admin
fcffaf573a
gates / gates (push) Successful in 17s
The answer was on the wire and was discarded at the boundary, for the third time. The hub has sent `escrow_stale` in the report ACK since v0.57.0 (json:"escrow_stale,omitempty"). report.EscrowStatus had no field for it, so encoding/json dropped it, and an empty restic_pw_sha256 had exactly one possible reading here: "hash-less supersession". On demo-hp that reading was false in EVERY clause for four days, and the box told the customer so in its own words. The hub HAD the hash and was withholding it because the escrow row carries a stale flag (R-246); there had been no supersession; and the bundle DID cover the password — the hashes matched exactly. Fixed by receiving the field. EscrowStatus.Stale decodes, and reconcileEscrowed tells the two conditions apart: a withheld hash now reports that the hub has flagged the row and is withholding, that this box therefore cannot verify its bundle either way, and that it is NOT established that the bundle fails to cover the password. The genuinely hash-less case keeps its wording. Deliberately NOT changed, and said rather than skipped: the stale verdict itself (the hub's flag is still the hub's verdict; runs still continue), and the customer-facing Hungarian card copy. Clearing the wrong flag is an operator act hub-side (R-246); re-wording the card is UI work with its own review path. This change is the wire and the diagnosis. Found by felhom.eu/scripts/wire_contract_gate.py (G-1), which was built first and seen failing on 40 fields before anything was fixed, and which now refuses any new field of this shape. go build / go vet / go test ./... green, run separately from this commit.