
1643|        var local = new Date(now.getTime() - now.getTimezoneOffset() * 60000);
1644|        dtEl.value = local.toISOString().slice(0, 16);
1645|    }
1646|
1647|    var EV_CONSEQUENCE_RANK = {
1648|        SEM_DANO: 0,
1649|        LESAO_LEVE: 1,
1650|        LESAO_MODERADA: 2,
1651|        LESAO_GRAVE: 3,
1652|        FATALIDADE: 4,
1653|        DANO_MATERIAL_LEVE: 1,
1654|        DANO_MATERIAL_MODERADO: 2,
1655|        DANO_MATERIAL_GRAVE: 3,
1656|        PARADA_OPERACIONAL: 4,
1657|        CONTAMINACAO_AGUA: 3,
1658|        CONTAMINACAO_SOLO: 3,
1659|        POLUICAO_AR: 3,
1660|        AA1: 1,
Request #21 deepseek-v4-flash P:64.28K C:4.21K CR:62.72K CW:0 33823ms
Reasoning
I don't need to resolve the entire modal flow further. But given this PR's requirement says: "1. Abrir SSMA → Ocorrências → Novo evento. 2. Selecionar tipo Acidente com Pessoa. 3. Adicionar ao menos uma pessoa em Pessoas envolvidas. 4. Expandir o card do acidentado..." — Wait, "Pessoas envolvidas" tags in step general, and cards appear... The card's descaracter section appears only within step-aprofundamento. For the "Novo evento" creation by a member without aprofundamento permission, the step-aprofundamento is likely skipped (save from general). But the person "involved" tags and the AP injury cards... Actually AP injury details might be gathered even during creation at the aprofundamento step because AP is one of those types requiring aprofundamento. Wait, actually since the save button in the general step for a user able to do aprofundamento says "Aprofundamento →", then the combined flow happens. For a member not able, save=Registrar, and the injury cards never show; no checkbox either (still hidden). But the PR says checkbox should appear at creation for whoever registers... The test steps imply an actual AP injury card during creation; it must be the combined flow (a user with permission to do aprofundamento but in create mode). Given ambiguity, it doesn't change our findings: the newly-revealed checkbox + label leak. But here's another angle I should verify: in the combined create flow (manager with aprofundamento permission), after checking suspect on card, if they finalize from step-aprofundamento, payload builds with descaracter_suspect from global and deletes descaracterizado/comment unless evAprofundamentoOnlyMode. So finalizing the full event from the modal (step-aprofundamento) does not send descaracterizado even if... but they couldn't have answered anyway because Sim/Não hidden in that flow. So event is saved with suspect=1 and no answer. Then later the specialist opens "Aprofundamento técnico" and answers. That's consistent with product expectation. Now, is there an inconsistency: In the combined flow at step-aprofundamento, the checkbox is shown but Sim/Não is hidden, so a user in that flow who has SSMA_CAN_DESCARACTERIZE permission cannot caracterizar there (must wait for the separate aprofundamento). Since old CSS hid everything in that flow, this is consistent with not being able to caracterizar there. OK. Let me also check the case: specialist without SSMA_CAN_DESCARACTERIZE in aprofundamento-only mode; the flow at 2950 pre-selects '0' (Sim) and disables "Não". That still works because CSS allows toggles in aprofundamento (doctor-aprof). Good. Now issue: does `evSyncDescaracterUi` run before the form has `.is-doctor-aprof` class set? In openWith: populateForEdit → evSyncDescaracterUi at 6492 runs when evAprofundamentoOnlyMode is still false (it was set at 6528 AFTER populateForEdit returns? Actually openWith: `window.EvModal.populateForEdit(full || data); evAprofundamentoOnlyMode = true;`). Yes after. So at 6492, evSyncDescaracterStageUi is called with isDoctorAprof false → toggles form class off → CSS hides toggles (fine transient). Then at 6538 evSyncDescaracterUi re-syncs with mode true. Both set. Fine. Now I want to confirm there isn't a scenario where a user WITH descaracterization permission uses the create modal and answers Sim/Não on the aprofundamento step - not possible before either. fine. Let me finalize the comments. Also I should follow the instruction of "God template — maior peso" — place that first. But code_comment attaches to precise code lines. The god template comment best attaches to the JS change (evSyncDescaracterStageUi) or the CSS. Given both are within template, attach to the JS changed lines (2925-2929). And mention the CSS/JS live inline inside a 7710-line twig; logic should move to public/js. Comment list: 1. God template maintainability (category maintainability, severity low-medium). Existing 7710-line template with inline CSS/JS; PR continues adding screen logic inline. Keep brief. Anchor at the CSS rule or JS. Per rule, it must be flagged before other findings. Severity medium? I'll use "low" for maintainability? The rule says greatest weight, but it doesn't block. I'll choose severity "medium". Actually re-reading: "Se este template já é um 'god template' (centenas de linhas misturando markup, estado e chamadas AJAX), qualquer PR que aumente ainda mais essa mistura deve ser sinalizada antes de qualquer outro achado." This is a "must" but it's also a known, accepted pattern perhaps. I'll place this first comment with maintainability/medium. 2. Dangling label bug (category bug or other; severity medium). Anchor to CSS lines (new rule). 3. Optionally, the per-card/global suspect data mismatch (category bug, severity medium) — but I'm hesitant since not introduced. I'll include as a lower severity note? The rule says avoid commenting on unchanged code. The mismatch lines aren't changed. But the interaction arises due to the change (now enabling marking suspect on creation). I think it's worth one note because multi-person AP events are plausible and the diff enables a user-facing flow where the data is wrong. However the PR is small and product acknowledges single global sync... I'll consider making it low severity and framed as a risk to validate. Actually let me look more carefully at whether marking suspect per card in creation even persists per-card after this PR; Since the suspect checkboxes are per card but read to payload as global, and backend saves a global descaracter_suspect? Then in aprofundamento restoration they propagate to all cards. If the creation flow ends up saving the event with suspect=1, the specialist sees suspect checked for the primary card and all cards. Multi-person issue is real. But hmm, wait: For creation, does descaracter_suspect even reach backend per-card or global? The form field `ev_descaracter_suspect` (global checkbox, hidden in a hidden wrap #ev-suspeita-wrap d-none) is in the form and named; also the payload sets payload.descaracter_suspect from global. The injured_person_details JSON also contains descaracter_suspect per card (line 2199) but reading global. So per-card JSON has same value as global. So per-card descaracter_suspect in the JSON is globally synced — consistent as they claim. OK. So marking suspect on ANY card at creation results in suspect on ALL cards in the event JSON; marking on a specific card when multiple exist is indistinguishable. If the product assumption is one suspect flag per event at creation, they must ensure only one card is allowed to check, or that aprofundamento uses the flag as "event-level" - which then gets applied to all cards (line 6484). Actually 6484: after computing suspectOn from `det.descaracter_suspect` (single event det?), they set all cards to same checked value. So the product design: suspect is event-level, not per card, in creation; in aprofundamento it's per card? Wait but in aprofundamento, cards each have their own checkbox that toggles the global too (5749). So they tried to make per-card, but the storage is global. This design tension pre-existed #636. Given review scope limits, I'll include this as a "medium/low" note: multi-person scenario not covered; and the serialization reads the global flag for every card so per-card intent is lost; suggest validating/limiting. But since the diff lines are not those lines, I'll attach to the changed JS lines (2925-2929) where per-card loop toggles, or anchor to the evSyncDescaracterStageUi change with comment about per-card global sync. Hmm, better to attach to the new loop body. That's fine because the new lines are the section-visibility lines. Let me decide severity mapping: - God template note: maintainability, low. Actually the user rules say god template has biggest weight — but still it's "atenção". I'll set severity medium. Hmm. Wait, but in the code_comment tool, severity medium/low etc. Let me structure final set of comments with the code_comment tool; each needs 'existing_code' that exists in the diff (newly added lines) exactly. The diff new lines available for anchoring: File `_modal_event.html.twig`: CSS hunk: ``` +/* Sim/Não de descaracterização fica oculto fora do aprofundamento — só o checkbox de suspeita aparece na criação. */ +#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-toggle, +#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-comment-wrap, +#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm { display: none !important; } ``` JS hunk: ``` document.querySelectorAll('.ev-inj-descaracter').forEach(function (el) { - // Seção de descaracterização só aparece no aprofundamento do especialista. - el.classList.toggle('d-none', !isAp || !isDoctorAprof); + // Seção de descaracterização aparece sempre que é Acidente Pessoal (criação e aprofundamento). + // Na criação: só o checkbox de suspeita fica visível (Sim/Não oculto via CSS fora do aprofundamento). + el.classList.toggle('d-none', !isAp); }); ``` The new added lines are the CSS comments and selectors and the JS comment and classList toggle line. For comment #1 (god template) anchor on the JS new line `el.classList.toggle('d-none', !isAp);`? But that's an added line. Or CSS comment. I'll anchor comment 1 to CSS added lines as well. Actually multiple comments can anchor to same area? Better distribute: - Comment god template → anchor to JS changed line `el.classList.toggle('d-none', !isAp);`. - Comment dangling label → anchor to CSS selector block lines (added lines). Because fix is there. - Comment per-card global sync risk → could anchor to JS changed line too, or skip. Wait — code_comment tool identifies comments as separate items in a list, each with own anchor. Two comments can anchor to different lines. But careful: comment content should not duplicate location? It's OK. Let me also validate my dangling-label claim once more by simulating the state, precisely. At creation in an AP flow, card expanded. The DOM inside each card: - `.ev-inj-descaracter` has class d-none initially, but JS at 2928 removes d-none since isAp → the block visible, showing the checkbox (suspect) label "Há suspeita..." and the inner `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap d-none` hidden initially. - If the user clicks the checkbox: document change listener (5740) fires. Sets data-descaracter-suspect, mirrors global, calls evSyncInjuredPersonDetailsHidden + persist. It does NOT call evSyncDescaracterStageUi; it directly toggles yesNoWrap: `yesNoWrap.classList.toggle('d-none', !e.target.checked)`. When checked, removes d-none → the yesno-wrap becomes visible (block). Now CSS rules apply only to inner `.ev-inj-descaracter-toggle`, comment wrap, no-perm → hidden. The label "Caracterizado como acidente?" (with info icon) is a direct child of yesno-wrap → visible. So yes — dangling label appears. Wait, but also is `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` styled as a flex/whatever, not important. So label visible. I'm confident. It's a visual bug at the "card na criação" that the PR is specifically about — and likely the author's own manual test would reveal it: after marking the checkbox, there would be a stray label. Unless their CSS hides the label by other rules (like Bootstrap `.d-none` from parent or `border-top` etc.). No. Additionally, another consideration: since the intended UX says Sim/Não only in aprofundamento, if the user marks the checkbox and sees a dangling "Caracterizado como acidente?" label, that is confusing; also if they hover the icon they get a tooltip that says only who has permission can answer "Não" — implying the buttons should be there. Clearly unintended. Fix suggestion: In the CSS rule add `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` so the entire Sim/Não group (label + buttons + comment) stays hidden out of aprofundamento, OR in JS keep toggling only inside aprofundamento mode. If adding the wrapper to CSS, we must also keep the JS logic: When later the specialist opens the aprofundamento, the toggle sets d-none based on checked; the CSS no longer hides because form has .is-doctor-aprof. Good. Now, regarding the .ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap initial d-none default: In aprofundamento with suspect already checked (restored), evSyncDescaracterStageUi at 2931-2937 sets yesnoWrap based on checked — fine. Also, wait: adding the wrapper to CSS hides it even when the user unchecks then re-checks in creation — no problem. Now, does any other code rely on the wrap's visibility in creation (like a "summary" line) — no. So comment 2 fix: existing_code (added lines): ``` +#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-toggle, +#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-comment-wrap, +#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm { ``` suggestion_code: ``` +#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap, +#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-toggle, +#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-comment-wrap, +#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm { ``` Actually hiding the whole yesno-wrap means the inner selectors are redundant but harmless. Alternatively hide the label; but the wrapper hides label+everything, cleanest. Wait, but there's a subtlety: If the CSS hides the yesno-wrap in creation, when a user checks the suspect and later (same session) transitions to the combined-flow aprofundamento step (still not doctor-aprof), the wrap remains hidden and suspect still saved. Then if they go back to general and uncheck? Hmm fine. Now comment #1 god template. Anchor: ``` + el.classList.toggle('d-none', !isAp); ``` existing_code for that. Content: this template already has ~7.7k lines mixing HTML/CSS/JS; adding more presentation logic inline perpetuates; per project convention logic should move to public/js; suggest at least extracting new CSS into the template's CSS block... Actually the whole CSS is in `<style>` inside template presumably. Suggest consolidating to a dedicated JS/CSS file. Keep short and non-blocking. But wait: is the CSS inside a `<style>` block or in the embed? It's in the template lines 1002+ probably inside `<style>`. And JS inside `<script>`. Yes typical. Comment 3 optional: The per-card global mismatch. I'm going to include it but let me reconsider risk of being wrong. Actually, is it a problem introduced here or not? The PR intends checkbox per card at creation; multiple injured possible; marking one card's checkbox sets the global; unmarking clears global regardless of others. In payload, single descaracter_suspect = global. So if two people are marked and one unchecked → flag off → nothing saved; if one checked among many → flag on but all cards treated as suspect on aprofundamento restore. That is a data mismatch that could mislead the specialist (forcing Sim/Não for the wrong person) OR if user checks 2 and unchecks 1, suspect lost entirely for the remaining one — silent data loss. In the new creation-card UX, multiple persons are normal, and this PR explicitly enables marking at creation. So the impact is more likely than before, even though the flawed sync existed in aprofundamento-only. Hmm. But the diff doesn't change the sync logic. The strict review rules say focus on newly added code. But cross-file/intra-flow analysis is allowed. This is a real risk caused by exposing per-card checkboxes at creation. I'll include it as a lower severity note, clearly framed as a risk to verify, not blocking. Where to anchor? It's about per-card checkboxes: anchor to the JS added line `el.classList.toggle('d-none', !isAp);` again? Already used for comment #1. Could anchor to CSS block but used for #2. I could anchor comment 3 to the changed loop in evSyncDescaracterStageUi; the loop includes the newly added comment lines: ``` + // Seção de descaracterização aparece sempre que é Acidente Pessoal (criação e aprofundamento). + // Na criação: só o checkbox de suspeita fica visível (Sim/Não oculto via CSS fora do aprofundamento). ``` Hmm anchor on comment line is okay? It's an added line. But better anchor on `el.classList.toggle('d-none', !isAp);`. Maybe I drop comment 3 to keep the review concise and focused, or set it low. Given user rule "comentário direto; prioridade a bugs..." Let me include comment 3 only if I'm reasonably confident of its real-world impact. Multi-injured AP events are definitely a thing (multiple "Colaborador(es) acidentado(s)"). I'll include as low severity note. Also verify there's no existing backend handling of multiple injured details that treats descaracter per person... can't easily check controller. It'd require searching backend templates/controllers; too far. Actually, wait — I realize there may be an even more direct issue regarding the checkbox visibility inside the collapsed card summary. Let me check that the descaracter section is not part of the collapsed card body, else the checkbox would show in collapsed cards too (ugly but not breaking). The partial: card header + content hidden? Let me look at the full partial top (lines 1-130) to see the structure and if there's `.ev-inj-content` hidden until expanded.
Tool Calls (1)
file_read
Show Details
{"file_path": "templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_ev_injured_person_box.html.twig", "start_line": 1, "end_line": 130}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_ev_injured_person_box.html.twig (Total lines: 225)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 1-130
1|{#
2|  Caixinha completa por colaborador acidentado (Figma / padrão Desvios em Inspeções).
3|  Campos usam classes; IDs canônicos (ev_had_injury, etc.) são atribuídos via JS
4|  só no card expandido ativo, para reaproveitar mapa corporal e validadores.
5|#}
6|<div class="ev-inj-card ev-injured-person-box" data-person-id="{{ person_id|default('') }}">
7|    {# Resumo (colapsado) #}
8|    <div class="ev-inj-card-summary d-none js-ev-inj-summary">
9|        <button type="button"
10|                class="ev-inj-pick-circle js-ev-inj-pick"
11|                title="Marcar como colaborador acidentado principal"
12|                aria-label="Marcar como colaborador acidentado principal"
13|                aria-pressed="false"></button>
14|        <div class="ev-inj-card-summary-main">
15|            <span class="ev-inj-card-summary-name js-ev-inj-summary-name">{{ person_name|default('Nome do Colaborador') }}</span>
16|            <div class="ev-inj-card-summary-person small text-muted js-ev-inj-summary-person">
17|                <span><span class="text-muted">Matrícula:</span> <span class="js-ev-inj-sum-collapsed-registration">—</span></span>
18|                <span class="mx-1">·</span>
19|                <span><span class="text-muted">Cargo:</span> <span class="js-ev-inj-sum-collapsed-position">—</span></span>
20|                <span class="mx-1">·</span>
21|                <span><span class="text-muted">Turno:</span> <span class="js-ev-inj-sum-collapsed-shift">—</span></span>
22|            </div>
23|            <span class="ev-inj-card-summary-meta js-ev-inj-summary-meta text-muted small d-block">—</span>
24|        </div>
25|        <div class="ev-inj-card-summary-actions">
26|            <button type="button" class="js-ev-inj-toggle" title="Editar">
27|                <i class="fas fa-pencil-alt"></i>
28|            </button>
29|        </div>
30|    </div>
31|
32|    {# Formulário expandido #}
33|    <div class="ev-inj-card-form js-ev-inj-form">
34|        <div class="d-flex align-items-center justify-content-between mb-2">
35|            <h6 class="mb-0 font-weight-bold ev-inj-person-name">{{ person_name|default('') }}</h6>
36|            <button type="button"
37|                    class="js-ev-inj-toggle ssma-config-tipo-action-btn"
38|                    aria-expanded="true"
39|                    title="Recolher"
40|                    aria-label="Recolher">
41|                <i class="fas fa-chevron-up text-muted ssma-section-chevron" style="font-size:12px;"></i>
42|            </button>
43|        </div>
44|
45|        {# Resumo cadastral do acidentado #}
46|        <div class="ev-inj-person-summary js-ev-inj-person-summary">
47|            <div class="ev-inj-sum-title">Resumo do acidentado</div>
48|            <dl class="ev-inj-sum-grid mb-0">
49|                <div class="ev-inj-sum-item">
50|                    <dt>Matrícula</dt>
51|                    <dd class="js-ev-inj-sum-registration">—</dd>
52|                </div>
53|                <div class="ev-inj-sum-item ev-inj-sum-item--wide">
54|                    <dt>Cargo</dt>
55|                    <dd class="js-ev-inj-sum-position">—</dd>
56|                </div>
57|                <div class="ev-inj-sum-item ev-inj-sum-item--wide">
58|                    <dt>Turno</dt>
59|                    <dd class="js-ev-inj-sum-shift">—</dd>
60|                </div>
61|                <div class="ev-inj-sum-item">
62|                    <dt>Superior</dt>
63|                    <dd class="js-ev-inj-sum-supervisor">—</dd>
64|                </div>
65|                <div class="ev-inj-sum-item ev-inj-sum-item--wide">
66|                    <dt>Gerência</dt>
67|                    <dd class="js-ev-inj-sum-gerencia">—</dd>
68|                </div>
69|            </dl>
70|        </div>
71|
72|        <div class="form-group mb-2">
73|            <label class="small mb-0">Data de atendimento</label>
74|            <input type="date"
75|                   class="form-control form-control-sm ev-inj-attendance"
76|                   value="{{ attendance_date|default('') }}">
77|        </div>
78|
79|        <div class="form-group mb-2">
80|            <label class="small mb-0">Breve relato <span class="text-muted">(opcional)</span></label>
81|            <textarea class="form-control form-control-sm ev-inj-relato"
82|                      rows="2"
83|                      placeholder="Breve relato">{{ breve_relato|default('') }}</textarea>
84|        </div>
85|
86|        <div class="form-group mb-2">
87|            <div class="form-check">
88|                <input class="form-check-input ev-inj-had-injury" type="checkbox" value="1" checked>
89|                <label class="form-check-label">Houve lesão</label>
90|            </div>
91|        </div>
92|
93|        <div class="ev-inj-injury-fields">
94|            <div class="form-row ev-inj-type-severity-row ev-inj-type-row">
95|                <div class="col-6">
96|                    <div class="form-group">
97|                        <label>Tipo da Lesão <span class="text-danger ev-inj-injury-required-mark">*</span></label>
98|                        <select class="form-control ev-inj-injury-type">
99|                            <option value="" disabled selected>Selecione o tipo de lesão</option>
100|                            <option value="CORTE">Corte</option>
101|                            <option value="ESMAGAMENTO">Esmagamento</option>
102|                            <option value="FRATURA">Fratura</option>
103|                            <option value="LUXACAO">Luxação</option>
104|                            <option value="QUEIMADURA">Queimadura</option>
105|                            <option value="INTOXICACAO">Intoxicação</option>
106|                            <option value="AMPUTACAO">Amputação</option>
107|                            <option value="CONTUSAO">Contusão</option>
108|                            <option value="OUTRO">Outro</option>
109|                        </select>
110|                    </div>
111|                </div>
112|                <div class="col-6">
113|                    <div class="form-group">
114|                        <label>Severidade da Lesão <span class="text-danger ev-inj-injury-required-mark">*</span></label>
115|                        <select class="form-control ev-inj-injury-severity">
116|                            <option value="" disabled selected>Selecione a severidade</option>
117|                            <option value="LEVE">Leve</option>
118|                            <option value="MODERADA">Moderada</option>
119|                            <option value="GRAVE">Grave</option>
120|                            <option value="CRITICA">Crítica</option>
121|                        </select>
122|                    </div>
123|                </div>
124|            </div>
125|
126|            <div class="ev-inj-body-map-slot"></div>
127|
128|            <div class="form-row mt-2 ev-inj-cat-row">
129|                <div class="col-6">
130|                    <div class="form-group ev-inj-classification-row">
Request #22 deepseek-v4-flash P:70.45K C:3.23K CR:68.48K CW:0 24173ms
Reasoning
The card content is shown when expanded, hidden when collapsed (JS toggles between summary and form). Fine. Now let me prepare final comments. Summary of confirmed issue: 1. God template (maintainability). Anchor to CSS added rule. 2. Dangling label (bug). Anchor to CSS added rule. 3. Multi-card suspect via global checkbox data loss/mis-attribution risk (low/medium). Anchor to the JS change. Wait — maybe better to anchor #1 to the JS added line and #2 to CSS. Since #2's suggested fix is a CSS change, best anchored at the CSS hunk. Let me also think again: is the dangling-label a definite problem that reviewers would consider a real bug? Consider what happens visually during creation when user checks the suspect: The `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` displays and contains: - label "Caracterizado como acidente?" bold + info icon (visible) - hidden Sim/Não buttons - hidden comment - hidden no-perm Yes, a stray bold label. Definitely a UI bug. It also appears with the tooltip that mentions descaracterização permission. Severity: medium (cosmetic but product-visible inconsistency; does not corrupt data). God template severity: since it's a pre-existing architectural debt and this is only a 2-line functional change, mark low/medium. I'll use medium since rule emphasizes. Actually, I should double-check whether the CSS style block is inside the same template or external. The rule only says any PR increasing the mix must be flagged. Since changes are CSS+JS inline in an already huge template, this PR indeed increases it. But this is a hotfix on an existing pattern. I'll keep the comment and let them decide. Multi-card suspect issue severity: medium? The data loss only matters with multiple injured persons with different suspect states; typical AP may have 1 person. I'll set low. Let me now also confirm the exact added line text to anchor JS: From diff: ``` + // Seção de descaracterização aparece sempre que é Acidente Pessoal (criação e aprofundamento). + // Na criação: só o checkbox de suspeita fica visível (Sim/Não oculto via CSS fora do aprofundamento). + el.classList.toggle('d-none', !isAp); ``` I'll anchor comment #1 (god template) to `el.classList.toggle('d-none', !isAp);`. Anchor comment #3 to CSS comment line? Or the JS? Hmm, #3 is about the suspect flag & data flow; I'll anchor to the JS added block. But two comments on same anchor is possible? Better to distribute: - #1 god template on CSS selectors (the whole diff region). - #2 dangling label on CSS comment + selector (fix suggestion directly there). - #3 multi-card on JS line. OK, but #1 and #2 on same CSS region may overlap. It's acceptable. Alternatively #1 on JS, #2 on CSS, #3 on JS comment lines. Let me do: - #1 (god template): anchor `el.classList.toggle('d-none', !isAp);` - #2 (dangling label): anchor CSS added selector lines. - #3 (multi-card global suspect): anchor the added JS comment lines `// Na criação: só o checkbox...`. Hmm #3 is a "risco" not certain bug; maybe drop to keep concise? The instructions emphasize actionable findings; this one is legitimately actionable: "Ao marcar a suspeita em um dos N cards na criação, o estado é espelhado num checkbox global; a serialização (evReadCardInjuryData) lê o global para todos os cards, então ao desmarcar um card com vários marcados o flag é perdido para todos, e ao marcar um com vários envolvidos todos entram como suspeita. Como a PR passa a expor o checkbox no card na criação (fluxo com vários acidentados é comum), o risco de dados divergentes aumenta; validar com produto e tratar por card ou limitar a um card." That's a solid note. But it references unchanged code for the mechanism; I'll phrase it as cross-check/risk. I'll include as low severity maintainability/bug? Category bug, severity low. Let me now craft the content in pt-BR, following required structure: (1) o que mudou e impacto prático simples; (2) por que importa; (3) o que fazer. Keep concise. Comment #2 content (dangling label): "Marcar 'Há suspeita...' fora do aprofundamento agora mostra a seção Sim/Não só pela metade: o JS remove o `d-none` do `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` e a regra nova esconde apenas os botões/comentário — o rótulo 'Caracterizado como acidente?' (com o tooltip) fica visível sem nenhum controle embaixo. Na prática, a criação exibe um texto solto que o produto disse que não deveria aparecer nessa etapa. Inclua o `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` na regra `:not(.is-doctor-aprof)` (ou evite revelá-lo no JS fora do aprofundamento) para a seção inteira sumir na criação." Hmm, "só pela metade" -> show a dangling label. Good. Comment #1 (god template): "Este arquivo já tem ~7.700 linhas com HTML, CSS e JS de tela misturados; este diff continua editando lógica de apresentação dentro do template. O padrão do projeto é manter esse tipo de comportamento em arquivo próprio (public/js), então vale registrar o débito e, quando possível, mover ao menos a regra nova de CSS/JS para fora do twig." Given the guideline, this should be first and in the same code_comment tool call. Use severity medium? It's maintainability. Given "maior peso", I'll rate it "high"? Let me use "medium" but position first. Actually, maybe re-reading: "1. God template — maior peso." in prioridade list of review, but not necessarily severity high. I'll set severity "medium" with category maintainability. Comment #3 (multi-card): category bug, severity low. Content concise. Let me be careful with "existing_code" matching exactly lines in diff (new lines). For CSS anchor, lines: ``` #form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-toggle, #form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-comment-wrap, #form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm { ``` These are added lines (context includes preceding unchanged `display: none !important; }`). Include them as existing_code. For JS anchor: `el.classList.toggle('d-none', !isAp);` added line. For comment #3 anchor: The added JS comment lines... I'll use: ``` + // Seção de descaracterização aparece sempre que é Acidente Pessoal (criação e aprofundamento). + // Na criação: só o checkbox de suspeita fica visível (Sim/Não oculto via CSS fora do aprofundamento). ``` Matching exactly is tricky because indentation of added lines: ` // Seção...`. In diff they appear with leading spaces before +? In the diff content, lines start with `+ // ...` — the existing_code should be without the '+' marker, just the code text: ` // Seção de descaracterização aparece sempre que é Acidente Pessoal (criação e aprofundamento).`? The tool says "return only newly added code lines" with consistent style. Provide code content without the +/- prefix. Better: use the JS `el.classList.toggle('d-none', !isAp);` line for #1 (god template) and the CSS selectors for #2, and comment about multi-card anchored also to CSS or to the classList line? Two comments on the same line could be fine but may look messy. Use comment #3 anchored to CSS selectors too? Let me check: CSS rule hides toggle outside aprofundamento, and #3 is about per-card sync... not so related. Actually #3 is best anchored at the JS change since that's what changes when section is shown. But #1 already anchors there. Alternatively: attach #1 (god template) to CSS selectors, #2 (dangling label) to CSS selectors (both in same block, distinct lines), #3 to JS classList. Let me anchor #1 to the CSS comment line `/* Sim/Não ... */`, #2 to the selector block lines, #3 to JS `el.classList.toggle('d-none', !isAp);`. OK final comments: 1. path: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig existing_code: `/* Sim/Não de descaracterização fica oculto fora do aprofundamento — só o checkbox de suspeita aparece na criação. */` content: god template. category maintainability, severity medium. 2. path same; existing_code selector block; content dangling label bug; category bug/other severity medium; suggestion code adds wrapper to selector. 3. path same; existing_code `el.classList.toggle('d-none', !isAp);`; content multi-card global flag risk; category bug severity low. Also maybe a comment on the second file `_ev_injured_person_box.html.twig` — it's only a comment; no issue. I think these three suffice. Let me ensure content is direct, in pt-BR, follows structure, first sentence plain language before technical terms. Let me write final comment text. #1 (God template): "Este template já reúne mais de 7,7 mil linhas entre HTML, CSS e JS de tela, e este diff continua adicionando regra de exibição e lógica de sincronização dentro dele (regra de CSS perto da linha 1305 e `evSyncDescaracterStageUi` no mesmo arquivo). Na prática, cada ajuste novo fica mais caro de manter e aumenta a chance de regressão cruzada entre fluxos. Sempre que possível, mova esse tipo de lógica para `public/js/` e o CSS para um arquivo próprio, mesmo que nesta PR o ajuste seja pequeno." #2 (Dangling label): existing_code (selector lines). content: "Marcando a caixa 'Há suspeita...' fora do aprofundamento, a seção Sim/Não fica visível pela metade: o JS tira o `d-none` do `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap`, mas a regra nova só esconde os botões, o comentário e o aviso de permissão — o rótulo 'Caracterizado como acidente?' (e o tooltip dele) permanece na tela sem nenhum controle abaixo. Isso contraria a regra declarada de que, na criação, só o checkbox aparece. Inclua o `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` na regra `:not(.is-doctor-aprof)` (ou impeça o JS de revelá-lo fora do aprofundamento) para a seção inteira permanecer oculta." Suggestion code: ``` #form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap, #form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-toggle, #form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-comment-wrap, #form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm { ``` #3 (multi-card): content: "Com a seção agora visível na criação, cada card de acidentado tem o próprio checkbox de suspeita, mas o valor persistido continua sendo um único campo global (`ev_descaracter_suspect`): ao marcar/desmarcar um card, o handler espelha o estado no checkbox global e a serialização de cada card lê esse global. Em ocorrência com mais de um acidentado, desmarcar um card desliga a suspeita dos demais (perda de dado) e marcar um card marca todos — e o aprofundamento restaura a suspeita para todos os cards. Como esta PR incentiva marcar suspeita por card na criação, vale validar com produto se a suspeita é mesmo por card ou por evento e, se for por card, persistir por card em vez do flag global." Severity low? medium? The instructions in the diff: the payload is event-level. Might be intentional design. I'll set severity "low". Hmm wait, I should double check the serialization per-card reading the global: `evReadCardInjuryData` line 2199 `descaracter_suspect: evIsDescaracterSuspectChecked() ? 1 : 0` — yes reads global, not the card's checkbox or data attribute. And handler at 5749 sets the global from the changed card's checkbox. So in the details JSON for all cards, suspect equals global's current state at serialization time. If multiple cards toggled differently over time, final state equals last toggle of the last-toggled checkbox... Since serialization occurs each time one toggles (5751), the JSON after toggling card2 off would write 0 for all cards even if card1 was on. And when card1 on card2 on → JSON has 1 for both. So yes. However, note: the card also has `data-descaracter-suspect` attr used only for... 6484 sets attr on restore; 5747 sets attr on toggle. But `evReadCardInjuryData` doesn't read the attr. And payload line 7111 reads global. So data-descaracter-suspect attribute is essentially unused for serialization except being a marker. Fine. I'm fairly comfortable including #3 with low severity, framed as a validation request. Actually, on reflection, is #3 truly in-scope? The user prompt says review regressions, data integrity... yes, include as low severity with "validar". I might also want to check backend handling of descaracter_suspect to see whether saving suspect at creation triggers required approval fields. Let me quickly search backend controller for descaracter_suspect. Let me search across codebase (php).
Tool Calls (1)
code_search
Show Details
{"file_patterns": ["*.php"], "search_text": "descaracter_suspect"}
File: src/Controller/SsmaController.php
Match lines: 6
14874|            'descaracter_suspect'    => !empty($details['descaracter_suspect']) ? 1 : 0,
27407|            'injured_person_details', 'descaracter_suspect', 'descaracterizado', 'descaracter_comment', 'witness_ids',
27503|                foreach (['descaracter_suspect', 'descaracterizado', 'descaracter_comment'] as $descKey) {
27515|        if (isset($details['descaracter_suspect'])) {
27516|            $details['descaracter_suspect'] = !empty($details['descaracter_suspect']) && $details['descaracter_suspect'] !== '0' ? 1 : 0;
27751|            '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;

Request #23 deepseek-v4-flash P:74.21K C:129 CR:73.6K CW:0 1758ms
Reasoning
Backend: SsmaEventService.php lines 161-189 handles per-card `descaracter_suspect` from `injured_person_details`. Let me read that part.
Tool Calls (1)
file_read
Show Details
{"file_path": "src/Service/Ssma/SsmaEventService.php", "start_line": 140, "end_line": 210}
File: src/Service/Ssma/SsmaEventService.php (Total lines: 859)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 140-210
140|
141|    /**
142|     * @param array<string, mixed> $baseDetails
143|     * @param array<string, mixed> $card
144|     *
145|     * @return array<string, mixed>
146|     */
147|    private function mergeInjuredCardIntoDetails(array $baseDetails, int $personId, array $card): array
148|    {
149|        $details = $baseDetails;
150|        $details['person_id'] = $personId;
151|        $details['injured_person_details'] = [(string) $personId => $card];
152|
153|        $hadInjury = $card['had_injury'] ?? $details['had_injury'] ?? null;
154|        if ($hadInjury !== null) {
155|            $details['had_injury'] = $hadInjury;
156|        }
157|
158|        foreach ([
159|            'injury_type', 'injury_classification', 'work_leave', 'body_parts',
160|            'body_location_detail', 'attendance_date', 'breve_relato',
161|            'descaracter_suspect', 'descaracterizado', 'descaracter_comment',
162|            'consequence', 'potential_consequence',
163|        ] as $key) {
164|            if (array_key_exists($key, $card)) {
165|                $details[$key] = $card[$key];
166|            }
167|        }
168|
169|        $cardSeverity = PotentialSeverityEnum::coerce($card['potential_severity'] ?? null)
170|            ?? PotentialSeverityEnum::coerce($card['consequence'] ?? null)
171|            ?? PotentialSeverityEnum::coerce($card['potential_consequence'] ?? null)
172|            ?? PotentialSeverityEnum::coerce($details['potential_severity'] ?? null);
173|        if ($cardSeverity !== null) {
174|            $details['potential_severity'] = $cardSeverity;
175|        }
176|
177|        if (!isset($details['injury_severity'])) {
178|            $details['injury_severity'] = '';
179|        }
180|
181|        $injClass = strtoupper(trim((string) ($details['injury_classification'] ?? '')));
182|        if ($injClass === 'LTI_FATALIDADE') {
183|            $details['injury_classification'] = 'FAT';
184|        }
185|
186|        if (!empty($card['descaracter_suspect'])) {
187|            $details['descaracter_suspect'] = 1;
188|        } elseif (array_key_exists('descaracter_suspect', $card)) {
189|            $details['descaracter_suspect'] = 0;
190|        }
191|
192|        return $details;
193|    }
194|
195|    /**
196|     * Atualiza um SsmaEvent existente com um payload parcial ou completo.
197|     *
198|     * @param array<string, mixed> $data
199|     * @param array<string, mixed> $editorMeta name, role (Colaborador|Profissional|Administrador)
200|     */
201|    public function updateFromPayload(SsmaEvent $event, array $data, User $user, array $editorMeta = []): SsmaEvent
202|    {
203|        $prevStatus      = $event->getStatus();
204|        $prevConsequence = $event->getConsequence();
205|        $prevType        = $event->getType();
206|        $prevDetails     = $event->getDetails();
207|        $prevLocation    = $event->getLocation();
208|        $prevDescription = $event->getDescription();
209|
210|        if (isset($data['details']) && is_array($data['details'])) {
Request #24 deepseek-v4-flash P:75.25K C:173 CR:74.24K CW:0 2326ms
Reasoning
The backend stores per-card `descaracter_suspect` in `injured_person_details` (card-level, line 186-190). The event-level `descaracter_suspect` field also exists. Let me look at SsmaController lines 27407-27520 to understand create validation of descaracter fields, to see whether saving with suspect=1 at creation forces any issue.
Tool Calls (1)
file_read
Show Details
{"file_path": "src/Controller/SsmaController.php", "start_line": 27390, "end_line": 27530}
File: src/Controller/SsmaController.php (Total lines: 28184)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 27390-27530
27390|     * @param array<string, mixed> $data
27391|     *
27392|     * @return array<string, mixed>
27393|     */
27394|    private function normalizeSsmaEventPayload(array $data, ?Company $company = null): array
27395|    {
27396|        $detailKeys = [
27397|            'activity', 'approach', 'responsible_ids',
27398|            'title', 'manager_id', 'people_ids', 'team_id', 'evidences',
27399|            'strategic_nature', 'area_label', 'potential_consequence',
27400|            'classifier_dano', 'classifier_risco', 'classifier_afetado',
27401|            'category',
27402|            'occurrence_time',
27403|            'deviation_type', 'involvement_type', 'potential_severity', 'immediate_risk',
27404|            'failed_barrier', 'failed_barrier_other', 'barrier_type',
27405|            'person_id', 'person_type', 'had_injury', 'injury_type', 'injury_severity', 'injury_classification',
27406|            'work_leave', 'fatal', 'immediate_cause', 'body_parts', 'body_location_detail', 'hand_finger', 'foot_toe',
27407|            'injured_person_details', 'descaracter_suspect', 'descaracterizado', 'descaracter_comment', 'witness_ids',
27408|            'asset_type', 'operational_impact', 'estimated_loss', 'downtime',
27409|            'environmental_medium', 'pollutant_type', 'estimated_volume',
27410|            'containment_done', 'containment_time', 'external_impact', 'affected_area',
27411|            'gmr',
27412|            'corrective_actions',
27413|            'improvement_suggestions',
27414|            'ros_resolved',
27415|            'ros_resolution_notes',
27416|            'ros_resolution_evidences',
27417|        ];
27418|
27419|        $details = isset($data['details']) && is_array($data['details']) ? $data['details'] : [];
27420|
27421|        foreach ($detailKeys as $key) {
27422|            if (array_key_exists($key, $data)) {
27423|                $details[$key] = $data[$key];
27424|            }
27425|        }
27426|
27427|        $footCodes = ['HALUX', 'SEGUNDO_DEDO', 'TERCEIRO_DEDO', 'QUARTO_DEDO', 'MINIMO_PE'];
27428|        $hfRaw = isset($details['hand_finger']) ? trim((string) $details['hand_finger']) : '';
27429|        $ftRaw = isset($details['foot_toe']) ? trim((string) $details['foot_toe']) : '';
27430|        /* Swap antigo (single-value): mantêm compatibilidade apenas se não houver vírgula */
27431|        if ($ftRaw === '' && $hfRaw !== '' && !str_contains($hfRaw, ',') && \in_array($hfRaw, $footCodes, true)) {
27432|            $details['foot_toe'] = $hfRaw;
27433|            $details['hand_finger'] = '';
27434|        }
27435|
27436|        $type = $data['type'] ?? '';
27437|        $categoryLabel = trim((string) ($details['category'] ?? ''));
27438|        if ($categoryLabel !== '') {
27439|            $natureFromCategory = \App\Enum\Ssma\EventNatureEnum::resolveFromLabel($categoryLabel);
27440|            if ($natureFromCategory !== null) {
27441|                $data['nature'] = $natureFromCategory;
27442|            }
27443|        }
27444|
27445|        if ($type === EventTypeEnum::ROS && isset($details['involvement_type'])) {
27446|            $normalizedInv = RosInvolvementTypeEnum::normalizeLegacy((string) $details['involvement_type']);
27447|            if (RosInvolvementTypeEnum::isValid($normalizedInv)) {
27448|                $details['involvement_type'] = $normalizedInv;
27449|            }
27450|        }
27451|
27452|        if (in_array($type, [\App\Enum\Ssma\EventTypeEnum::ROS, \App\Enum\Ssma\EventTypeEnum::QUASE_ACIDENTE], true)) {
27453|            $n = $details['nature'] ?? '';
27454|            if ($n === '' || !\App\Enum\Ssma\EventClassNatureEnum::isValid((string) $n)) {
27455|                $approach = (string) ($details['approach'] ?? '');
27456|                $details['nature'] = match ($approach) {
27457|                    'MEDIACAO' => \App\Enum\Ssma\EventClassNatureEnum::ORGANIZACIONAL,
27458|                    'TREINAMENTO', 'ACAO_DISCIPLINAR' => \App\Enum\Ssma\EventClassNatureEnum::COMPORTAMENTAL,
27459|                    'MELHORIA_PROCESSO' => \App\Enum\Ssma\EventClassNatureEnum::TECNICA,
27460|                    default => \App\Enum\Ssma\EventClassNatureEnum::OPERACIONAL,
27461|                };
27462|            }
27463|        }
27464|
27465|        if ($type === EventTypeEnum::ACIDENTE_AMBIENTAL) {
27466|            $em = (string) ($details['environmental_medium'] ?? '');
27467|            if ($em === 'AGUA') {
27468|                $details['environmental_medium'] = EnvironmentalMediumEnum::AGUA_SUPERFICIAL;
27469|            } elseif ($em === 'MULTIPLO') {
27470|                $details['environmental_medium'] = EnvironmentalMediumEnum::OUTRO;
27471|            }
27472|        }
27473|
27474|        $sn = $details['strategic_nature'] ?? '';
27475|        if ($sn === '' || $sn === null) {
27476|            $details['strategic_nature'] = \App\Enum\Ssma\EventStrategicNatureEnum::PROCESSO;
27477|        }
27478|
27479|        if (isset($details['manager_id']) && $details['manager_id'] !== '' && $details['manager_id'] !== null) {
27480|            $details['manager_id'] = (int) $details['manager_id'];
27481|        }
27482|
27483|        // Caixinhas do acidentado: form envia JSON string; persiste como objeto.
27484|        if (isset($details['injured_person_details']) && is_string($details['injured_person_details'])) {
27485|            $decodedInj = json_decode($details['injured_person_details'], true);
27486|            $details['injured_person_details'] = is_array($decodedInj) ? $decodedInj : [];
27487|        }
27488|
27489|        $consequenceReal = strtoupper(trim((string) ($data['consequence'] ?? $details['consequence'] ?? '')));
27490|        if ($consequenceReal === 'SEM_DANO') {
27491|            $details['had_injury'] = 0;
27492|            $details['injury_type'] = '';
27493|            $details['injury_severity'] = '';
27494|        } elseif (!empty($details['injured_person_details']) && is_array($details['injured_person_details'])) {
27495|            $pid = isset($details['person_id']) ? (string) $details['person_id'] : '';
27496|            if ($pid !== '' && isset($details['injured_person_details'][$pid]) && is_array($details['injured_person_details'][$pid])) {
27497|                $card = $details['injured_person_details'][$pid];
27498|                foreach (['injury_type', 'injury_severity', 'injury_classification', 'work_leave'] as $injKey) {
27499|                    if (empty($details[$injKey]) && !empty($card[$injKey])) {
27500|                        $details[$injKey] = $card[$injKey];
27501|                    }
27502|                }
27503|                foreach (['descaracter_suspect', 'descaracterizado', 'descaracter_comment'] as $descKey) {
27504|                    if ((!array_key_exists($descKey, $details) || $details[$descKey] === '' || $details[$descKey] === null)
27505|                        && array_key_exists($descKey, $card) && $card[$descKey] !== '' && $card[$descKey] !== null) {
27506|                        $details[$descKey] = $card[$descKey];
27507|                    }
27508|                }
27509|                if (!isset($details['had_injury']) && array_key_exists('had_injury', $card)) {
27510|                    $details['had_injury'] = !empty($card['had_injury']) ? 1 : 0;
27511|                }
27512|            }
27513|        }
27514|
27515|        if (isset($details['descaracter_suspect'])) {
27516|            $details['descaracter_suspect'] = !empty($details['descaracter_suspect']) && $details['descaracter_suspect'] !== '0' ? 1 : 0;
27517|        }
27518|        if (array_key_exists('descaracterizado', $details) && $details['descaracterizado'] !== null && $details['descaracterizado'] !== '') {
27519|            $details['descaracterizado'] = in_array((string) $details['descaracterizado'], ['1', 'true'], true) ? '1' : '0';
27520|        }
27521|
27522|        // Paridade Adriana: horário explícito ou extraído do datetime do modal manual.
27523|        $occurrenceTime = trim((string) ($details['occurrence_time'] ?? $data['occurrence_time'] ?? $data['occurrenceTime'] ?? ''));
27524|        if ($occurrenceTime === '' && !empty($data['datetime'])) {
27525|            try {
27526|                $occurrenceTime = (new \DateTime((string) $data['datetime']))->format('H:i');
27527|            } catch (\Throwable) {
27528|                $occurrenceTime = '';
27529|            }
27530|        }
Request #25 deepseek-v4-flash P:77.92K C:4.23K CR:75.39K CW:0 29846ms
Reasoning
Backend treats descaracter_suspect as event-level and stores it from details. Also per-card merge into event detail when creating via SsmaEventService. Now the frontend, at payload build (line 7111), sets payload.descaracter_suspect = global checkbox. When creating (not aprofundamento-only), `evReadCardInjuryData` line 2199 writes descaracter_suspect into each card (based on global too). So the JSON per card is same as global. Backend persists event-level descaracter_suspect=1 and per-card descaracter_suspect=1. When the specialist opens aprofundamento, populateForEdit at 6477 uses `det.descaracter_suspect` where `det` = event details? Actually line 6477 reads from `det` — which comes from where? Let me not dig. Actually, the per-card JSON descaracter_suspect is stored too, but restored at 6477 reads `det` (probably a per-card det object derived from details). Let me look above 6450 for populateForEdit det variable context, around 6400. Actually, we saw earlier (line 6477) suspectRaw = det.descaracter_suspect != null ? ... The `det` variable might be the injured person details of primary? Let me quickly read 6360-6420 to see. This matters for the multi-card issue severity, but let me not over-commit. I'll cap analysis here. Let me finalize the three comments. Actually also note that line 2199 uses global; and on change handler the card data attr updated but not used; so per-card info IS stored equal to global; meaning the global-flag mirroring doesn't cause in JSON divergence at creation because it's all global anyway. The main risk in aprofundamento: per-card checkboxes sync to global, and if multiple cards with differing states, the last toggled wins for everyone because... Actually wait, at aprofundamento, when specialist toggles card2 off while card1 on, the handler sets global false; then evSyncInjuredPersonDetailsHidden writes all cards descaracter_suspect=0. So yes per-card divergence at aprofundamento too. This is pre-existing but the PR's "suspeita no card na criação" message claims per-card. I'll keep the comment focused but phrased as risk. Alright, let me also double check severity guidance in user rules: style-only → low; bugs/data → medium+. The dangling label is functional-visual bug → medium. The multi-card data issue → data correctness → medium? Since pre-existing and scope is questionable, maybe "low". I'll use "low". Also, I should verify I didn't miss something: the CSS comments describe that the no-perm only hides via CSS when not doctor-aprof; no-perm also hidden via JS d-none toggling with canSn inside aprofundamento. Fine. One more check: Because `evSyncDescaracterStageUi` now shows `.ev-inj-descaracter` for AP at creation, and there is no `.is-doctor-aprof`, the checkbox visible. But the requirement also says type ROS/Ambiental/Quase Acidente should keep block hidden — isAp condition covers those (only ACIDENTE_PESSOAL). What about ACIDENTE_MATERIAL and ACIDENTE_AMBIENTAL? They're not AP, so hidden. OK. What about editing an AP event where the step-aprofundamento is shown in the same normal modal? The `.ev-inj-descaracter` section will be visible on the aprofundamento step even though only the checkbox appears (Sim/Não hidden because is-doctor-aprof missing). Wait, but under the old code the whole section was hidden for that context, including any previously-checked state? Hmm, is this a regression? In that flow the user sees the checkbox. If the user (a manager with descaracterization permission) wants to see/edit the descaracterizado value they previously set, they cannot (Sim/Não hidden). But this was also the case before (whole section hidden). So not a new regression, only a new checkbox visibility. But now, could the appearance of the checkbox in that edit flow tempt the user to uncheck/check the suspect and thus erase a previously recorded characterization? Consider: Event previously went through aprofundamento and got descaracterizado='0' or '1' + comment stored in card data. Later a manager (full edit) opens the event → the card (on aprofundamento step) displays the suspect checkbox — is it checked? On populateForEdit, suspectOn from stored det/global (line 6477) and propagated to cards (6483). Then Sim/Não hidden; data-descaracterizado still '0'/'1' and comment still in hidden textarea. If the manager unchecks the suspect checkbox (without being able to see/update the answer), then payload (non-aprof) sends descaracter_suspect=0; descaracterizado/comment deleted from payload at 7113-7126 (delete). Does backend clear them when absent? Depends. In SsmaEventService updateFromPayload... not checked. So possibly stale descaracterizado persists with suspect=0, i.e. inconsistent data. However, was this reachable before? Before, in that flow the checkbox wasn't visible, so no. In aprofundamento-only flow (specialist), they could uncheck and the answer handling was designed there. So this PR introduces the possibility that an editing manager (non-doctor-aprof) changes the suspect flag on an event that already has a characterization, creating inconsistent state — while UI hides the recorded answer. That's a plausible regression of data integrity. But flow requires the manager to navigate to aprofundamento step in full-edit modal where cards exist... The cards are inside the aprofundamento step panel (ev-step-aprofundamento) which is present in full edit. During full edit, the "Aprofundamento" step is accessible (evRequiresAprofundamento && evCanEditAprofundamento). But wait — in full-edit non-aprof-only mode, can the manager see the cards? The step-aprofundamento panel contains the AP technical section (cards). Yes, and it's shown when evCurrentStep === aprofundamento. Hmm. So yes, the checkbox becomes visible in full-edit flow (as well as combined creation flow) even without doctor-aprof. This is getting quite deep. Given limited certainty about the edit flow, maybe I focus on the primary bug (dangling label) and mention the gating fragility: the CSS hides Sim/Não using a class that is only set in the aprofundamento-only modal; in the normal "editar" or "criar com aprofundamento junto" flows (which also reach the card in etapa de aprofundamento), the recorded answer (descaracterizado/comentário) fica oculto, mas o checkbox fica visível/alterável — pode gerar estado inconsistente. This might be the more severe, spec-relevant point. But I can't fully verify that flow shows cards to a manager in full edit... We saw evValidate... In general step the validation of AP technical fields is at ev-step-aprofundamento only? For full edit of AP, the cards are filled at aprofundamento step. So manager (can edit aprofundamento) would reach it. But does populateForEdit for a full edit (non-aprof) apply data-descaracterizado and comment to cards? Yes 6484-6486 and 2255-2258 (applyCardInjuryData). So cards have the data. Given all, I think the second CSS-gating point is real but more speculative in terms of product flow. The reviewer comment #2 (dangling label) covers the direct visual defect. I might fold the "Sim/Não oculto por classe que só existe no modal só-aprofundamento" nuance into comment #2 as additional consequence. That keeps the review at two comments + god template. Let me reconsider number of comments: too many comments on small PR can be noise. But given guidelines: god template (must), dangling label (direct), multi-card (risk). I'll go with three but keep the multi-card concise. Wait, actually, I realize I should double-check the dangling label point once more, because if the CSS hides `.ev-inj-descaracter-toggle` but not the label, then the label is visible. But is the label inside a container that's `d-none` while only the toggle is outside? No — label is inside yesno-wrap. Confirmed. Alright. But hold on: maybe the actual intended design when checking the suspect in creation is to show that the "Caracterizado como acidente?" answer section is pending (label alone = placeholder?) That's unlikely; visually broken. Now let me double check the suggestion code doesn't inadvertently hide no-perm wrap in creation only — yes that's the intent: hide the whole Sim/Não group in creation. Now, is hiding the entire yesno-wrap sufficient and not breaking the aprofundamento validation? In aprofundamento the CSS rule doesn't apply (form has class), JS controls visibility via checked state. But careful: If we add `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` to the CSS hide list, then when a user in creation unchecks the suspect then later in the same session opens aprofundamento-only... no, different modal load. Fine. Edge: In creation flow with combined aprofundamento step, after we add wrap to CSS, the user reaches the aprofundamento step of the same modal (still not doctor-aprof) → Sim/Não remains hidden — same as before my suggestion (the buttons were hidden anyway). The label also hidden now — consistent. In the separate aprofundamento modal, everything visible. Good. Now finalize content messages and ensure format adheres to required structure: direct Portuguese, plain first sentence, then why it matters, then action. Comment #1 (god template) content: "Este template já concentra milhares de linhas de HTML, CSS e JS de tela, e este diff adiciona mais uma regra de exibição e um ajuste de sincronização dentro dele. Cada mudança nova nesse arquivo aumenta o custo de manutenção e o risco de regressão cruzada entre os fluxos (criação, edição e aprofundamento usam o mesmo form). Sempre que possível, mova essa lógica para `public/js/` e o CSS para um arquivo dedicado; mesmo sendo um ajuste pequeno, ele reforça um padrão que a revisão do projeto pede para evitar." Hmm, maybe that's overly prescriptive; but the guideline requires flagging. Keep. Comment #2 content and suggestion: existing_code: ``` #form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-toggle, #form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-comment-wrap, #form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm { ``` suggestion_code: ``` #form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap, #form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-toggle, #form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-comment-wrap, #form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm { ``` content: "Marcar a caixa 'Há suspeita...' na criação deixa a seção Sim/Não aparecer pela metade: o JS remove o `d-none` do `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap`, mas a regra nova esconde só os botões, o comentário e o aviso de permissão — o rótulo 'Caracterizado como acidente?' (e o ícone de ajuda) fica visível sem nenhum controle embaixo. Isso contradiz a regra declarada de que, na criação, só o checkbox deve aparecer. Inclua o `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` na regra `:not(.is-doctor-aprof)` para a seção inteira ficar oculta fora do aprofundamento." Category: bug; severity: medium. Comment #3 (multi-card) existing_code: `el.classList.toggle('d-none', !isAp);` content: "Passar a exibir o checkbox de suspeita em cada card na criação torna comum o caso de mais de um acidentado com marcações diferentes, mas o valor salvo continua sendo um único flag global (`ev_descaracter_suspect`): o handler de cada card espelha o estado nesse checkbox e a serialização lê o global para todos os cards. Desmarcar um card com vários marcados apaga a suspeita dos demais, e marcar um card marca todos — o aprofundamento restaura a suspeita para todos igualmente. Se a suspeita for por card (como sugere a UI), persista por card; caso contrário, deixe explícito que é por evento para evitar divergência de dado." Hmm, existing_code should match the diff new line exactly: `el.classList.toggle('d-none', !isAp);` is a new line. Wait, in the diff the JS hunk shows: ``` document.querySelectorAll('.ev-inj-descaracter').forEach(function (el) { - // Seção de descaracterização só aparece no aprofundamento do especialista. - el.classList.toggle('d-none', !isAp || !isDoctorAprof); + // Seção de descaracterização aparece sempre que é Acidente Pessoal (criação e aprofundamento). + // Na criação: só o checkbox de suspeita fica visível (Sim/Não oculto via CSS fora do aprofundamento). + el.classList.toggle('d-none', !isAp); }); ``` So new line is ` el.classList.toggle('d-none', !isAp);` (with indentation). existing_code should include indentation? In the diff, after '+' there are spaces then code. The tool matches lines from diff. It's safer to give the exact line content as it appears in diff (leading spaces included, no '+'). I'll include leading 12 spaces. Also for CSS selectors, exact lines: ``` #form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-toggle, #form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-comment-wrap, #form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm { ``` No leading spaces (CSS at column 0). Good. For comment #1 anchor to the CSS comment line: `/* Sim/Não de descaracterização fica oculto fora do aprofundamento — só o checkbox de suspeita aparece na criação. */` OK, let me now produce the code_comment call with three comments. I should double-check that this review covers both files: the partial change is only a comment in the twig — no functional issue, no comment needed there; I'll mention in final summary that no issue found in partial. Let me finalize.
Tool Calls (1)
code_comment
Show Details
{"comments": [{"content": "Este template já concentra milhares de linhas de HTML, CSS e JS de tela, e este diff continua adicionando regra de exibição (CSS perto da linha 1305) e lógica de sincronização (`evSyncDescaracterStageUi`) dentro do próprio arquivo. Cada ajuste novo nesse arquivo aumenta o custo de manutenção e o risco de regressão cruzada entre os fluxos (criação, edição e aprofundamento compartilham o mesmo form). Sempre que possível, mova essa lógica para `public/js/` e o CSS para um arquivo dedicado, mesmo em PRs pequenas como esta.", "existing_code": "/* Sim/Não de descaracterização fica oculto fora do aprofundamento — só o checkbox de suspeita aparece na criação. */", "category": "maintainability", "severity": "medium", "path": "templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig", "suggestion_code": ""}, {"content": "Marcar a caixa \"Há suspeita...\" na criação deixa a seção Sim/Não aparecer pela metade: o JS remove o `d-none` do `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap`, mas a regra nova esconde só os botões, o comentário e o aviso de permissão — o rótulo \"Caracterizado como acidente?\" (com o ícone de ajuda) fica visível sem nenhum controle embaixo. Isso contradiz a regra declarada de que, na criação, apenas o checkbox deve aparecer. Inclua o `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` na regra `:not(.is-doctor-aprof)` para a seção inteira permanecer oculta fora do aprofundamento técnico.", "existing_code": "#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-toggle,\n#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-comment-wrap,\n#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm {", "category": "bug", "severity": "medium", "path": "templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig", "suggestion_code": "#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap,\n#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-toggle,\n#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-comment-wrap,\n#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm {"}, {"content": "Exibir o checkbox de suspeita em cada card na criação torna comum o caso de mais de um acidentado com marcações diferentes, mas o valor salvo continua sendo um único flag global (`ev_descaracter_suspect`): o handler de cada card espelha o estado nesse checkbox global e a serialização (`evReadCardInjuryData`) lê o global para todos os cards. Desmarcar um card com vários marcados apaga a suspeita dos demais, e marcar um card acaba marcando todos — no aprofundamento a suspeita é restaurada igualmente para todos os cards. Se a suspeita for por card (como a UI sugere), persista por card; caso contrário, deixe explícito que é por evento para evitar divergência de dado.", "existing_code": "            el.classList.toggle('d-none', !isAp);", "category": "bug", "severity": "low", "path": "templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig", "suggestion_code": ""}]}
(async)
Request #26 deepseek-v4-flash P:82.16K C:304 CR:82.05K CW:0 3538ms
Reasoning
All three comments submitted. The partial file `_ev_injured_person_box.html.twig` only had a comment change, no functional issue. I've reviewed both files. Task done.
Revisei os dois arquivos do grupo: - `templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_ev_injured_person_box.html.twig`: apenas comentário atualizado, sem efeito funcional — nenhum problema. - `templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig`: CSS e JS da descaracterização — deixei três observações: (1) débito de manutenção por continuar adicionando lógica de tela ao template god (~7,7 mil linhas); (2) ao marcar a suspeita na criação, o `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` é revelado pelo JS mas a regra nova só esconde os controles internos, deixando o rótulo "Caracterizado como acidente?" solto na tela — incluir o wrapper na regra CSS resolve; (3) risco de divergência no flag global de suspeita quando há mais de um acidentado com marcações diferentes.
Tool Calls (1)
task_done
Show Details
{"state": "DONE"}
Request #27 deepseek-v4-flash P:7.06K C:441 CR:6.53K CW:0 2997ms
Reasoning
Let me analyze this code review task. I need to review the changes in two Twig template files related to SSMA occurrence event modal, focusing on the injured person box with a "descaracterização" (de-characterization) suspicion checkbox. Let me understand the diff: 1. `templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_ev_injured_person_box.html.twig` - Only a comment was changed. 2. `templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig` - CSS rules changed to hide only toggle/comments outside aprofundamento, and JS condition `!isAp || !isDoctorAprof` changed to `!isAp`. There are already three confirmed findings: 1. God template concern (already noted) 2. Marking the checkbox in creation leaves the Sim/Não section partially appearing - the label "Caracterizado como acidente?" becomes visible but buttons hidden. 3. Multiple injured people with different markings conflict with single global flag. So I should NOT repeat these. I need to look for other real issues. Let me read the relevant code in the files to understand context better. Let me read the modal event file around the changed areas, and the injured person box partial.
Tool Calls (2)
file_read
Show Details
{"file_path": "templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_ev_injured_person_box.html.twig", "start_line": 150, "end_line": 260}
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 — visível na criação e no aprofundamento para Acidente Pessoal. Na criação: só checkbox de suspeita; Sim/Não e comentário ficam ocultos via CSS até o aprofundamento. #}
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|
file_read
Show Details
{"file_path": "templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig", "start_line": 1280, "end_line": 1340}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig (Total lines: 7710)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 1280-1340
1280|#form-event-new .ev-inj-consequence-row .form-control,
1281|#form-event-new .ev-inj-consequence-row select.form-control {
1282|    height: calc(1.5em + 0.75rem + 2px);
1283|    min-height: calc(1.5em + 0.75rem + 2px);
1284|    padding: 0.375rem 0.75rem;
1285|    font-size: 1rem;
1286|    line-height: 1.5;
1287|    box-sizing: border-box;
1288|}
1289|#form-event-new .ev-inj-descaracter-toggle {
1290|    gap: 8px;
1291|}
1292|#form-event-new .ev-inj-descaracter-btn.active {
1293|    background: #1a6e7f !important;
1294|    color: #fff !important;
1295|    border-color: #1a6e7f !important;
1296|}
1297|#form-event-new .ev-inj-descaracter-btn[disabled] {
1298|    opacity: 0.45;
1299|    cursor: not-allowed;
1300|}
1301|#form-event-new .ev-inj-descaracter {
1302|    padding-bottom: 4px;
1303|}
1304|/* Sim/Não de descaracterização fica oculto fora do aprofundamento — só o checkbox de suspeita aparece na criação. */
1305|#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-toggle,
1306|#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-comment-wrap,
1307|#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm {
1308|    display: none !important;
1309|}
1310|#form-event-new .ev-inj-descaracter-toggle.is-invalid {
1311|    outline: 2px solid #dc3545;
1312|    outline-offset: 2px;
1313|    border-radius: 8px;
1314|}
1315|/* Botão seta = mesmo padrão das Configurações (.ssma-config-tipo-action-btn) */
1316|#form-event-new .ssma-config-tipo-action-btn {
1317|    display: inline-flex;
1318|    align-items: center;
1319|    justify-content: center;
1320|    width: 36px;
1321|    height: 36px;
1322|    padding: 0;
1323|    border: 0;
1324|    border-radius: 8px;
1325|    background: transparent;
1326|    color: #6c757d;
1327|    cursor: pointer;
1328|}
1329|#form-event-new .ssma-config-tipo-action-btn:hover {
1330|    background: rgba(15, 23, 42, 0.06);
1331|    color: #495057;
1332|}
1333|#form-event-new .ssma-config-tipo-action-btn:focus,
1334|#form-event-new .ssma-config-tipo-action-btn:active {
1335|    outline: none;
1336|    box-shadow: none;
1337|}
1338|#form-event-new .ssma-section-chevron {
1339|    transition: transform .2s;
1340|}
Request #28 deepseek-v4-flash P:9.65K C:140 CR:7.42K CW:0 1602ms
Reasoning
Now let me look at the JS logic around line 2921-2930 where the changes occurred, and understand the `evSyncDescaracterStageUi` function fully. Let me read around that area.
Tool Calls (1)
file_read
Show Details
{"end_line": 2990, "file_path": "templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig", "start_line": 2850}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig (Total lines: 7710)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 2850-2990
2850|                    data[key] = !!el.checked;
2851|                } else {
2852|                    data[key] = el.value;
2853|                }
2854|            });
2855|            data.__people_ids = (document.getElementById('ev_people_ids') || {}).value || '';
2856|            data.__witness_ids = (document.getElementById('ev_witness_ids') || {}).value || '';
2857|            data.__injured_details = (document.getElementById('ev_injured_person_details') || {}).value || '';
2858|            sessionStorage.setItem(EV_DRAFT_KEY, JSON.stringify(data));
2859|        } catch (e) {}
2860|    }
2861|    function evClearDraft() {
2862|        try { sessionStorage.removeItem(EV_DRAFT_KEY); } catch (e) {}
2863|    }
2864|    function evRestoreDraftIfAny() {
2865|        try {
2866|            var raw = sessionStorage.getItem(EV_DRAFT_KEY);
2867|            if (!raw) return false;
2868|            var data = JSON.parse(raw);
2869|            if (!data || typeof data !== 'object') return false;
2870|            Object.keys(data).forEach(function (key) {
2871|                if (key.indexOf('__') === 0) return;
2872|                var el = document.getElementById(key);
2873|                if (!el) return;
2874|                if (el.type === 'checkbox' || el.type === 'radio') {
2875|                    el.checked = !!data[key];
2876|                } else {
2877|                    el.value = data[key];
2878|                }
2879|            });
2880|            if (data.__people_ids) {
2881|                var pe = document.getElementById('ev_people_ids');
2882|                if (pe) pe.value = data.__people_ids;
2883|            }
2884|            if (data.__witness_ids) {
2885|                var we = document.getElementById('ev_witness_ids');
2886|                if (we) we.value = data.__witness_ids;
2887|            }
2888|            if (data.__injured_details) {
2889|                var ie = document.getElementById('ev_injured_person_details');
2890|                if (ie) ie.value = data.__injured_details;
2891|            }
2892|            // Remonta caixinhas após restaurar o JSON do draft.
2893|            setTimeout(function () {
2894|                if (typeof evRenderInjuredPersonBoxes === 'function') evRenderInjuredPersonBoxes();
2895|            }, 0);
2896|            return true;
2897|        } catch (e) {
2898|            return false;
2899|        }
2900|    }
2901|
2902|    function evCanDescharacterizeAccident() {
2903|        return window.SSMA_CAN_DESCARACTERIZE === true || window.SSMA_CAN_DESCARACTERIZE === 'true';
2904|    }
2905|
2906|    function evIsDescaracterSuspectChecked() {
2907|        var el = document.getElementById('ev_descaracter_suspect');
2908|        return !!(el && el.checked);
2909|    }
2910|
2911|    function evIsCreateMode() {
2912|        return ((document.getElementById('ev_form_mode') || { value: 'create' }).value === 'create');
2913|    }
2914|
2915|    function evSyncDescaracterStageUi() {
2916|        var isAp = evSelectedType() === 'ACIDENTE_PESSOAL';
2917|        var isDoctorAprof = !!evAprofundamentoOnlyMode;
2918|        var form = document.getElementById('form-event-new');
2919|        if (form) form.classList.toggle('is-doctor-aprof', isDoctorAprof);
2920|        // Checkbox global de suspeita (etapa 1) fica sempre oculto — suspeita agora é por card no aprofundamento.
2921|        var suspectWrap = document.getElementById('ev-suspeita-wrap');
2922|        if (suspectWrap) {
2923|            suspectWrap.classList.add('d-none');
2924|        }
2925|        document.querySelectorAll('.ev-inj-descaracter').forEach(function (el) {
2926|            // Seção de descaracterização aparece sempre que é Acidente Pessoal (criação e aprofundamento).
2927|            // Na criação: só o checkbox de suspeita fica visível (Sim/Não oculto via CSS fora do aprofundamento).
2928|            el.classList.toggle('d-none', !isAp);
2929|        });
2930|        // Sincroniza Sim/Não de cada card com o estado do checkbox de suspeita do próprio card.
2931|        document.querySelectorAll('.ev-injured-person-box').forEach(function (card) {
2932|            var suspChk = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-suspect-chk');
2933|            var yesNoWrap = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap');
2934|            if (suspChk && yesNoWrap) {
2935|                yesNoWrap.classList.toggle('d-none', !suspChk.checked);
2936|            }
2937|        });
2938|    }
2939|
2940|    function evSyncDescaracterUi() {
2941|        var hidden = document.getElementById('ev_descaracterizado');
2942|        var canSn = evCanDescharacterizeAccident();
2943|        var cur = String((hidden || {}).value || '');
2944|
2945|        evSyncDescaracterStageUi();
2946|
2947|        // Pré-seleciona "Sim" quando o profissional não tem permissão de descaracterização
2948|        // e o campo ainda está vazio. Ele só pode dizer "Sim" de qualquer forma, então
2949|        // pré-preencher evita a validação falhar sem o usuário perceber o que falta.
2950|        if (!canSn && cur === '' && evAprofundamentoOnlyMode && hidden) {
2951|            hidden.value = '0';
2952|            cur = '0';
2953|            document.querySelectorAll('.ev-injured-person-box').forEach(function (c) {
2954|                c.setAttribute('data-descaracterizado', '0');
2955|            });
2956|        }
2957|
2958|        document.querySelectorAll('.ev-injured-person-box').forEach(function (card) {
2959|            var noPerm = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm');
2960|            var cardDesc = card.getAttribute('data-descaracterizado') || cur;
2961|            if (noPerm) noPerm.classList.toggle('d-none', canSn);
2962|            card.querySelectorAll('.ev-inj-descaracter-btn').forEach(function (b) {
2963|                var val = b.getAttribute('data-descaracter-val');
2964|                // Sem permissão: "Não" fica visível mas desabilitado — o par Sim/Não precisa aparecer.
2965|                if (val === '1' && !canSn) {
2966|                    b.disabled = true;
2967|                    b.classList.remove('d-none');
2968|                    b.setAttribute('title', 'Sem permissão para descaracterizar o acidente.');
2969|                } else {
2970|                    b.disabled = false;
2971|                    b.classList.remove('d-none');
2972|                    b.removeAttribute('title');
2973|                }
2974|            });
2975|            if (window.SsmaShared && typeof window.SsmaShared.toggleYesNo === 'function') {
2976|                window.SsmaShared.toggleYesNo(card.querySelectorAll('.ev-inj-descaracter-btn'), cardDesc !== '' ? cardDesc : null, {
2977|                    valueAttr: 'data-descaracter-val'
2978|                });
2979|            }
2980|        });
2981|    }
2982|
2983|    /** Etapa 0: admin Aura + membro — esconde título/status só na criação; na edição volta. */
2984|    function evApplyAuraTitleStatusVisibility(mode) {
2985|        var row = document.getElementById('ev-title-status-row');
2986|        if (!row) return;
2987|        var hideOnCreate = !!window.SSMA_HIDE_EVENT_TITLE_STATUS_ON_CREATE
2988|            || !!window.SSMA_IS_AURA_ADMIN;
2989|        var hide = hideOnCreate && mode === 'create';
2990|        row.classList.toggle('d-none', hide);
Request #29 deepseek-v4-flash P:11.82K C:539 CR:9.73K CW:0 4110ms
Reasoning
Now let me understand the flow. The key changed JS is in `evSyncDescaracterStageUi` (line 2925-2928), where the section now displays for any Acidente Pessoal (both creation and aprofundamento), while CSS hides the toggle/comment/no-perm outside aprofundamento. Wait, but `evSyncDescaracterStageUi` is called when? Let's check where it's invoked. Also check `evSyncDescaracterUi` where yes/no is synced. The confirmed findings already cover: 1. God template. 2. Label visible but buttons hidden (partial visible section) when marking suspicion on creation. 3. Single global flag conflict with multiple cards. Let me look for other issues. Key things to check: - Is the CSS hiding `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap`? No — CSS hides only `.ev-inj-descaracter-toggle`, `.ev-inj-descaracter-comment-wrap`, `.ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm`. The `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` contains the label "Caracterizado como acidente?" plus those three elements. So if the checkbox is checked on creation, JS removes `d-none` from yesno-wrap, exposing the label but hiding the buttons/comment/no-perm. That's finding #2 already confirmed. Now what about other issues? Let me examine where the checkbox `.ev-inj-suspect-chk` change handler mirrors state to the global `ev_descaracter_suspect`. That's confirmed finding #3. Let's look at the JS that handles `.ev-inj-suspect-chk` changes, and the serialization `evReadCardInj...`. Let me search for `ev-inj-suspect-chk` in the template.
Tool Calls (2)
code_search
Show Details
{"search_text": "ev-inj-suspect-chk", "file_patterns": ["templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig"]}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig
Match lines: 3
2932|            var suspChk = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-suspect-chk');
5741|            if (!e.target || !e.target.classList.contains('ev-inj-suspect-chk')) return;
6482|            var chk = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-suspect-chk');

code_search
Show Details
{"search_text": "evSyncDescaracterStageUi", "file_patterns": ["templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig"]}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig
Match lines: 6
2915|    function evSyncDescaracterStageUi() {
2945|        evSyncDescaracterStageUi();
3321|        evSyncDescaracterStageUi();
3396|        evSyncDescaracterStageUi();
5286|        evSyncDescaracterStageUi();
5734|                evSyncDescaracterStageUi();

Request #30 deepseek-v4-flash P:12.57K C:267 CR:12.29K CW:0 2083ms
Reasoning
Let me look at these contexts: - line 5734-5760: suspect checkbox change handler - line 6470-6500: probably serialization of injured card (evReadCardInj) - lines 3321, 3396, 5286: where evSyncDescaracterStageUi is called (e.g., when AP selected, when modal opened, etc.) Let me read these areas.
Tool Calls (2)
file_read
Show Details
{"end_line": 5770, "file_path": "templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig", "start_line": 5700}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig (Total lines: 7710)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 5700-5770
5700|        if (leaveEl) {
5701|            leaveEl.addEventListener('change', syncLtiAvailability);
5702|        }
5703|
5704|        document.addEventListener('ev:formLoaded', syncLtiAvailability);
5705|        window.evSyncLtiAvailability = syncLtiAvailability;
5706|    }());
5707|
5708|    (function () {
5709|        var consEl = document.getElementById('ev_consequence');
5710|        if (consEl) {
5711|            consEl.addEventListener('change', function () {
5712|                evSyncDerivedSeverityFromConsequence();
5713|                evSyncInjuryTypeByConsequence();
5714|            });
5715|        }
5716|        var potEl = document.getElementById('ev_potential_consequence');
5717|        if (potEl) {
5718|            potEl.addEventListener('change', evPersistDraftSoon);
5719|        }
5720|        var derivedSel = document.getElementById('ev_derived_criticality_select');
5721|        if (derivedSel) {
5722|            derivedSel.addEventListener('change', function () {
5723|                var hidden = document.getElementById('ev_derived_criticality');
5724|                var critSel = document.getElementById('ev_criticality');
5725|                if (hidden) hidden.value = this.value || '';
5726|                if (critSel && this.value) critSel.value = this.value;
5727|                evPersistDraftSoon();
5728|            });
5729|        }
5730|        // Descaracterização: suspeita na 1ª etapa; caracterizado na caixinha (aprofundamento).
5731|        var suspectChk = document.getElementById('ev_descaracter_suspect');
5732|        if (suspectChk) {
5733|            suspectChk.addEventListener('change', function () {
5734|                evSyncDescaracterStageUi();
5735|                evSyncInjuredPersonDetailsHidden();
5736|                evPersistDraftSoon();
5737|            });
5738|        }
5739|        // Checkbox de suspeita por card (aprofundamento): mostra/oculta Sim/Não do próprio card.
5740|        document.addEventListener('change', function (e) {
5741|            if (!e.target || !e.target.classList.contains('ev-inj-suspect-chk')) return;
5742|            var card = e.target.closest('.ev-injured-person-box');
5743|            if (!card) return;
5744|            var yesNoWrap = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap');
5745|            if (yesNoWrap) yesNoWrap.classList.toggle('d-none', !e.target.checked);
5746|            // Atualiza o data-descaracter-suspect do card para serialização.
5747|            card.setAttribute('data-descaracter-suspect', e.target.checked ? '1' : '0');
5748|            // Espelha no campo global usado pelo payload (evIsDescaracterSuspectChecked).
5749|            var globalChk = document.getElementById('ev_descaracter_suspect');
5750|            if (globalChk) globalChk.checked = e.target.checked;
5751|            evSyncInjuredPersonDetailsHidden();
5752|            evPersistDraftSoon();
5753|        });
5754|        var contDone = document.getElementById('ev_containment_done');
5755|        if (contDone) {
5756|            contDone.addEventListener('change', function () {
5757|                evSyncContainmentTimeEnabled();
5758|                evPersistDraftSoon();
5759|            });
5760|        }
5761|        var form = document.getElementById('form-event-new');
5762|        if (form) {
5763|            form.addEventListener('change', evPersistDraftSoon);
5764|            form.addEventListener('input', evPersistDraftSoon);
5765|        }
5766|        document.addEventListener('ev:formLoaded', function () {
5767|            evSyncCriticalityField(evSelectedType());
5768|            evSyncDerivedSeverityFromConsequence();
5769|            evSyncInjuryTypeByConsequence();
5770|            evSyncInjuryClassificationByLeave();
file_read
Show Details
{"end_line": 6510, "file_path": "templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig", "start_line": 6440}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig (Total lines: 7710)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 6440-6510
6440|            }
6441|            injRaw = JSON.stringify(injObj);
6442|        } catch (eSeed) {}
6443|        var injEl = document.getElementById('ev_injured_person_details');
6444|        if (injEl) injEl.value = String(injRaw || '');
6445|        var personSelSeed = document.getElementById('ev_person_id');
6446|        if (personSelSeed && personIdForBox) {
6447|            personSelSeed.setAttribute('data-primary-injured-id', String(personIdForBox));
6448|            // Não deixa valor no select (select = adicionar); primary vai via data-attr.
6449|            personSelSeed.value = '';
6450|            if (typeof window.setCustomSelectValue === 'function') {
6451|                window.setCustomSelectValue('ev_person_id', '');
6452|            }
6453|        }
6454|        evFilterInjuredPersonSelect();
6455|        evRenderInjuredPersonBoxes();
6456|
6457|        if (type === 'ACIDENTE_PESSOAL') {
6458|            // Re-sync depois das tags + details: garante caixinhas médicas mesmo se
6459|            // setTagSelectValues rodou antes do hidden ou membro não estava no select.
6460|            syncBodyRegionVisibility();
6461|            evSyncInjuryFieldsByConsequence();
6462|            if (typeof window.evSyncLtiAvailability === 'function') { window.evSyncLtiAvailability(); }
6463|            evSyncInjuredCardsFromInvolved();
6464|            // Se sync ainda não viu pessoas nas tags, remonta a partir dos details salvos.
6465|            var wrapAfter = document.getElementById('ev_injured_person_boxes');
6466|            var hasMedCards = !!(wrapAfter && wrapAfter.querySelector('.ev-injured-person-box[data-person-id]'));
6467|            if (!hasMedCards && Object.keys(evGetInjuredDetailsObj() || {}).length) {
6468|                evRenderInjuredPersonBoxes();
6469|            }
6470|            if (evCurrentStep === 'aprofundamento' && typeof evEnsurePrimaryInjuredCardExpanded === 'function') {
6471|                evEnsurePrimaryInjuredCardExpanded();
6472|            }
6473|        }
6474|
6475|        // ── Descaracterização ────────────────────────────────
6476|        // Restaura suspeita por card a partir do det ou do injured_person_details do card primário.
6477|        var suspectRaw = det.descaracter_suspect != null ? det.descaracter_suspect : data.descaracter_suspect;
6478|        var suspectOn = suspectRaw === true || suspectRaw === 1 || suspectRaw === '1';
6479|        evSetChk('ev_descaracter_suspect', suspectOn);
6480|        // Propaga suspeita para cada card (checkbox editável no aprofundamento).
6481|        document.querySelectorAll('.ev-injured-person-box').forEach(function (card) {
6482|            var chk = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-suspect-chk');
6483|            if (chk) chk.checked = suspectOn;
6484|            card.setAttribute('data-descaracter-suspect', suspectOn ? '1' : '0');
6485|            var yesNoWrap = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap');
6486|            if (yesNoWrap) yesNoWrap.classList.toggle('d-none', !suspectOn);
6487|        });
6488|        var descVal = det.descaracterizado != null ? det.descaracterizado : data.descaracterizado;
6489|        if (descVal === true || descVal === 1) descVal = '1';
6490|        if (descVal === false || descVal === 0) descVal = '0';
6491|        evSetVal('ev_descaracterizado', descVal == null ? '' : String(descVal));
6492|        evSyncDescaracterUi();
6493|
6494|        // ── Evidências já anexadas ──────────────────────────
6495|        var evidences = Array.isArray(det.evidences) ? det.evidences : (Array.isArray(data.evidences) ? data.evidences : []);
6496|        evEvidences = evidences.map(function (e) {
6497|            return {
6498|                name: e.name || e.filename || '',
6499|                path: e.path || '',
6500|                persisted: true
6501|            };
6502|        });
6503|        evEvidenceRenderList();
6504|
6505|        // ── Labels do modal ─────────────────────────────────
6506|        var btnLbl = document.getElementById('ev-btn-label');
6507|        var modalTitle = document.getElementById('ev-modal-title');
6508|        if (modalTitle) modalTitle.textContent = 'Editar ocorrência';
6509|        evApplyAuraTitleStatusVisibility('edit');
6510|        evSetStep('general');
Request #31 deepseek-v4-flash P:15.07K C:1.61K CR:12.8K CW:0 12016ms
Reasoning
Let me examine contexts where `evSyncDescaracterStageUi` is called (line 3321, 3396, 5286) to understand when the sync happens. Also the flow on creation. Let me look at those areas. Also let me check `evSyncInjuredPersonDetailsHidden` for serialization (single global vs per-card). Actually confirmed finding #3 covers multi-card issue. Let me avoid duplicating. Let me now think about other issues introduced by this diff: Change 1: In `evSyncDescaracterStageUi`, block now shows for all AP (both creation & aprofundamento). CSS hides toggle/comment/no-perm only outside aprofundamento. But what about the `data-descaracter-suspect` attribute? When section is visible in creation with checkboxes per card, what happens when the suspect checkbox is checked in the creation? It sets yesNoWrap d-none removal — the label appears but toggle hidden. That's finding #2 (partial view). But here is another potential issue: when the section is visible in creation, the checkbox `.ev-inj-suspect-chk` is inside `.ev-inj-descaracter` which is now visible. Wait — actually let me verify the render. In creation stage, `.ev-inj-descaracter` section becomes visible when AP type selected. The user checks the checkbox. Fine. But then what about validation in creation — is the checkbox required? Probably not. Another issue: When it's an edit of existing record where descaracter_suspect was saved (e.g. created with checkbox), when entering "Novo evento" creation, the data... hmm. Let's think about a specific scenario: In the creation flow (etapa 1/2) with AP type, the checkbox now shows. If user checks it, the payload sends `descaracter_suspect: 1`. On save then Aprofundamento, the record shows Sim/Não gated by permission. Good. Now what about a **non-doctor** user in the creation who checks the suspicion? Actually anyone can check. In aprofundamento, if a person without permission opens, they see the "Sem permissão" hint. OK. Now potential issue: The CSS rule `#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) ...` applies based on class `is-doctor-aprof` on `#form-event-new`. `evSyncDescaracterStageUi` toggles the class based on `isDoctorAprof = !!evAprofundamentoOnlyMode`. But in **edit mode** of an existing occurrence (not aprofundamento-only) — e.g., a normal user editing the event at etapa "geral" or a member editing? The form might be in edit mode but not aprofundamento. Previously (before this PR), in non-aprof mode, the whole `.ev-inj-descaracter` block was hidden. Now in edit mode (non-aprof), the checkbox is visible (section shown because `isAp`) but Sim/Não hidden via CSS. That's consistent with creation. Hmm wait — but is that the desired behavior? The requirement says checkbox visible on creation; on aprofundamento Sim/Não appears. In regular edit (not aprofundamento), the checkbox would be visible as well and Sim/Não hidden. Is that per design? The doc says visible in creation... but edit also goes through the same "Novo evento" modal? Actually `_modal_event.html.twig` is for "Novo evento". There may be a separate edit modal. Let me check `ev_form_mode`. Let me check other call sites of evSyncDescaracterStageUi and where the checkboxes might interact with read-only states. Also check where the block is marked for the "sem permissão" case: `.ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm` is hidden via CSS in non-aprof mode, so that's fine. Now, an important aspect: the CSS hides `.ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm`, `.ev-inj-descaracter-toggle`, `.ev-inj-descaracter-comment-wrap`. But when the user **enters aprofundamento**, the class `is-doctor-aprof` is added to the form, so the CSS rules stop applying and visibility reverts to JS control. Good. But wait — there could be a race: CSS hiding uses `display:none !important`. The JS `evSyncDescaracterUi` might set `b.classList.remove('d-none')` on buttons buttons hidden via CSS still hidden until aprofundamento. That's fine. Potential real issue: The "Sem/Não" label block `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` was `d-none` by default and only becomes visible when suspicion is checked (JS removes d-none). In creation with suspicion checked, the CSS hides the sub-elements but NOT the label "Caracterizado como acidente?" — confirmed finding #2. Now, are there additional new issues introduced specifically by these diff lines? Let me look again at line 2925-2928: ```js document.querySelectorAll('.ev-inj-descaracter').forEach(function (el) { el.classList.toggle('d-none', !isAp); }); ``` Consider the case when type != AP. `.ev-inj-descaracter` gets `d-none`. But wait: When AP selected at creation, the section is shown. When user checks a suspect checkbox in a card and then **changes type away from AP** (e.g., to ROS), the section is hidden via d-none. That's fine. Now consider edit/aprof mode where `evSyncDescaracterUi` is called at line 6492 — it calls `evSyncDescaracterStageUi` first (line 2945), then syncs per-card visibility. Since class is-doctor-aprof set accordingly. Now, in aprofundamento for a doctor, the section is shown and yes/no per card shows only if that card's suspect checkbox checked. Good. Now what happens in the **aprof mode for non-AP events**? If a doctor opens aprofundamento for a ROS event... `isAp` false → hidden. That was the same as before? Previously: `el.classList.toggle('d-none', !isAp || !isDoctorAprof);`. For ROS it's false. Same. Now something subtle: The CSS class toggles `.ev-inj-suspect-chk` displayed on creation for AP. But consider when a card's checkbox was checked in creation and persisted `data-descaracter-suspect="1"` on card, and the serialization uses `evSyncInjuredPersonDetailsHidden`. Let me check the serialization to see how it reads suspect from cards. Let me search for `data-descaracter-suspect` reading in serialization.
Tool Calls (2)
code_search
Show Details
{"file_patterns": ["templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig"], "search_text": "descaracter-suspect"}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig
Match lines: 6
1396|#form-event-new .ev-inj-descaracter-suspect-ro {
1401|#form-event-new .ev-inj-descaracter-suspect-ro-wrap .form-check-label {
3316|            if (el.classList && el.classList.contains('ev-inj-descaracter-suspect-ro')) return;
5746|            // Atualiza o data-descaracter-suspect do card para serialização.
5747|            card.setAttribute('data-descaracter-suspect', e.target.checked ? '1' : '0');
6484|            card.setAttribute('data-descaracter-suspect', suspectOn ? '1' : '0');

file_read
Show Details
{"end_line": 3410, "file_path": "templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig", "start_line": 3300}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig (Total lines: 7710)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 3300-3410
3300|            alert.classList.toggle('d-none', !readonly);
3301|            if (evIsAprofundamentoFinalized() && !EV_IS_ADMIN_APROFUNDAMENTO) {
3302|                alert.innerHTML = '<i class="fas fa-lock mr-2"></i>Aprofundamento finalizado. Somente um administrador ou gestor administrador pode alterar.';
3303|            } else {
3304|                alert.innerHTML = '<i class="fas fa-exclamation-triangle mr-2"></i>O aprofundamento é preenchido pelo profissional responsável (gestor direto do colaborador ou equipe técnica SSMA).';
3305|            }
3306|        }
3307|        var controls = document.querySelectorAll(
3308|            '#ev-technical-section input, #ev-technical-section select, #ev-technical-section textarea,' +
3309|            '#ev-spec-type-card input, #ev-spec-type-card select, #ev-spec-type-card textarea,' +
3310|            '#ev-gravity-wrap input, #ev-gravity-wrap select,' +
3311|            '#ev-corrective-actions-section input, #ev-corrective-actions-section select, #ev-corrective-actions-section textarea, #ev-corrective-actions-section button,' +
3312|            '#ev-step-aprofundamento .ev-inj-descaracter-btn'
3313|        );
3314|        Array.prototype.forEach.call(controls, function (el) {
3315|            if (!el || el.type === 'hidden') return;
3316|            if (el.classList && el.classList.contains('ev-inj-descaracter-suspect-ro')) return;
3317|            el.disabled = !!readonly;
3318|        });
3319|        // Reaplica bloqueio Sem dano — o loop acima zera disabled de todos os selects.
3320|        evSyncInjuryTypeByConsequence();
3321|        evSyncDescaracterStageUi();
3322|    }
3323|
3324|    function evUpdateFooter() {
3325|        var type = evSelectedType();
3326|        var canEditAprofundamento = evCanEditAprofundamento(type);
3327|        var back = document.getElementById('ev-btn-back');
3328|        var cancel = document.getElementById('ev-btn-cancel');
3329|        var save = document.getElementById('ev-btn-save');
3330|        var draft = document.getElementById('ev-btn-draft');
3331|        var label = document.getElementById('ev-btn-label');
3332|        if (draft) {
3333|            draft.classList.toggle('d-none', !evAprofundamentoOnlyMode || evCurrentStep !== 'aprofundamento');
3334|        }
3335|        if (evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) {
3336|            if (back) back.classList.add('d-none');
3337|            if (cancel) cancel.classList.remove('d-none');
3338|            if (!label || !save) return;
3339|            if (evIsAprofundamentoFinalized() && !EV_IS_ADMIN_APROFUNDAMENTO) {
3340|                save.disabled = true;
3341|                save.classList.add('d-none');
3342|                if (draft) draft.classList.add('d-none');
3343|                return;
3344|            }
3345|            save.classList.remove('d-none');
3346|            save.disabled = false;
3347|            label.textContent = evIsAprofundamentoFinalized() ? 'Salvar alterações' : 'Finalizar';
3348|            return;
3349|        }
3350|        if (back) back.classList.toggle('d-none', evCurrentStep !== 'aprofundamento');
3351|        if (cancel) cancel.classList.toggle('d-none', evCurrentStep === 'aprofundamento');
3352|        if (!label || !save) return;
3353|        save.classList.remove('d-none');
3354|        save.disabled = false;
3355|        if (evCurrentStep === 'general') {
3356|            label.innerHTML = (evRequiresAprofundamento(type) && evCanEditAprofundamento(type))
3357|                ? 'Aprofundamento <i class="fas fa-chevron-right ml-1"></i>'
3358|                : ((document.getElementById('ev_form_mode') || { value: 'create' }).value === 'edit'
3359|                    ? 'Salvar alterações'
3360|                    : 'Registrar');
3361|            return;
3362|        }
3363|        label.textContent = (document.getElementById('ev_form_mode') || { value: 'create' }).value === 'edit'
3364|            ? 'Salvar alterações'
3365|            : 'Registrar';
3366|        // Registrar nunca fica bloqueado por falta de permissão de aprofundamento.
3367|        save.disabled = false;
3368|    }
3369|
3370|    function evSetStep(step) {
3371|        if (evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) {
3372|            step = 'aprofundamento';
3373|        }
3374|        evCurrentStep = step === 'aprofundamento' ? 'aprofundamento' : 'general';
3375|        var general = document.getElementById('ev-step-general');
3376|        var apro = document.getElementById('ev-step-aprofundamento');
3377|        if (general) {
3378|            general.classList.toggle('d-none', evCurrentStep !== 'general');
3379|            general.classList.toggle('is-readonly', !!evAprofundamentoOnlyMode);
3380|        }
3381|        if (apro) apro.classList.toggle('d-none', evCurrentStep !== 'aprofundamento');
3382|        document.querySelectorAll('#ev-steps-bar .insp-step-seg').forEach(function (bar) {
3383|            var key = bar.getAttribute('data-ev-progress');
3384|            if (evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) {
3385|                bar.classList.toggle('is-active', key === 'aprofundamento');
3386|                bar.classList.toggle('active', key === 'aprofundamento');
3387|            } else {
3388|                bar.classList.toggle('is-active', key === 'general' || key === evCurrentStep);
3389|                bar.classList.toggle('active', key === 'general' || key === evCurrentStep);
3390|            }
3391|        });
3392|        var body = document.querySelector('#modalEventNew-offcanvas-wrapper .offcanvas-body');
3393|        if (body) body.scrollTop = 0;
3394|        evSetAprofundamentoReadonly(!evCanEditAprofundamento(evSelectedType()));
3395|        evUpdateFooter();
3396|        evSyncDescaracterStageUi();
3397|        if (evCurrentStep === 'aprofundamento') {
3398|            var stepType = evSelectedType();
3399|            evSyncCriticalityField(stepType);
3400|            if (evRequiresAccidentTechnical(stepType)) {
3401|                evSyncDerivedSeverityFromConsequence();
3402|            }
3403|            if (stepType === 'ACIDENTE_PESSOAL') {
3404|                window.requestAnimationFrame(function () {
3405|                    var cardAp = evEnsurePrimaryInjuredCardExpanded();
3406|                    if (cardAp && evCardHadInjury(cardAp)) {
3407|                        evEnsureBodyMapForCard(cardAp);
3408|                    }
3409|                });
3410|            } else if (evHadInjuryForValidation()) {
Request #32 deepseek-v4-flash P:18.62K C:1.85K CR:14.98K CW:0 15324ms
Reasoning
Now let me think about new issues beyond the confirmed findings. Let me examine the "read-only" finalization scenario at line 3300-3322. `evSetAprofundamentoReadonly` disables controls when readonly. This includes `.ev-inj-descaracter-btn`. But the newly-visible-on-creation `.ev-inj-suspect-chk` checkboxes aren't included in the disabled list (in `#ev-step-aprofundamento` only `.ev-inj-descaracter-btn` are disabled). But `.ev-inj-suspect-chk` is in `.ev-inj-descaracter` box. Actually, on the creation side, when readonly (finalized aprofundamento), the checkbox is displayed but not disabled. Hmm, is `.ev-inj-descaracter-suspect-ro` related? Lines 1396-1401 reference CSS class `.ev-inj-descaracter-suspect-ro`. There's a `ev-inj-descaracter-suspect-ro-wrap`. Let's examine. Actually the readonly flow for creation may matter: on readonly (e.g., admin viewing finalizado?) the checkbox would still be editable? But that may be out of scope for this diff since before this change, in non-aprof mode, the whole section was hidden, so the checkbox wasn't visible/editable in readonly create mode. Now in read-only creation/edit mode, the checkbox becomes visible and editable (not in the disabled controls list). Also in edit mode where form is readonly for an event that requires no editing... hmm. Let me focus on the actual new diff impact. The key behavioral change in creation mode: Before: `.ev-inj-descaracter` block hidden in non-aprof (d-none when !isAp || !isDoctorAprof). So checkbox hidden in creation. After: block visible when isAp; CSS hides Sim/Não elements. New impact: checkbox editable in creation for anyone, and on each card. It will mirror to global `ev_descaracter_suspect`. On save, the payload sends `descaracter_suspect` from global hidden input. Where is `ev_descaracter_suspect` read on submit? Let me check how the payload is built. Confirmed finding #3 says multiple cards conflict since global mirrors last checked. Not to repeat. But there is another wrinkle: with per-card checkbox in creation, when the checkbox on a card is checked during creation, the JS code at 5740-5752 runs — it shows yesNoWrap (removing d-none), which with CSS hides only subelements but label shows (finding #2). And it sets data-descaracter-suspect. This is already covered. Are there any NEW issues introduced specifically by the diff not covered by the three findings? Potential issue A: The CSS selector hides `.ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm` outside aprofundamento. Fine. Potential issue B: The checkbox `.ev-inj-suspect-chk` is now shown in **all creation steps** — is it inside only injured-person boxes that are always rendered for AP? The `ev-inj-descaracter` block is inside `.ev-injured-person-box` partial which is rendered for AP only when card exists. Good. Potential issue C: **The comment text changed in the partial is fine** (doc comment only). Potential issue D: This JS at line 2925 now displays section on creation for AP. But does the section get displayed on **editing an event** (not creation, not aprofundamento)? In edit mode with form loaded at the "general" step, `evSyncDescaracterStageUi` will now show checkboxes too. Is that per design? The PR description says "visível na criação e no aprofundamento". In edit mode — hmm. The modal "Novo evento" also handles editing (ev_form_mode edit). Actually line 2911: `evIsCreateMode()` uses ev_form_mode value 'create'. So the modal supports both create and edit. Wait — in edit mode (ev_form_mode === 'edit') for non-aprof: is-doctor-aprof class not applied. So section visible but Sim/Não hidden. But when editing an existing record that was previously created with suspect=1 and descaracterizado set, a user editing in general (not aprofundamento) cannot see or change Sim/Não; also can't see the previously saved "descaracterizado" value except through read-only display? There's CSS at 1396 `.ev-inj-descaracter-suspect-ro` — likely a read-only chip. Let me examine the read-only display area near lines 1390-1410. Also, `evSyncInjuredPersonDetailsHidden` serializes card attributes into `ev_injured_person_details`. Need to check whether the suspect per-card value in creation is read from checkbox state into payload hidden? Actually there is `data-descaracter-suspect` attribute set on change. But when the checkbox was not changed (previously set from restore), serialization presumably reads the checkbox. Wait — but on creation of a new event, this isn't relevant. Let me examine more about `evSyncInjuredPersonDetailsHidden` and how cards serialize. Let me focus on what's specifically changed to detect additional concrete bugs. Key diff lines: 1. CSS: previously `.ev-inj-descaracter` hidden in non-aprof, now only three children hidden. This changes behavior when a card's yesno wrap is shown in creation but only if a user checks the checkbox, in which case label visible (finding #2). However, there's ALSO another scenario: In **aprofundamento**, `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` may have `d-none` removed by JS for each checked card — fine. But there's another important scenario: In **create-mode** where the section is shown and Sim/Não hidden via CSS, if the event is then saved with suspect=1, then on **edit** (non-aprof), user sees checkbox but can't modify Sim/Não; fine because Sim/Não is aprofundamento-only. 2. JS: `el.classList.toggle('d-none', !isAp);` — Now this function is invoked from multiple places, including `evSetAprofundamentoReadonly` (line 3321) and `evSetStep` (3396). But when the type is not AP, block stays d-none. OK. Hmm, wait. There's a subtlety: The `.ev-inj-descaracter` div has inline class `d-none` initially (in partial line 192). JS controls toggle. The CSS only hides children. But **the checkbox would only appear when the card has `.ev-injured-person-box` with data-person-id and card content expanded**... fine. Now — new possible bug: In **creation**, the suspect checkbox per card is present. If user selects AP, then adds person, expands card. But if they check the checkbox and then uncheck: JS mirrors global to false. If two cards exist and user checks in one then unchecks in the other, global reflects last operation — finding #3, covered. What about saving with checkbox checked, then the **payload uses global hidden** (`ev_descaracter_suspect`)? Where is the payload built? Let me find the save handler `evPersist...`. Probably reads form elements by id. Since global checkbox `ev_descaracter_suspect` is inside `#ev-suspeita-wrap` which has `d-none` added — but d-none is display-only; the checkbox remains checked & serialized by the form serializer if the serializer reads all inputs. Wait but earlier comment says "#ev-suspeita-wrap fica sempre oculto" and the global checkbox hidden from UI, but is it in a form that gets submitted? Let me confirm that `ev_descaracter_suspect` is actually submitted/serialized. Search for where data is serialized for save. Let me look at how the payload is built & what field is used server-side. Search `descaracter_suspect` in whole repo to see server field mapping.
Tool Calls (2)
code_search
Show Details
{"search_text": "descaracter_suspect"}
File: GUIA_MERGE_TAB_OCCURRENCES.md
Match lines: 2
232|     data-descaracter-suspect="{{ occ.descaracter_suspect|default(0) }}"
252|     data-descaracter-suspect="{{ occ.descaracter_suspect|default(0) }}"

File: RESUMO_MAURICIO_MARCOS.md
Match lines: 1
136|     data-descaracter-suspect="{{ occ.descaracter_suspect|default(0) }}"

File: docs/ssma/CORRECOES-FECHAMENTO-FIGMA-PENDENTES.md
Match lines: 1
81|| Há suspeita de descaracterização | `suspeita_sim` | `descaracter_suspect = 1` |

File: docs/ssma/ocorrencia-06-tudo-na-caixinha-descaracter.md
Match lines: 1
27|| Persistência ocorrência | `#ev_descaracter_suspect` + `#ev_descaracterizado` (hiddens sincronizados) |

File: docs/ssma/ocorrencia-07-suspeita-descaracterizacao-ui.md
Match lines: 1
20|| Suspeita marcada | `descaracter_suspect` | `1` |

File: docs/ssma/ocorrencia-08-filtro-aprofundamento-descaracter.md
Match lines: 1
14|| Há suspeita de descaracterização | `suspeita_sim` | `descaracter_suspect = 1` |

File: src/Controller/SsmaController.php
Match lines: 6
14874|            'descaracter_suspect'    => !empty($details['descaracter_suspect']) ? 1 : 0,
27407|            'injured_person_details', 'descaracter_suspect', 'descaracterizado', 'descaracter_comment', 'witness_ids',
27503|                foreach (['descaracter_suspect', 'descaracterizado', 'descaracter_comment'] as $descKey) {
27515|        if (isset($details['descaracter_suspect'])) {
27516|            $details['descaracter_suspect'] = !empty($details['descaracter_suspect']) && $details['descaracter_suspect'] !== '0' ? 1 : 0;
27751|            '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;

File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig
Match lines: 11
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>
2199|            descaracter_suspect: evIsDescaracterSuspectChecked() ? 1 : 0,
2907|        var el = document.getElementById('ev_descaracter_suspect');
5731|        var suspectChk = document.getElementById('ev_descaracter_suspect');
5749|            var globalChk = document.getElementById('ev_descaracter_suspect');
6477|        var suspectRaw = det.descaracter_suspect != null ? det.descaracter_suspect : data.descaracter_suspect;
6479|        evSetChk('ev_descaracter_suspect', suspectOn);
7095|            var suspectEl = document.getElementById('ev_descaracter_suspect');
7111|            payload.descaracter_suspect = evIsDescaracterSuspectChecked() ? 1 : 0;
7128|                suspectEl.checked = !!payload.descaracter_suspect;

File: templates/ssma/occurrence/tabs/_tab_occurrences.html.twig
Match lines: 3
455|                     data-descaracter-suspect="{{ occ.descaracter_suspect|default(0) }}"
1636|                ' data-descaracter-suspect="' + escapeHtml(String(occurrenceData.descaracter_suspect ? 1 : 0)) + '"' +
1714|            rowNode.setAttribute('data-descaracter-suspect', occurrenceData.descaracter_suspect ? '1' : '0');

file_read
Show Details
{"end_line": 1420, "file_path": "templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig", "start_line": 1370}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig (Total lines: 7710)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 1370-1420
1370|    width: 100%;
1371|    justify-content: space-between;
1372|    border-radius: 8px;
1373|    padding: 10px 12px;
1374|    border: 1px solid #e0e0e0;
1375|    font-size: 14px;
1376|    font-weight: 400;
1377|    line-height: 1.5;
1378|    box-sizing: border-box;
1379|}
1380|#modalEventNew-offcanvas-wrapper .form-group .custom-modern-select.open .custom-modern-options {
1381|    z-index: 30;
1382|}
1383|#modalEventNew-offcanvas-wrapper .custom-modern-select-wrapper.is-invalid .custom-modern-select-trigger {
1384|    border-color: #dc3545 !important;
1385|    box-shadow: none;
1386|}
1387|.ev-step-panel.is-readonly .custom-modern-select-trigger {
1388|    background-color: #F1F3F5 !important;
1389|    opacity: 0.78;
1390|    pointer-events: none;
1391|}
1392|.ev-step-panel.is-readonly .ev-inj-descaracter-btn {
1393|    pointer-events: none;
1394|    opacity: 0.72;
1395|}
1396|#form-event-new .ev-inj-descaracter-suspect-ro {
1397|    pointer-events: none;
1398|    opacity: 1;
1399|    accent-color: var(--company-theme1-800, #0F3D4A);
1400|}
1401|#form-event-new .ev-inj-descaracter-suspect-ro-wrap .form-check-label {
1402|    color: #495057;
1403|}
1404|#form-event-new .ev-injury-field-blocked,
1405|#form-event-new select.ev-injury-field-blocked:disabled {
1406|    opacity: 0.55;
1407|    background-color: #F1F3F5 !important;
1408|    cursor: not-allowed;
1409|}
1410|#form-event-new .ev-injury-fields-sem-dano #ev_injury_type,
1411|#form-event-new .ev-injury-fields-sem-dano #ev_injury_severity,
1412|#form-event-new .ev-inj-injury-fields.ev-injury-fields-sem-dano .ev-inj-injury-type,
1413|#form-event-new .ev-inj-injury-fields.ev-injury-fields-sem-dano .ev-inj-injury-severity {
1414|    opacity: 0.55;
1415|    background-color: #F1F3F5 !important;
1416|    cursor: not-allowed;
1417|}
1418|/* Uma etapa: ROS / Quase Acidente / tipos sem aprofundamento técnico */
1419|#modalEventNew-offcanvas-wrapper .ev-steps-bar.ev-steps-bar--single .insp-step-seg[data-ev-progress="aprofundamento"] {
1420|    display: none !important;
Request #33 deepseek-v4-flash P:22.56K C:232 CR:20.35K CW:0 1745ms
Reasoning
Let me look at the save/submit handler around line 2199 and 7095-7130 to understand how the payload gets built for a NEW event (creation) - especially where `descaracter_suspect` per-card checkbox is read.
Tool Calls (2)
file_read
Show Details
{"end_line": 2230, "file_path": "templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig", "start_line": 2140}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig (Total lines: 7710)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 2140-2230
2140|        }
2141|    }
2142|
2143|    function evUpdateInjuredCardSummary(card) {
2144|        if (!card) return;
2145|        var name = (card.querySelector('.ev-inj-person-name') || {}).textContent || 'Nome do Colaborador';
2146|        var nameEl = card.querySelector('.js-ev-inj-summary-name');
2147|        if (nameEl) nameEl.textContent = name;
2148|        var leave = (card.querySelector('.ev-inj-work-leave') || {}).value || '';
2149|        var klass = (card.querySelector('.ev-inj-injury-classification') || {}).value || '';
2150|        var meta = card.querySelector('.js-ev-inj-summary-meta');
2151|        if (meta) meta.textContent = evCatClassSummaryLabel(leave, klass);
2152|        evSyncInjuredCardCollapsedSummary(card);
2153|    }
2154|
2155|    function evClearCanonicalInjuryIds() {
2156|        Object.keys(EV_INJ_CANONICAL_IDS).forEach(function (k) {
2157|            var id = EV_INJ_CANONICAL_IDS[k];
2158|            var el = document.getElementById(id);
2159|            if (el) el.removeAttribute('id');
2160|        });
2161|    }
2162|
2163|    function evAssignCanonicalInjuryIds(card) {
2164|        if (!card) return;
2165|        evClearCanonicalInjuryIds();
2166|        var map = [
2167|            ['.ev-inj-had-injury', EV_INJ_CANONICAL_IDS.had],
2168|            ['.ev-inj-injury-type', EV_INJ_CANONICAL_IDS.type],
2169|            ['.ev-inj-injury-severity', EV_INJ_CANONICAL_IDS.severity],
2170|            ['.ev-inj-work-leave', EV_INJ_CANONICAL_IDS.leave],
2171|            ['.ev-inj-injury-classification', EV_INJ_CANONICAL_IDS.classification]
2172|        ];
2173|        map.forEach(function (pair) {
2174|            var el = card.querySelector(pair[0]);
2175|            if (el) el.id = pair[1];
2176|        });
2177|        var had = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-had-injury');
2178|        var hadLabel = had && had.closest('.form-check') ? had.closest('.form-check').querySelector('label') : null;
2179|        if (had) {
2180|            had.name = 'ev_had_injury';
2181|            if (!had.id) had.id = EV_INJ_CANONICAL_IDS.had;
2182|            if (hadLabel) hadLabel.setAttribute('for', had.id);
2183|        }
2184|    }
2185|
2186|    function evReadCardInjuryData(card) {
2187|        if (!card) return {};
2188|        var isActive = card.classList.contains('is-expanded');
2189|        var data = {
2190|            attendance_date: (card.querySelector('.ev-inj-attendance') || {}).value || '',
2191|            breve_relato: (card.querySelector('.ev-inj-relato') || {}).value || '',
2192|            had_injury: !!(card.querySelector('.ev-inj-had-injury') || {}).checked,
2193|            injury_type: (card.querySelector('.ev-inj-injury-type') || {}).value || '',
2194|            injury_severity: (card.querySelector('.ev-inj-injury-severity') || {}).value || '',
2195|            work_leave: (card.querySelector('.ev-inj-work-leave') || {}).value || '',
2196|            injury_classification: (card.querySelector('.ev-inj-injury-classification') || {}).value || '',
2197|            consequence: (card.querySelector('.ev-inj-consequence') || {}).value || '',
2198|            potential_consequence: (card.querySelector('.ev-inj-potential-consequence') || {}).value || '',
2199|            descaracter_suspect: evIsDescaracterSuspectChecked() ? 1 : 0,
2200|            descaracterizado: '',
2201|            descaracter_comment: (card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-comment') || {}).value || '',
2202|            body_parts: []
2203|        };
2204|        var cardDescHidden = card.getAttribute('data-descaracterizado');
2205|        if (cardDescHidden !== null && cardDescHidden !== '') {
2206|            data.descaracterizado = cardDescHidden;
2207|        } else {
2208|            var cardBtns = card.querySelectorAll('.ev-inj-descaracter-btn.active');
2209|            if (cardBtns.length) {
2210|                data.descaracterizado = cardBtns[0].getAttribute('data-descaracter-val') || '';
2211|            }
2212|        }
2213|        if (isActive) {
2214|            data.body_parts = evCollectActiveBodyParts();
2215|            var bld = document.getElementById('ev_body_location_detail');
2216|            data.body_location_detail = bld && bld.value ? String(bld.value).trim() : '';
2217|        } else {
2218|            var prev = evGetInjuredDetailsObj()[card.getAttribute('data-person-id')] || {};
2219|            data.body_parts = Array.isArray(prev.body_parts) ? prev.body_parts : [];
2220|            data.body_location_detail = prev.body_location_detail || '';
2221|        }
2222|        return data;
2223|    }
2224|
2225|    function evApplyCardInjuryData(card, saved) {
2226|        if (!card || !saved) return;
2227|        var att = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-attendance');
2228|        if (att) att.value = saved.attendance_date || evTodayDateInputValue();
2229|        var rel = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-relato');
2230|        if (rel) rel.value = saved.breve_relato || '';
file_read
Show Details
{"end_line": 7150, "file_path": "templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig", "start_line": 7070}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig (Total lines: 7710)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 7070-7150
7070|                    ? (hadEl.checked ? 1 : 0)
7071|                    : (primaryData && primaryData.had_injury ? 1 : 0);
7072|                if (payload.had_injury) {
7073|                    var typeFromCard = primaryCard
7074|                        ? ((primaryCard.querySelector('.ev-inj-injury-type') || {}).value || '')
7075|                        : '';
7076|                    var sevFromCard = primaryCard
7077|                        ? ((primaryCard.querySelector('.ev-inj-injury-severity') || {}).value || '')
7078|                        : '';
7079|                    payload.injury_type = (document.getElementById('ev_injury_type') || { value: '' }).value
7080|                        || typeFromCard
7081|                        || (primaryData && primaryData.injury_type) || '';
7082|                    payload.injury_severity = (document.getElementById('ev_injury_severity') || { value: '' }).value
7083|                        || sevFromCard
7084|                        || (primaryData && primaryData.injury_severity) || '';
7085|                } else {
7086|                    payload.injury_type = '';
7087|                    payload.injury_severity = '';
7088|                }
7089|            }
7090|            payload.injury_classification = (document.getElementById('ev_injury_classification') || { value: '' }).value
7091|                || (primaryData && primaryData.injury_classification) || '';
7092|            payload.work_leave      = (document.getElementById('ev_work_leave') || { value: '' }).value
7093|                || (primaryData && primaryData.work_leave) || '';
7094|            payload.injured_person_details = (document.getElementById('ev_injured_person_details') || { value: '' }).value;
7095|            var suspectEl = document.getElementById('ev_descaracter_suspect');
7096|            var descFromCard = (primaryData && primaryData.descaracterizado !== undefined && primaryData.descaracterizado !== '')
7097|                ? String(primaryData.descaracterizado)
7098|                : '';
7099|            if (!descFromCard && primaryCard) {
7100|                descFromCard = String(primaryCard.getAttribute('data-descaracterizado') || '');
7101|            }
7102|            if (!descFromCard) {
7103|                descFromCard = String((document.getElementById('ev_descaracterizado') || {}).value || '');
7104|            }
7105|            // Fallback: médico sem permissão de descaracterizar nunca pode marcar "Não",
7106|            // então se todas as fontes estiverem vazias, assume "Sim" (é acidente = '0').
7107|            if (!descFromCard && evAprofundamentoOnlyMode && !evCanDescharacterizeAccident()) {
7108|                descFromCard = '0';
7109|            }
7110|            var descAnswered = descFromCard === '0' || descFromCard === '1';
7111|            payload.descaracter_suspect = evIsDescaracterSuspectChecked() ? 1 : 0;
7112|            // Caracterizar só o médico no aprofundamento dedicado.
7113|            if (descAnswered && evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) {
7114|                payload.descaracterizado = descFromCard;
7115|            } else {
7116|                delete payload.descaracterizado;
7117|            }
7118|            var descCommentFromCard = primaryCard
7119|                ? String((primaryCard.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-comment') || {}).value || '').trim()
7120|                : '';
7121|            payload.descaracter_comment = descCommentFromCard
7122|                || (primaryData && primaryData.descaracter_comment ? String(primaryData.descaracter_comment).trim() : '')
7123|                || '';
7124|            if (!evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) {
7125|                delete payload.descaracter_comment;
7126|            }
7127|            if (suspectEl) {
7128|                suspectEl.checked = !!payload.descaracter_suspect;
7129|            }
7130|            if (payload.had_injury) {
7131|                var bodyParts = (typeof evCollectActiveBodyParts === 'function')
7132|                    ? evCollectActiveBodyParts()
7133|                    : [];
7134|                if (!bodyParts.length && primaryData && Array.isArray(primaryData.body_parts)) {
7135|                    bodyParts = primaryData.body_parts;
7136|                }
7137|                if (bodyParts.length) payload.body_parts = bodyParts;
7138|                var bldEl = document.getElementById('ev_body_location_detail');
7139|                var bld = bldEl && bldEl.value ? String(bldEl.value).trim() : '';
7140|                if (!bld && primaryData && primaryData.body_location_detail) bld = primaryData.body_location_detail;
7141|                if (bld) payload.body_location_detail = bld;
7142|            }
7143|            // Campo custo removido de AP (só AM possui custo)
7144|            // payload.estimated_loss = (document.getElementById('ev_estimated_loss_ap') || { value: '' }).value;
7145|            payload.barrier_type = (document.getElementById('ev_barrier_type_ap') || { value: '' }).value;
7146|            delete payload.failed_barrier;
7147|            delete payload.strategic_nature;
7148|            var apSev = evResolvePotentialSeverity(
7149|                payload.consequence,
7150|                payload.potential_consequence,
Request #34 deepseek-v4-flash P:25.62K C:270 CR:22.78K CW:0 2359ms
Reasoning
Now let me consider the server side. In `SsmaEventService.php`, lines 186-189: if any card has `descaracter_suspect` set to truthy → `details['descaracter_suspect'] = 1`, else if `array_key_exists('descaracter_suspect', $card)` → 0. So per-card values aggregated server side, at least in one path. Let me read the SsmaEventService around 161-190.
Tool Calls (2)
file_read
Show Details
{"end_line": 200, "file_path": "src/Service/Ssma/SsmaEventService.php", "start_line": 140}
File: src/Service/Ssma/SsmaEventService.php (Total lines: 859)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 140-200
140|
141|    /**
142|     * @param array<string, mixed> $baseDetails
143|     * @param array<string, mixed> $card
144|     *
145|     * @return array<string, mixed>
146|     */
147|    private function mergeInjuredCardIntoDetails(array $baseDetails, int $personId, array $card): array
148|    {
149|        $details = $baseDetails;
150|        $details['person_id'] = $personId;
151|        $details['injured_person_details'] = [(string) $personId => $card];
152|
153|        $hadInjury = $card['had_injury'] ?? $details['had_injury'] ?? null;
154|        if ($hadInjury !== null) {
155|            $details['had_injury'] = $hadInjury;
156|        }
157|
158|        foreach ([
159|            'injury_type', 'injury_classification', 'work_leave', 'body_parts',
160|            'body_location_detail', 'attendance_date', 'breve_relato',
161|            'descaracter_suspect', 'descaracterizado', 'descaracter_comment',
162|            'consequence', 'potential_consequence',
163|        ] as $key) {
164|            if (array_key_exists($key, $card)) {
165|                $details[$key] = $card[$key];
166|            }
167|        }
168|
169|        $cardSeverity = PotentialSeverityEnum::coerce($card['potential_severity'] ?? null)
170|            ?? PotentialSeverityEnum::coerce($card['consequence'] ?? null)
171|            ?? PotentialSeverityEnum::coerce($card['potential_consequence'] ?? null)
172|            ?? PotentialSeverityEnum::coerce($details['potential_severity'] ?? null);
173|        if ($cardSeverity !== null) {
174|            $details['potential_severity'] = $cardSeverity;
175|        }
176|
177|        if (!isset($details['injury_severity'])) {
178|            $details['injury_severity'] = '';
179|        }
180|
181|        $injClass = strtoupper(trim((string) ($details['injury_classification'] ?? '')));
182|        if ($injClass === 'LTI_FATALIDADE') {
183|            $details['injury_classification'] = 'FAT';
184|        }
185|
186|        if (!empty($card['descaracter_suspect'])) {
187|            $details['descaracter_suspect'] = 1;
188|        } elseif (array_key_exists('descaracter_suspect', $card)) {
189|            $details['descaracter_suspect'] = 0;
190|        }
191|
192|        return $details;
193|    }
194|
195|    /**
196|     * Atualiza um SsmaEvent existente com um payload parcial ou completo.
197|     *
198|     * @param array<string, mixed> $data
199|     * @param array<string, mixed> $editorMeta name, role (Colaborador|Profissional|Administrador)
200|     */
file_read
Show Details
{"end_line": 700, "file_path": "src/Service/Ssma/SsmaAutomationService.php", "start_line": 630}
File: src/Service/Ssma/SsmaAutomationService.php (Total lines: 3255)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 630-700
630|                $wantsYes  = in_array('sim', $selected, true);
631|                $wantsNo   = in_array('nao', $selected, true);
632|                if ($wantsYes && $withLeave !== 'sim') {
633|                    return false;
634|                }
635|                if ($wantsNo && $withLeave === 'sim') {
636|                    return false;
637|                }
638|            } elseif ($type === 'ssma_condition_professional_complete') {
639|                $complete   = !empty($payload['professional_complete']);
640|                $wantsComplete   = in_array('completo', $selected, true);
641|                $wantsIncomplete = in_array('incompleto', $selected, true);
642|                if ($wantsComplete && !$complete) {
643|                    return false;
644|                }
645|                if ($wantsIncomplete && $complete) {
646|                    return false;
647|                }
648|                $suspect = ($payload['descaracter_suspect'] ?? '0') === '1';
649|                $desc    = (string) ($payload['descaracterizado'] ?? '');
650|                if (in_array('suspeita_sim', $selected, true) && !$suspect) {
651|                    return false;
652|                }
653|                if (in_array('descaracterizado_sim', $selected, true) && $desc !== '1') {
654|                    return false;
655|                }
656|                if (in_array('descaracterizado_nao', $selected, true) && $desc !== '0') {
657|                    return false;
658|                }
659|            } elseif ($type === 'ssma_condition_validation_status') {
660|                $current = $this->normalizeToken((string) ($payload['validation_status'] ?? ''));
661|                $wantsApproved = in_array('aprovado', $selected, true) || in_array('approved', $selected, true);
662|                $wantsRejected = in_array('nao_aprovado', $selected, true)
663|                    || in_array('naoaprovado', $selected, true)
664|                    || in_array('rejected', $selected, true)
665|                    || in_array('reprovado', $selected, true);
666|                if ($wantsApproved && !$wantsRejected && $current !== 'approved') {
667|                    return false;
668|                }
669|                if ($wantsRejected && !$wantsApproved && $current !== 'rejected') {
670|                    return false;
671|                }
672|                if ($wantsApproved && $wantsRejected && !in_array($current, ['approved', 'rejected'], true)) {
673|                    return false;
674|                }
675|            }
676|        }
677|
678|        return true;
679|    }
680|
681|    /**
682|     * @param array<string, mixed> $action
683|     * @param array<string, mixed> $payload
684|     */
685|    private function executeAction(array $action, array $payload, Company $company, string $triggerType): void
686|    {
687|        $type   = $this->normalizeActionType((string) ($action['type'] ?? ''));
688|        $config = is_array($action['config'] ?? null) ? $action['config'] : [];
689|
690|        $this->logger->info(sprintf('[SSMA] executeAction type="%s" trigger="%s" occ=#%s', $type, $triggerType, $payload['id'] ?? '?'));
691|
692|        if (str_starts_with($triggerType, 'ssma_on_refusal')) {
693|            $config['attach_report'] = false;
694|        }
695|
696|        try {
697|            switch ($type) {
698|                case 'ssma_action_notify':
699|                    $this->executeUnifiedNotify($config, $payload, $company, $triggerType);
700|                    break;
Request #35 deepseek-v4-flash P:27.62K C:4.33K CR:25.86K CW:0 33681ms
Reasoning
Now, key line: line 2199 `descaracter_suspect: evIsDescaracterSuspectChecked() ? 1 : 0`. This is within `evReadCardInjuryData`, which reads the global hidden. That means per-card serialization stores the **global** state into each card. Confirmed finding #3 covers the multi-card conflict at a high level (per-card checkboxes mirror into a single global). Not to repeat. Now let me look at the injured person details hidden sync — `evSyncInjuredPersonDetailsHidden` — to see how per-card suspect is stored. But again, that could be part of finding #3. Let me now try to identify *additional* issues specific to the actual diff not covered by confirmed findings: New issue candidate 1: **After creation, when reopening the modal in aprofundamento** — the saved event. When marking the checkbox during creation, `descaracter_suspect` payload = 1. Server saves. When the doctor opens aprofundamento, line 6477-6487 restores suspect on all cards based on `det.descaracter_suspect`, showing yes/no wrap for each card. Good. New issue candidate 2: **Data-loss/regression on deselecting the checkbox when a user unchecks in aprofundamento**: previously... unchanged code. New issue candidate 3: **The `evSyncDescaracterStageUi` runs also when the event modal is readonly (finalized aprofundamento)** - since now in non-aprof stage section visible, but readonly disables inputs except `.ev-inj-suspect-chk`? Wait — readonly disables controls in `#ev-step-aprofundamento ... .ev-inj-descaracter-btn`, not `.ev-inj-suspect-chk`. If a finalized aprofundamento is opened in aprofundamento-only mode (readonly), checkboxes within cards... hmm, previously the checkbox might have been covered by disabled state somewhere. Let's search for where `.ev-inj-suspect-chk` is disabled in readonly. Line 3316: skip `ev-inj-descaracter-suspect-ro`. There's a read-only visual variant `.ev-inj-descaracter-suspect-ro` used maybe in the list summary? Let me look where `ev-inj-descaracter-suspect-ro` is referenced in HTML (lines 1396-1401 CSS only). Search again. Actually search result earlier only found lines in modal: 1396, 1401 CSS; 3316 in JS (skip), but not in HTML where class applied. It might be applied in the tab file `_tab_occurrences.html.twig`. Not relevant. Candidate issue: This PR is about the **creation** showing a checkbox in the card. But what about the **read-only finalized** state in non-aprof? Not the scope. Now think about the **creation card checkbox and expansion**. The partial `_ev_injured_person_box.html.twig` is used inside a collapsed card? Wait, in the injured person card, sections are shown only if the card is expanded (is-active?). The `.ev-inj-descaracter` box is inside the card body content that may be collapsed behind the "expand card" toggle. Actually the card shows a "ver detalhes" or expand? Let me not go down that path; the PR description instructs to expand the card and scroll to end. Potential real issue: **Focus/visuals**: When the suspect checkbox in creation is checked, `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` gets `d-none` removed (JS) — but the label "Caracterizado como acidente?" has class `.d-block` and is visible; that's finding #2 (which says the section appears by halves, label visible). Confirmed. Skip. Now new possible finding distinct from #2: **When a user unchecks the suspect checkbox during creation and re-checks, yesNoWrap toggles; fine. Let me think about the **creation stage with "Sem dano" no injury**? The checkbox label says "Há suspeita de descaracterização do acidente?" even if `had_injury` is false. Hmm, not related to this diff since the block existed for aprofundamento too. Let me consider **the requirement that on ROS / other types, the block must NOT appear**. Now CSS & JS keep block hidden when not AP. But wait: In the **aprofundamento** of a non-AP event there is no `.ev-injured-person-box` anyway (card only AP). Actually the partial is inside the injured persons box — for ROS, no injured person boxes exist. Fine. Now, is there a scenario where `isAp` true but the event creation stage is not showing injured cards? Doesn't matter. Let me now examine `evSyncInjuredPersonDetailsHidden` and serialization order to identify a **persist-loss bug in creation** — e.g., the checkbox being placed **inside the hidden/display:none** container? Wait. Actually important: In the **creation** mode, is `.ev-inj-descaracter` inside `.ev-injured-person-box`, but the entire `.ev-injured-person-box` might be display:none when the card is collapsed? Let's check partial structure beginning. Let me read the beginning of the partial file to see overall card layout (toggle). Also the earlier confirmed finding #2 was the biggest "half-visible" issue. Let me consider **a11y / CSS issue**: The new CSS rule sets display:none on `.ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm`. But wait: The no-perm paragraph is inside yesNoWrap. When a non-doctor in aprofundamento opens... is-doctor-aprof class present, CSS off, JS controls. OK. Consider **the same CSS rule also affects editing an AP event in normal mode (not aprofundamento-only)** — the "Sem permissão" paragraph hidden, and yes/no hidden. But what if a normal member edits an AP event that **already has descaracterizado='1'** (marked in aprofundamento by doctor)? In edit mode (non-aprof), they can't change it because Sim/Não is hidden; but is there a validation that requires re-answering? Probably fine because field already answered and not deleted from payload in non-aprof? Actually in non-aprof mode payload deletes descaracterizado unless... line 7113 `if (descAnswered && evAprofundamentoOnlyMode)` → else delete. Wait — that's in save handler for... Let me check which path this is. Line 7111-7117 is in a function around line 7070 that seems to be the payload builder used on creation/save. In non-aprof mode it deletes `payload.descaracterizado` unless aprofundamentoOnlyMode. That means in creation/edit general, descaracterizado is not persisted/changed. Existing behavior. Not changed by this PR. OK so what NEW issues does the diff bring that are real and NOT among the confirmed three? Let me carefully diff mentally against the pre-change behavior: Old JS: `el.classList.toggle('d-none', !isAp || !isDoctorAprof);` Old CSS: `#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter { display:none !important; }` So old behavior: in non-aprof, entire block hidden. In aprofundamento for AP, block visible and Sim/Não flow worked. New behavior: in non-aprof (creation/edit general) AP: block visible; CSS hides toggle/comment/no-perm but NOT yesNoWrap or label. If checkbox is unchecked (default), yesNoWrap has d-none from markup, so nothing but checkbox visible. When checked, yesNoWrap shown → label visible (finding #2). New JS in aprofundamento: same visible logic. Now, what about the **aprofundamento when user checks the suspect checkbox but doesn't have permission**? Not changed. Another candidate — **CSS `display:none !important` vs `.d-none` class conflict on the buttons during aprofundamento**: irrelevant outside aprofundamento since the CSS applies only when form lacks is-doctor-aprof. Now candidate: **In creation, when suspect is checked and then the user proceeds to aprofundamento in the same flow (single wizard `evCurrentStep` general → aprofundamento, with evAprofundamentoOnlyMode?)** Wait — creation uses steps general → aprofundamento only if the user navigates; in the creation wizard for AP, when moving to aprofundamento step inside the same modal (`evCurrentStep === 'aprofundamento'` but NOT `evAprofundamentoOnlyMode`), the class `is-doctor-aprof` is only applied when `evAprofundamentoOnlyMode` is true (line 2919). So during the **create wizard's aprofundamento step**, `evAprofundamentoOnlyMode` false → is-doctor-aprof false → CSS still hides Sim/Não! Wait — is that right? Let me verify what `evAprofundamentoOnlyMode` is. During "Novo evento" for AP, there's a step "general" and step "aprofundamento" in the wizard (evUpdateFooter shows for creation: from 'general' to 'aprofundamento' the save label "Registrar"? hmm. Actually looking at footer: `if (evCurrentStep === 'general') { label = (evRequiresAprofundamento(type) && evCanEditAprofundamento(type)) ? 'Aprofundamento >' : 'Registrar'; }`. So the wizard has two steps for AP creation: general (etapa 1-2) then aprofundamento. But `evAprofundamentoOnlyMode` presumably only true when opening the dedicated aprofundamento view from the occurrences list (edit as doctor). In the creation wizard, aprofundamento is part of the same form flow; whether the class applies matters. Wait — is-doctor-aprof is toggled in evSyncDescaracterStageUi based on `evAprofundamentoOnlyMode` (line 2917-2919). In the create-wizard, when a user goes to the aprofundamento step (evSetStep('aprofundamento')), line 3396 calls evSyncDescaracterStageUi. If evAprofundamentoOnlyMode is false (i.e., not the dedicated aprofundamento view), the form class is-doctor-aprof is NOT set. Therefore the CSS still hides Sim/Não in the wizard's aprofundamento step. Then how do doctors create AP events through the wizard and mark descaracterização Sim/Não? Perhaps doctors don't go through the wizard: creation is by the registrar (not doctor), and doctors edit via dedicated aprofundamento view only. In the SSMA product, "Novo evento" registration steps are 1 (general) and 2 (aprofundamento) perhaps? The button label "Aprofundamento >" implies a wizard step. But whether this matters, we need to know when `evAprofundamentoOnlyMode` is true. Let me search evAprofundamentoOnlyMode definition. Also note the CSS rule is specifically under `#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof)`. is-doctor-aprof is applied only when aprofundamentoOnlyMode. So during the create-wizard's aprofundamento step (if any doctor goes there in the same wizard), Sim/Não would be hidden. But the confirmed finding #2 says "Sim/Não... ocultos via CSS até o aprofundamento" — maybe the product intends Sim/Não to appear only in the **dedicated aprofundamento view** (evAprofundamentoOnlyMode), not in wizard. Hmm — but historically (#636) the entire descaracter block was in aprofundamento only, and in the dedicated view. Now creation shows checkbox. The question: is there a case where the wizard's aprofundamento step is used for AP creation by a doctor and now Sim/Não is hidden there but it should show? Before this PR, the block was hidden unless isDoctorAprof (i.e., evAprofundamentoOnlyMode). So before, in the wizard aprofundamento step, the block was ALSO hidden (since is-doctor-aprof only when aprofundamentoOnlyMode). So no regression vs before — before #636 maybe different. This PR's change keeps it hidden in wizard aprofundamento unless aprofundamentoOnlyMode. This is consistent with pre-PR behavior for the wizard. So no new regression. OK, now I need to find distinct real issues within the changed lines. Let me carefully think again about changed lines: Changed CSS lines: ``` #form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-toggle, #form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-comment-wrap, #form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm { display: none !important; } ``` Now let's double check: in non-aprof mode (creation), if the checkbox is checked, `evSyncInjuredPersonDetailsHidden` serialization... but also **validation**. When creation proceeds to save with suspect checked but no answer to Sim/Não, no problem because descaracterizado only validated in aprofundamento-only. Now, a distinct bug candidate: **In the "read-only"/finalized aprofundamento view** — `evSetAprofundamentoReadonly(true)` disables buttons `.ev-inj-descaracter-btn`, sets `pointer-events:none` for `.ev-step-panel.is-readonly .ev-inj-descaracter-btn`. Not changed by this PR. Another distinct bug: **Editing an existing occurrence in the main wizard in non-aprof mode now exposes a checkbox that could change `descaracter_suspect` when a normal user edits event (edit general).** Before this PR, in non-aprof mode the section was hidden, so `descaracter_suspect` was never toggled by a general edit. Now, in edit mode (general, non-aprof), a user could check/uncheck the suspect checkbox, changing `descaracter_suspect` on a record that had been finalized in aprofundamento with Sim/Não answered. Is that allowed by the business? The requirement says the checkbox appears "na criação". Does it also apply to edits in general? Perhaps yes (record still editable at general stage by whoever). But changing `descaracter_suspect` after a doctor answered Sim/Não could create inconsistencies: e.g., suspect unchecked but descaracterizado='1' already set (descaracterization without suspicion). The payload keeps descaracterizado? Actually in general edit, payload.delet descaracterizado (non-aprof) → so old descaracterizado retained server-side but suspect changed. This yields "not suspect but descaracterizado" mismatch. But is that reachable? Only when an AP event is edited via general modal (form mode edit). The modal supports edit: line 6508 sets title 'Editar ocorrência', `evSetStep('general')` on restore. When editing, type = AP, and evSyncDescaracterStageUi shows the checkbox. So yes, general edit exposes the checkbox now. Is this a *new* issue or intended? The product request was only about "Novo evento" creation. The change affects edit mode too, because same sync function toggles in both. Given that general edit exposes the suspect checkbox without Sim/Não and without the ability to review the previously-answered descaracterização, a user editing an AP event in general might unknowingly uncheck suspicion of a finalized occurrence. But wait — in finalized aprofundamento (readonly), general editing is blocked? Typically finalized events can't be edited by non-admin. Hmm. This is speculative; but there might be a simpler, more concrete bug. Let me re-check the actual UI flow to understand creation & wizard: Search for `evOpenEventCreateModal` or how the modal is opened for creation and for aprofundamento-only. Actually, since we can't confirm product intent, and confirmed finding #2/#3 cover the main visible issues, I should look for other clearly real issues. Let's think about the **partial comment change** in `_ev_injured_person_box.html.twig`. The partial is used for both creation and aprofundamento? The `.ev-inj-descaracter` block with `d-none` at markup; now JS shows on creation. The comment change has no functional impact. Now let me think about the **CSS hiding the `.ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm`**. Wait — actually, there's an important detail: In **aprofundamento** where the user lacks permission (canSn false), when the suspect checkbox is checked, the buttons show: "Não" disabled and `.ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm` text shown. That still works in aprofundamento because CSS doesn't apply (is-doctor-aprof). Good. But what about **aprofundamento edit mode opened by a person without doctor role** (e.g., through wizard?)... skip. Another concrete candidate bug: **CSS rule also hides `.ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm` but the earlier CSS at 1297 handles disabled 'Não'**. irrelevant. Let me reconsider candidate bug 2 more carefully: The half-visible label. Confirmed finding #2 already covers this: "o rótulo 'Caracterizado como acidente?' ... fica visível". So don't repeat. Candidate bug: **In non-aprof mode, when user checks the suspect checkbox on a card, evSyncInjuredPersonDetailsHidden saves the card state. On expanding another card, etc. no. Let me look for issues around **form submit in create mode sending `descaracter_suspect` as part of "details" and server rejecting unknown/extra**. Let me re-read the payload builder more (lines 7000-7070) and where it is called from to know what happens during create. Actually, wait: line 2199 inside `evReadCardInjuryData` uses the **global** checkbox state for EVERY card. And line 6484 sets per-card `data-descaracter-suspect` from global too. So effectively everything is global-derived. That confirms finding #3. Now let me check for **new issue with the checkbox being inside the collapsed section on creation**: The injured person box has "expand" — actually `_ev_injured_person_box` partial is the full form with fields; it may always be visible after adding a person. The `.ev-inj-descaracter` at the bottom always visible when block shown. Let me look at `evRenderInjuredPersonBoxes` and the box header, to see whether content is hidden unless expanded in creation. Possibly checkbox only reachable when the card is expanded, fine per test steps. Now let me look for the **serialization to `ev_injured_person_details` in creation**: `evSyncInjuredPersonDetailsHidden` — let me read it to understand when the card data is serialized; also check `evReadCardInjuredDetails` around line 6410? Actually 6441 - `injRaw = JSON.stringify(injObj)`. Let me read that function beginning to see whether per-card suspect data actually goes into the hidden `ev_injured_person_details` payload used on create save. Let me search for `evSyncInjuredPersonDetailsHidden` definition.
Tool Calls (2)
code_search
Show Details
{"file_patterns": ["templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig"], "search_text": "function evSyncInjuredPersonDetailsHidden"}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig
Match lines: 1
2264|    function evSyncInjuredPersonDetailsHidden() {

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
1548|    var evAprofundamentoOnlyMode = false;
2917|        var isDoctorAprof = !!evAprofundamentoOnlyMode;
2950|        if (!canSn && cur === '' && evAprofundamentoOnlyMode && hidden) {
3333|            draft.classList.toggle('d-none', !evAprofundamentoOnlyMode || evCurrentStep !== 'aprofundamento');
3335|        if (evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) {
3371|        if (evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) {
3379|            general.classList.toggle('is-readonly', !!evAprofundamentoOnlyMode);
3384|            if (evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) {
6018|            if (boxesWrap && evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) {
6134|        evAprofundamentoOnlyMode = false;
6528|            evAprofundamentoOnlyMode = true;
6536|            // Sincroniza a UI de descaracterização agora que evAprofundamentoOnlyMode=true.
6567|        evAprofundamentoOnlyMode = false;
6660|            if (evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) return;
6679|        if (evAprofundamentoOnlyMode && evIsAprofundamentoFinalized() && !EV_IS_ADMIN_APROFUNDAMENTO) {
6695|        var finalizeAprofundamento = !evAprofundamentoOnlyMode || !!evAprofundamentoFinalizeIntent;
6696|        if (evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) {
6702|        if (evCurrentStep === 'general' && !evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) {
6719|            if (!evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) {
6725|        var softAprofundamentoDraft = evAprofundamentoOnlyMode && !finalizeAprofundamento;
6962|        if (evCurrentStep === 'aprofundamento' && evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) {
7107|            if (!descFromCard && evAprofundamentoOnlyMode && !evCanDescharacterizeAccident()) {
7113|            if (descAnswered && evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) {
7124|            if (!evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) {

Request #36 deepseek-v4-flash P:32.54K C:236 CR:27.52K CW:0 2130ms
Reasoning
Let me read the section around lines 6000-6050 (where boxes wrap & boxes are rebuilt), 6120-6160, and 6500-6575 to understand where aprofundamento-only mode is enabled/disabled and how boxes are rendered on creation.
Tool Calls (2)
file_read
Show Details
{"end_line": 6160, "file_path": "templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig", "start_line": 5990}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig (Total lines: 7710)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 5990-6160
5990|            }
5991|            var primaryCardForVal = evGetPrimaryInjuredCard();
5992|            var primaryConsEl = primaryCardForVal ? primaryCardForVal.querySelector('.ev-inj-consequence') : null;
5993|            var primaryPotEl = primaryCardForVal ? primaryCardForVal.querySelector('.ev-inj-potential-consequence') : null;
5994|            var hadInj = evHadInjuryForValidation();
5995|            var semDano = ((primaryConsEl || {}).value || '') === 'SEM_DANO';
5996|            if (boxesWrap) {
5997|                boxesWrap.querySelectorAll('.ev-injured-person-box[data-person-id]').forEach(function (card) {
5998|                    var cons = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-consequence');
5999|                    var pot = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-potential-consequence');
6000|                    if (cons && !cons.value) mark(cons);
6001|                    if (pot && !pot.value) mark(pot);
6002|                });
6003|            }
6004|            if (!(document.getElementById('ev_barrier_type_ap') || {}).value) mark('#ev_barrier_type_ap');
6005|            if (hadInj && !semDano) {
6006|                var injCard = primaryCardForVal || evGetPrimaryInjuredCard();
6007|                var typeEl = injCard
6008|                    ? injCard.querySelector('.ev-inj-injury-type')
6009|                    : document.getElementById('ev_injury_type');
6010|                var sevEl = injCard
6011|                    ? injCard.querySelector('.ev-inj-injury-severity')
6012|                    : document.getElementById('ev_injury_severity');
6013|                if (typeEl && !typeEl.value) mark(typeEl);
6014|                if (sevEl && !sevEl.value) mark(sevEl);
6015|                var classEl = injCard ? injCard.querySelector('.ev-inj-injury-classification') : null;
6016|                if (classEl && !classEl.value) mark(classEl);
6017|            }
6018|            if (boxesWrap && evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) {
6019|                var descaracterInvalid = false;
6020|                var focusCard = null;
6021|                var focusEl = null;
6022|                boxesWrap.querySelectorAll('.ev-injured-person-box[data-person-id]').forEach(function (card) {
6023|                    var desc = card.getAttribute('data-descaracterizado') || '';
6024|                    var toggle = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-toggle');
6025|                    var comm = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-comment');
6026|                    if (toggle) toggle.classList.remove('is-invalid');
6027|                    if (desc === '0' || desc === '1') {
6028|                        if (comm && !String(comm.value || '').trim()) {
6029|                            mark(comm);
6030|                            descaracterInvalid = true;
6031|                            if (!focusCard) {
6032|                                focusCard = card;
6033|                                focusEl = comm;
6034|                            }
6035|                        }
6036|                    } else {
6037|                        if (toggle) {
6038|                            toggle.classList.add('is-invalid');
6039|                            if (MV) MV.markInvalid($(toggle));
6040|                        }
6041|                        if (comm) mark(comm);
6042|                        ok = false;
6043|                        descaracterInvalid = true;
6044|                        if (!focusCard) {
6045|                            focusCard = card;
6046|                            focusEl = toggle || comm || card;
6047|                        }
6048|                    }
6049|                });
6050|                if (descaracterInvalid) {
6051|                    window.__ssmaEvSkipGenericValidationToast = true;
6052|                    if (focusCard && typeof evExpandInjuredCard === 'function') {
6053|                        evExpandInjuredCard(focusCard);
6054|                    }
6055|                    window.setTimeout(function () {
6056|                        var target = focusEl
6057|                            || (focusCard && focusCard.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter'))
6058|                            || focusCard;
6059|                        if (target && typeof target.scrollIntoView === 'function') {
6060|                            try { target.scrollIntoView({ block: 'center', behavior: 'smooth' }); } catch (eScroll) {}
6061|                        }
6062|                    }, 80);
6063|                    if (typeof showToast === 'function') {
6064|                        showToast(
6065|                            'No card do acidentado (acima da Ação), responda “Caracterizado como acidente?” e preencha o comentário.',
6066|                            'Aprofundamento',
6067|                            'fas fa-exclamation-circle',
6068|                            'bg-warning'
6069|                        );
6070|                    }
6071|                }
6072|            }
6073|        } else if (type === 'ACIDENTE_MATERIAL') {
6074|            if (!(document.getElementById('ev_asset_type') || {}).value) mark('#ev_asset_type');
6075|            if (!(document.getElementById('ev_consequence') || {}).value) mark('#ev_consequence');
6076|            if (!(document.getElementById('ev_potential_consequence') || {}).value) mark('#ev_potential_consequence');
6077|            if (!(document.getElementById('ev_barrier_type_am') || {}).value) mark('#ev_barrier_type_am');
6078|        } else if (type === 'ACIDENTE_AMBIENTAL') {
6079|            if (!(document.getElementById('ev_environmental_medium') || {}).value) {
6080|                mark('#ev_environmental_medium');
6081|            }
6082|            if (!(document.getElementById('ev_pollutant_type') || {}).value) {
6083|                mark('#ev_pollutant_type');
6084|            }
6085|            if (!(document.getElementById('ev_consequence') || {}).value) mark('#ev_consequence');
6086|            if (!(document.getElementById('ev_potential_consequence') || {}).value) mark('#ev_potential_consequence');
6087|            if (!(document.getElementById('ev_barrier_type_aa') || {}).value) mark('#ev_barrier_type_aa');
6088|        }
6089|        return ok;
6090|    }
6091|
6092|    /* ── Helpers internos para populateForEdit ────────────── */
6093|    function evSetVal(id, val) {
6094|        var el = document.getElementById(id);
6095|        if (el && val !== undefined && val !== null && val !== '') el.value = String(val);
6096|        if (id === 'ev_person_id' || id === 'ev_person_id_qa') {
6097|            if (typeof window.setCustomSelectValue === 'function' && val !== undefined && val !== null && val !== '') {
6098|                window.setCustomSelectValue(id, String(val));
6099|            } else {
6100|                evSyncCustomSelectVisual(id, false);
6101|            }
6102|        }
6103|    }
6104|    /** Garante option legada no select (meio/poluente/barreira antigos) ao editar. */
6105|    function evEnsureSelectOption(selectId, value) {
6106|        if (value === undefined || value === null || value === '') return;
6107|        var sel = document.getElementById(selectId);
6108|        if (!sel) return;
6109|        var v = String(value);
6110|        for (var i = 0; i < sel.options.length; i++) {
6111|            if (sel.options[i].value === v) return;
6112|        }
6113|        var opt = document.createElement('option');
6114|        opt.value = v;
6115|        opt.textContent = v;
6116|        sel.appendChild(opt);
6117|    }
6118|    function evSetChk(id, val) {
6119|        var el = document.getElementById(id);
6120|        if (el) el.checked = !!val;
6121|    }
6122|    function evParseCsvIds(val) {
6123|        if (Array.isArray(val)) return val.map(Number).filter(Boolean);
6124|        if (!val) return [];
6125|        return String(val).split(',').map(function (s) { return parseInt(s.trim(), 10); }).filter(Boolean);
6126|    }
6127|
6128|    /* ── API pública para abertura em modo edição ─────────── */
6129|    window.EvModal = window.EvModal || {};
6130|    window.EvModal.populateForEdit = function (data) {
6131|        var $ = window.jQuery;
6132|        if (!$) return;
6133|        window.__ssmaEvCreateMode = null;
6134|        evAprofundamentoOnlyMode = false;
6135|        evAprofundamentoFinalizeIntent = true;
6136|        var detEarly = (data && data.details && typeof data.details === 'object') ? data.details : (data || {});
6137|        var aprofStatus = String(detEarly.aprofundamento_status || (data && data.aprofundamento_status) || '').toLowerCase();
6138|        evAprofundamentoFinalized = aprofStatus === 'finalized'
6139|            || !!(detEarly.aprofundamento_complete || (data && data.aprofundamento_complete));
6140|        var typeWrap = document.getElementById('ev_type_wrap');
6141|        if (typeWrap) typeWrap.classList.remove('d-none');
6142|        var shared = window.SsmaShared || {};
6143|        var tc     = window.EvModal._tagConfigs;
6144|        data = data || {};
6145|        // det: objeto details (formato serialize) ou fallback para o próprio data (formato listagem)
6146|        var det  = (data.details && typeof data.details === 'object') ? data.details : data;
6147|        var type = data.type || data.type_value || '';
6148|
6149|        // Reset form
6150|        var form = document.getElementById('form-event-new');
6151|        if (form) form.reset();
6152|        evApplyDatetimeMax();
6153|        evEvidences = [];
6154|        evEvidenceRenderList();
6155|        evRosResolutionEvidences = [];
6156|        if (typeof evRosResolutionEvidenceRenderList === 'function') {
6157|            evRosResolutionEvidenceRenderList();
6158|        }
6159|
6160|        // Modo e ID
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: 7710)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 6500-6580
6500|                persisted: true
6501|            };
6502|        });
6503|        evEvidenceRenderList();
6504|
6505|        // ── Labels do modal ─────────────────────────────────
6506|        var btnLbl = document.getElementById('ev-btn-label');
6507|        var modalTitle = document.getElementById('ev-modal-title');
6508|        if (modalTitle) modalTitle.textContent = 'Editar ocorrência';
6509|        evApplyAuraTitleStatusVisibility('edit');
6510|        evSetStep('general');
6511|        $('#ev_manager').trigger('change');
6512|    };
6513|
6514|    /**
6515|     * Abre o offcanvas no aprofundamento (especialista).
6516|     * Admin/gestor administrador edita tudo desde informações gerais — não trava o 1º passo.
6517|     */
6518|    window.EvModal.openAprofundamento = function (data) {
6519|        data = data || {};
6520|        if (EV_IS_ADMIN_APROFUNDAMENTO && window.OccurrenceModal && typeof window.OccurrenceModal.openEdit === 'function') {
6521|            window.OccurrenceModal.openEdit(data);
6522|            return;
6523|        }
6524|        var EV_GET_URL = '{{ path('ssma_event_get', {id: '__EV_ID__'})|e('js') }}';
6525|
6526|        function openWith(full) {
6527|            window.EvModal.populateForEdit(full || data);
6528|            evAprofundamentoOnlyMode = true;
6529|            evAprofundamentoFinalizeIntent = true;
6530|            var modalTitle = document.getElementById('ev-modal-title');
6531|            if (modalTitle) modalTitle.textContent = 'Aprofundamento técnico';
6532|            if (typeof evEnsureCorrectiveActionsSeed === 'function') {
6533|                evEnsureCorrectiveActionsSeed();
6534|            }
6535|            evSetStep('aprofundamento');
6536|            // Sincroniza a UI de descaracterização agora que evAprofundamentoOnlyMode=true.
6537|            // Isso também pré-seleciona "Sim" quando o profissional não pode descaracterizar.
6538|            evSyncDescaracterUi();
6539|            if (typeof window.openOffcanvasmodalEventNew === 'function') {
6540|                window.openOffcanvasmodalEventNew();
6541|            }
6542|        }
6543|
6544|        var eventId = data.id;
6545|        if (!eventId || String(eventId) === 'undefined') {
6546|            openWith(data);
6547|            return;
6548|        }
6549|        fetch(EV_GET_URL.replace('__EV_ID__', encodeURIComponent(String(eventId))), {
6550|            method: 'GET',
6551|            credentials: 'same-origin',
6552|            headers: { 'X-Requested-With': 'XMLHttpRequest' }
6553|        })
6554|            .then(function (res) { return res.json(); })
6555|            .then(function (result) {
6556|                var fullData = (result && result.success && result.event) ? result.event : data;
6557|                openWith(fullData);
6558|            })
6559|            .catch(function () {
6560|                openWith(data);
6561|            });
6562|    };
6563|
6564|    window.EvModal.openCreate = function (opts) {
6565|        opts = opts || {};
6566|        window.__ssmaEvCreateMode = opts.createMode || null;
6567|        evAprofundamentoOnlyMode = false;
6568|        evAprofundamentoFinalizeIntent = true;
6569|        evAprofundamentoFinalized = false;
6570|        // Nova ocorrência sempre começa limpa (não restaura draft de preenchimento anterior).
6571|        var modeEl = document.getElementById('ev_form_mode');
6572|        var idEl = document.getElementById('ev_id');
6573|        if (modeEl) {
6574|            modeEl.value = 'create';
6575|        }
6576|        if (idEl) {
6577|            idEl.value = '';
6578|        }
6579|        var modalTitle = document.getElementById('ev-modal-title');
6580|        if (modalTitle) {
Request #37 deepseek-v4-flash P:36.35K C:1.24K CR:32.77K CW:0 8848ms
Reasoning
Now I see. Let me analyze the creation vs aprofundamento flow. Creation: `evAprofundamentoOnlyMode = false`, so `is-doctor-aprof` not set on the form. New behavior in creation: the suspect checkbox shows (by design). Aprofundamento dedicated: `openAprofundamento` → `populateForEdit`, `evAprofundamentoOnlyMode = true`; `evSetStep('aprofundamento')` → `evSyncDescaracterStageUi` sets is-doctor-aprof → CSS no longer hides. Good. Now there is an important subtlety: **In the creation wizard** — for AP events that require aprofundamento, when the registrar creates the event... The creation itself has two steps: general then aprofundamento? Let me look at `evRequiresAprofundamento` and whether creation in a single flow goes through aprofundamento step with `evAprofundamentoOnlyMode=false`. In creation (openCreate), evCurrentStep may become aprofundamento (second wizard step), but evAprofundamentoOnlyMode false. So is-doctor-aprof never applied. This means Sim/Não in the create-wizard aprofundamento step remains hidden by CSS. But wait — did the create wizard include descaracterização at all before? #636 moved the whole block to aprofundamento-only (isDoctorAprof true only when evAprofundamentoOnlyMode true). Actually old condition `!isAp || !isDoctorAprof` would hide the section when evAprofundamentoOnlyMode=false even in the wizard's aprofundamento step. So in the creation wizard, descaracterização has never been usable (matches "#636: o checkbox só aparecia no Aprofundamento técnico" — dedicated view). So new feature targets only creation → show suspect checkbox (which records suspicion for later aprofundamento). That's exactly the product request. OK. Now let me consider whether there's an issue that on **creation**, the checkbox is shown in the collapsed injured card. The test procedure says "Expandir o card do acidentado → rolar até o fim." So yes it's in the expanded content. Now the partial: `.ev-inj-descaracter` is at the bottom of the card, but there is an element between line 188 and 192: `</div>` closing injury body. Also, note `.ev-inj-descaracter` includes `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` that holds the label & everything. In non-aprof CSS hides the toggle, comment wrap, and no-perm. That leaves the label if wrap shown (finding #2). Confirmed. skip. Now think about whether there's any issue with the **CSS rule order/specificity** causing **toggle hidden during aprofundamento?** is-doctor-aprof present → selector doesn't match → toggle visible. OK. Now let's check the selector `#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof)`. `form` element id is `form-event-new`. CSS earlier used `#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter` for whole block. There are other rules with `.is-doctor-aprof` on the form? e.g., `#form-event-new.is-doctor-aprof`? Let's search. Let me also check whether `form-event-new` is always the form id in this modal — yes. OK, given the three confirmed findings, what additional real issues exist? Let me reconsider. I should also look at what the earlier hunk at 1304 was previously: Previously the CSS hid the whole `.ev-inj-descaracter`. The old JS hid when not AP or not doctor-aprof. The new CSS hides only three sub-blocks but NOT `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap`. So in creation with suspicion checked: `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` label visible (finding #2). But wait — actually, in creation when suspicion unchecked (default): `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` retains `d-none` from markup because JS only removes it when checked. But there's also the per-card toggle loop at 2930-2937: on each sync, `yesNoWrap.classList.toggle('d-none', !suspChk.checked)`. So yes, wrap hidden unless checked. Now there is one more nuance regarding **restoring draft in creation**. When a user checks suspect, saves draft (sessionStorage), then restores draft: `evRestoreDraftIfAny` restores checkbox states by id — but per-card checkboxes have no id. The draft persist function (lines ~2830-2858) collects form elements: let me read `evPersistDraft` collect logic to see whether the per-card checkbox is saved. Actually the earlier code at 2840-2858: iterate `document.querySelectorAll('input...')`? Let's read from ~2810 to 2860.
Tool Calls (2)
file_read
Show Details
{"end_line": 2860, "file_path": "templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig", "start_line": 2800}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig (Total lines: 7710)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 2800-2860
2800|        if (primary && !details[primary]) {
2801|            details[primary] = { attendance_date: evTodayDateInputValue(), had_injury: true, body_parts: [] };
2802|            evSetInjuredDetailsObj(details);
2803|            ids = Object.keys(details);
2804|        }
2805|
2806|        evParkBodyMapBlock();
2807|        evClearCanonicalInjuryIds();
2808|        wrap.innerHTML = '';
2809|
2810|        ids.forEach(function (pid) {
2811|            // Sempre cria colapsada; expandir só via lápis (ou validação).
2812|            evCreateInjuredPersonCard(pid, details[pid] || {}, false);
2813|        });
2814|        // Respeita primary já salvo; senão marca o primeiro.
2815|        var preferred = primary || '';
2816|        if (preferred && wrap.querySelector('.ev-injured-person-box[data-person-id="' + preferred.replace(/"/g, '') + '"]')) {
2817|            evSelectPrimaryInjuredPerson(preferred);
2818|        } else {
2819|            evEnsurePrimaryInjuredMarked();
2820|        }
2821|        evSyncInjuredPersonDetailsHidden();
2822|        evSyncPrimaryInjuredPersonId();
2823|        evFilterInjuredPersonSelect();
2824|        evUpdateInjuredPersonsEmptyState();
2825|        if (evCurrentStep === 'aprofundamento' && evSelectedType() === 'ACIDENTE_PESSOAL') {
2826|            window.requestAnimationFrame(function () {
2827|                if (typeof evEnsurePrimaryInjuredCardExpanded === 'function') {
2828|                    evEnsurePrimaryInjuredCardExpanded();
2829|                }
2830|            });
2831|        }
2832|    }
2833|    var evDraftTimer = null;
2834|    function evPersistDraftSoon() {
2835|        if (evDraftTimer) clearTimeout(evDraftTimer);
2836|        evDraftTimer = setTimeout(evPersistDraftNow, 400);
2837|    }
2838|    function evPersistDraftNow() {
2839|        var mode = (document.getElementById('ev_form_mode') || {}).value || 'create';
2840|        if (mode !== 'create') return;
2841|        try {
2842|            var form = document.getElementById('form-event-new');
2843|            if (!form) return;
2844|            var data = {};
2845|            Array.prototype.forEach.call(form.elements, function (el) {
2846|                if (!el.name && !el.id) return;
2847|                var key = el.id || el.name;
2848|                if (!key) return;
2849|                if (el.type === 'checkbox' || el.type === 'radio') {
2850|                    data[key] = !!el.checked;
2851|                } else {
2852|                    data[key] = el.value;
2853|                }
2854|            });
2855|            data.__people_ids = (document.getElementById('ev_people_ids') || {}).value || '';
2856|            data.__witness_ids = (document.getElementById('ev_witness_ids') || {}).value || '';
2857|            data.__injured_details = (document.getElementById('ev_injured_person_details') || {}).value || '';
2858|            sessionStorage.setItem(EV_DRAFT_KEY, JSON.stringify(data));
2859|        } catch (e) {}
2860|    }
file_read
Show Details
{"end_line": 2280, "file_path": "templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig", "start_line": 2264}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig (Total lines: 7710)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 2264-2280
2264|    function evSyncInjuredPersonDetailsHidden() {
2265|        var wrap = document.getElementById('ev_injured_person_boxes');
2266|        if (!wrap) return;
2267|        // Merge: não apaga pessoas que ainda têm caixinha / dados salvos.
2268|        var out = evGetInjuredDetailsObj();
2269|        var seen = {};
2270|        wrap.querySelectorAll('.ev-injured-person-box[data-person-id]').forEach(function (card) {
2271|            var id = String(card.getAttribute('data-person-id') || '');
2272|            if (!id) return;
2273|            seen[id] = true;
2274|            out[id] = evReadCardInjuryData(card);
2275|        });
2276|        evSetInjuredDetailsObj(out);
2277|        evPersistDraftSoon();
2278|    }
2279|
2280|    function evFilterInjuredPersonSelect() {
Request #38 deepseek-v4-flash P:38.73K C:332 CR:37.5K CW:0 3312ms
Reasoning
So `evSyncInjuredPersonDetailsHidden` merges per-card data from `evReadCardInjuryData`, which stores the global `descaracter_suspect` into every card. That's finding #3 related. Now, draft restore: `evRestoreDraftIfAny` restores elements by id. `__injured_details` → re-renders boxes from `ev_injured_person_details` hidden; boxes recreated collapsed. Wait, does the injured details serialization include suspect? Yes `descaracter_suspect` per card via global. Now let me check `evApplyCardInjuryData` (used when rendering card from saved details) — does it set the checkbox `.ev-inj-suspect-chk` based on `saved.descaracter_suspect`? Let me look around 2225-2330 to see whether the checkbox is restored per card when boxes are re-rendered (draft restore, adding a person, edit). If not restored, the checkbox would appear unchecked even when previously marked, losing the indication on re-render. Let me read.
Tool Calls (1)
file_read
Show Details
{"end_line": 2340, "file_path": "templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig", "start_line": 2225}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig (Total lines: 7710)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 2225-2340
2225|    function evApplyCardInjuryData(card, saved) {
2226|        if (!card || !saved) return;
2227|        var att = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-attendance');
2228|        if (att) att.value = saved.attendance_date || evTodayDateInputValue();
2229|        var rel = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-relato');
2230|        if (rel) rel.value = saved.breve_relato || '';
2231|        var had = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-had-injury');
2232|        if (had) had.checked = saved.had_injury === undefined ? true : !!saved.had_injury;
2233|        var type = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-injury-type');
2234|        if (type && saved.injury_type) type.value = saved.injury_type;
2235|        var sev = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-injury-severity');
2236|        if (sev && saved.injury_severity) sev.value = saved.injury_severity;
2237|        var leave = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-work-leave');
2238|        if (leave) leave.value = saved.work_leave === 'PARCIAL' ? 'TOTAL' : (saved.work_leave || '');
2239|        var klass = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-injury-classification');
2240|        if (klass) {
2241|            var ic = saved.injury_classification || '';
2242|            if (ic === 'LTI_FATALIDADE') ic = 'FAT';
2243|            if (ic) klass.value = ic;
2244|        }
2245|        if (typeof evSyncCardCatFromClassification === 'function') {
2246|            evSyncCardCatFromClassification(card);
2247|        }
2248|        var cons = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-consequence');
2249|        if (cons && saved.consequence) cons.value = saved.consequence;
2250|        var pot = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-potential-consequence');
2251|        if (pot && saved.potential_consequence) pot.value = saved.potential_consequence;
2252|        if (typeof evFilterCardConsequences === 'function') evFilterCardConsequences(card);
2253|        if (typeof evSyncCardDerivedSeverity === 'function') evSyncCardDerivedSeverity(card);
2254|        if (typeof evSyncCardPotentialGteReal === 'function') evSyncCardPotentialGteReal(card);
2255|        var descVal = saved.descaracterizado != null ? String(saved.descaracterizado) : '';
2256|        if (descVal !== '') card.setAttribute('data-descaracterizado', descVal);
2257|        var comm = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-comment');
2258|        if (comm) comm.value = saved.descaracter_comment || '';
2259|        evRenderInjuredPersonSummary(card, card.getAttribute('data-person-id'));
2260|        evUpdateInjuredCardSummary(card);
2261|        if (typeof syncInjuryFieldsForCard === 'function') syncInjuryFieldsForCard(card);
2262|    }
2263|
2264|    function evSyncInjuredPersonDetailsHidden() {
2265|        var wrap = document.getElementById('ev_injured_person_boxes');
2266|        if (!wrap) return;
2267|        // Merge: não apaga pessoas que ainda têm caixinha / dados salvos.
2268|        var out = evGetInjuredDetailsObj();
2269|        var seen = {};
2270|        wrap.querySelectorAll('.ev-injured-person-box[data-person-id]').forEach(function (card) {
2271|            var id = String(card.getAttribute('data-person-id') || '');
2272|            if (!id) return;
2273|            seen[id] = true;
2274|            out[id] = evReadCardInjuryData(card);
2275|        });
2276|        evSetInjuredDetailsObj(out);
2277|        evPersistDraftSoon();
2278|    }
2279|
2280|    function evFilterInjuredPersonSelect() {
2281|        var sel = document.getElementById('ev_person_id');
2282|        if (!sel) return;
2283|        var involved = evGetPeopleInvolved();
2284|        var allowed = involved.ids.map(String);
2285|        try {
2286|            Object.keys(evGetInjuredDetailsObj()).forEach(function (pid) {
2287|                if (pid && allowed.indexOf(String(pid)) === -1) allowed.push(String(pid));
2288|            });
2289|        } catch (eAllow) {}
2290|        var wrap = document.getElementById('ev_injured_person_boxes');
2291|        if (wrap) {
2292|            wrap.querySelectorAll('.ev-injured-person-box[data-person-id]').forEach(function (card) {
2293|                var pid = String(card.getAttribute('data-person-id') || '');
2294|                if (pid && allowed.indexOf(pid) === -1) allowed.push(pid);
2295|            });
2296|        }
2297|        Array.prototype.forEach.call(sel.options, function (opt) {
2298|            if (!opt.value) return;
2299|            var ok = allowed.indexOf(String(opt.value)) !== -1;
2300|            if (wrap && wrap.querySelector('.ev-injured-person-box[data-person-id="' + String(opt.value).replace(/"/g, '') + '"]')) {
2301|                ok = false;
2302|            }
2303|            opt.hidden = !ok;
2304|            opt.disabled = !ok;
2305|        });
2306|        // NÃO remove caixinhas aqui — só o X ou a remoção da tag em Pessoas envolvidas.
2307|        evSyncCustomSelectVisual('ev_person_id', true);
2308|    }
2309|
2310|    function evPruneInjuredBoxesNotInvolved() {
2311|        var wrap = document.getElementById('ev_injured_person_boxes');
2312|        if (!wrap) return;
2313|        var involved = evGetPeopleInvolved().ids.map(String);
2314|        if (!involved.length) return;
2315|        wrap.querySelectorAll('.ev-injured-person-box[data-person-id]').forEach(function (card) {
2316|            var pid = String(card.getAttribute('data-person-id') || '');
2317|            if (pid && involved.indexOf(pid) === -1) {
2318|                evRemoveInjuredPersonBox(pid);
2319|            }
2320|        });
2321|    }
2322|
2323|    /** Cards a partir de Pessoas envolvidas — sem select (feedback Brenda). */
2324|    function evUpdateInjuredPersonsEmptyState() {
2325|        var wrap = document.getElementById('ev_injured_person_boxes');
2326|        var empty = document.getElementById('ev-injured-person-empty');
2327|        var count = wrap ? wrap.querySelectorAll('.ev-injured-person-box[data-person-id]').length : 0;
2328|        if (empty) empty.classList.toggle('d-none', count > 0);
2329|        evUpdateInjuredPersonsSummary(count);
2330|    }
2331|
2332|    /** Texto dinâmico: "N acidentado(s) — o painel contabiliza N ocorrências" (Brenda). */
2333|    function evUpdateInjuredPersonsSummary(count) {
2334|        var summary = document.getElementById('ev-injured-person-summary');
2335|        var summaryText = document.getElementById('ev-injured-person-summary-text');
2336|        if (!summary || !summaryText) return;
2337|        if (!count || count < 1) {
2338|            summary.classList.add('d-none');
2339|            return;
2340|        }
Request #39 deepseek-v4-flash P:40.93K C:364 CR:39.04K CW:0 3314ms
Reasoning
Notably `evApplyCardInjuryData` does NOT set the `.ev-inj-suspect-chk` checkbox or `data-descaracter-suspect` for each card when re-rendering. This is used by `evCreateInjuredPersonCard` when rendering a card from saved details (e.g., after draft restore, when adding another person triggers re-render of existing cards, or when the modal is populated for edit). Wait, on edit restore, line 6481-6487 propagates suspect to cards from global. On draft restore, `evRestoreDraftIfAny` re-renders boxes from details saved via `evSyncInjuredPersonDetailsHidden`. If per-card `descaracter_suspect` is not restored into the checkbox... let me check `evCreateInjuredPersonCard`. Let me read `evCreateInjuredPersonCard` and the summary function.
Tool Calls (2)
code_search
Show Details
{"file_patterns": ["templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig"], "search_text": "function evCreateInjuredPersonCard"}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig
Match lines: 1
2653|    function evCreateInjuredPersonCard(personId, saved, expand) {

file_read
Show Details
{"end_line": 2812, "file_path": "templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig", "start_line": 2700}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig (Total lines: 7710)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 2700-2812
2700|        if (evCurrentStep === 'aprofundamento' && evSelectedType() === 'ACIDENTE_PESSOAL') {
2701|            if (typeof syncInjuryFieldsForCard === 'function') {
2702|                syncInjuryFieldsForCard(card);
2703|            }
2704|            if (typeof evFilterCardConsequences === 'function') {
2705|                evFilterCardConsequences(card);
2706|            }
2707|        }
2708|        evEnsurePrimaryInjuredMarked();
2709|        return card;
2710|    }
2711|
2712|    function evRemoveInjuredPersonBox(personId) {
2713|        var wrap = document.getElementById('ev_injured_person_boxes');
2714|        if (!wrap || !personId) return;
2715|        var safe = String(personId).replace(/"/g, '');
2716|        var card = wrap.querySelector('.ev-injured-person-box[data-person-id="' + safe + '"]');
2717|        if (!card) return;
2718|        var wasPrimary = card.classList.contains('is-primary');
2719|        if (card.classList.contains('is-expanded')) {
2720|            evParkBodyMapBlock();
2721|            evClearCanonicalInjuryIds();
2722|        }
2723|        card.remove();
2724|        var details = evGetInjuredDetailsObj();
2725|        delete details[String(personId)];
2726|        evSetInjuredDetailsObj(details);
2727|        // Não auto-expande a próxima — todas ficam colapsadas até o usuário editar.
2728|        if (wasPrimary) {
2729|            var next = wrap.querySelector('.ev-injured-person-box[data-person-id]');
2730|            if (next) {
2731|                evSelectPrimaryInjuredPerson(next.getAttribute('data-person-id'));
2732|            } else {
2733|                var sel = document.getElementById('ev_person_id');
2734|                if (sel) sel.removeAttribute('data-primary-injured-id');
2735|                evSyncInjuredPickCircles('');
2736|            }
2737|        } else {
2738|            evSyncPrimaryInjuredPersonId();
2739|        }
2740|        evFilterInjuredPersonSelect();
2741|        evPersistDraftSoon();
2742|        evUpdateInjuredPersonsEmptyState();
2743|    }
2744|
2745|    /**
2746|     * Select oculto (legado): adicionar acidentado manualmente — fluxo principal = cards via Pessoas envolvidas.
2747|     */
2748|    var _evAddingInjuredLock = false;
2749|    function evAddInjuredPersonFromSelect() {
2750|        if (_evAddingInjuredLock) return;
2751|        var sel = document.getElementById('ev_person_id');
2752|        if (!sel) return;
2753|        var personId = String(sel.value || '');
2754|        if (!personId) return;
2755|
2756|        _evAddingInjuredLock = true;
2757|        try {
2758|            var wrap = document.getElementById('ev_injured_person_boxes');
2759|            var safe = personId.replace(/"/g, '');
2760|            var existing = wrap && wrap.querySelector('.ev-injured-person-box[data-person-id="' + safe + '"]');
2761|            if (existing) {
2762|                // Mantém colapsada; usuário edita pelo lápis.
2763|                evUpdateInjuredCardSummary(existing);
2764|            } else {
2765|                var saved = evGetInjuredDetailsObj()[personId] || {};
2766|                var created = evCreateInjuredPersonCard(personId, saved, false);
2767|                if (!created) {
2768|                    console.warn('[SSMA] Falha ao criar caixinha do acidentado', personId);
2769|                } else {
2770|                    evSyncInjuredPersonDetailsHidden();
2771|                }
2772|            }
2773|            // Limpa o select sem reentrar (setCustomSelectValue dispara change).
2774|            sel.value = '';
2775|            if (typeof window.setCustomSelectValue === 'function') {
2776|                window.setCustomSelectValue('ev_person_id', '');
2777|            } else {
2778|                evSyncCustomSelectVisual('ev_person_id', true);
2779|            }
2780|            evSyncPrimaryInjuredPersonId();
2781|            evFilterInjuredPersonSelect();
2782|        } finally {
2783|            _evAddingInjuredLock = false;
2784|        }
2785|    }
2786|
2787|    /** Remonta caixinhas a partir de injured_person_details (+ person_id legado). */
2788|    function evRenderInjuredPersonBoxes() {
2789|        var wrap = document.getElementById('ev_injured_person_boxes');
2790|        if (!wrap) return;
2791|        var details = evGetInjuredDetailsObj();
2792|        var ids = Object.keys(details);
2793|        var primary = '';
2794|        var sel = document.getElementById('ev_person_id');
2795|        if (sel && sel.value) primary = String(sel.value);
2796|        if (!primary && sel && sel.getAttribute('data-primary-injured-id')) {
2797|            primary = String(sel.getAttribute('data-primary-injured-id') || '');
2798|        }
2799|
2800|        if (primary && !details[primary]) {
2801|            details[primary] = { attendance_date: evTodayDateInputValue(), had_injury: true, body_parts: [] };
2802|            evSetInjuredDetailsObj(details);
2803|            ids = Object.keys(details);
2804|        }
2805|
2806|        evParkBodyMapBlock();
2807|        evClearCanonicalInjuryIds();
2808|        wrap.innerHTML = '';
2809|
2810|        ids.forEach(function (pid) {
2811|            // Sempre cria colapsada; expandir só via lápis (ou validação).
2812|            evCreateInjuredPersonCard(pid, details[pid] || {}, false);
Request #40 deepseek-v4-flash P:42.86K C:117 CR:41.22K CW:0 1794ms
Reasoning
Let me read `evCreateInjuredPersonCard` full (2653-2710).
Tool Calls (1)
file_read
Show Details
{"end_line": 2710, "file_path": "templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig", "start_line": 2653}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig (Total lines: 7710)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 2653-2710
2653|    function evCreateInjuredPersonCard(personId, saved, expand) {
2654|        var wrap = document.getElementById('ev_injured_person_boxes');
2655|        var tpl = document.getElementById('ev-injured-person-box-tpl');
2656|        if (!wrap || !tpl || !personId) return null;
2657|        var safe = String(personId).replace(/"/g, '');
2658|        var existing = wrap.querySelector('.ev-injured-person-box[data-person-id="' + safe + '"]');
2659|        if (existing) return existing;
2660|
2661|        var source = tpl.querySelector('.ev-injured-person-box') || tpl.firstElementChild;
2662|        if (!source) return null;
2663|        var card = source.cloneNode(true);
2664|        if (!card || !card.classList) return null;
2665|        card.classList.remove('d-none');
2666|
2667|        var involved = evGetPeopleInvolved();
2668|        var sel = document.getElementById('ev_person_id');
2669|        var opt = sel ? sel.querySelector('option[value="' + safe + '"]') : null;
2670|        var name = involved.names[personId]
2671|            || (opt ? String(opt.text || '').trim() : '')
2672|            || ('#' + personId);
2673|
2674|        card.setAttribute('data-person-id', String(personId));
2675|        var nameEl = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-person-name');
2676|        if (nameEl) nameEl.textContent = name;
2677|        var sumName = card.querySelector('.js-ev-inj-summary-name');
2678|        if (sumName) sumName.textContent = name;
2679|
2680|        saved = saved || {};
2681|        if (!saved.attendance_date) saved.attendance_date = evTodayDateInputValue();
2682|        if (saved.had_injury === undefined) saved.had_injury = true;
2683|        evApplyCardInjuryData(card, saved);
2684|
2685|        evRenderInjuredPersonSummary(card, personId);
2686|
2687|        wrap.appendChild(card);
2688|        evBindInjuredCardEvents(card);
2689|
2690|        if (expand) {
2691|            evExpandInjuredCard(card);
2692|        } else {
2693|            evCollapseInjuredCard(card, true);
2694|            if (evCurrentStep === 'aprofundamento'
2695|                && evSelectedType() === 'ACIDENTE_PESSOAL'
2696|                && !wrap.querySelector('.ev-injured-person-box.is-expanded')) {
2697|                evExpandInjuredCard(card);
2698|            }
2699|        }
2700|        if (evCurrentStep === 'aprofundamento' && evSelectedType() === 'ACIDENTE_PESSOAL') {
2701|            if (typeof syncInjuryFieldsForCard === 'function') {
2702|                syncInjuryFieldsForCard(card);
2703|            }
2704|            if (typeof evFilterCardConsequences === 'function') {
2705|                evFilterCardConsequences(card);
2706|            }
2707|        }
2708|        evEnsurePrimaryInjuredMarked();
2709|        return card;
2710|    }
Request #41 deepseek-v4-flash P:43.81K C:1.92K CR:42.88K CW:0 16556ms
Reasoning
So when boxes are rebuilt from saved data (e.g., draft restore, or when the template is re-rendered via evRenderInjuredPersonBoxes after user toggles between general and aprofundamento steps in wizard), the checkbox `.ev-inj-suspect-chk` will be unchecked unless `evApplyCardInjuryData` handles `descaracter_suspect`, which it does not. Also `data-descaracter-suspect` attribute isn't set. But in edit mode, after rebuild, line 6477-6487 propagates from global to cards. And after draft restore, line 2894 calls `evRenderInjuredPersonBoxes()` but doesn't propagate global checkbox to cards. Hmm — draft restore path (line 2888-2895): after setting hidden details and re-rendering, it doesn't restore the `.ev-inj-suspect-chk` per card or the global `ev_descaracter_suspect` checkbox? Wait, ev_descaracter_suspect is a checkbox with an id in the form, so the draft JSON restore loop (2870-2879) restores it by id if it was saved. And `ev_injured_person_details` re-render via `evRenderInjuredPersonBoxes` — when cards created, the checkbox unchecked (since evApplyCardInjuryData doesn't set it) — BUT the yesno wrap is per card d-none from markup. So the visual card checkbox would be unchecked after draft restore even if the user had marked it before, unless the global checkbox is later propagated to the cards. Let me verify whether after render there is some sync to cards from global in the general step. Search for places calling evSyncDescaracterStageUi after render — the evSyncDescaracterStageUi at line 2925-2937 iterates `.ev-inj-descaracter` for visibility but the per-card toggle at 2931-2937 only reads the card's own checkbox. In general step (non-aprof), a newly-created card would have the checkbox unchecked and yesNoWrap hidden regardless of global value. So, does the card checkbox restore in the **creation** flow after draft restore or after navigating away/back? This might cause silent data loss of the suspect flag in draft; but note `evSyncInjuredPersonDetailsHidden` (serialization) reads global checkbox, so the hidden `ev_injured_person_details` would include descaracter_suspect=1 saved in the draft JSON under `__injured_details`. But after re-render, card checkbox unchecked; also `evReadCardInjuryData` serializes from global (not from per-card), so if global checkbox was restored (ev_descaracter_suspect in form with id is restored by draft loop), the serialization stays 1. Only the per-card checkbox visual may not match. That visual mismatch matters mainly in aprofundamento where the card checkbox gates Sim/Não. Actually wait: the checkbox `.ev-inj-suspect-chk` gates yesNoWrap only in aprofundamento (because in creation CSS hides Sim/Não). In aprofundamento edit flow, cards are rebuilt from saved details (via populateForEdit → evRenderInjuredPersonBoxes at 6455) then lines 6481-6487 propagate suspectOn to card checkboxes (chk.checked = suspectOn), set data-descaracter-suspect, toggle yesNoWrap. So edit/aprof restores properly. For draft restore in creation: the card checkbox is cosmetic only (Sim/Não not visible). And the payload uses global. So the loss is only visual; global checkbox restored. But if the user then clicks the card checkbox (unchecked state shown after re-render), the change event toggles global off and persists that... but that's the user's action. Hmm, borderline. Actually wait — more importantly, the **card checkbox after re-render in creation could be visually unchecked while global checkbox is checked**, and if the user saves without touching the checkbox, does the serialization read the card checkbox or global? evReadCardInjuryData reads global (`evIsDescaracterSuspectChecked()`). So payload fine. But this is a pre-existing behavior issue about draft & the global flag, largely part of the broader per-card architecture. Hmm. Not clearly a new issue from the diff itself... The diff makes the card checkbox visible in creation and user can interact, so now the visual unchecked after re-render while global checked can lead user to re-check... eh. Let me step back. I've got 3 confirmed findings already from a previous pass. My job: keep reviewing the two files and find any OTHER real issues. Given this PR is only CSS + 2-line JS change plus comment, additional candidate issues to report: **Candidate A (CSS)** — In non-aprof mode, `.ev-inj-descaracter-toggle` is `display:none !important`. But consider final validation in **creation wizard aprofundamento step** when doctor creates event through wizard with `evAprofundamentoOnlyMode=false`? The validator requires descaracter answer only `if (boxesWrap && evAprofundamentoOnlyMode)` — line 6018. So no validation issue in non-aprof. **Candidate B (JS)** — Actually there is a subtle bug: In the **aprofundamento-only mode** (is-doctor-aprof), everything works. In the **normal creation** (non-aprof), we want Sim/Não hidden. But what about **a doctor user who opens an AP occurrence to aprofundamento** — they open via openAprofundamento with evAprofundamentoOnlyMode=true, class added. OK. **Candidate C**: Look at the modal as used in edit (populateForEdit with evAprofundamentoOnlyMode=false, evCurrentStep='general'). This "Editar ocorrência" view now shows the suspect checkbox even if the occurrence's aprofundamento was finalized. The general edit by a non-doctor (e.g., admin/member) could toggle the suspect flag on a finalized occurrence where the doctor already answered descaracterizado. This can create inconsistent data: `descaracter_suspect=0` while `descaracterizado=1` retained (or 1 with comment). Wait — but is that inconsistent from the business perspective? Actually per rules, in general editing `payload.descaracterizado` is deleted, so Sim/Não is not modified. But suspect can be flipped by a general user. Whether business wants general-edit access to suspect is not clearly documented. PR requirement: "Na criação: só o checkbox". Actually does edit mode count as "criação"? Hmm. That is a legitimate scope concern but speculative on product intent. Actually let me re-check: does the injured-person-box card even appear in "Editar ocorrência" (populateForEdit general)? Yes — evRenderInjuredPersonBoxes is called at line 6455 within populateForEdit, then lines 6481-6487 propagate suspect to card checkbox. So in edit-general, with the new JS, card checkboxes visible (because AP + !isDoctorAprof now shows section). Previously section hidden. So now general edit shows checkboxes. That could be intended or not; hard to say. Given the ambiguity, and the confirmed findings already call out the "half-visible label" and multi-card/global conflict and god-template, I might look at other concrete issues. **Candidate D** — line 2925-2929 changed behavior for **non-AP types**: previously, in the **aprofundamento-only view** for an AP... no. Wait, think about **Quase Acidente / AM / etc. with isAp false**, block hidden — matches rule 2. **Candidate E**: The new CSS rule `#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof)` — But hold on: `evSetAprofundamentoReadonly` line 3321 calls `evSyncDescaracterStageUi`. In readonly non-doctor-aprof? It's fine. **Candidate F**: Look for a case where `form.classList.toggle('is-doctor-aprof', ...)` — this class is used elsewhere, e.g., other CSS rules gating only doctor-aprof behavior. Search `.is-doctor-aprof` references.
Tool Calls (2)
code_search
Show Details
{"file_patterns": ["templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig"], "search_text": "is-doctor-aprof"}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig
Match lines: 4
1305|#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-toggle,
1306|#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-comment-wrap,
1307|#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm {
2919|        if (form) form.classList.toggle('is-doctor-aprof', isDoctorAprof);

code_search
Show Details
{"file_patterns": ["templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig"], "search_text": "ev-suspeita-wrap"}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig
Match lines: 2
289|        <div class="form-group d-none" id="ev-suspeita-wrap">
2921|        var suspectWrap = document.getElementById('ev-suspeita-wrap');

Request #42 deepseek-v4-flash P:45.94K C:1.76K CR:45.7K CW:0 14305ms
Reasoning
The `.is-doctor-aprof` class is only used for these CSS rules and toggled at 2919. OK. Let me reconsider the whole flow of the diff, focusing on the two hunks and think about functional bug possibilities that are distinct from confirmed findings. Diff hunk 1 (CSS, line ~1304-1309): Previously the whole `.ev-inj-descaracter` block was hidden in non-doctor-aprof. Now, in non-doctor-aprof mode the block is visible and hides the toggle/comment/no-perm. One more subtle bug: When **creating AP in non-doctor-aprof mode and the checkbox is checked**, the JS at 5744-5745 does `yesNoWrap.classList.remove('d-none')`. Now the label + tip visible (finding #2). Also the **is-invalid outline** rule for `.ev-inj-descaracter-toggle.is-invalid`... not visible. But what about **a11y/keyboard**? Not important. Diff hunk 2 (JS, line 2925-2928): `el.classList.toggle('d-none', !isAp);` removes the `!isDoctorAprof` condition. This affects the **edit-general** as well (shows checkboxes). Also affects the **create wizard aprofundamento step** (when doctor creating and current step is aprofundamento but evAprofundamentoOnlyMode false). Hmm wait: When creating, can the registrar navigate to step aprofundamento within the same modal? For AP, `evRequiresAprofundamento(type) && evCanEditAprofundamento(type)` decides whether button label is "Aprofundamento >". When a doctor has permission to aprofundar... During "Novo evento", the user who can aprofundar would proceed. In that case evCurrentStep='aprofundamento' but evAprofundamentoOnlyMode=false → CSS hides Sim/Não! That would **block doctors creating events through the wizard from answering descaracterização** — but was that possible before this PR? Before #636, per commit message, PR #636 moved the checkbox to aprofundamento; before #636, descaracterização was in the wizard's aprofundamento step? The commit history says "#636: só aparece no Aprofundamento técnico" i.e., only dedicated. Actually #636 moved it to the dedicated aprofundamento view (isDoctorAprof true only in aprofundamentoOnlyMode). So even in the wizard, since #636, Sim/Não hidden unless evAprofundamentoOnlyMode. So no NEW regression relative to #636. But wait — there's a **regression relative to the previous version in this diff** in the other direction: previously (pre-PR) the block was entirely hidden in wizard-aprof, now the checkbox (but not Sim/Não) shows in wizard-aprof. If a doctor is creating an event through the wizard and reaches the aprofundamento step (evAprofundamentoOnlyMode=false), they now see only the checkbox and no Sim/Não (since CSS hides toggle since is-doctor-aprof false). But if this is really the aprofundamento step within creation (doctors used to create + aprofundar in one flow?), then #636 apparently prevented doctors from answering Sim/Não in the wizard — the answer only possible in the dedicated aprofundamento-only view later. So not a new regression. OK — but hold on. Let's examine whether `is-doctor-aprof` should be based on evCurrentStep === 'aprofundamento' rather than evAprofundamentoOnlyMode. Because in the create wizard, the aprofundamento step IS where descaracterização used to be answered pre-#636. Hmm. But this PR scope is narrow. Actually, maybe the deeper issue: When the same user who is also a doctor creates an AP event through "Novo evento" and navigates through the 2-step wizard (general → aprofundamento) to complete everything before saving (this is the design for SSMA AP: registro tem 2 etapas). In that wizard's aprofundamento step, Sim/Não remains hidden because CSS gated on is-doctor-aprof which equals evAprofundamentoOnlyMode (false during wizard creation). So a doctor creating an event in the wizard can't respond to descaracterização Sim/Não, but the product's rule says "No Aprofundamento técnico: comportamento igual ao anterior". Wizard aprofundamento step isn't "Aprofundamento técnico dedicated"? Could still be considered. Honestly, this would be a UX regression, but is it from #636, not from this PR? This PR doesn't introduce that: before this PR, the whole block (incl. checkbox) was hidden in wizard-aprof anyway. So no. Actually, wait, there's something interesting: With the new behavior, in the **wizard aprofundamento step** (non-aprof-only), the checkbox shows (isAp true, class toggle d-none removed). But Sim/Não is hidden by CSS since form lacks is-doctor-aprof. If the user checks the checkbox in that step, and the save payload... anyway. I think the confirmed findings cover the primary issues. Let me now check the exact structure around `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` and the label to confirm finding #2 — yes confirmed. Not to repeat. Let me now think about what is genuinely NEW and not covered by confirmed findings: 1. **Potential real issue: `evSyncDescaracterStageUi` now shows the section whenever type is AP — including when event type is AP but the form is in a readonly finalized aprofundamento that's NOT doctor-aprof?** Hmm no. 2. **Potential real issue: Race between CSS hide and `.d-none` removal in aprofundamento.** No. 3. **Accessibility/UX: When the suspect checkbox is checked in creation and then event type changes to ROS, section hidden but checkbox still checked → if user switches back to AP the suspect is still marked (global).** Possibly acceptable. 4. **The checkbox is shown in the "Pessoas envolvidas" card at creation for ALL users even those who shouldn't see descaracterização info?** The PR says "Suspeita editável por qualquer especialista AP" prior comment; new behavior exposes suspicion at creation to any user registering an AP. The business rule doc says it's intended (Felipe). OK. 5. **Data integrity issue around the card checkbox state when expanding the card (re-render while collapsing)** — When a card is collapsed and expanded again, is the DOM replaced? evCollapseInjuredCard maybe moves content; but not related to diff. Now, is there any **functional bug in the exact changed lines** that's not in the confirmed list? Look again at line 2925-2929. The function is called from `evSetAprofundamentoReadonly` (3321), `evSetStep` (3396), type change (5286), and the change handler of global checkbox (5734). Wait, actually also where type changes at 5286. Let me examine 5286 context to see ordering: type change → evSyncDescaracterStageUi at 5286. Need to ensure when type != AP, the descaracter blocks re-hidden. It's after evSyncInjuredDetails... Actually if the type changes AP → ROS, evRenderInjuredPersonBoxes removes AP cards? Let's read around 5250-5290.
Tool Calls (2)
file_read
Show Details
{"end_line": 5300, "file_path": "templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig", "start_line": 5240}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig (Total lines: 7710)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 5240-5300
5240|            if (EV_CRITICALITY_LABELS[v]) return v;
5241|        }
5242|        return '';
5243|    }
5244|    var EV_CRITICALITY_LABELS = {
5245|        LEVE: 'Leve', BAIXO: 'Baixo', MEDIO: 'Médio', ALTO: 'Alto', SEVERO: 'Severo',
5246|        MODERADO: 'Moderado', CRITICO: 'Crítico'
5247|    };
5248|    var EV_CRITICALITY_COLORS = {
5249|        LEVE:   { bg: 'rgba(37,173,82,0.12)', color: '#25AD52', border: '#25AD52' },
5250|        BAIXO:  { bg: 'rgba(37,173,82,0.12)', color: '#25AD52', border: '#25AD52' },
5251|        MEDIO:  { bg: 'rgba(255,193,7,0.15)', color: '#B78103', border: '#FFC107' },
5252|        MODERADO: { bg: 'rgba(255,193,7,0.15)', color: '#B78103', border: '#FFC107' },
5253|        ALTO:   { bg: 'rgba(253,126,20,0.14)', color: '#FD7E14', border: '#FD7E14' },
5254|        SEVERO: { bg: 'rgba(234,21,28,0.12)', color: '#EA151C', border: '#EA151C' },
5255|        CRITICO:{ bg: 'rgba(234,21,28,0.12)', color: '#EA151C', border: '#EA151C' }
5256|    };
5257|
5258|    /** Gravidade: acidentes, ROS e Quase Acidente derivam da consequência. */
5259|    function evSyncCriticalityField(type) {
5260|        var wrap = document.getElementById('ev-gravity-wrap');
5261|        var sel  = document.getElementById('ev_criticality');
5262|        var derivedWrap = document.getElementById('ev-derived-severity-wrap');
5263|        var rosDerivedWrap = document.getElementById('ev-ros-derived-severity-wrap');
5264|        var qaDerivedWrap = document.getElementById('ev-qa-derived-severity-wrap');
5265|        if (!sel) return;
5266|        var isAccident = evRequiresAccidentTechnical(type);
5267|        var isRos = type === 'ROS';
5268|        var isQa = type === 'QUASE_ACIDENTE';
5269|        if (wrap) {
5270|            wrap.classList.add('d-none');
5271|        }
5272|        sel.required = false;
5273|        if (derivedWrap) derivedWrap.classList.toggle('d-none', !isAccident);
5274|        if (rosDerivedWrap) rosDerivedWrap.classList.toggle('d-none', !isRos);
5275|        if (qaDerivedWrap) qaDerivedWrap.classList.toggle('d-none', !isQa);
5276|        if (isAccident) {
5277|            evSyncDerivedSeverityFromConsequence();
5278|        } else if (isRos) {
5279|            evSyncRosDerivedSeverityFromPotential();
5280|        } else if (isQa) {
5281|            evSyncQaDerivedSeverityFromPotential();
5282|        }
5283|        evSyncAaIdentFields(type);
5284|        evSyncPeopleFieldForType(type);
5285|        evSyncReportedByFieldForType(type);
5286|        evSyncDescaracterStageUi();
5287|    }
5288|
5289|    function evSyncPeopleFieldForType(type) {
5290|        var wrap = document.getElementById('ev-people-field-wrap');
5291|        if (!wrap) return;
5292|        var hide = type === 'ROS';
5293|        wrap.classList.toggle('d-none', hide);
5294|        if (hide) {
5295|            var peopleIds = document.getElementById('ev_people_ids');
5296|            if (peopleIds) peopleIds.value = '';
5297|            var tags = document.getElementById('ev_people_tags');
5298|            if (tags) tags.innerHTML = '';
5299|        }
5300|    }
file_read
Show Details
{"end_line": 300, "file_path": "templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig", "start_line": 270}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig (Total lines: 7710)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 270-300
270|                            data-shift="{{ member.work_shift_label|default('') }}">{{ member.name }}</option>
271|                {% endfor %}
272|            </select>
273|            <div id="ev_people_tags" class="d-flex flex-wrap mt-2"></div>
274|        </div>
275|
276|        <div class="form-group">
277|            <label for="ev_witnesses_select">Testemunhas</label>
278|            <select class="form-control" id="ev_witnesses_select" name="ev_witnesses_select">
279|                <option value="" selected disabled>Selecione testemunhas (opcional)</option>
280|                {% for member in allMembers %}
281|                    <option value="{{ member.id }}" data-name="{{ member.name }}">{{ member.name }}</option>
282|                {% endfor %}
283|            </select>
284|            <div id="ev_witnesses_tags" class="d-flex flex-wrap mt-2"></div>
285|            <input type="hidden" id="ev_witness_ids" name="ev_witness_ids" value="">
286|        </div>
287|
288|        {# AP etapa 1: suspeita. Caracterizado só aparece no aprofundamento (médico). #}
289|        <div class="form-group d-none" id="ev-suspeita-wrap">
290|            <div class="form-check">
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>
293|            </div>
294|        </div>
295|
296|        {# ROS: Risco imediato (SIM/NÃO — gatilho de automação), Sugestão de melhoria, Visto e resolvido. #}
297|        <div class="d-none ev-type-block" id="ev-ros-step1-extra">
298|            <div class="form-group">
299|                <label class="mb-1">É risco imediato? <span class="text-danger">*</span></label>
300|                <div class="d-flex" style="gap:8px;" role="group" aria-label="É risco imediato?">
Request #43 deepseek-v4-flash P:49.37K C:597 CR:47.62K CW:0 5441ms
Reasoning
Now, one significant point: the hidden input `ev_descaracter_suspect` is inside `#ev-suspeita-wrap` which is always `d-none`. The new visible checkboxes `.ev-inj-suspect-chk` are per-card in the injured box partial. When the checkbox is checked during creation, the JS change handler (line 5740-5752) mirrors to `ev_descaracter_suspect` global checkbox. Wait, but `ev_descaracter_suspect` is `type="checkbox"` inside `#ev-suspeita-wrap`. So payload reads it. OK. But there is an issue about the checkbox state when the modal is opened fresh for creation with a specific person's saved draft... I'm going down rabbit holes. Let me refocus: The confirmed findings are the main ones. Is there a *new* issue that I can concretely identify within the two files and the changed lines? Let me evaluate more carefully some of the candidates, especially any bug in CSS selector or the fact that in aprofundamento-only mode, the **same** CSS may not hide the `no-perm` because of `!important` conflict: The JS adds `.d-none` to `no-perm` when user has permission, and removes when not. The new CSS only applies outside aprofundamento. OK. Another angle: **What about when an AP event is created without a doctor permission but the checkbox is checked, then later a user without "descaracterizar" permission opens aprofundamento — the auto pre-select "Sim" at line 2950.** Not new. Let's check for an issue with the tip tooltip: The label tip in `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` might now appear in creation (finding #2). OK maybe the actual additional issue to surface is the **edit mode exposure** or **god template already covered**. Wait — actually there might be one more real issue related to the **partial used in the list summary** — `_ev_injured_person_box.html.twig` is also used in `_tab_occurrences.html.twig`? Search references to the partial.
Tool Calls (2)
code_search
Show Details
{"search_text": "_ev_injured_person_box.html.twig"}
File: docs/engineering/pr/hotfix-ssma-ambiental-material-brenda-new-production/PR_descricao_hotfix-ssma-ambiental-material-brenda-new-production.md
Match lines: 1
87|| `_ev_injured_person_box.html.twig` | Consequências no card do acidentado |

File: docs/engineering/pr/hotfix-ssma-ap-validacao-etapa1-new-production/PR_arquivos_hotfix-ssma-ap-validacao-etapa1-new-production.txt
Match lines: 1
222|M	templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_ev_injured_person_box.html.twig

File: docs/engineering/pr/hotfix-ssma-ap-validacao-etapa1-new-production/PR_impacto_hotfix-ssma-ap-validacao-etapa1-new-production.txt
Match lines: 1
222| .../partials/_ev_injured_person_box.html.twig      |  106 +-

File: docs/ssma/ocorrencia-02-caixinha-por-acidentado.md
Match lines: 1
21|| Template da caixinha | `_ev_injured_person_box.html.twig` |

File: docs/ssma/ocorrencia-03-data-atendimento.md
Match lines: 1
21|| Input | `.ev-inj-attendance` em `_ev_injured_person_box.html.twig` |

File: docs/ssma/ocorrencia-04-breve-relato.md
Match lines: 1
22|| Textarea | `.ev-inj-relato` em `_ev_injured_person_box.html.twig` |

File: docs/ssma/ocorrencia-06-tudo-na-caixinha-descaracter.md
Match lines: 1
25|| Campos da pessoa | `_ev_injured_person_box.html.twig` |

File: docs/ssma/ocorrencia-07-suspeita-descaracterizacao-ui.md
Match lines: 1
31|| UI na caixinha | `_ev_injured_person_box.html.twig` |

File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig
Match lines: 1
663|                {% include 'ssma/occurrence/partials/_ev_injured_person_box.html.twig' with {

File: tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/assert_branch_ui_fixes.php
Match lines: 1
43|$injured = $root . '/templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_ev_injured_person_box.html.twig';

file_read
Show Details
{"end_line": 120, "file_path": "templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_ev_injured_person_box.html.twig", "start_line": 1}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_ev_injured_person_box.html.twig (Total lines: 225)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 1-120
1|{#
2|  Caixinha completa por colaborador acidentado (Figma / padrão Desvios em Inspeções).
3|  Campos usam classes; IDs canônicos (ev_had_injury, etc.) são atribuídos via JS
4|  só no card expandido ativo, para reaproveitar mapa corporal e validadores.
5|#}
6|<div class="ev-inj-card ev-injured-person-box" data-person-id="{{ person_id|default('') }}">
7|    {# Resumo (colapsado) #}
8|    <div class="ev-inj-card-summary d-none js-ev-inj-summary">
9|        <button type="button"
10|                class="ev-inj-pick-circle js-ev-inj-pick"
11|                title="Marcar como colaborador acidentado principal"
12|                aria-label="Marcar como colaborador acidentado principal"
13|                aria-pressed="false"></button>
14|        <div class="ev-inj-card-summary-main">
15|            <span class="ev-inj-card-summary-name js-ev-inj-summary-name">{{ person_name|default('Nome do Colaborador') }}</span>
16|            <div class="ev-inj-card-summary-person small text-muted js-ev-inj-summary-person">
17|                <span><span class="text-muted">Matrícula:</span> <span class="js-ev-inj-sum-collapsed-registration">—</span></span>
18|                <span class="mx-1">·</span>
19|                <span><span class="text-muted">Cargo:</span> <span class="js-ev-inj-sum-collapsed-position">—</span></span>
20|                <span class="mx-1">·</span>
21|                <span><span class="text-muted">Turno:</span> <span class="js-ev-inj-sum-collapsed-shift">—</span></span>
22|            </div>
23|            <span class="ev-inj-card-summary-meta js-ev-inj-summary-meta text-muted small d-block">—</span>
24|        </div>
25|        <div class="ev-inj-card-summary-actions">
26|            <button type="button" class="js-ev-inj-toggle" title="Editar">
27|                <i class="fas fa-pencil-alt"></i>
28|            </button>
29|        </div>
30|    </div>
31|
32|    {# Formulário expandido #}
33|    <div class="ev-inj-card-form js-ev-inj-form">
34|        <div class="d-flex align-items-center justify-content-between mb-2">
35|            <h6 class="mb-0 font-weight-bold ev-inj-person-name">{{ person_name|default('') }}</h6>
36|            <button type="button"
37|                    class="js-ev-inj-toggle ssma-config-tipo-action-btn"
38|                    aria-expanded="true"
39|                    title="Recolher"
40|                    aria-label="Recolher">
41|                <i class="fas fa-chevron-up text-muted ssma-section-chevron" style="font-size:12px;"></i>
42|            </button>
43|        </div>
44|
45|        {# Resumo cadastral do acidentado #}
46|        <div class="ev-inj-person-summary js-ev-inj-person-summary">
47|            <div class="ev-inj-sum-title">Resumo do acidentado</div>
48|            <dl class="ev-inj-sum-grid mb-0">
49|                <div class="ev-inj-sum-item">
50|                    <dt>Matrícula</dt>
51|                    <dd class="js-ev-inj-sum-registration">—</dd>
52|                </div>
53|                <div class="ev-inj-sum-item ev-inj-sum-item--wide">
54|                    <dt>Cargo</dt>
55|                    <dd class="js-ev-inj-sum-position">—</dd>
56|                </div>
57|                <div class="ev-inj-sum-item ev-inj-sum-item--wide">
58|                    <dt>Turno</dt>
59|                    <dd class="js-ev-inj-sum-shift">—</dd>
60|                </div>
61|                <div class="ev-inj-sum-item">
62|                    <dt>Superior</dt>
63|                    <dd class="js-ev-inj-sum-supervisor">—</dd>
64|                </div>
65|                <div class="ev-inj-sum-item ev-inj-sum-item--wide">
66|                    <dt>Gerência</dt>
67|                    <dd class="js-ev-inj-sum-gerencia">—</dd>
68|                </div>
69|            </dl>
70|        </div>
71|
72|        <div class="form-group mb-2">
73|            <label class="small mb-0">Data de atendimento</label>
74|            <input type="date"
75|                   class="form-control form-control-sm ev-inj-attendance"
76|                   value="{{ attendance_date|default('') }}">
77|        </div>
78|
79|        <div class="form-group mb-2">
80|            <label class="small mb-0">Breve relato <span class="text-muted">(opcional)</span></label>
81|            <textarea class="form-control form-control-sm ev-inj-relato"
82|                      rows="2"
83|                      placeholder="Breve relato">{{ breve_relato|default('') }}</textarea>
84|        </div>
85|
86|        <div class="form-group mb-2">
87|            <div class="form-check">
88|                <input class="form-check-input ev-inj-had-injury" type="checkbox" value="1" checked>
89|                <label class="form-check-label">Houve lesão</label>
90|            </div>
91|        </div>
92|
93|        <div class="ev-inj-injury-fields">
94|            <div class="form-row ev-inj-type-severity-row ev-inj-type-row">
95|                <div class="col-6">
96|                    <div class="form-group">
97|                        <label>Tipo da Lesão <span class="text-danger ev-inj-injury-required-mark">*</span></label>
98|                        <select class="form-control ev-inj-injury-type">
99|                            <option value="" disabled selected>Selecione o tipo de lesão</option>
100|                            <option value="CORTE">Corte</option>
101|                            <option value="ESMAGAMENTO">Esmagamento</option>
102|                            <option value="FRATURA">Fratura</option>
103|                            <option value="LUXACAO">Luxação</option>
104|                            <option value="QUEIMADURA">Queimadura</option>
105|                            <option value="INTOXICACAO">Intoxicação</option>
106|                            <option value="AMPUTACAO">Amputação</option>
107|                            <option value="CONTUSAO">Contusão</option>
108|                            <option value="OUTRO">Outro</option>
109|                        </select>
110|                    </div>
111|                </div>
112|                <div class="col-6">
113|                    <div class="form-group">
114|                        <label>Severidade da Lesão <span class="text-danger ev-inj-injury-required-mark">*</span></label>
115|                        <select class="form-control ev-inj-injury-severity">
116|                            <option value="" disabled selected>Selecione a severidade</option>
117|                            <option value="LEVE">Leve</option>
118|                            <option value="MODERADA">Moderada</option>
119|                            <option value="GRAVE">Grave</option>
120|                            <option value="CRITICA">Crítica</option>
Request #44 deepseek-v4-flash P:52.43K C:4.77K CR:49.92K CW:0 39470ms
Reasoning
The template partial is included inside the modal at line 663 (probably as a `<template>` element for cloning). Fine. Now, one concrete issue candidate I haven't fully considered: **The `.ev-inj-suspect-chk` checkboxes are inside cards that get CLONED from a `<template>`**, so each new card has an UNCHECKED checkbox even when `details[pid].descaracter_suspect=1` was previously saved — `evApplyCardInjuryData` does not apply `saved.descaracter_suspect`. Wait, but during populateForEdit the global propagation handles it. During draft-restore and during **step switch general → aprofundamento** within the SAME creation session? Actually during creation in a wizard (general → aprofundamento), the DOM cards are not rebuilt when steps change (they persist since only panels toggle d-none). So suspect checkboxes would keep their state when moving between steps. Good. But there is the **edit** flow where cards are rebuilt. It handles via populate lines 6481-6487. But what about when the user edits a draft-restored creation? Draft restore path 2893-2895 re-renders boxes from `__injured_details` (which contains per-card `descaracter_suspect` = global). After rebuild, card checkboxes unchecked (not set by evApplyCardInjuryData). Since the global `ev_descaracter_suspect` id-based field is also restored by the draft loop, it becomes checked if it was. But the per-card checkbox is unchecked — the visible checkbox on the card would show unchecked although suspicion was saved. If the user then just saves, the serialization evReadCardInjuryData reads global → suspect still 1 → payload still correct. However, if the user collapses/re-expands the card or clicks the checkbox (because it appears unchecked) → they may inadvertently uncheck suspicion (unchecking sets global false) or the change of state triggers global sync. The visible/actual mismatch is confusing but arguably minor and pre-existing-ish (the card checkbox did not exist in creation before this PR, so in the previous version there was no per-card visual to mismatch). Given the whole creation-with-card-checkbox is new in this PR, that mismatch is introduced by the PR's intended feature but triggered only after a draft restore. It is a real but moderate issue. Also this mismatch belongs to finding #3 family (per-card vs global). Maybe it's too overlapping. Let me now consider the server-side impact of the payload with `descaracter_suspect` in creation. Where does the creation payload go? The save handler — probably at 6960+ for event create/update. The field `descaracter_suspect` is listed among allowed fields. Server stores into details JSON. But note: **when creating an AP and suspect=1, then aprofundamento by doctor** → in aprofundamento, the doctor sees the Sim/Não on each card because propagation sets all cards. Wait — if multiple injured people, all cards get suspect=1 from global. But only one of them might have been marked by the registrar in creation. Since there's a single global flag in the data model (details.descaracter_suspect), the doctor can't know which person had suspicion. That's the essence of finding #3. Now let me look for something completely separate: maybe there is an **incorrect comment / CSS class name**: The CSS targets `.ev-inj-descaracter-comment-wrap`; the actual class in partial is `.ev-inj-descaracter-comment-wrap` (line 210). OK matches. The CSS targets `.ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm` (partial line 216). Match. Targets `.ev-inj-descaracter-toggle` (line 206). Match. All three matched. Is `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` visible when user checks in creation? yes, its label. But that's confirmed finding #2. Hmm, maybe the fix should hide the whole `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` in creation; but if we hide the whole wrap, then nothing else (like the checkbox is OUTSIDE the wrap) shows. Checkbox is outside yesNoWrap (line 194-196), so hiding wrap in creation would leave only the checkbox visible. That suggests the intended CSS should have been `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` hidden in creation. But since wrap is d-none initially unless checked, they might have believed hiding children suffices. Finding #2 addresses precisely this. Now let's consider testing: is there a test file for SSMA UI? tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/... Maybe a static analysis test asserts templates don't grow; not needed. I need to find any other real issue. Let me check the diff context again to see if the hunk modifies exactly 2 lines; consider whether `el.classList.toggle('d-none', !isAp);` might break the **previous aprofundamento readonly behavior**: Before, when in aprofundamento readonly (finalized), the section was visible for AP regardless. After, same. Now, what about when **user has no permission to aprofundar** (canEditAprofundamento false) and type AP in creation with two steps (registrar but requires aprofundamento). `evSetAprofundamentoReadonly(true)` is called on step aprofundamento. It sets readonly for `.ev-inj-descaracter-btn` etc. and calls evSyncDescaracterStageUi → block visible (isAp), checkbox visible and ENABLED? Wait, the checkbox `.ev-inj-suspect-chk` is not in the list of controls disabled at line 3307-3313 (`#ev-step-aprofundamento .ev-inj-descaracter-btn` only). In creation general step readonly? Actually on the general step for AP, `general.classList.toggle('is-readonly', !!evAprofundamentoOnlyMode)`. In creation (not aprofundamentoOnly) general isn't readonly. In the final general step of an AP creation, if the current user can't aprofundar, the wizard doesn't proceed to the aprofundamento step; they save after general. So the checkbox in general (creation) enabled — intended. But wait — there's a **read-only finalized** scenario only in aprofundamento-only mode, which is fine. Honestly, I think I should look more thoroughly at where the box shows during **edit** vs **create** with the `.is-doctor-aprof`. Actually, `evSetStep` at 3396 calls evSyncDescaracterStageUi each time step changes. When a doctor goes to the "aprofundamento" step inside the creation wizard (evCurrentStep='aprofundamento', evAprofundamentoOnlyMode=false), the form does NOT get is-doctor-aprof. So the CSS hides Sim/Não — even though the user is now on the aprofundamento step. But wait — in creation, when the user clicks "Aprofundamento >" (label at 3356-3357) meaning they have permission to aprofundar and the type requires aprofundamento, is the current step 'aprofundamento' actually shown within the same wizard? Let me look at evUpdateFooter lines 3355-3361: If currentStep==='general' and canEditAprofundamento, the label is "Aprofundamento >" — clicking it moves to evCurrentStep 'aprofundamento' where descaracterização would be shown in the dedicated view. But in the **wizard**, if the user who can aprofundar is the same user creating the event, they reach the aprofundamento step in creation flow (not aprofundamentoOnlyMode). Under the current design (#636+), Sim/Não is only for "Aprofundamento técnico" (dedicated, aprofundamentoOnlyMode). Is the wizard step considered "Aprofundamento técnico"? Hmm. Let me check how creation with two-step wizard works. Maybe in the SSMA product flow the registrar creates only general and then later the doctor opens aprofundamento separately; the wizard might not even show the aprofundamento step during creation. Actually, at evUpdateFooter 3350: `if (back) back.classList.toggle('d-none', evCurrentStep !== 'aprofundamento');` suggests that during the wizard, back button toggles when in aprofundamento step. And label 'Aprofundamento >' indicates navigation to the aprofundamento step in the same modal (general → aprofundamento). So yes, the wizard's aprofundamento step exists during creation for users who have permission. Before #636, descaracterização answered in wizard-aprof step? Possibly. After #636 they restricted to doctor-aprof mode. Hmm but let me check whether the creation flow's aprofundamento step is gated for doctor only. If creation is by the injured person's manager (SSMA professional) who has aprofundamento rights, they'd do the full flow including aprofundamento. Hmm, we don't know. Given the new PR description states: "**No Aprofundamento técnico:** comportamento igual ao anterior — Sim/Não aparece quando suspeita marcada; gateado por permissão de descaracterização." and "Na criação: só o checkbox". This suggests that the wizard's aprofundamento step for a **user with permission** should still show Sim/Não...? Under the new code, the wizard-aprof step has evAprofundamentoOnlyMode=false so Sim/Não hidden. But wait, is the wizard-aprof step used at all in the same session for AP with two steps? If so, then the doctor creating the event through the wizard can't respond Sim/Não at creation-aprof step but would later via dedicated aprofundamento? Actually many SSMA flows have the creation wizard with 2 steps: step 1 general (etapa 1 e 2) and step 2 aprofundamento — the registrar (SSMA team member, i.e., doctor specialist) fills both in the same session. In this case, the doctor should be able to answer Sim/Não at the aprofundamento step of the wizard. Hmm, wait. But if `evAprofundamentoOnlyMode` is false during the wizard-aprof step, then even before this PR (in #636 baseline) the whole `.ev-inj-descaracter` block was hidden there (since isDoctorAprof was false) — meaning that after #636 doctors could NOT answer descaracterização within the creation wizard, only through the dedicated openAprofundamento view. That suggests the product flow indeed splits: creation registers suspicion; a dedicated aprofundamento entry (from the list) is where Sim/Não is answered. And this PR's change makes the checkbox available at creation, aligning to the product request. So in the wizard-aprof step (creation), the only new visible piece is the checkbox (Sim/Não still hidden by CSS). That's consistent with the PR intent — "na criação só o checkbox". OK so no bug there. Now what remains: possibly the **is-doctor-aprof class should be applied whenever current step is aprofundamento** — but this would change behavior and contradict the stated design of hiding Sim/Não during creation (step 1/2) vs aprofundamento técnico view. The PR description says "Na criação (etapa 1 ou 2): só checkbox" — implying the creation wizard's aprofundamento step also hides Sim/Não. So matches. Hmm, but that reveals something: The CSS comment and selector with `is-doctor-aprof` only reflects the **dedicated aprofundamento** mode; so in the wizard 2nd step, the block is visible with checkbox but NO Sim/Não. Wait, before this PR the whole block hidden in wizard; so this is new but fine. OK, let me now determine whether there's an actual NEW bug about **draft restore + card checkbox visual**, which is a plausible real finding, distinct from confirmed #2 and #3. Actually I realize finding #3 is about "o handler de cada card espelha o estado nesse checkbox global e a serialização (evReadCardInj...)..." — it mentions evReadCardInjuryData serializes from global per card. My draft-restore finding is a consequence of the same single-global architecture plus evApplyCardInjuryData not setting the per-card checkbox. Might still be overlapping but distinct enough: The checkbox visual state is not restored when cards are rebuilt from saved data (draft restore / add-another-person). Actually when adding another person mid-creation (evAddInjuredPersonFromSelect), existing cards remain in DOM (not rebuilt), so no. When does a rebuild occur mid-creation besides draft restore? evRenderInjuredPersonBoxes is called in: draft restore (2894), populateForEdit (6455), openCreate? Let's check openCreate — probably clears and renders. Let me check around 6564-6640. Actually, more significant: **moving between general and aprofundamento steps within the wizard does NOT rebuild boxes** (only panels toggle), so the checkbox persists. So the draft restore is the only mid-creation rebuild. And draft restore path: also restores global checkbox by id and re-renders boxes. New cards unchecked; global checked. Payload unaffected. Visual only. So low severity, and arguable. Hmm, let me think about the **edit-general exposure** differently. Let me check whether the list "Aprofundamento técnico" button vs "Editar" flows: populateForEdit is used by BOTH regular "Editar" (OccurrenceModal.openEdit) and openAprofundamento. When editing an AP event in general edit (ev_form_mode edit), the suspect checkbox now appears (was hidden). Because the PR intended checkbox only in creation, but the code makes it appear also in edit-general. And if an event already had descaracter_suspect=1 and descaracterizado='1' (finalized), an editor in general mode can flip the suspect checkbox, while descaracterizado stays as before (payload.delete descaracterizado in non-aprof mode → the server keeps old value). So record becomes suspect=0 + descaracterizado=1 + comment retained — an inconsistent state that would confuse the occurrence list ("Suspeita de descaracterização? Não" but "Descaracterizado: Sim"?). Is editing a finalized occurrence in general mode allowed? There's a guard evIsAprofundamentoFinalized at 6679 only for aprofundamentoOnlyMode. For regular edit, maybe admins can. Hmm. Given all three confirmed findings already flagged: god template (maintainability), partial visibility of Sim/Não label (finding #2 bug), single global flag conflict (finding #3). The remaining candidates I've come up with are less certain/overlapping. Let me do one more careful pass over the exact added lines to spot typos or logic issues in the CSS: ``` #form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-toggle, #form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-comment-wrap, #form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm { display: none !important; } ``` Now note that `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` (container of the toggle & label) contains the toggle/comment/no-perm and the label. When user checks suspect in creation, JS removes `d-none` from the wrap; label shows, children hidden. The `d-none` class on wrap was removed; but CSS on wrap? none. So yes, the label (with asterisk?) and the icon tooltip show. The label is "Caracterizado como acidente?" - could confuse. Confirmed finding #2. Now — any **XSS**? No new user content. **Performance**? No. **Segurança/isenção por empresa?** No changes. **Test coverage?** This is a Twig template change with JS logic; tests might exist at tests/Unit/Product/Ssma. There's no test for this. We could mention a missing test, but for these UI templates maybe acceptable. Let me look at the tests directory to see if there are tests that verify the modal's JS/CSS invariants (maybe static tests parse the template). Actually `tests/Unit/Product/Ssma/assert_branch_ui_fixes.php` exists — a PHPUnit? It references files. Might not matter. I think I should double-check one more possibly real bug: the **checkbox in the collapsed card state**. The `.ev-inj-descaracter` block is in `.ev-inj-card-form` (expanded form). When a card is collapsed (summary mode), form hidden. OK. Another: When the suspect checkbox is inside a **collapsed** card, and there are multiple cards collapsed by default on creation (comment at 2811: "Sempre cria colapsada"), the user must expand each card to see the checkbox. So in a multi-injured AP at creation, they'd expand each card. That's what test says. OK here's yet another potential real issue: **evSyncDescaracterStageUi toggles section visible whenever type is AP — including when the event has NOT yet any injured persons (card).** No cards → no checkbox. fine. Alright. Let me also verify the change does not affect **Aprofundamento técnico view when the type selected is not AP but there are lingering AP cards?** Not possible. I think after this second pass, the only remaining new issue worth reporting that is distinct from the confirmed three would be: **Edit mode (populateForEdit general, non-aprof) also now exposes the checkbox** — but wait, is that truly new? Before this PR, in edit-general, the whole block hidden so checkbox hidden; now visible. In edit-general, users changing suspect of an already-finalized event could create inconsistency with descaracterizado. Actually — wait. There's more: In populateForEdit, line 6481-6487 sets `suspectOn` from global det, and card checkboxes; and evSyncDescaracterStageUi (via evSyncDescaracterUi at 6492) now (new code) will show the block when AP regardless of mode. So edit-general shows checkboxes. Users of "Editar ocorrência" typically are those managing occurrence; can they toggle? Not necessarily inconsistent. But honestly, is edit-general something used for AP after creation? Yes — OccurrenceModal.openEdit allows editing details at general step of the modal. A manager (gestor) or SSMA member edits. The suspect checkbox would show up there too. The severity: The business rule says checkbox appears in the card "na criação". But this PR also shows in edits. For edits of AP events already created without the checkbox, editing would newly display the checkbox, allowing toggling the suspicion flag. Since fields descaracterizado/comment are aprofundamento-only and retained, a user editing general can mark "suspeita" after doctor answered or uncheck before the doctor answered... The point is the code applies to all non-aprof modes including edits, not just creation. Actually whether that is intended is unclear, but scope declares "Na criação: só o checkbox". Exposing in edit mode is beyond declared scope; it could be flagged as scope creep or at least noted as needing confirmation. However, since creation and edit share the same modal/form, showing it in edit might be acceptable product-wise (the card exists there too). Given uncertainty, maybe don't flag it as definitive. I want to find at least one solid NEW finding if any. Let me reconsider the interplay: **In creation (non-aprof), after checking the suspect checkbox, the JS handler at line 5745 removes d-none from `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap`, so the whole wrap is visible, but the CSS hides the toggle, comment wrap, no-perm.** However, also within the wrap is the `label` with the `title` attribute (tooltip). That's covered. Now, what about the **`aria-hidden` and the tooltips on buttons**? covered. OK, maybe a cleaner NEW finding: **The CSS hide only applies inside `#form-event-new`**. The injured-person boxes are inside the form `#form-event-new`? Yes (they're inside the form). But wait — are the cards rendered inside `#form-event-new`? Yes. Let me consider **another distinct functional bug**: In non-aprof mode, `.ev-inj-descaracter-comment-wrap` is hidden, but **validation in the general step (creation) requires a comment if descaracterizado answered**? No, validation only when evAprofundamentoOnlyMode. Alright. Maybe I'm at the limit of definite additional findings. But before concluding, let me double-check the actual current behavior when you check the checkbox in creation, regarding the label, to be certain finding #2 references label and not something else. Confirmed. Let me also reconsider whether there is an issue in **`.ev-inj-descaracter` visibility in the print/readonly final summary**? The `.ev-inj-descaracter-suspect-ro` class (read-only suspect visual) suggests that in some places the checkbox becomes a read-only version (`.ev-inj-descaracter-suspect-ro`), e.g. when finalized or when summary is shown. Let me search where the class is applied in the DOM (perhaps generated via evRenderInjuredPersonSummary). Search `.ev-inj-descaracter-suspect-ro` in modal.
Tool Calls (2)
code_search
Show Details
{"file_patterns": ["templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig"], "search_text": "descaracter-suspect-ro"}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig
Match lines: 3
1396|#form-event-new .ev-inj-descaracter-suspect-ro {
1401|#form-event-new .ev-inj-descaracter-suspect-ro-wrap .form-check-label {
3316|            if (el.classList && el.classList.contains('ev-inj-descaracter-suspect-ro')) return;

code_search
Show Details
{"file_patterns": ["templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig"], "search_text": "evRenderInjuredPersonSummary"}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig
Match lines: 6
2108|    function evRenderInjuredPersonSummary(card, personId) {
2259|        evRenderInjuredPersonSummary(card, card.getAttribute('data-person-id'));
2380|                evRenderInjuredPersonSummary(existing, existing.getAttribute('data-person-id'));
2417|        evRenderInjuredPersonSummary(card, card.getAttribute('data-person-id'));
2472|        evRenderInjuredPersonSummary(card, card.getAttribute('data-person-id'));
2685|        evRenderInjuredPersonSummary(card, personId);

Request #45 deepseek-v4-flash P:57.47K C:3.73K CR:57.09K CW:0 32239ms
Reasoning
OK, `.ev-inj-descaracter-suspect-ro` class only in CSS and JS guard but not in the HTML (no element uses it in this file; maybe dead code). Not relevant. Now let me check the doc files `ocorrencia-06` and `ocorrencia-07` to understand the intended UX and validate whether checkboxes on cards in creation were in the plan for all cards. Also confirm rule that the checkbox appears for AP only. Also `correcoes-fechamento-figma-pendentes` line 81. Not necessary. Let me revisit the confirmed finding #2 wording: "o rótulo 'Caracterizado como acidente?' (com o ícone de ajuda) fica visível". Yes, label visible. Fine. I'm now fairly confident the main new issue candidates beyond the three confirmed are either overlapping or speculative. But wait — let me look at one more thing: The old JS comment at line 2926 changed. But there is something interesting: the function toggles `d-none` based only on `isAp`. The CSS hides Sim/Não only when form lacks `is-doctor-aprof`. However, when a user who is **NOT a doctor** opens the **dedicated Aprofundamento** view via `openAprofundamento`? `openAprofundamento` checks EV_IS_ADMIN_APROFUNDAMENTO, but non-doctor with no permission can still open? Actually the aprofundamento view is only reachable by those with permission (route guards). So fine. Now, wait: **There is a real and important case**: In the **dedicated Aprofundamento view for an AP event opened by a doctor**, the CSS no longer hides things (class present). But we must ensure the class is applied BEFORE CSS relevant rendering; evSyncDescaracterStageUi adds is-doctor-aprof in the same flow. But now think about a **person who opens "Editar" (populateForEdit) on an AP event**. Actually openEdit calls populateForEdit and evSetStep('general'), evAprofundamentoOnlyMode=false → shows card checkboxes for a general-edit. Sim/Não hidden by CSS. This matches finding scope? OK. Now think about **Aprofundamento-only view opened for a NON-AP event**? ROS doesn't require technical aprofundamento (no step aprofundamento). Fine. Let me also confirm that when editing the AP event in the dedicated aprofundamento view, the suspect checkboxes (in cards) gate yesNoWrap. If a doctor unchecks a suspect in a card, yesNoWrap d-none added; also they set data-descaracter-suspect = '0' and global false. Wait, this multi-card unchecking is finding #3. Alright, let me now search the repo for the list where `descaracter_suspect` displayed/exported, to determine if the mismatch suspect=1 / descaracterizado answered could matter — not needed. Let me finalize: The confirmed findings are 3. Is there anything else of clear value to report? Candidate report #4 (distinct, from actual changed line): **JS `evSyncDescaracterStageUi` also runs when the form is readonly/aprof-finalized and will now reveal the suspect checkbox in card in edit-general mode**, but that's similar to creation... I'd rather not report speculative. Wait, actually — let me re-read the confirmed finding #2's precise claim. It says: "Marcar a caixa ... na criação deixa a seção Sim/Não aparecer pela metade". But what if the JS change at 5745 is actually gated such that it only toggles in aprofundamento-only mode? No — the change handler at 5740-5752 toggles yesNoWrap regardless of mode. So in creation, checking triggers it. Confirmed. Let me confirm there's no other hunk I've missed. The diff had exactly these two files; partial file change is just a comment. In the modal, two hunks: CSS (3 lines) and JS (3 lines). So my review focuses on these. Maybe there's a subtle problem with **CSS class toggle interplay**: In creation, when a user **unchecks** the suspect checkbox, JS adds `d-none` to yesNoWrap — fine. What about **when the modal opens in creation with the type already AP** but the user is a doctor doing the full flow (has permission). The **`evSyncDescaracterStageUi` runs at form load** (maybe ev:formLoaded handler calls evSyncDescaracterUi → evSyncDescaracterStageUi). Actually there is a call at 5286 from evSyncCriticalityField called at formLoaded (5767). Then section appears for AP even at creation step 1. Good, matches feature. What about **layout spacing**: `.ev-inj-descaracter` has `d-none` in markup; when isAp and we remove d-none, block appears even if the event type is AP but at the point where no card exists yet — no block because block is inside the card template; not in DOM unless card exists. Wait — actually the block `.ev-inj-descaracter` is inside the card clone. When the card is created at creation step for AP (before typing?), the section appears. For a single-card primary creation flow? In creation, the AP card might be auto-created for primary. That's when the checkbox shows. OK. Also the tip tooltip says "Sim = é acidente..." with `data-toggle="tooltip"` — on the hidden-until-aprof view, tooltips are initialized at load? If the checkbox toggles the label visible during creation (finding #2), the tooltip might not be initialized, but irrelevant. Time to decide final comment set. Since previously confirmed findings are not to repeat, and I found no additional issues that I'm confident are genuine bugs, I should perhaps report the remaining strong candidate(s) as separate new findings if they are real and not overlapping. Let me weigh: Candidate "edit-general also exposes the checkbox beyond creation scope": This IS a genuine change of behavior in a flow not declared in the PR scope (edit-general). The JS toggles the section for any AP irrespective of create vs edit. It is exactly the changed line: `el.classList.toggle('d-none', !isAp);`. Previously in edit-general the section (and checkbox) were hidden. Now visible. A non-doctor editing an AP event in "Editar ocorrência" can flip `descaracter_suspect` — including on occurrences where the aprofundamento is finalized or where the doctor answered descaracterizado=1/0 with a comment; Sim/Não/comentário values are kept server-side (payload only deletes them in non-aprof path? Wait, at 7113-7116, if `descAnswered && evAprofundamentoOnlyMode` then set else delete — so during general edit it deletes payload.descaracterizado, meaning server keeps previous value) while suspect can be changed. So user could uncheck suspect on a finalized record whose Sim/Não answer remains; data inconsistency. But can a general user edit a finalized AP record? There are guards (6679) for aprofundamento-only finalization. For general edit of finalized event... Actually finalization typically makes the whole event readonly for non-admins. EV_IS_ADMIN_APROFUNDAMENTO admins edit everything via OccurrenceModal.openEdit, which is populateForEdit general mode (evAprofundamentoOnlyMode=false). So admin editing finalized event can flip suspect while keeping descaracterizado — they are admins though, presumably allowed. Hmm, honestly, the strongest additional candidate might be this one, but I'm not fully sure it's a bug vs intended. Since the review instruction says be objective and avoid subjective assumptions, and confirmed findings are strong, maybe I should report just this one more moderate "scope" finding — actually, the review checklist says "Escopo da PR. A alteração no template pertence ao escopo declarado". The changed JS line affects edit-general too. Since the PR intends only creation + aprofundamento dedicated, but shows in edit-general too, I can flag that as a scope issue: "A mudança também ativa o checkbox no modo edição geral... confirme se é desejado, senão restrinja a condição a create mode (evIsCreateMode)". Actually, wait: is edit-general actually possible for AP? Let me check OccurrenceModal.openEdit call path. It calls window.EvModal.populateForEdit? Let me check _tab_occurrences.html.twig or OccurrenceModal JS. Not necessary; populateForEdit exists and title says "Editar ocorrência". There might also be a genuine scenario: **edit-mode where the occurrence type is AP and user only has general edit rights but cannot aprofundar (has no permission).** Then they can now alter the suspicion flag that later gates automation trigger conditions (e.g., notify SSMA manager when suspect). This change could be considered a side-effect beyond the PR. I'll report this as a medium severity scope/behavior finding with a suggestion to gate by `evIsCreateMode()` or mode, to confirm. Hmm — but hold on. Actually the intended rule states the checkbox appears "no card do acidentado na criação". "criação" might refer to general creation view only; in edit view of an occurrence... there's no clear restriction. But the existing CSS name `is-doctor-aprof` and `evIsCreateMode` function (line 2911) exist. If the author wanted create-only, they could gate with it. The PR description says they didn't intend edit. But is showing the checkbox in edit-general harmful? Possibly the checkbox should reflect saved suspicion and permit updating it in general edit, which is actually arguably correct product behavior (you might correct a mistake after saving before aprofundamento). So maybe it's desired. Given the uncertainty, and considering instructions to avoid subjective assumptions, maybe I'll not report this as it might be intended. Let me instead re-examine the exact changed JS to find any *objective* logic bug introduced by removing `!isDoctorAprof` from the toggle condition. Function `evSyncDescaracterStageUi` uses `evSelectedType()` (reads from select). But there's also `evAprofundamentoOnlyMode` var. Now consider the **Aprofundamento-only mode (dedicated)** for an AP where the section is displayed. Before, the block visibility in aprofundamento-only mode required isAp. After same. No regression. Actually, maybe the bug is with the **`d-none` removal happens before Sim/Não buttons are disabled/removed**? No. Let me look at the sequence in the change handler when unchecking in aprofundamento mode: The uncheck sets yesNoWrap d-none, so Sim/Não hidden, and global false. Then the card data attr '0'. Fine. Potential objective bug: In **aprof-only mode**, previously the section was shown only when `isAp && isDoctorAprof`. After the change, same. But now if **isDoctorAprof is true and isAp false**? Section hidden (as before). OK. Now for **create mode general**, section now shown. When a user checks the checkbox, the JS sets `card.setAttribute('data-descaracter-suspect', ...)` and global chk.checked = true. But **at creation time, there is a hidden field `ev_descaracter_suspect`**, which is read by `evIsDescaracterSuspectChecked()` at save. Wait, actually — on submit, `payload.descaracter_suspect` computed at 7111 from `evIsDescaracterSuspectChecked()`. Yes, global. So create payload sends 1. Good. Server for create stores `details['descaracter_suspect']`. Then doctor opens aprofundamento → populateForEdit restores global + all cards checked with suspectOn=1 → doctor sees Sim/Não on **all cards**. If there are multiple injured, all cards show Sim/Não and doctor must answer each? Actually per-card answer required for each card that has suspect=1. If registrar only marked suspicion on person A, but because of the global model, person B also has suspect=1 and doctor must respond/validate B — creating extra validation burden (validation requires descaracter answer for each card only when data-descaracterizado empty? Let's check: validation at 6022-6048 requires each card with data-descaracterizado empty to answer (toggle mark invalid) — for every card with descaracter block and no answer in aprofundamento. So with global suspect propagating to all cards, the doctor gets validation errors requiring Sim/Não for every injured person even those not suspected. Hmm — but wait, that behavior is pre-existing (per-card since #636? suspect was per-card in aprofundamento too?). Before this PR, at creation the global hidden `ev_descaracter_suspect` was inaccessible (block hidden). Wait #636's design: "suspeita é por card no aprofundamento" — from comment at line 2920. But data model is single global; in aprofundamento, marking a card suspect sets global to all cards (change handler mirrors). So already the multi-person nuance existed in aprofundamento. This PR only extends exposure to creation. So the multi-card issue in aprofundamento is pre-existing from #636; the NEW aspect is that creation now allows marking suspect before doctor opens aprofundamento, and the doctor view shows the suspicion... which is single global anyway. Given #636 is referenced, my finding #3 in confirmed list covers this. Fine. Alright, given my constraints, I think the safest approach: report the remaining genuinely-new findings if confident: Let me reconsider one more: **The CSS rule is inside `#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof)` but `is-doctor-aprof` is toggled ONLY inside `evSyncDescaracterStageUi`. At modal load/opening, before any sync, default markup of `#form-event-new` doesn't have the class → CSS hides Sim/Não even in the dedicated aprofundamento view until the JS runs.** But JS runs quickly on load/step change. Fine. Let me also double check: the earlier CSS rule set that previously hid `.ev-inj-descaracter` was removed; did the removal leave some OTHER code relying on `.ev-inj-descaracter` being display:none in non-aprof mode? e.g., validation `.ev-inj-descaracter-toggle.is-invalid` uses outline; in creation no. Now, could there be a new **styling regression** on aprofundamento because previously the CSS `#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter { display:none }` didn't apply there; the new CSS lines don't apply there either. Fine. I think I'm near done. But the instructions demand I give each file its own pass and report new issues beyond confirmed findings. If there are no more confirmed *real* issues, then I should call task_done after perhaps reporting the stronger remaining candidate. Let me think about what's strongest & least speculative: **Candidate: editing flow (populateForEdit / general edit) now also shows the suspect checkbox, altering records outside the declared creation scope.** It is driven by the changed JS line. It can change persisted `descaracter_suspect` on records whose Sim/Não was already answered in aprofundamento (single global value still used), with Sim/Não UI not even visible in that mode, so an editor may unintentionally change suspicion on an occurrence after doctor's characterization. That's a data-consistency risk beyond declared scope ("Na criação: só o checkbox"). Actually wait, is the checkbox even shown on general edit? In populateForEdit for AP, boxes exist and cards rebuilt with suspect = det value; and section shown because new JS removes the isDoctorAprof condition. yes. Hmm, but hold on — would the **checkbox be disabled** in edit-general when the user doesn't have permission? Possibly disabled by evSetAprofundamentoReadonly? That's aprofundamento step only. In edit-general, evSetStep('general') calls evSetAprofundamentoReadonly(!evCanEditAprofundamento(...)). Let me check evCanEditAprofundamento for the general step in edit mode — but since the descaracter section (cards) appears only in aprofundamentoOnlyMode step... Actually the checkbox now appears in the general step of an AP edit too (because cards are in the general step? In creation, the injured card appears in general step "Pessoas envolvidas" section? Wait — the card might only exist in the aprofundamento step. In creation wizard, are the injured boxes part of the general step 1/2 or aprofundamento step 2? The partial is included at line 663. Let me check where line 663 lies (which section) to know whether the card is in general or aprofundamento step.
Tool Calls (1)
file_read
Show Details
{"end_line": 700, "file_path": "templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig", "start_line": 600}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig (Total lines: 7710)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 600-700
600|            <div class="form-row" id="ev-strategic-nature-row">
601|                <div class="col-12">
602|                    <div class="form-group">
603|                        <label for="ev_strategic_nature">Dimensão da ocorrência <span class="text-danger">*</span></label>
604|                        <select class="form-control" id="ev_strategic_nature" name="ev_strategic_nature" required>
605|                            <option value="RELACIONAMENTO">Relacionamento</option>
606|                            <option value="PROCESSO">Processo</option>
607|                            <option value="INFRAESTRUTURA">Infraestrutura</option>
608|                            <option value="SEGURANCA" selected>Segurança</option>
609|                            <option value="COMPORTAMENTO">Comportamento</option>
610|                            <option value="AMBIENTAL">Ambiental</option>
611|                        </select>
612|                    </div>
613|                </div>
614|            </div>
615|            {# AP: Tipo de barreira no lugar da Dimensão (lista Brenda + ícone de ajuda). #}
616|            <div id="ev-ap-barrier-row" class="d-none">
617|                {% include 'ssma/occurrence/partials/_ev_shared_barrier.html.twig' with {
618|                    _barrier_suffix: '_ap',
619|                    _hide_failed_barrier: true,
620|                    _show_barrier_help: true
621|                } %}
622|            </div>
623|        </div>
624|
625|        {# ── ACIDENTE PESSOAL ─────────────────── #}
626|        <div id="ev-block-ap" class="ev-type-block d-none">
627|            {# Etapa 8: campos da pessoa (mapa, CAT, descaracter) agrupados na caixinha #}
628|            <div id="ev-ap-pessoa-caixinha" class="ev-ap-pessoa-caixinha mb-3">
629|            <div class="form-row">
630|                <div class="col-12">
631|                    <div class="form-group mb-2" id="ev-injured-persons-header">
632|                        <label class="mb-1">Colaborador(es) acidentado(s) <span class="text-danger">*</span></label>
633|                    </div>
634|                    {# Select oculto — só compatibilidade JS (primary id / legado). UI = cards (Brenda). #}
635|                    <div class="d-none" id="ev-person-id-select-wrap" aria-hidden="true">
636|                        {% set ev_person_options = [{'value': '', 'text': 'Selecione a pessoa (entre as envolvidas)'}] %}
637|                        {% for member in allMembers %}
638|                            {% set ev_person_options = ev_person_options|merge([{
639|                                'value': member.id,
640|                                'text': member.name
641|                            }]) %}
642|                        {% endfor %}
643|                        {% include 'components/ui/_custom_select.html.twig' with {
644|                            id: 'ev_person_id',
645|                            name: 'ev_person_id',
646|                            label: 'Selecione a pessoa (entre as envolvidas)',
647|                            options: ev_person_options
648|                        } %}
649|                    </div>
650|                </div>
651|                <input type="hidden" id="ev_person_type" name="ev_person_type" value="COLABORADOR">
652|            </div>
653|            <p id="ev-injured-person-empty" class="small text-muted mb-2">
654|                Nenhuma pessoa em <strong>Pessoas envolvidas</strong>. Adicione quem participou do evento para registrar os acidentados.
655|            </p>
656|            <p id="ev-injured-person-summary" class="small text-muted mb-2 d-none">
657|                <i class="fas fa-info-circle mr-1"></i><span id="ev-injured-person-summary-text"></span>
658|            </p>
659|            <div id="ev_injured_person_boxes" class="mb-3"></div>
660|            <input type="hidden" id="ev_injured_person_details" name="ev_injured_person_details" value="">
661|            {# Fonte para clone (div oculta — mais confiável que <template> no offcanvas) #}
662|            <div id="ev-injured-person-box-tpl" class="d-none" aria-hidden="true">
663|                {% include 'ssma/occurrence/partials/_ev_injured_person_box.html.twig' with {
664|                    person_id: '',
665|                    person_name: '',
666|                    attendance_date: '',
667|                    breve_relato: ''
668|                } %}
669|            </div>
670|
671|            {# Body map fica estacionado aqui e é movido para dentro da caixinha do acidentado #}
672|            <div id="ev-body-map-park" class="d-none" aria-hidden="true">
673|            <div id="ev-body-map-block" class="d-none mt-2 ev-ap-body-map-field">
674|                <p class="mb-1 ev-ap-body-map-title">Partes do corpo</p>
675|                <div id="ev-body-map-wrap" class="w-100">
676|                    <div id="ev-body-map-host" class="ssma-ev-body-map-host d-flex justify-content-center mb-3"></div>
677|                    {# Um float por lado (mão esq/dir, pé esq/dir) — posição via JS (data-region no SVG) #}
678|                    <div id="ev_extremity_hand_float_esq" class="ev-extremity-float d-none" aria-hidden="true">
679|                        <div class="ev-ef-label">Mão esq. <span class="ev-ef-subtitle">dedo(s)</span></div>
680|                        <div class="ev-ef-checks">
681|                            <label class="ev-ef-check-item"><input type="checkbox" class="ev-ef-cb" value="POLEGAR"> Polegar</label>
682|                            <label class="ev-ef-check-item"><input type="checkbox" class="ev-ef-cb" value="INDICADOR"> Indicador</label>
683|                            <label class="ev-ef-check-item"><input type="checkbox" class="ev-ef-cb" value="MEDIO"> Dedo médio</label>
684|                            <label class="ev-ef-check-item"><input type="checkbox" class="ev-ef-cb" value="ANULAR"> Anelar</label>
685|                            <label class="ev-ef-check-item"><input type="checkbox" class="ev-ef-cb" value="MINIMO"> Mínimo</label>
686|                        </div>
687|                        <input type="hidden" id="ev_hand_finger_esq" name="ev_hand_finger_esq" value="">
688|                    </div>
689|                    <div id="ev_extremity_hand_float_dir" class="ev-extremity-float d-none" aria-hidden="true">
690|                        <div class="ev-ef-label">Mão dir. <span class="ev-ef-subtitle">dedo(s)</span></div>
691|                        <div class="ev-ef-checks">
692|                            <label class="ev-ef-check-item"><input type="checkbox" class="ev-ef-cb" value="POLEGAR"> Polegar</label>
693|                            <label class="ev-ef-check-item"><input type="checkbox" class="ev-ef-cb" value="INDICADOR"> Indicador</label>
694|                            <label class="ev-ef-check-item"><input type="checkbox" class="ev-ef-cb" value="MEDIO"> Dedo médio</label>
695|                            <label class="ev-ef-check-item"><input type="checkbox" class="ev-ef-cb" value="ANULAR"> Anelar</label>
696|                            <label class="ev-ef-check-item"><input type="checkbox" class="ev-ef-cb" value="MINIMO"> Mínimo</label>
697|                        </div>
698|                        <input type="hidden" id="ev_hand_finger_dir" name="ev_hand_finger_dir" value="">
699|                    </div>
700|                    <div id="ev_extremity_foot_float_esq" class="ev-extremity-float d-none" aria-hidden="true">
Request #46 deepseek-v4-flash P:63.23K C:493 CR:61.18K CW:0 5212ms
Reasoning
So the injured cards (and the descaracter block) live in the general step panel (`#ev-block-ap`, "Acidente Pessoal", which is step 1/2 general). So in the AP creation general step (etapa 1/2), the card is visible (if expanded). So the checkbox appears in the **general** creation step. For edit-general of an AP, cards also in general step — checkbox appears. Now which step shows in general edit: `evSetStep('general')`, panel #ev-step-general is shown. AP block is inside general panel? It said `#ev-block-ap` - part of `#ev-step-general`. So the checkbox appears at the general step. So when a user is in the creation "general" step for AP (etapa 1-2), the suspect checkbox now appears per card — matches the product's request "na etapa de registro". OK. Now here's an important NEW angle regarding finding #2 in relation to CSS: In creation-general, if the user checks the checkbox, yesNoWrap shows and label appears. But Sim/Não hidden. But wait, that label is precisely "Caracterizado como acidente?" + help icon. Actually in the creation scenario, when a user checks the checkbox, they see only the label "Caracterizado como acidente?" without Sim/Não below, which is confusing. Finding #2. Now, since cards in creation might not be expanded (they're created collapsed), the checkbox is only visible when expanded. In the creation, the checkbox appears in expanded card. OK. Let me now check the doc `ocorrencia-07-suspeita-descaracterizacao-ui.md` to see how the checkbox in creation should look in the Figma, whether there should be a read-only display if not editable. This could provide a specific expectation to base a finding on (e.g., "na criação, se não pode descaracterizar, mostrar apenas o checkbox e não a label"). Let me read that doc and ocorrencia-06.
Tool Calls (1)
file_read
Show Details
{"file_path": "docs/ssma/ocorrencia-07-suspeita-descaracterizacao-ui.md"}
File: docs/ssma/ocorrencia-07-suspeita-descaracterizacao-ui.md (Total lines: 38)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 1-38
1|# 7 — Suspeita de descaracterização (texto vermelho + Sim/Não)
2|
3|**Fonte:** Figma Parte 2 · Etapas 6 e 8  
4|**Status:** **Aplicado** (ajustado 16/07/2026)
5|
6|## Pedido
7|
8|1. Se **suspeita** marcada → texto vermelho:  
9|   **`SUSPEITA DE DESCARACTERIZAÇÃO DE OCORRÊNCIA`**
10|2. Profissional de saúde **com permissão** de descaracterizar → abaixo da frase, botões **Sim / Não** para:  
11|   **“Não caracterizado como acidente.”**
12|3. Sem permissão → não mostra S/N (mensagem de sem permissão).
13|
14|> A 4ª imagem (S/N rabiscado) é só o **conceito** de escolha binária — a UI usa botões `Sim` / `Não` do design system, não letras soltas.
15|
16|## Backend
17|
18|| UI | Campo | Valor |
19||----|-------|--------|
20|| Suspeita marcada | `descaracter_suspect` | `1` |
21|| Sim (descaracterizado) | `descaracterizado` | `1` |
22|| Não (não descaracterizado) | `descaracterizado` | `0` |
23|| Sem resposta | `descaracterizado` | `''` |
24|
25|Permissão: flag `ssmaCanDescharacterizeAccident` / `SSMA_CAN_DESCARACTERIZE` (coluna Descaracterizar em Profissionais de Saúde).
26|
27|## Implementação
28|
29|| Peça | Onde |
30||------|------|
31|| UI na caixinha | `_ev_injured_person_box.html.twig` |
32|| Sync | `evSyncDescaracterUi()` + bind em `evBindInjuredCardEvents` |
33|| Gate permissão | `evCanDescharacterizeAccident()` |
34|
35|## Validação
36|
37|Com permissão: marcar suspeita → banner vermelho + Sim/Não. Sem permissão: banner + “Sem permissão…”.
38|
Request #47 deepseek-v4-flash P:64.31K C:190 CR:63.62K CW:0 2426ms
Reasoning
Interesting — per doc 7, the expected UI when suspect checked is a **red banner text "SUSPEITA DE DESCARACTERIZAÇÃO DE OCORRÊNCIA"** plus Sim/Não (with permission) or "Sem permissão". This suggests there is supposed to be a red text banner in the box too. Search the partial or modal for "SUSPEITA DE DESCARACTERIZAÇÃO". Let me search.
Tool Calls (2)
code_search
Show Details
{"search_text": "SUSPEITA DE DESCARACTERIZAÇÃO"}
File: config/automations/ssma.yaml
Match lines: 1
299|      - { id: "suspeita_sim", label: "Há suspeita de descaracterização" }

File: docs/generate_ssma_ocorrencias_qa_pdf.py
Match lines: 1
304|            ("14", "Marcar suspeita de descaracterização no 1º.", "Botões Sim/Não aparecem."),

File: docs/ssma/CORRECOES-FECHAMENTO-FIGMA-PENDENTES.md
Match lines: 1
81|| Há suspeita de descaracterização | `suspeita_sim` | `descaracter_suspect = 1` |

File: docs/ssma/CORRECOES-OCORRENCIA-FIGMA-PARTE-2.md
Match lines: 3
140|3. Após as licenças: checkbox **“Há suspeita de descaracterização do acidente?”**.
171|   **“SUSPEITA DE DESCARACTERIZAÇÃO DE OCORRÊNCIA”**.
187|| há suspeita de descaracterização | `= sim` |

File: docs/ssma/ocorrencia-06-tudo-na-caixinha-descaracter.md
Match lines: 1
17|- Suspeita de descaracterização + S/N (quando permitido)

File: docs/ssma/ocorrencia-07-suspeita-descaracterizacao-ui.md
Match lines: 2
1|# 7 — Suspeita de descaracterização (texto vermelho + Sim/Não)
9|   **`SUSPEITA DE DESCARACTERIZAÇÃO DE OCORRÊNCIA`**

File: docs/ssma/ocorrencia-08-filtro-aprofundamento-descaracter.md
Match lines: 1
14|| Há suspeita de descaracterização | `suspeita_sim` | `descaracter_suspect = 1` |

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

File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_ev_injured_person_box.html.twig
Match lines: 1
195|                <label class="form-check-label font-weight-bold">Há suspeita de descaracterização do acidente?</label>

File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig
Match lines: 1
292|                <label class="form-check-label" for="ev_descaracter_suspect">Há suspeita de descaracterização do acidente?</label>

code_search
Show Details
{"search_text": "ev-inj-descaracter-suspect-ro-wrap"}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig
Match lines: 1
1401|#form-event-new .ev-inj-descaracter-suspect-ro-wrap .form-check-label {

Request #48 deepseek-v4-flash P:65.21K C:1.67K CR:64.38K CW:0 14568ms
Reasoning
No red banner exists. So doc 07's red banner isn't implemented anywhere; likely out of scope. I have now done a deep pass. Given that the three confirmed findings are already there, I need to decide whether to add more findings. Let me re-evaluate the candidates I might present as new findings: **New Finding Candidate 1 (real, distinct): The new visibility now applies also in "Editar ocorrência" (edit-general) flow, not just creation.** Not sure intended. Skip or low severity scope comment? Actually, this could be a real functional/scope concern with meaningful consequence: users with edit access but WITHOUT aprofundamento permission can change `descaracter_suspect` in general edit, while the flag is meant to trigger automation and feed the aprofundamento doctor flow. It might be intended since general editor is the one who registers suspicion... I'd better not. **New Finding Candidate 2 (real, distinct): draft restore** — after session draft restore, the per-card checkboxes aren't restored (they're set only in populateForEdit). But since global restored and payload reads global, the impact is that visually the card checkbox appears unchecked while suspicion is still being saved. Could be reported as a moderate issue. It's introduced because the checkbox becomes user-facing in creation (new). But it's fairly niche. **New Finding Candidate 3**: The CSS comment at line 1304 says "Sim/Não ... só o checkbox de suspeita aparece na criação". But CSS also hides these when not is-doctor-aprof — In edit-general, fine. Let me take a step back. The confirmed findings may have been produced by the same reviewer in a previous pass, and I'm asked to find additional issues. It's entirely plausible there aren't any more significant issues in a 10-line diff. Rather than fabricate findings, it is more professional to note that after full review no additional issues beyond the confirmed findings were identified, then call task_done. But wait — the task says, "If a code issue has been identified and confirmed, call the code_comment tool." If I have no additional confirmed issues, then task_done. But before that, ensure I have indeed reviewed each file in review_files: 1. `_ev_injured_person_box.html.twig` — only comment change; functional effect: none. The comment is documentation only. No issue (comments out of scope anyway). 2. `_modal_event.html.twig` — two hunks; issues covered by confirmed findings (1, 2, 3) and by the previously confirmed finding #1 (god template) applies. Actually wait, careful: the confirmed findings were already "identified and confirmed in a prior review pass. Do not repeat them." So I should not re-report them. Should I still do a final review? Yes, I've done deep analysis. Let me reconsider whether there is a **new** issue that maybe combines the CSS change with a scenario not covered: Consider a user in **aprofundamento dedicated view** where the doctor has permission. They mark suspect on a card; Sim/Não appears (CSS off). Good. Now, what if the same doctor, in the same view, **unchecks suspect on a card after having answered Sim/Não and typed a comment**? Then the comment stays in textarea but card data serialized? In evReadCardInjuryData, comment read regardless; descaracterizado read from `data-descaracterizado` attr; if no answer, empty. But since unchecking hides wrap... Wait, when the checkbox is unchecked and the data-descaracterizado already set (e.g., '1'), the hidden field keeps; the uncheck handler doesn't clear data-descaracterizado or comment. Not new though. Now, wait — there's a subtlety introduced by the **new ability to check the suspect at creation**: when saving at creation with suspect=1, and then a user **without descaracterização permission** opens the dedicated aprofundamento... the prefill block at 2950 preselects "Sim" if no permission and cur empty. That means descaracterizado becomes '0' = Sim (is acidente). So a no-permission doctor can't say "Não" — fine, gate works. Let me look at the potential **regression**: In the dedicated aprofundamento flow, previously the section was shown only when isAp && isDoctorAprof. The new code shows section whenever isAp regardless of doctorAprof. But the aprofundamento view is only reachable by someone with permission; still, if a **non-doctor professional (no permission)** opened the dedicated aprofundamento view... does that happen? SSMA_CAN_DESCARACTERIZE is false for them. They can still open aprofundamento? The list button "Aprofundamento técnico" presumably gated by evCanEditAprofundamento(type). For a professional with no descaracter permission but with aprofundamento rights? The descaracter permission is separate from aprofundamento access. So a professional who can aprofundar but cannot descaracterizar opens the view. Section shows now (isAp). Sim/Não hidden? CSS: is-doctor-aprof class added (evAprofundamentoOnlyMode true) → CSS does NOT hide. So Sim/Não buttons visible, "Não" disabled and no-perm message shown. Wait — the no-perm message: `.ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm` toggled in evSyncDescaracterUi line 2961 based on canSn (remove d-none when !canSn). Fine, unchanged from before (before #636 same). Not new. But in **creation** for such a user: is-doctor-aprof false → CSS hides Sim/Não/no-perm; only checkbox visible. The user with no descaracter permission registers suspicion at creation (fine—anyone can register suspicion). Good. Alright. Let me make a final decision about new comments. I want to be careful about reporting weak/speculative items. However, there's one more objective detail I should verify: **Line 2928 toggle removes d-none when isAp, but there is an inline `.d-none` on `.ev-inj-descaracter` in markup (partial line 192). This block is also inside `#ev-injured-person-box-tpl` in the modal (line 662-669). The clone has `d-none`? The template div `ev-injured-person-box-tpl` has class d-none; cloning source card (child) has `d-none` too? At 2665: `card.classList.remove('d-none')` removes d-none from card root; but the `.ev-inj-descaracter` child still has `d-none` — controlled via JS toggles. OK. Given the many sync calls to evSyncDescaracterStageUi on each type/step change, is the section shown for AP at **creation stage 1** BEFORE any injured cards exist? No cards → no effect. Good. Now one more scan: does anything else hide the descaracter block in non-aprof mode at CSS that we removed, and now it's controlled solely by JS? The old CSS rule has been replaced. Are there other CSS rules referencing `.ev-inj-descaracter` for hiding? Search CSS for `.ev-inj-descaracter {` and `ev-inj-descaracter` generally.
Tool Calls (1)
code_search
Show Details
{"file_patterns": ["templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig"], "search_text": "\\.ev-inj-descaracter", "use_perl_regexp": true}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig
Match lines: 31
1289|#form-event-new .ev-inj-descaracter-toggle {
1292|#form-event-new .ev-inj-descaracter-btn.active {
1297|#form-event-new .ev-inj-descaracter-btn[disabled] {
1301|#form-event-new .ev-inj-descaracter {
1305|#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-toggle,
1306|#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-comment-wrap,
1307|#form-event-new:not(.is-doctor-aprof) .ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm {
1310|#form-event-new .ev-inj-descaracter-toggle.is-invalid {
1392|.ev-step-panel.is-readonly .ev-inj-descaracter-btn {
1396|#form-event-new .ev-inj-descaracter-suspect-ro {
1401|#form-event-new .ev-inj-descaracter-suspect-ro-wrap .form-check-label {
2201|            descaracter_comment: (card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-comment') || {}).value || '',
2208|            var cardBtns = card.querySelectorAll('.ev-inj-descaracter-btn.active');
2257|        var comm = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-comment');
2598|        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) {
2624|        card.querySelectorAll('.ev-inj-descaracter-btn').forEach(function (btn) {
2633|                var toggle = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-toggle');
2640|        card.querySelectorAll('.ev-inj-descaracter-comment').forEach(function (ta) {
2649|            window.jQuery(card).find('.ev-inj-descaracter-tip').tooltip({ container: 'body' });
2925|        document.querySelectorAll('.ev-inj-descaracter').forEach(function (el) {
2933|            var yesNoWrap = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap');
2959|            var noPerm = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm');
2962|            card.querySelectorAll('.ev-inj-descaracter-btn').forEach(function (b) {
2976|                window.SsmaShared.toggleYesNo(card.querySelectorAll('.ev-inj-descaracter-btn'), cardDesc !== '' ? cardDesc : null, {
3312|            '#ev-step-aprofundamento .ev-inj-descaracter-btn'
5744|            var yesNoWrap = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap');
6024|                    var toggle = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-toggle');
6025|                    var comm = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-comment');
6057|                            || (focusCard && focusCard.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter'))
6485|            var yesNoWrap = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap');
7119|                ? String((primaryCard.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-comment') || {}).value || '').trim()

Request #49 deepseek-v4-flash P:67.67K C:179 CR:66.82K CW:0 2367ms
Reasoning
Now, notice a very important point at **line 2598-2649** — `evBindInjuredCardEvents` (binding). Let me read 2580-2650 to understand interactions, and line 2624-2633 which might remove "active" state from buttons when suspect unchecked. Also line 2649 tooltip init. This may relate to a subtle new interaction.
Tool Calls (1)
file_read
Show Details
{"end_line": 2652, "file_path": "templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig", "start_line": 2580}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig (Total lines: 7710)
IS_TRUNCATED: false
LINE_RANGE: 2580-2652
2580|                e.preventDefault();
2581|                e.stopPropagation();
2582|                // Mesmo padrão das Inspeções (Desvios): lápis alterna expandir/recolher.
2583|                if (card.classList.contains('is-expanded')) {
2584|                    evCollapseInjuredCard(card);
2585|                } else {
2586|                    evExpandInjuredCard(card);
2587|                }
2588|            });
2589|        });
2590|        var pick = card.querySelector('.js-ev-inj-pick');
2591|        if (pick) {
2592|            pick.addEventListener('click', function (e) {
2593|                e.preventDefault();
2594|                e.stopPropagation();
2595|                evSelectPrimaryInjuredPerson(card.getAttribute('data-person-id'));
2596|            });
2597|        }
2598|        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) {
2599|            el.addEventListener('change', function () {
2600|                if (el.classList.contains('ev-inj-had-injury') && typeof window.evSyncHadInjuryUi === 'function') {
2601|                    window.evSyncHadInjuryUi();
2602|                }
2603|                if (el.classList.contains('ev-inj-injury-classification')) {
2604|                    evSyncCardCatFromClassification(card);
2605|                }
2606|                if (el.classList.contains('ev-inj-consequence')) {
2607|                    evSyncCardDerivedSeverity(card);
2608|                    evSyncCardPotentialGteReal(card);
2609|                    evSyncInjuryFieldsByConsequence();
2610|                }
2611|                if (el.classList.contains('ev-inj-potential-consequence')) {
2612|                    evSyncCardPotentialGteReal(card);
2613|                }
2614|                evUpdateInjuredCardSummary(card);
2615|                evSyncInjuredPersonDetailsHidden();
2616|                evPersistDraftSoon();
2617|            });
2618|            el.addEventListener('input', function () {
2619|                evSyncInjuredPersonDetailsHidden();
2620|                evPersistDraftSoon();
2621|            });
2622|        });
2623|
2624|        card.querySelectorAll('.ev-inj-descaracter-btn').forEach(function (btn) {
2625|            btn.addEventListener('click', function () {
2626|                var val = this.getAttribute('data-descaracter-val');
2627|                if (val === '1' && !evCanDescharacterizeAccident()) {
2628|                    return;
2629|                }
2630|                card.setAttribute('data-descaracterizado', val);
2631|                var hidden = document.getElementById('ev_descaracterizado');
2632|                if (hidden) hidden.value = val;
2633|                var toggle = card.querySelector('.ev-inj-descaracter-toggle');
2634|                if (toggle) toggle.classList.remove('is-invalid');
2635|                evSyncDescaracterUi();
2636|                evSyncInjuredPersonDetailsHidden();
2637|                evPersistDraftSoon();
2638|            });
2639|        });
2640|        card.querySelectorAll('.ev-inj-descaracter-comment').forEach(function (ta) {
2641|            ta.addEventListener('input', function () {
2642|                ta.classList.remove('is-invalid');
2643|            });
2644|        });
2645|        evFilterCardConsequences(card);
2646|        evSyncCardCatFromClassification(card);
2647|        evSyncDescaracterUi();
2648|        if (window.jQuery && window.jQuery.fn.tooltip) {
2649|            window.jQuery(card).find('.ev-inj-descaracter-tip').tooltip({ container: 'body' });
2650|        }
2651|    }
2652|
Request #50 deepseek-v4-flash P:68.85K C:3.55K CR:67.84K CW:0 28970ms
Reasoning
Note that at card bind time (evBindInjuredCardEvents), `.ev-inj-descaracter-comment` gets a 'change' listener; not relevant. Now, thinking about the diff's actual scope again: The 3 confirmed findings likely correspond to: 1. God-template issue at CSS comment hunk. 2. Half-visible Sim/Não label issue. 3. Single global flag & multiple cards issue (serialization/global mirroring). Wait, but finding #3's code snippet is `el.classList.toggle('d-none', !isAp);` — that's the changed JS. Yes. So all three of the diff's changed lines already got flagged. The partial change is a comment (only). So additional real findings are unlikely. Let me re-examine to be thorough about any missed distinct problem: The CSS hides `.ev-inj-descaracter-comment-wrap` and `.ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm` and `.ev-inj-descaracter-toggle` in non-doctor-aprof, but the new diff left the **yes/no label + help icon (`.ev-inj-descaracter-tip`)** inside `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap`, and that wrap gets visible when checkbox checked. Finding #2. Any other? The wrap contains ONLY: label, toggle, comment, no-perm. So after CSS, label remains. That's the entire visual leak. OK. What about the checkbox label ("Há suspeita de descaracterização do acidente?") shows in creation — intended. Now, cross-file: partial comment says "Sim/Não e comentário ficam ocultos via CSS até o aprofundamento" — matches CSS approach. fine. So there aren't further issues to report. But wait — the system prompt: "Continue reviewing all files in <review_files> and report any other real issues you find." If none, call task_done. Before finalizing, let me sanity-check whether the JS hunk's second part still calls correctly to toggle; no syntax issues. And ensure the `evSyncDescaracterStageUi` is invoked for the **create modal on opening after type set**, otherwise the checkbox might not appear because block stays `d-none` (inline class in markup) until a sync call. When opening create for an AP, `evSyncDescaracterStageUi` is invoked from where? Possibly when selecting type or when people added, evBindInjuredCardEvents at 2647 calls evSyncDescaracterUi → evSyncDescaracterStageUi. Cards created via evCreateInjuredPersonCard → evBindInjuredCardEvents → evSyncDescaracterUi → sync, so section becomes visible. Good. Also evSyncCriticalityField (type change) etc. Alright. Actually, wait — I want to double check the confirmed findings' code anchors vs mine; they must be from earlier review. Given they already reported #2 (label visible), my candidate about the same scenario but mentioning draft restore wouldn't be valuable if overlapping; but draft restore is a distinct path that would leave the visual checkbox unchecked — hmm. Let me look at whether there's any sync path where card checkboxes get restored from global in **create mode** (non-aprof), e.g., evSetInjuredDetailsObj or after rendering boxes in create. Search within evSyncInjuredPersonDetailsHidden callers for a create-mode global->cards sync. The only place propagating global to card checkboxes is lines 6481-6487 (populateForEdit). So in pure create, after evRenderInjuredPersonBoxes via draft restore, card checkbox is left unchecked. But draft restore is not a "pure create"? Draft is create-mode-only (mode check at 2840). So yes, in create, when a draft is restored (e.g., user left and came back), card checkboxes lose their checked state visually. Also if the user had checked the suspect checkbox and then closed/reopened the modal with draft auto-restore... This is an actual bug scenario, but its impact: the visual checkbox is unchecked while the data hidden field (`__injured_details`) still contains descaracter_suspect=1 for cards? Wait, does the serialized `__injured_details` store descaracter_suspect per card from evReadCardInjuryData? Yes, line 2199 reads global. And global checkbox id restored by the draft loop (since it has id and it's inside the form). So after restore, global true, hidden details descaracter_suspect=1, but per-card checkboxes appear unchecked. If the user then, in aprofundamento-only flow, opens the record... not in create. In create the only visible effect: the checkbox appears unchecked although suspicion will be saved as 1 on submit; if the user re-checks it, no change; if the user never touches, still saved as 1. So mostly a visual/UX inconsistency, and only after a draft restore. Also if the user unchecks and re-checks or toggles any other card, the global is set to that card's state. Modest severity (low). Hmm, is this within "newly added code"? The new JS hunk does not itself handle restore, but the new visibility makes the mismatch user-visible. The root is that the checkbox in cards is user-facing now, and evApplyCardInjuryData does not restore it. But as a review comment on the diff, I'd anchor to `el.classList.toggle('d-none', !isAp);` line. Might be considered part of finding #3's family. I'd rather not duplicate. Let me also check one thing about **the `is-doctor-aprof` state when the user is in the wizard aprofundamento step during creation after this change** — because with the new CSS, when evAprofundamentoOnlyMode=false and currentStep aprofundamento, `#form-event-new` does NOT have is-doctor-aprof → Sim/Não hidden; but the validation at 6018-6071 (requires answers per card when suspect?) requires descaracter answers in `boxesWrap && evAprofundamentoOnlyMode` — with evAprofundamentoOnlyMode=false during wizard creation-aprof, the validation doesn't require answers. But there's a section that might also require in wizard-aprof? Not now. So in creation-aprof step (wizard), the doctor sees only checkbox — never Sim/Não. The doctor will need to finalize first, then reopen in dedicated aprofundamento view? Wait — actually the wizard's finalization button "Finalizar" happens at step aprofundamento. When creating AP events in the wizard with permission to aprofundar, at evCurrentStep='aprofundamento', evAprofundamentoFinalizeIntent = true (initialized true at openCreate? line 6568 evAprofundamentoFinalizeIntent = true) → save calls finalization. This is the doctor's single-flow. Under new behavior, if the doctor wants to mark "Não caracterizado" (descaracterizar), the Sim/Não UI is hidden in this step! They cannot complete descaracterização during the creation wizard, unless the flow requires them to save then reopen dedicated aprofundamento. But wait — before #636, doctors answered descaracterização in the wizard-aprof step (that's why #636 said "só no aprofundamento" moved it to the dedicated view). Hmm #636 moved it from wizard-aprof to dedicated aprofundamento view. So already post-#636, doctors couldn't answer in wizard-aprof? But is that plausible for product? The dedicated aprofundamento view is opened from the occurrences list for existing records. So a doctor creating a record through the wizard that includes the aprofundamento step would not be able to answer descaracterização during creation. Wait — maybe after #636 the wizard's aprofundamento step for creation was removed/disabled for everyone, and creation ends at general step with "Registrar" then separate "Aprofundamento" view is opened after saving. In fact label line 3356-3360: in general step if evRequiresAprofundamento && evCanEditAprofundamento → "Aprofundamento >" — so the wizard continues to aprofundamento step when creating. And finalize step exists. For AP, evRequiresAprofundamento(type) is probably true, so the AP creation flows through the aprofundamento step in the same modal. Hmm, this suggests that after #636, during creation wizard-aprof, the whole descaracter block was hidden — meaning the doctor couldn't answer Sim/Não in the wizard. But maybe that's exactly what #636 intended (they'd respond in a second edit after record saved & listed in "Aprofundamento pendente"). This seems odd for product, but the PR description explicitly says #636 moved it to "aprofundamento técnico". So the dedicated view is where doctors go. In the current PR, the checkbox at creation enables registrar to mark suspicion and then doctors later respond. I think we've covered the intended behavior. The fact that the wizard-aprof step during creation also now shows the checkbox but not Sim/Não could be a subtle inconsistency if the wizard-aprof step is the doctor's flow to finalize: the checkbox visible + Sim/Não hidden, but at finalization validation requires Sim/Não answer... would block finalization? Wait — validation only when evAprofundamentoOnlyMode true (dedicated). During wizard creation, evAprofundamentoOnlyMode false so validation doesn't require Sim/Não. So no blocking. OK. Given all this, I'm fairly confident there are no further strong distinct bugs to add beyond the three confirmed findings. But I still want to consider the reviewer expectation: they want thorough review. Given the prompt to avoid repeating confirmed findings and to give each file a pass, I'll do a final pass through the changed file hunks and see whether maybe there's something about the comment update (documentation) misleading — not functional. Wait, actually let me reconsider one more potential bug in the CSS, which could be the most impactful of the "new" ones: The CSS hides the toggle & comment & no-perm in non-doctor-aprof. But when in non-doctor-aprof and **the user checks the suspect checkbox**, the JS ALSO runs `card.setAttribute('data-descaracter-suspect', ...)` and `globalChk.checked`. Also `evSyncInjuredPersonDetailsHidden()` serializes. So far fine. But there is the **tip/tooltip initialization**: The `.ev-inj-descaracter-tip` tooltip only initialized when card events bound (2649). Not a problem. Let me also examine: In non-aprof, when the user checks suspect, yesNoWrap d-none removed. The CSS doesn't hide the WRAP. But the **JS at 2931-2937** (sync) also re-adds d-none when not checked. On each change, fine. I now recall an important possibility: **What about `evSyncDescaracterUi` (2960-2980) - buttons get `d-none` removed unconditionally** (`b.classList.remove('d-none')`) in line 2967/2971. In aprofundamento, fine. In creation, CSS hides with !important (display:none) — remove d-none no effect. OK, CSS wins (both display none anyway). Alright. Final answer: report the edit-mode scope? Let me decide: The instruction said review every file and report other REAL issues. Since the confirmed findings strongly cover the diff, I'll not add speculative ones. Hmm, but wait: I should double check that the confirmed finding #3's content about "serialização evReadCardInj..." reading global per-card, and multiple cards conflicting, is accurate. In creation, with multiple persons and a user marking suspects differently per card: since the global mirrors last card's change, evReadCardInjuryData will put the same global value to all cards at serialization time, and payload.descaracter_suspect also single global. So the later aprofundamento shows suspicion on all cards. This is a genuine data-model limitation. Confirmed. Given the whole review, I'll conclude no further actionable findings beyond the three already confirmed, but I need to provide at least "given every file its own pass". I'll summarize in PT-BR that I reviewed both files and found no additional new issues beyond the already-confirmed ones, and call task_done. Hold on — but the instructions might expect me to call code_comment for any new issues, or task_done when no obvious code issues found. Since confirmed findings exist but should not be repeated, and I found none additional that I'm confident about, I'll call task_done with a brief summary. Wait — before finalizing, let me reconsider candidate #1 (edit-general/creation scope) one more time. Is edit-general an actual use-case for these descaracter cards? Let me check whether when editing via OccurrenceModal.openEdit for AP, do cards even appear with the checkbox? `populateForEdit` renders boxes. Yes. So a "Editar ocorrência" of an AP shows the checkbox in each card and lets the editor toggle it, even if they can't aprofundar. And there's no visual indication whether suspicion is set except the checkbox. It does reflect saved state on load (from det). Since it's the same "card" UI and editable state, arguably okay. But one concrete problem: **The box shows in edit-general, and if an occurrence already had descaracter_suspect=1 and descaracterizado='1', the general editor sees a checked checkbox and can toggle off.** Because Sim/Não is hidden, the editor might not understand they're clearing the suspicion of a "descaracterizado" occurrence. But product-wise maybe fine. I'll skip. Let me reconsider candidate #2 draft restore once more, because it is more objective: In create mode, boxes rebuilt after restoring draft lose the checked state of per-card checkboxes. Actually let me verify the claim by verifying the draft save stores per-card suspect properly and restore path rebuilds from details — but cards only rendered if the boxes wrap existed; then at restore, evRenderInjuredPersonBoxes -> evCreateInjuredPersonCard(saved) -> evApplyCardInjuryData sets no suspect checkbox. Then evSyncInjuredPersonDetailsHidden at end of evRenderInjuredPersonBoxes (line 2821) will read global (evIsDescaracterSuspectChecked) from restored global checkbox — true — and write descaracter_suspect=1 back. And since the change handler isn't triggered, data remains consistent. Only the checkbox visuals are wrong. Then if user toggles *another* card's checkbox later... Actually the mismatch is user-visible, and in an expanded card the user would see an unchecked "Há suspeita..." even though it's set. They might check it (no harm) or trust the unchecked state and not realize it will be saved as suspect=1 (a real risk: user believes there's no suspicion but the record saves with suspicion because global restored). That is a genuine low-medium data-integrity surprise. But is the draft-restore flow triggered commonly? Draft saved on each change with debounce when mode=create; restored when reopening the "Novo evento" modal (`evRestoreDraftIfAny` called somewhere on open). If user closes mid-create and reopens, they see restored state. So plausible. However, given the finding #3 already notes the whole "single global vs per-card" architecture problem, the draft visual restore issue is a sub-case. Reporting it might be considered a repeat (overlap). I'll not report. Given all that, I'll conclude the review with no additional comments and call task_done. Actually, let me reconsider whether I should explicitly verify `evRestoreDraftIfAny` is invoked in create (openCreate). Let me quickly search callers.
Tool Calls (2)
code_search
Show Details
{"file_patterns": ["templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig"], "search_text": "evRestoreDraftIfAny()"}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig
Match lines: 1
2864|    function evRestoreDraftIfAny() {

code_search
Show Details
{"file_patterns": ["templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig"], "search_text": "evCurrentStep === 'aprofundamento'"}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig
Match lines: 10
2694|            if (evCurrentStep === 'aprofundamento'
2700|        if (evCurrentStep === 'aprofundamento' && evSelectedType() === 'ACIDENTE_PESSOAL') {
2825|        if (evCurrentStep === 'aprofundamento' && evSelectedType() === 'ACIDENTE_PESSOAL') {
3351|        if (cancel) cancel.classList.toggle('d-none', evCurrentStep === 'aprofundamento');
3397|        if (evCurrentStep === 'aprofundamento') {
5885|        var panel = evCurrentStep === 'aprofundamento'
6470|            if (evCurrentStep === 'aprofundamento' && typeof evEnsurePrimaryInjuredCardExpanded === 'function') {
6715|        if (evCurrentStep === 'aprofundamento'
6784|            evCurrentStep === 'aprofundamento' || evCanEditAprofundamento(typeForValidation)
6962|        if (evCurrentStep === 'aprofundamento' && evAprofundamentoOnlyMode) {

Request #51 deepseek-v4-flash P:72.71K C:116 CR:72.32K CW:0 2091ms
Reasoning
`evRestoreDraftIfAny` is only defined here and referenced only in this same file? Only one match - the definition, no caller found by exact search `evRestoreDraftIfAny()`. Maybe it's called with different text or it's exposed to window. Let me search for 'RestoreDraft'.
Tool Calls (1)
code_search
Show Details
{"search_text": "RestoreDraft"}
File: templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig
Match lines: 1
2864|    function evRestoreDraftIfAny() {

Request #52 deepseek-v4-flash P:72.88K C:1.23K CR:72.7K CW:0 10237ms
Reasoning
`evRestoreDraftIfAny` is defined but never called! So draft restore isn't actually used; the draft-restore concern is moot (dead function). So drop candidate #2 entirely. OK, so no draft auto-restore. That further reduces extra findings. Now, let me re-verify the three confirmed findings cover everything significant. Given this, I'm fairly convinced there are no additional real issues to add. But wait — I realize there might be one more: **`evRestoreDraftIfAny` is never invoked**, meaning drafts are persisted but never restored — a dead feature; but it's unchanged code, out of scope. Now let me do one more targeted check for an **objective bug**: When the suspect checkbox in creation is checked, evSyncInjuredPersonDetailsHidden is called (5751) which serializes each card via evReadCardInjuryData. For the **non-primary collapsed cards**, evReadCardInjuryData reads descaracter_suspect global; descaracterizado from data attr etc. Not a problem. What about **`evPersistDraftNow` reading form elements**: The card checkbox `.ev-inj-suspect-chk` has no id/name? In the partial: `<input class="form-check-input ev-inj-suspect-chk" type="checkbox">` — no id, no name → skipped by draft save (`if (!el.name && !el.id) return;`). So draft save captures only the global checkbox `ev_descaracter_suspect` state. That's consistent. Alright, final: no additional confirmed issues. I'll write a concise summary in PT-BR and call task_done. Actually hold on. Let me reconsider finding #2's recommendation once more and decide whether the more correct fix would also imply new bug... not needed. I will finalize. Provide summary text and task_done. Wait, though, before finalizing, let me reconsider the possibility that the JS hunk introduced a NEW regression for the **read-only (finalized aprofundamento)** viewing of **ROS/others**? No cards. Skip. And one more: **`evSyncDescaracterStageUi` is called when type changes to ACIDENTE_PESSOAL in create at step general even if there are NO people involved.** There will be an empty state message, no cards, so no checkbox appears until people added and cards rendered. Rendering card triggers `evBindInjuredCardEvents`, which calls `evSyncDescaracterUi()` → `evSyncDescaracterStageUi()` (since card bind at 2647) → shows section. Fine. But here's a subtle **race/ordering bug**: At `evSyncDescaracterStageUi`, line 2925: `document.querySelectorAll('.ev-inj-descaracter').forEach(el => el.classList.toggle('d-none', !isAp));`. This toggles the block based on AP. Cards created & bound call evSyncDescaracterUi per card — fine. But wait, there's a **potential real new bug** with line 2925 toggling visibility when the checkbox on a card was checked and **yesNoWrap d-none removed** — in **aprofundamento-only view** the section visibility toggle no longer hides when user is not doctor-aprof. Since dedicated aprofundamento view always has isAp true, no effect. OK. Conclusively no more. Given the task instructions, I'll provide the review summary and call task_done.
Concluí a revisão dos dois arquivos do grupo. **Resumo da revisão:** `templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_ev_injured_person_box.html.twig` - A única mudança é o comentário do bloco `.ev-inj-descaracter` (linha 191). Não há impacto funcional; a descrição do comentário está coerente com o CSS/JS novos. `templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig` - Percursoi o bloco CSS (linhas ~1301-1314), a função `evSyncDescaracterStageUi`/`evSyncDescaracterUi` (linhas ~2915-2981), os pontos de chamada (`evSetStep`, `evSetAprofundamentoReadonly`, `evSyncCriticalityField`, handlers de change), a criação/restauração de cards (`evCreateInjuredPersonCard`, `evApplyCardInjuryData`, `evReadCardInjuryData`), a serialização do payload (linhas ~2199, ~7095-7129), o fluxo de edição/aprofundamento (`populateForEdit`, `openAprofundamento`, `openCreate`) e a validação server-side (`SsmaEventService`). - Os três problemas mais relevantes deste diff já constam como achados confirmados da rodada anterior (god template, rótulo "Caracterizado como acidente?" aparecendo parcialmente na criação, e conflito do flag global `descaracter_suspect` entre múltiplos acidentados). - Não identifiquei outros problemas novos e confirmáveis que sejam distintos dos já registrados. Os demais pontos avaliados (restauração de rascunho — `evRestoreDraftIfAny` está definido mas nunca é invocado; validação de Sim/Não restrita a `evAprofundamentoOnlyMode`; permissões via CSS `is-doctor-aprof`) não caracterizam regressão introduzida por esta PR.
Tool Calls (1)
task_done
Show Details
{"state": "DONE"}

review_filter_task

Request #1 deepseek-v4-flash P:3.7K C:1.01K CR:1.92K CW:0 7705ms
Reasoning
Let me analyze the comments. The diff includes two files: 1. `templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_ev_injured_person_box.html.twig` - a comment change. 2. `templates/ssma/occurrence/partials/_modal_event.html.twig` - CSS rules and JS logic changes. Comments: - c-0: about the file concentrating thousands of lines of HTML/CSS/JS, suggests moving logic to public/js. This is a style/maintainability comment. Its subject — is it style? It states a fact about the diff adding CSS and JS to this file. It's a maintainability suggestion. Not protected subject. Not clearly factually wrong. The diff does add CSS near line 1305 and logic in the file. Ground A/B? The code it describes (CSS addition near 1305, sync logic) is present in the diff. So approve. - c-1: about marking the checkbox leaving the "Sim/Não" section appearing halfway. It says JS removes d-none from `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap`, but the new rule hides only buttons, comment, warning - the label "Caracterizado como acidente?" stays visible without controls. This refers to code not fully visible in the diff? The comment refers to `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` and `evSyncDescaracterStageUi` logic. This is a behavioral claim about runtime behavior in code the reviewer saw. We can't verify from diff alone. It's about behavior, but is it protected? Behavioral change... c-1 is about a bug in the display logic: on creation, checking suspect shows the label but not controls. Hmm, protected subjects include "Behavioral or compatibility change" - a message, field, status... Actually the comment describes a UI behavior issue. Is it a protected subject? Protected categories: memory safety, concurrency, linkage/declaration consistency, behavioral or compatibility change, unused parameter. Is this a "behavioral or compatibility change"? The protected category is about "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". That's about review comments flagging behavioral changes in the diff. c-1 is flagging that the new CSS rule doesn't hide the label, resulting in partial UI. Hmm — this is about the behavior the new code produces. Actually the comment claims the new behavior contradicts the declared rule. It's a correctness/behavioral claim about runtime behavior in code we cannot fully see. We cannot prove it wrong from the diff. Approve. Actually, let me think about whether the diff contradicts c-1. The diff shows the CSS rule hiding `.ev-inj-descaracter-toggle`, `.ev-inj-descaracter-comment-wrap`, `.ev-inj-descaracter-no-perm` outside aprofundamento. c-1 says the label "Caracterizado como acidente?" with help icon remains visible. Whether that label is inside `.ev-inj-descaracter-yesno-wrap` — we can't see. We cannot confirm or refute from the diff. So approve. - c-2: about single global flag `ev_descaracter_suspect`, each card handler mirroring, serialization reads global for all cards, so checking one card checks all. This refers to code in files we can't see (the global checkbox, handlers, evReadCardInjuryData). The claim is about runtime behavior in code we cannot see. The diff doesn't show these. We cannot verify, so approve. It may reference existing code. The diff line `el.classList.toggle('d-none', !isAp);` is quoted. The comment says "Exibir o checkbox de suspeita em cada card na criação torna comum o caso de mais de um acidentado com marcações diferentes, mas o valor salvo continua sendo um único flag global". This is a behavioral claim. We can't confirm from diff. Approve. Actually wait — is c-2 on a protected subject? It's about data persistence semantics/behavior. Even so, approve. So all three approve. Let me double check Ground A for any: c-0 targets CSS near 1305 and logic in the same file — both present. Approve. None of these meet Ground A or B removal bar. So approve all. Let me also verify the code in the comment snippets: c-1 existing_code snippet matches the diff line for the CSS rule. c-2 existing_code matches `el.classList.toggle('d-none', !isAp);`. All approve.
I'll analyze each comment against the diff.
Tool Calls (1)
approve_all_comments
Show Details
{}