The spec asserted two things the implementation disproved. RestoreSummary was described as having no `failed` because "restoring cannot fail the way removing can" — true about the sidecar, wrong about the database, and rethrowing turned a partial success into an opaque 500. And the single-button-with-two-labels rule was described as deliberately covering the mixed case, when in fact it stranded it: a partly cut-out item offered only Remove, so its existing cut-outs had no way back.
Both sections now describe what the code does and why, including why Restore is not gated on the feature being configured, and the outcome table's "feature not configured" row is corrected to say Restore is still offered and still works.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The design behind #293, with the three decisions the issue left open now answered.
It applies to a live product image, and to every status including sold and reserved. The precedent in unpublish, which refuses both by name, does not carry: what that protects is a customer losing an item mid-checkout and a completed sale being quietly rewritten, and neither is at stake in a photograph's background. A sold item's photos are still the shop's photos.
The action is per upload rather than per photo, and that is the decision shaping everything else. An upload is one item — the front, the back and the chipped base are three views of one vase, not three things to cut out separately. It also means DraftPhoto is not the component to lift, despite looking like it: the queue's control is per photo and this one is per item, so sharing it would force one to pretend to be the other. The real reuse is underneath, in removeImageBackground and restoreImageOriginal, which already exist and are already idempotent.
removeBackgroundsForItem gains a summary return. It answers void today and throws on the first failure, which is enough for the worker — it catches and logs, and a draft is not worth failing over — and not enough for an admin standing in front of the screen. The one existing caller ignores the result, so widening it is additive, the same way sendMail was in #260.
Writing it caught a contradiction in my own first draft worth recording. The failure table said a sidecar failure answers 502 while the screen section promised the admin sees "2 of 4 photos done", and both cannot be true, because a 502 throws away the count that makes the outcome actionable. Resolved by these two routes always answering 200 once the id is valid: they act on several images, so "did it work" has no single answer, and the summary is the result. Non-200 is reserved for not being able to try at all. That is a deliberate departure from #281's per-photo endpoints, which act on one image and can honestly say yes or no.
Two ambiguities also fixed before they became implementation coin-flips: what the button says in a mixed state, which is exactly what a partial failure leaves behind and which reads Remove backgrounds because that is the action finishing the job; and that restore has no failure mode of its own, being a database swap with no sidecar in it.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
bermudalambandClaude Opus 5