The check is ordered ahead of uploadImages, for the same reason requireUsableLink is: a refused submission must write zero bytes. Ordering it after would accept the upload, store the files and then throw them away, which is the expensive half of the work the ceiling exists to prevent. A test asserts nothing is stored.
503, not 403. The sender has done nothing wrong, their link is fine, and the condition clears by itself as the window rolls — so the link stays usable and works again the moment there is room.
The ceiling never touches the admin upload path, which has its own test. Intake being throttled is an inconvenience; the shop being unable to add its own stock is an outage.
reset-ceiling is declared above /:id/revoke because Express matches in order and would otherwise read it as an id and try to revoke a link named "reset-ceiling". That has its own test too.
The per-link alert is a named function rather than the inline IIFE the plan wrote. routesAreWrapped.test.ts flags any async inside a route registration not directly wrapped in asyncRoute, and it cannot tell an inner IIFE from an unwrapped handler — nor should it have to. The guard caught this, and the extraction reads better than what it rejected.
Backend now 373 unit and 337 integration, all passing.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The count comes from item_drafts rather than a tally. Every submission creates exactly one row in the same transaction that creates the item, so the rows are the truth — a separate counter would be a second thing that can disagree with them, and the one that disagrees silently is always the counter.
windowStart is the part worth testing on its own and the part most likely to be quietly wrong. A reset older than the window must not widen it, which would make the ceiling stricter over time rather than rolling; a reset in the future must not disable it; and a malformed value must not produce an Invalid Date, which compares false against everything and would silently switch off the limit it was set to impose. Each is a test.
Alerts go through sendMail directly rather than the editable templates. An abuse alert is not copy anyone will want to reword, and making it editable means it can be broken — a required placeholder removed from an alert nobody reads until an incident is a poor way to discover the validation.
The throttle is in memory, so a restart during an incident can send one extra alert. That beats writing to admin_settings from the request path on every refused submission; a replicated deployment would have to move it.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
A count type beside the existing hours, text and choice readers. resolveHours would have worked — it is parseFloat with a positive guard — but calling a submission ceiling an "hours" setting is a lie in the type name that every later reader has to decode. Whole numbers only, so a ceiling of 12.5 is a typo rather than a preference, and a malformed value falls back rather than yielding a NaN that compares false against everything and silently disables the limit.
resetDb is widened to clear intake_ settings as well as email_ ones. It deliberately does not truncate admin_settings, so a ceiling of 1 left behind by one suite would make every later suite's submissions refuse with a 503, in files that never mention a ceiling. The comment there already records that exact failure happening once with an email template subject, which reached the favorite-alert tests and failed five of them somewhere else entirely.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Six tasks: the settings, stopping them leaking between test suites, the count, the alerts, the refusal, and the manual reset.
The count is derived from item_drafts rather than a tally, as the issue asks. That forces a decision it left open: a reset cannot delete anything, because the rows are real submissions whose items are sitting in the review queue. So a reset stores a timestamp and the window becomes the later of that and 24 hours ago — one derived count, no second tally, and a reset that is an auditable fact rather than a deletion.
The refusal is ordered ahead of uploadImages, for the same reason requireUsableLink is: a refused submission must write zero bytes. Ordering it after would accept the upload, store the files and throw them away, which is the expensive half of the work the ceiling exists to prevent.
The alert throttle is in memory rather than in the database, so a restart during an incident can send one extra alert. That is a better trade than writing to admin_settings from the request path on every refused submission, and it is noted that a replicated deployment would have to move it.
Self-review caught two things against the tree. POST /api/admin/items answers 200 rather than 201, so that assertion was wrong. And resetDb deliberately does not truncate admin_settings — it deletes only the email_ rows — so a ceiling of 1 left behind would make every later suite's submissions refuse with a 503, in files that never mention a ceiling. The comment in that file records the same failure happening once already with an email template. Task 1b widens the cleanup.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
bermudalambandClaude Opus 5