A customer whose machine was rebuilt had everything needed to get their data
back and no way to find out: the only route was a command line. This is the
screen that closes that.
IT UNLOCKS, AND ONLY UNLOCKS (operator ruling). It explains, takes the recovery
code, opens the repository and shows what is in there — apps, dates, sizes. It
restores nothing: restore is already per-app and lives in the backups area, and
a screen that unlocks and then offers to overwrite is two decisions wearing one
button.
ONE CORE, TWO CALLERS. RecoverInstallCore is split out of RecoverAndInstall; the
CLI wrapper keeps its exit codes and printed lines byte-identical, and the
handler drives the same function. Two implementations of the one operation that
can permanently lose a customer's data would drift, and only one would be
tested. Asserted from source on both sides by AST.
THREE WAYS OUT, none a dismiss button: recover; 'most nem' (the full page stops
interrupting, the backups-area entry point stays PERMANENTLY, bound to the offer
and never to the postpone flag); and 'I do not want the old data' — confirmed
TWICE and reaching the SHIPPED move-aside, which sets aside and never deletes.
THE CODE IS HANDLED NO MORE LOOSELY THAN ON THE COMMAND LINE: POST body only,
never logged, never persisted, never echoed, cleared on every path, no-store,
autocomplete off. No lockout — the code is a ten-word phrase, and locking a
customer out of their own data for a typo is worse than anything it prevents.
TWO DEFECTS THE TESTS CAUGHT, both fixed: an UNCLAIMED (legacy-open) box would
have been shown the page, because RequireAuth passes such a box through; and the
inventory nil-dereferenced when no off-site target was configured, which is
exactly the pristine rebuilt shape.
admin
636c51e542