Fifteen rows across five tasks said the mechanism was there and the test was
not. Each of these is a case where being wrong would be silent.
- the price rows must add up to the final amount. The chain test checks every
number individually, which stays green if a new row is added and left out of
the total; this checks the relationship itself.
- a fixed deposit beats a percentage one, and neither can exceed the final
amount — charging a deposit larger than the bill puts the patient in debt
before the visit.
- an appointment booked without a service still gets an invoice. Slot mode has
no service, and without this the financial report is short a row with nothing
to say which.
- the four accuracy thresholds, each tested on its own boundary. One step off
and either everything is red (so nobody looks) or nothing is (so the report
is pointless). Includes a short-running service, since the deviation is
measured on its absolute value.
- all six policy templates build a policy that survives the normal validation,
simulation and activation path. A template is a shortcut, not a second road:
if one of them produced something the validator rejects, a user could create
a rule in one click that never works.
- simulation leaves nothing pending for a later flush in the same request. That
is what the finally-rollback-clear is for, and the failure would surface in
the next operation rather than in the sandbox.
The course controller was reading $this->credits without it being injected —
phpstan caught it; the package-shortfall path had no test yet and would have
500'd on the first course that had a package.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Section 12 and the fifth closing rule: changing a price never changes an
already-booked appointment.
The pricing chain already existed and worked. Two things were missing. Tariff only
carries a year, so a rate change starting in Mehr could not be expressed — PriceList
now takes an explicit date range and Tariff remains the layer beneath it. And an
appointment stored a single number, so after a price change or a discount nobody
could say what those 2,400,000 rials were made of.
Price resolution walks four layers per service and takes the first hit: branch
override, then the covering price list, then the yearly tariff, then the service's own
price. The last one is the guarantee that a date no list covers still returns a price
rather than zero or an exception. breakdown.sources reports which layer answered, so a
surprising number can be traced instead of guessed at.
Two calculation decisions worth stating. Tax is computed on the patient's share, not
the gross — a patient does not pay tax on the portion the insurer covers. And a
discount larger than the amount floors the total at zero rather than going negative,
because a negative balance would mean the clinic owes the patient money, which nothing
downstream is built to mean.
A branch-specific list deliberately does not count as overlapping a general one; it
takes precedence instead. Treating them as a conflict would have made per-branch
exceptions impossible to express. Lists have no effect until activated, so drafting
next quarter's prices cannot disturb today's.
PriceSnapshot has no setters and a unique key on appointment_id: a snapshot that can
be edited is not a snapshot, and two invoices for one appointment would be two truths.
Corrections are a new row plus voiding the old one. Invoices are written during
confirm with the prices of that moment — computing later would let a rate change
between booking and invoicing produce a different number, which is exactly what rule
five forbids.
12 tests. The one that matters is
testBookedAppointmentKeepsItsOriginalInvoiceAfterAPriceChange: book, double the
service price, watch quote return the new number while the appointment's invoice
returns the old one. Without it rule five is only a claim.
1220 tests / 3551 assertions. phpstan back at its 14-error baseline. Frozen slot
contract green.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
