fix(metadata-protocol,rest,objectql): a batch/import ROW reports a unique-constraint refusal as UNIQUE_VIOLATION, the route's one wire spelling

.changeset/batch-row-unique-violation-metadata-protocol.md

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+---
+"@objectstack/metadata-protocol": minor
+---
+
+fix(metadata-protocol)!: a batch ROW reports a unique-constraint refusal as `UNIQUE_VIOLATION` — the same wire spelling as the whole-request failure on the same route (#14723)
+
+<!-- adr-0087: not-required (no-migration-prescription) Nothing authorable moves: no spec key, export, config field or stored metadata changes spelling or shape, `packages/spec` is untouched and `objectstack migrate meta` has nothing to rewrite. What moves is the `code` value one REST response row carries for one condition — the wire report of a driver's unique-constraint refusal on the per-row surface of `POST /api/v1/data/:object/batch` — which now spells the standard-catalog member the whole-request doors and the published protocol docs already use. The consumer note below is guidance for a client branching on that row code; it prescribes no rewrite of any authored artifact. -->
+
+**BREAKING** on the per-row report of `POST /api/v1/data/:object/batch` (and
+the multi-object `POST /api/v1/batch`, which rides the same protocol): a row
+refused by the engine's `DuplicateRecordError` envelope now reports
+`errors[].code: 'UNIQUE_VIOLATION'` where it reported `'DUPLICATE_RECORD'`.
+Shipped as `minor` under the repo's launch-window convention for breaking
+changes. Maintainer ruling 2026-09-03 on #14723 (verbatim 「同意，然后执行契约
+复审」), adopting option A: one wire spelling for a unique-constraint refusal on
+every route.
+
+**Why.** `toRowApiError` put a thrown REGISTERED code on the row verbatim, and
+`DUPLICATE_RECORD` is registered, so a `DuplicateRecordError` row said
+`DUPLICATE_RECORD` while the whole-request failure on the very same route (the
+bulk door's classification in `@objectstack/rest`) answered `UNIQUE_VIOLATION`
+— the standard-catalog member `content/docs/protocol/kernel/http-protocol.mdx`
+documents for the 409 constraint-violation body. Since the bulk doors were
+restored to `UNIQUE_VIOLATION`, the two spellings of one condition sat side by
+side in one route's responses, which ADR-0112's one-name-per-concept and the
+error-code ledger's own header both forbid. The duplication is removed, not
+declared: no ledger waiver is added.
+
+**What changes.** The row derivation recognises the engine's envelope by the
+same two-part gate the whole-request arm uses — the registered code AND the
+class name `DuplicateRecordError`, never message text — and reports
+`UNIQUE_VIOLATION`. Everything else on the row is unchanged: `httpStatus: 409`,
+the platform sentence (no driver text, no bound value — the driver's error
+stays on `cause` and never reaches the row), and the sibling `NOT_ATTEMPTED` /
+`ROLLED_BACK` rows.
+
+**What does NOT change.** The engine's thrown identity: `DuplicateRecordError.code`
+is still `DUPLICATE_RECORD` for an in-process caller of `engine.insert` /
+`engine.update` (a hook, a flow node), and the objectql pins on `insert` /
+`insertMany` hold. The single-record `/data` door, which has answered
+`UNIQUE_VIOLATION` throughout, does not move. A producer that merely THROWS the
+registered `DUPLICATE_RECORD` from its own body without being the engine's
+class keeps its own code on the row, exactly as it does at the door.
+
+**Consumer note.** A batch client that branched on a row's `code` reading
+`DUPLICATE_RECORD` reads `UNIQUE_VIOLATION` there now — the same value it
+already handles for the whole-request 409 on that route and on the
+single-record door. Measured in-repo and in the sibling repos (hotcrm, objectui,
+non-test sources): zero consumers branch on either spelling of a row code.

.changeset/duplicate-record-error-developer-message-wire-spelling.md

@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+---
+"@objectstack/objectql": patch
+---
+
+fix(objectql): `DuplicateRecordError.developerMessage` names the wire spelling a client branches on (#14723)
+
+The envelope's `developerMessage` — the remedy sentence addressed to the
+application author — told its reader to "branch on `code === 'DUPLICATE_RECORD'`",
+which is the engine's THROWN identity and holds only for an in-process caller of
+`engine.insert` / `engine.update`. Every REST route reports the same refusal as
+`UNIQUE_VIOLATION`, and since #14723 the per-row reports of the batch and import
+surfaces do too, so the sentence was a platform contradicting itself on the one
+line an author is most likely to copy. It now says both halves: over the HTTP
+API branch on `code === 'UNIQUE_VIOLATION'` on every route, whole-request and
+per-row alike; inside the engine the thrown class carries `DUPLICATE_RECORD`.
+The class's own docblock says the same. Nothing else about the envelope moves:
+`code`, `status`, `cause`, `field`, `object` and the user-facing `message` are
+byte-identical, and every pin on the engine's thrown code holds.

.changeset/import-row-unique-violation-rest.md

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+---
+"@objectstack/rest": minor
+---
+
+fix(rest)!: an import ROW report spells a unique-constraint refusal `UNIQUE_VIOLATION` — the same wire code as the whole-request failure on the same route (#14723)
+
+<!-- adr-0087: not-required (no-migration-prescription) Nothing authorable moves: no spec key, export, config field or stored metadata changes spelling or shape, `packages/spec` is untouched and `objectstack migrate meta` has nothing to rewrite. What moves is the `code` value one import row report carries for one condition — the wire report of a driver's unique-constraint refusal on the per-row surface of `POST /api/v1/data/:object/import` — which now spells the standard-catalog member the whole-request door and the published protocol docs already use. The consumer note below is guidance for a client branching on that row code; it prescribes no rewrite of any authored artifact. -->
+
+**BREAKING** on the per-row results of the import runner
+(`POST /api/v1/data/:object/import` and the import job): a row refused by the
+engine's `DuplicateRecordError` envelope now reports `code: 'UNIQUE_VIOLATION'`
+where it reported `'DUPLICATE_RECORD'`. Shipped as `minor` under the repo's
+launch-window convention for breaking changes. Maintainer ruling 2026-09-03 on
+#14723 (verbatim 「同意，然后执行契约复审」), adopting option A: one wire
+spelling for a unique-constraint refusal on every route.
+
+**Why.** `toFailedResult` relayed the thrown error's own `code`, and the engine's
+envelope carries the registered `DUPLICATE_RECORD` — while the whole-request
+failure on the same import route answered `UNIQUE_VIOLATION` through
+`mapDataError`. Two spellings of one condition on one route, which ADR-0112's
+one-name-per-concept and the error-code ledger's header both forbid. The
+duplication is removed, not declared: no ledger waiver is added.
+
+**What changes.** The import row derivation applies the whole-request arm's own
+predicate — the registered code AND the class name `DuplicateRecordError`,
+exported from `error-response.ts` as `isEngineDuplicateRecordEnvelope` and now
+shared by the arm and the row report — and reports `UNIQUE_VIOLATION`. A
+field-level finding still takes precedence (the envelope carries none), the
+row's sentence is unchanged (the platform sentence, sanitised as before; no
+driver text), and a producer that merely throws the registered
+`DUPLICATE_RECORD` without being the engine's class keeps its own code.
+
+**What does NOT change.** The whole-request doors (single-record, bulk, import,
+metadata, UI) already answered `UNIQUE_VIOLATION` and keep doing so; the arm's
+logic is untouched beyond reading the shared predicate. The engine's thrown
+identity stays `DUPLICATE_RECORD` in-process. This package's `error-response.ts`
+docblock that disclosed the fork under the #14541 contract review now states
+the converged rule.
+
+**Consumer note.** An import client that branched on a row's `code` reading
+`DUPLICATE_RECORD` reads `UNIQUE_VIOLATION` there now — the same value it
+already handles for the whole-request 409. Measured in-repo and in the sibling
+repos (hotcrm, objectui, non-test sources): zero consumers branch on either
+spelling of a row code.

packages/metadata-protocol/src/protocol.batch-row-http-status.test.ts

@@ -59,6 +59,7 @@
 import { describe, it, expect, vi } from 'vitest';
 import { assertEngineDeleteDispatch, assertEngineUpdateDispatch, assertEngineFindOnePredicate } from '@objectstack/metadata-core';
 import { resolveThrownHttpError } from '@objectstack/types';
+import { ErrorCode } from '@objectstack/spec/api';
 import { ObjectStackProtocolImplementation } from './protocol.js';
 
 const SCHEMA = {
@@ -452,3 +453,141 @@ describe('[#8570] section 6 — anti-vacuity: the doubles are the shapes they cl
         expect(resolveThrownHttpError(declaredServiceUnavailable()).declaredStatus).toBe(503);
     });
 });
+
+// ─── [#14723] The row speaks the WIRE spelling of a unique-constraint refusal ─
+
+/**
+ * MEASURED — `@objectstack/objectql`'s `DuplicateRecordError` as it reaches
+ * these catches (`node`, the built class, `new DuplicateRecordError('leave_request',
+ * raw, 'title')`): own properties `[stack, message, object, field, code,
+ * status, name, cause, developerMessage]`, `code: 'DUPLICATE_RECORD'`,
+ * `status: 409`, `name: 'DuplicateRecordError'`, the driver's error whole on
+ * `cause`, and the platform sentence on `message` — no statement, no bound
+ * value. Assignment ORDER matches the BUILT class: the two parameter
+ * properties land first, then the `readonly` initialisers, then the
+ * constructor body sets `name`, `cause` and `developerMessage`. The class
+ * itself is deliberately not imported —
+ * this package does not depend on `@objectstack/objectql`, and the row's rule
+ * reads the envelope's declared `code` / `name`, never its prototype.
+ */
+function engineDuplicateRecordEnvelope(object = 'leave_request', field = 'title'): Error {
+    const cause = driverFault(
+        `insert into \`${object}\` (\`${field}\`, \`id\`) values ('dup-value', 'new-4') returning * - ` +
+            `UNIQUE constraint failed: ${object}.${field}`,
+    );
+    const err = new Error(
+        `Duplicate record refused on '${object}': a unique constraint on '${field}' already holds this value. ` +
+            'No record was written.',
+    ) as Error & { code: string; status: number; object: string; field: string; cause: unknown; developerMessage: string };
+    err.object = object;
+    err.field = field;
+    err.code = 'DUPLICATE_RECORD';
+    err.status = 409;
+    err.name = 'DuplicateRecordError';
+    err.cause = cause;
+    err.developerMessage = 'The driver refused this write as a unique-constraint violation.';
+    return err;
+}
+
+/** A hook that deliberately THROWS the registered `DUPLICATE_RECORD` — a different producer. */
+function hookSpeakingDuplicateRecord(): Error {
+    const err = new Error('this row is already there, says the hook') as Error & { code: string; status: number };
+    err.code = 'DUPLICATE_RECORD';
+    err.status = 409;
+    return err;
+}
+
+const ENVELOPE_SENTENCE =
+    "Duplicate record refused on 'leave_request': a unique constraint on 'title' already holds this value. " +
+    'No record was written.';
+
+describe('[#14723] section 7 — a `DuplicateRecordError` row reports `UNIQUE_VIOLATION`, the route\'s one wire spelling', () => {
+    it('the create loop: `UNIQUE_VIOLATION` / 409 / the platform sentence, and no `DUPLICATE_RECORD` anywhere in the payload', async () => {
+        const { protocol } = makeEngine((verb) => (verb === 'insert' ? engineDuplicateRecordEnvelope() : undefined));
+
+        const res: any = await protocol.batchData({
+            object: 'leave_request',
+            request: { operation: 'create', records: [{ data: { title: 'dup-value' } }] },
+        });
+
+        // The whole row, exactly: the code moved, the status and the sentence
+        // did not (a declared 409 is quoted — #8502's positive list, unchanged).
+        expect(res.results[0].errors[0]).toEqual({
+            code: 'UNIQUE_VIOLATION',
+            message: ENVELOPE_SENTENCE,
+            httpStatus: 409,
+        });
+        const payload = JSON.stringify(res);
+        expect(payload).not.toContain('DUPLICATE_RECORD');
+        // …and the driver's text stays on `cause`, which never reaches a row.
+        expect(payload).not.toContain('insert into');
+        expect(payload).not.toContain('UNIQUE constraint failed');
+        expect(payload).not.toContain('SQLITE_ERROR');
+    });
+
+    it('the update and upsert loops report the same spelling — one helper, every loop', async () => {
+        const a = makeEngine((verb) => (verb === 'update' ? engineDuplicateRecordEnvelope() : undefined));
+        const updateRes: any = await a.protocol.updateManyData({
+            object: 'leave_request', records: [{ id: 'r1', data: { title: 'dup-value' } }],
+        });
+        expect(updateRes.results[0].errors[0].code).toBe('UNIQUE_VIOLATION');
+        expect(updateRes.results[0].errors[0].httpStatus).toBe(409);
+
+        const b = makeEngine((verb) => (verb === 'update' ? engineDuplicateRecordEnvelope() : undefined));
+        const upsertRes: any = await b.protocol.batchData({
+            object: 'leave_request',
+            request: { operation: 'upsert', records: [{ id: 'r1', data: { title: 'dup-value' } }] },
+        });
+        expect(upsertRes.results[0].errors[0].code).toBe('UNIQUE_VIOLATION');
+        expect(JSON.stringify(upsertRes)).not.toContain('DUPLICATE_RECORD');
+    });
+
+    it('[GUARD] a producer that merely SPEAKS `DUPLICATE_RECORD` is not the engine\'s envelope and keeps its own code', async () => {
+        // The same discrimination the whole-request arm makes (#14389 §5):
+        // the gate is the registered code AND the class name. A hook throwing
+        // the registered member from its own body is a different producer
+        // speaking a member of the vocabulary; the verbatim rule still applies.
+        const { protocol } = makeEngine((verb) => (verb === 'insert' ? hookSpeakingDuplicateRecord() : undefined));
+
+        const res: any = await protocol.batchData({
+            object: 'leave_request',
+            request: { operation: 'create', records: [{ data: { title: 'x' } }] },
+        });
+
+        expect(res.results[0].errors[0]).toEqual({
+            code: 'DUPLICATE_RECORD',
+            message: 'this row is already there, says the hook',
+            httpStatus: 409,
+        });
+    });
+
+    it('[GUARD] the name alone does not qualify either — a `DuplicateRecordError` carrying another code keeps that code', async () => {
+        const impostor = approvalsRecordLock('r1');
+        impostor.name = 'DuplicateRecordError';
+        const { protocol } = makeEngine((verb) => (verb === 'update' ? impostor : undefined));
+
+        const res: any = await protocol.updateManyData({
+            object: 'leave_request', records: [{ id: 'r1', data: { progress: 1 } }],
+        });
+
+        expect(res.results[0].errors[0].code).toBe('RECORD_LOCKED');
+    });
+
+    it('anti-vacuity: BOTH spellings are registered, so the verbatim rule alone would have kept `DUPLICATE_RECORD`', () => {
+        // The mapping is the only thing standing between the envelope and the
+        // row's old spelling: `toRowApiError`'s verbatim limb admits any
+        // registered code, and the engine's is registered. Reverting the
+        // mapping therefore reddens section 7's first case with the row
+        // reading `DUPLICATE_RECORD` again — measured, not assumed.
+        expect(ErrorCode.safeParse('DUPLICATE_RECORD').success).toBe(true);
+        expect(ErrorCode.safeParse('UNIQUE_VIOLATION').success).toBe(true);
+
+        const env = engineDuplicateRecordEnvelope() as any;
+        expect(Object.getOwnPropertyNames(env)).toEqual([
+            'stack', 'message', 'object', 'field', 'code', 'status', 'name', 'cause', 'developerMessage',
+        ]);
+        expect(env.name).toBe('DuplicateRecordError');
+        expect(env.code).toBe('DUPLICATE_RECORD');
+        expect(resolveThrownHttpError(env).declaredStatus).toBe(409);
+    });
+});

packages/metadata-protocol/src/protocol.ts

@@ -2031,11 +2031,42 @@ type BatchDataRowResult = BatchOperationResult;
  * `declaredStatus` would mint incoherent rows — `{ code: 'INTERNAL_ERROR',
  * httpStatus: 409 }` for a `statusCode`-spelled refusal whose own code the
  * ledger does not know.
+ *
+ * ## One wire spelling for a unique-constraint refusal (#14723)
+ *
+ * The engine answers a driver's unique-constraint refusal with its
+ * `DuplicateRecordError` envelope — `code: 'DUPLICATE_RECORD'`, `status: 409`,
+ * the driver's error whole on `cause`. `DUPLICATE_RECORD` is a registered
+ * member, so the verbatim limb above used to put it on the row as-is, while
+ * every WHOLE-REQUEST door in `@objectstack/rest` answers the same class as
+ * `UNIQUE_VIOLATION` — the standard-catalog member the published protocol
+ * docs give for the 409 constraint-violation body. After #14541 the two
+ * spellings sat side by side in one route's responses: a whole-request
+ * failure on `POST /data/:object/batch` said `UNIQUE_VIOLATION`, a row on the
+ * same route said `DUPLICATE_RECORD`.
+ *
+ * Maintainer ruling (2026-09-03, #14723): one wire spelling on every route,
+ * `UNIQUE_VIOLATION`; the row reports it too. So this limb maps the engine's
+ * envelope to the wire spelling BEFORE the verbatim registered-code rule —
+ * keyed exactly as the whole-request arm keys it (`error-response.ts`'s
+ * `structuredCodeAnswer`: the registered code AND the class name), never by
+ * message text. `httpStatus` still reads the declared 409 and `message` is
+ * still the envelope's platform sentence (a declared 4xx, so it is quoted); the
+ * driver's text stays on `cause`, which never reaches the row.
+ *
+ * ⛔ The engine's thrown identity is NOT renamed: `DuplicateRecordError.code`
+ * stays `DUPLICATE_RECORD` (an in-process caller — a hook, a flow node —
+ * branches on that). What moves is what a ROW REPORTS across the HTTP
+ * boundary. And a producer that merely SPEAKS `DUPLICATE_RECORD` — a hook
+ * throwing the registered code without being the engine's class — keeps its
+ * own code on the row, the same discrimination the whole-request arm makes.
  */
 function toRowApiError(err: any, fallback: string): ApiError {
-    const thrown = typeof err?.code === 'string' && ErrorCode.safeParse(err.code).success
-        ? (err.code as ApiError['code'])
-        : undefined;
+    const thrown = isEngineDuplicateRecordEnvelope(err)
+        ? 'UNIQUE_VIOLATION'
+        : typeof err?.code === 'string' && ErrorCode.safeParse(err.code).success
+            ? (err.code as ApiError['code'])
+            : undefined;
     const { declaredStatus } = resolveThrownHttpError(err);
     return {
         code: thrown ?? (declaredStatus !== undefined ? standardErrorCodeForHttpStatus(declaredStatus) : 'INTERNAL_ERROR'),
@@ -2044,6 +2075,25 @@ function toRowApiError(err: any, fallback: string): ApiError {
     };
 }
 
+/**
+ * [#14723] Is this thrown value the ENGINE's unique-violation envelope?
+ *
+ * The same two-part gate `@objectstack/rest`'s whole-request arm applies —
+ * the registered code AND the class name — so a batch row and a whole-request
+ * failure recognise the engine's envelope by one rule. Name alone would miss
+ * nothing today but would let a future class of the same name speak a
+ * different code; code alone would swallow a hook that deliberately throws
+ * the registered `DUPLICATE_RECORD` from its own body, which is a different
+ * producer speaking a member of the vocabulary and keeps its own spelling.
+ * The class itself is not imported: this package does not depend on
+ * `@objectstack/objectql`, and the envelope's contract is its declared
+ * `code` / `name` / `status`, not its prototype.
+ */
+function isEngineDuplicateRecordEnvelope(err: unknown): boolean {
+    const e = err as { code?: unknown; name?: unknown } | null | undefined;
+    return e?.code === 'DUPLICATE_RECORD' && e?.name === 'DuplicateRecordError';
+}
+
 /**
  * [#8502] The stable sentence a failed batch row says when nothing may be
  * quoted — the operation, named, and no interpolation of any kind.