4.0 KiB
REPORT — v0.212.0: the orphan card's second promise (2026-08-12)
Commit 68f3e12. Green gate: build/vet clean, 28 packages ok, 0 FAIL; all ten controller gates OK.
Golden 0.212.0 baked and published; the Day-0 vouch is the operator's and was not made here.
R-299 — the same claim, one paragraph up, in the plural
internal/web/templates/backups_remote.html line 98 — the always-visible half of the orphan card —
still ended „a hozzájuk tartozó helyreállítási kóddal később visszaállíthatók lehetnek". The
paragraph fixed in v0.211.0 renders only after the customer clicks „Új távoli mentés indítása…", so on
first view the sentence a customer actually read was the one still promising.
It survived for two independent reasons:
SPEC-orphan-card-copy-2026-08-10.md§1 listed the line as "Accurate; keep" — corrected.- The regression guard matched one inflection. It asserted
visszaállítható lehet(singular); the card carriedvisszaállíthatók lehetnek(plural), which does not contain that substring. A guard matching one inflection of a Hungarian verb guards one sentence, not the claim.
Guard now matches the stem visszaállíthat. The plain forms the rest of the UI uses („visszaállítás",
„visszaállítani") do not contain it, so it does not over-match.
Shipped copy (the two knowable halves kept — declining a promise must not become telling the customer less than we know):
A távoli tárhelyen lévő mentések egy korábbi, már nem elérhető kulccsal készültek (jellemzően újratelepítés után). Emiatt új mentés jelenleg nem írható a tárolóba. A meglévő mentések nem sérültek. Azt viszont ez a gép nem tudja megállapítani, hogy később megnyithatók-e — ez attól függ, megvan-e még a hozzájuk tartozó kulcs. Ha szükséged van rájuk, írj nekünk.
Bytes verified as hex: á/é/ő/ü/ú/í/ó and — all correct, no double-encoding, no replacement chars.
Plant → convict → remove → pass
| step | result |
|---|---|
| plant the exact shipped plural | stem guard FAILS, quoting the sentence back |
| would the OLD narrow guard have caught it? | No — "visszaállítható lehet" in plural is False, shown as a pure string fact rather than a source grep (my first attempt at that check was contaminated by my own template comment) |
| remove the plant | 5/5 orphan-card tests pass |
Two branches of the gate are covered: card shown, and a healthy store seeing none of it.
Instrument defect fixed in the guard itself
Its failure message sliced the rendered HTML at a byte offset, which cuts Hungarian mid-character and printed a replacement char — a garbled failure message reads like an encoding bug in the product rather than in the message. It now slices on rune boundaries.
Does the card read coherently as a whole?
Mostly yes, with one thing I did not touch and one I introduced.
- Not touched, and reportable:
layout.html:143. The abandon countdown says "Addig még visszaszerezheted őket a helyreállítási kóddal" — the retired promise a third time and un-hedged. It is probably TRUE where it renders (gated on an active abandon of a recovery offer that exists), which is why I left it; but it renders on every page, and a rebuilt box can have an active countdown while its store is orphaned. Filed as R-301 with the wording question, not improvised. - Introduced: a repetition. Once the customer clicks through, "we cannot determine / depends on the key / write to us" appears in both the explanation and the confirm block. On first view — the common case — only the explanation shows, and each is self-contained. I read this as reinforcement at the decision point rather than a defect, and left it rather than churn customer copy.
NOT DONE
- The Day-0 vouch (the operator's).
- No box was deployed to, so this is unit- and render-proven only, not exercised through a live endpoint.