package settings

import (
	"strings"
	"testing"
)

// ── SCENARIO G (R-220) — AN EMPTY LIST MUST EXPLAIN ITSELF ──────────────────────────────────────
//
// The old refusal said "choose an attached drive from the list" while the list was empty — on a
// rebuilt box, for a reason the customer had no part in and could not see. Measured three times live.
// A refusal that names an action the customer cannot perform is the I3 breach the campaign recorded.
//
// RED-PROOF: restore the old sentence and this FAILS on the impossible-action assertion.
func TestRefuseAppNamespace_DoesNotNameAnImpossibleAction(t *testing.T) {
	msg := refuseAppNamespaceUndeterminable

	if strings.Contains(msg, "Válasszon a listából") {
		t.Fatal("R-220's I3 breach RETURNED: the refusal tells the customer to choose from a list that may be empty")
	}
	// It must say WHY the list can be empty — the rebuild — so the state is explicable.
	if !strings.Contains(msg, "újratelepítettük") && !strings.Contains(msg, "újra") {
		t.Fatalf("the refusal must explain why the drive is unregistered; got %q", msg)
	}
	// And point somewhere a customer can actually go.
	if !strings.Contains(msg, "Meghajtók") {
		t.Fatalf("the refusal must name where re-attaching happens; got %q", msg)
	}
	// It must not promise an outcome it cannot know.
	for _, forbidden := range []string{"biztosan", "garantál", "mindig sikerül"} {
		if strings.Contains(msg, forbidden) {
			t.Errorf("the refusal promises an outcome it cannot know (%q)", forbidden)
		}
	}
	// The NAS refusal is a different situation and keeps its own wording — it points at a list that
	// genuinely does have entries, so it is not the same defect.
	if !strings.Contains(refuseAppNamespaceNetwork, "Válasszon csatlakoztatott meghajtót") {
		t.Fatal("the NAS refusal was changed; it is a different situation and was not part of R-220")
	}
}