12 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
not	94742a261f	feat: read projection sourced from the register in Objecten (closes #153) (#155) ... ## What & why S-19b-2, closing out ADR-0028's stated direction: **the read projection is now derived from the `RegisterRecord` in Objecten, not from ZGW zaak events.** Until now the subscriber listened on `zaken` and *inferred* register state from case events — a `zaak/create` meant INGEDIEND, and any `status/create` was assumed to be the approval (it may not read OpenZaak, so it could not tell statustypen apart). The reference wasn't in the notification at all, so every projection made a second hop to the ACL. The register — a fact about a person — was being reconstructed by guessing at the lifecycle of the case that produced it. - The subscriber's abonnement moves to the `objecten` kanaal (S-19b-1 made it publish). - An Objecten notification carries **no record data**, only the object URL, so the record is read back through the ACL (`POST /register-records/read`) — §8.1 applies to Objecten exactly as ADR-0028 established. - The record carries `id`, `status` and `reference`, so the row *is* the record: `IsZaakCreated`, `IsZaakStatusSet`, `ZaakUrl`, `ZaakId` and `ToEntry`'s `Resource == "status"` inference are all gone, and so is the ACL enrichment hop. - **The ACL now writes an INGEDIEND record on submit.** Without it, re-sourcing would silently drop every submitted registration from the public register, since only approval wrote a record. - `processed_notifications` holds the projected row (`register_id`, `status`, `reference`) instead of the ZGW event, so a rebuild is a replay with no mapping rules and no upstream reads at all. **ADR-0030** records it. ADR-0028's open caveat — record written but not yet read, "the two must agree" — is closed: there is one source now. Closes #153 ## Definition of Done - [x] Linked Gitea issue (above). - [x] Failing tests committed before the implementation — two red/green pairs, ACL side (06c0444 → 566ef7d) and subscriber side (142ed45 → 8af09b2). - [x] Refactor commit follows (b496ac9). - [x] Conventional Commits referencing the issue (`refs #153`). - [x] CI green — all six jobs on b30fa66, `verify-stack` end to end including the e2e. - [x] `docker compose up` from a fresh clone reaches green health checks within 3 minutes (`verify-stack`'s bring-up step — see the wait-healthy fix below). - [x] Docs updated — ADR-0030 added, ADR-0028's consequence + caveat annotated, BACKLOG.md, e2e header comment. - [x] ADR added in `docs/architecture/`. - [x] Demo note in `docs/demo-script.md` — n/a: no user-visible change. The openbaar register shows the same two statuses for the same registrations; only where they come from changed. ## Notes for reviewers **The decision I'd most like a second opinion on** is the one the issue didn't settle: what happens to INGEDIEND. Objecten held only INGESCHREVEN records, so re-sourcing forced a choice between (a) the ACL also writing on submit, (b) a public register that lists only actual registrations, or (c) a hybrid keeping both kanalen. I took (a): visible behaviour is unchanged and the register holds the whole lifecycle. (b) is arguably the better *semantics* for a public register but narrows what the portal shows and reads against PRD §68 ("~50 register entries with diverse statuses"); (c) leaves the projection half-derived from ZGW, which is the coupling ADR-0028 set out to remove. All three are laid out in ADR-0030. **The dedup key is the projected row**, `objecten:object:{url}:{status}:{reference}` — not the object URL (the ACL upserts *one object per registration*, so submit and approval notify about the same URL and the approval would be swallowed as a duplicate) and not URL+actie (a retried approval is a second `update`). Redeliveries collapse, genuine state changes don't. §8.6. **The migration drops columns rather than renaming them.** EF scaffolded renames — `resource` → `register_id`, `zaak_id` → `status` — which would have carried ZGW values into columns meaning something else, and a rebuild would then have projected that garbage. It also empties both tables: a pre-slice row describes a zaak event the new projector can't reproject, and those registrations have no RegisterRecord in Objecten either, so they're not re-derivable from the new source. Stated as a ceiling in the ADR — fine while stacks are ephemeral, backfill from Objecten if a long-lived environment ever needs it. **`run-projection-check.sh` now opens its zaak through the ACL** instead of straight against OpenZaak, because the ACL is what writes the record. A zaak created behind the ACL's back produces no projection row — that's the re-source working, not a gap. ## Three fixes CI found, none of them in the projection logic 1. **`wait-healthy.sh` matched the wrong container** (744f91a). Bring-up timed out with `TIMEOUT: 'objecten' not healthy (status=none)` while the `docker ps` it dumps showed objecten `Up 9 minutes (healthy)`. `--filter name=` is a substring match, so `objecten` also matches `objecten-db`/`objecten-redis`/`objecten-celery`, and `head -1` took whichever docker listed first — the celery worker has no healthcheck, hence `status=none`. Latent since those services landed and decided purely by listing order; `objecttypen` matches `objecttypen-db` the same way. Anchored on the compose replica suffix, which the verify scripts already do. 2. **The ACL had to be repointed at OpenZaak's IP** (7e0897a). Opening the zaak through the ACL put this check in the same bind run-domain-check.sh already handles: `400 {"name":"zaaktype","code":"bad-url","reason":"Voer een geldige URL in."}`. OpenZaak reflects the request Host into the zaaktype URL and then rejects it on zaak-create when single-label — the mechanism compose already documents on `ACL_OPENZAAK_BASEURL`. 3. **Approval arrives as `partial_update`, not `update`** (0dd26a7 → b30fa66) — the one real bug in the slice. The ACL upserts with PATCH; DRF routes it through the notifying `update()` but names the action `partial_update`, so the projector dropped every approval. Only the e2e could catch it: `verify-projection` drives a submit, and per ADR-0028 the e2e is the only check that drives a *real* approval. `verify-tracing` also failed once (run 722) on a path this PR doesn't touch, and passed on a plain re-run of the same commit. Tempo logged `pusher failed to consume trace data` / `distributor_pool failing healthcheck` — it dropped spans under runner load rather than the trace chain being broken. Filed as **#156** rather than absorbed here. **Correction to the #152 PR notes:** I wrote there that celery concurrency was "the next knob" if verify-stack got tight. It isn't — `CELERY_WORKER_CONCURRENCY` already defaults to 1 in the Maykin image, so `objecten-celery` is already a single-process worker. Noted in #156. **Possible follow-up, deliberately not done here:** an `openzaak.local` network alias mirroring `objecten.local` would remove the ACL-repoint dance from both run-domain-check.sh and run-projection-check.sh. It changes the host in every zaak URL the system produces, which is too broad a ripple to land inside an unrelated slice — worth its own issue. **Known costs, all in the ADR:** submission is now two writes across two modules and eventually consistent (same posture ADR-0028 accepted for approval); projecting now depends on the ACL being reachable on the main path, not just for enrichment (NRC retries, so it converges); and OpenZaak still publishes to `zaken` with nothing in the product listening — kept because `verify-nrc` asserts that path.Reviewed-on: #155	2026-09-01 07:26:33 +00:00
not	c8fdfbb699	feat(acl,domain): cancel the ZGW zaak on document-timeout expiry (S-10c, closes #106) (#109) ... ## S-10c · Close the ZGW zaak on document-timeout expiry (closes #106) Completes the S-10a/S-10b boundary flagged in ADR-0017: when a registration's 30-day document term lapses, the domain now cancels the **ZGW zaak** as well as marking the aggregate `Verlopen`, so OpenZaak and the register no longer diverge. ### What it does On expiry the `ExpireRegistrationWorker` calls the ACL to set the zaak to a distinct, non-terminal **`Geannuleerd`** status with a **`Vervallen`** resultaat (vs the approval `Afgehandeld` + `Geregistreerd`), resolved **by omschrijving** in the ACL — the ACL-first ordering mirrors approval so a failed ZGW call leaves the job for redelivery rather than diverging the two. **Path:** Flowable P30D timer → `RegistratieVerlopen` job → domain `ExpireRegistrationWorker` → ACL `POST /annuleringen` → ZGW `resultaten` + `statussen` (Geannuleerd) → aggregate `Verlopen`. ### Layers touched (each red→green) - **ACL gateway** — `SetZaakToCancellationStatusAsync` (Geannuleerd + Vervallen by name); approval now resolves its `Geregistreerd` resultaat by name too (a second resultaattype now exists). - **ACL service/API** — `AclService.CancelZaakAsync` + `POST /annuleringen`. - **Domain** — `IAclClient.CancelZaakAsync` + client; expiry worker cancels the zaak before advancing to `Verlopen`, guarded against redelivery double-cancel. - **Seed** — non-terminal `Geannuleerd` statustype (volgnummer 2; `Afgehandeld` → 3) + `Vervallen` resultaattype, both idempotent by omschrijving and sharing the zaaktype's procestype. - **Verify/integration** — ACL↔OpenZaak integration test (live `Geannuleerd` + resultaat); `run-domain-check.sh` fires the real P30D timer and asserts the zaak reaches `Geannuleerd` end-to-end; BDD scenario asserts cancel-on-timeout vs untouched-when-in-time. - **Docs** — ADR-0019 (cancellation modelling decision), demo-script, BACKLOG. ### Design note (ADR-0019) ZGW allows only one eindstatus per zaaktype, so `Geannuleerd` is modelled as a **non-terminal** status (it records a cancellation status + resultaat but does not set `einddatum`). This follows the issue's explicit "distinct statustype + resultaat" outcome; the shared-eindstatus alternative is recorded in the ADR. ### Tests Unit + acceptance all green locally (Acl 38, Big 134, Acceptance 17, Bff 33, EventSubscriber 19). Integration + verify-stack run in CI (need live OpenZaak + selectielijst egress). 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Reviewed-on: #109	2026-07-21 13:58:15 +00:00
not	4777ff2b1d	feat(workflow): document-wait task + 30-day timeout cancellation (S-10a, closes #102) (#105) ... ## What & why S-10a, the **workflow/timeout spine** of the (split) document-upload slice: the registratie process now parks at a **`WachtOpDocumenten`** user task with an **interrupting `P30D` boundary timer**. When the documents arrive the task completes and the process continues into the diploma routing (S-13) → Beoordelen; if the 30 days lapse, the timer cancels the wait, runs a `RegistratieVerlopen` external-worker task, and the domain expires the aggregate to a new terminal status **`Verlopen`**. Backend only — the real upload trigger (portal → BFF → ACL → Documenten API) is S-10b (#103). Closes #102 Mechanism recorded in **ADR-0017**; opened as proposal #104. Mirrors the S-14 escalation (boundary-timer + external-worker) and S-11 withdrawal (interrupting cancel) patterns. ## Definition of Done - [x] Linked Gitea issue (above). - [x] Failing test committed before the implementation (red→green pairs per layer). - [x] Implementation makes the test pass. - [x] Conventional Commits referencing the issue (`refs #102`). - [ ] CI green — all Gitea Actions jobs (pending on this PR). - [x] `docker compose up` health unaffected (no new services; deploy path unchanged). - [x] Docs updated (ADR-0017, demo-script, BACKLOG split). - [x] ADR added (`docs/architecture/adr-0017-document-wait-timeout-cancellation.md`). - [x] Demo note in `docs/demo-script.md`. ## Notes for reviewers - **Domain** (`Registration.Expire()` + `Verlopen`), **application** (`ExpireRegistrationWorker`), **infra** (`RegistratieVerlopenProcessor`/`Pump`, `IRegistratieVerlopenClient`, Flowable acquire/complete + `CompleteDocumentWaitAsync`) — the timeout counterpart to the OpenZaak/escalation worker trios; idempotent per §8.6. - **BPMN** verified live against a `flowable-rest` probe: complete `WachtOpDocumenten` → routes to Beoordelen; fire the P30D timer → `RegistratieVerlopen` job (carrying `registrationId`) + the wait task cancelled. `verify-domain` exercises both branches in-stack (completes the wait in every existing block; fires the timer and asserts `Verlopen` in a new block). - **Scope boundary:** on expiry the aggregate goes `Verlopen` and the process ends, but the ZGW *zaak* is not yet set to a cancellation status — that needs a new ACL method + statustype seeding and is folded into S-10b (noted in ADR-0017). - `CompleteDocumentWaitAsync` is built and HTTP-tested here but not yet called from a domain endpoint; S-10b wires the upload trigger to it. 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Reviewed-on: #105	2026-07-20 09:42:02 +00:00
not	ccae27b3da	feat(workflow): diploma-eligibility DMN routes foreign diplomas via CBGV-advies (S-13, closes #14) (#101) ... ## What & why S-13: a diploma's origin decides its route. A **DMN** (`diploma-eligibility`) is evaluated inline by the registratie process as a **`businessRuleTask`**; an exclusive gateway routes a **foreign** (Buitenlands) diploma through a new **CBGVAdvies** user task before `Beoordelen`, a **domestic** one straight there (PRD flow 4). The domain's only new job is carrying the diploma origin and passing it as a process start variable. Chose **Option B (DMN in the BPMN)** over the issue's literal "evaluated by the Domain Service via Workflow Client" wording — keeps the decision a first-class workflow artefact and §8.2 clean. Rationale in **ADR-0016** (proposal #100); noted on this issue. Closes #14 ## Definition of Done - [x] Linked Gitea issue (above). - [x] Failing test committed before the implementation. - [x] Implementation makes the test pass. - [x] Conventional Commits referencing the issue (`refs #14`). - [ ] CI green — all Gitea Actions jobs. - [x] `docker compose up` from a fresh clone reaches green health checks within 3 minutes (additive; DMN deployed by flowable-init). - [x] Docs updated (ADR-0016, demo note). - [x] ADR added (`docs/architecture/adr-0016-diploma-eligibility-dmn.md`). - [x] Demo note in `docs/demo-script.md`. ## How it was built (TDD) - **Domain**: `DiplomaOrigin` on the aggregate + submit command; threaded through the process-start port so the Workflow Client emits a `diplomaOrigin` start variable. Red → green. - **DMN + BPMN**: `workflows/diploma-eligibility.dmn` (origin → route); `businessRuleTask` + exclusive gateway + `CBGVAdvies` user task in `registratie.bpmn`; DMN deployed to Flowable's DMN engine by `flowable-init`. - **Both paths**: `Een diploma op herkomst routeren` acceptance scenarios (origin carried into the process) + unit tests; verify-domain drives a foreign registration through CBGVAdvies→Beoordelen and the domestic one straight to Beoordelen — exercising both DMN branches live. ## Notes for reviewers - Deviation from the issue's Option-A wording is deliberate and recorded (ADR-0016); the outcome is unchanged. - The self-service eIDAS→foreign wiring is out of scope here (this slice is area:domain + area:workflow); the domain submit accepts an optional `diplomaOrigin` so the foreign path is drivable. - Local green: domain unit 109, acceptance 15, `dotnet format`, Release build (0 errors), **domain mutation 95.39%** (break 90). The DMN/`businessRuleTask` REST wiring is CI-verified on verify-stack (no local full-stack run here). Reviewed-on: #101	2026-07-20 07:26:52 +00:00
not	7bcbc726ce	feat(workflow): beoordeling escalation to teamlead after 14 days (S-14, closes #15) (#99) ... ## What & why S-14: a beoordeling a behandelaar does not pick up within **14 days** escalates to the **teamlead**. A non-interrupting `P14D` boundary timer on the `Beoordelen` user task fires an external-worker task (`BeoordelingEscaleren`); the domain's escalation worker reassigns the still-open task's candidate group from `behandelaar` to `teamlead`. The task keeps its identity — only who may claim it changes. The escalation-via-external-worker decision is recorded in **ADR-0015** (proposal #98); it upholds §8.2 (the Workflow Client stays the only code that talks to Flowable) and keeps Flowable a stock image. Closes #15 ## Definition of Done - [x] Linked Gitea issue (above). - [x] Failing test committed before the implementation. - [x] Implementation makes the test pass; refactor commit if structure improved. - [x] Conventional Commits referencing the issue (`refs #NN`). - [x] CI green — all Gitea Actions jobs. - [x] `docker compose up` from a fresh clone reaches green health checks within 3 minutes (no new services; escalation is additive to the domain worker). - [x] Docs updated (ADR-0015, demo note). - [x] ADR added (`docs/architecture/adr-0015-beoordeling-escalation.md`). - [x] Demo note in `docs/demo-script.md`. ## How it was built (TDD) - **Workflow Client** (`IBeoordelingEscalatieClient`): acquire `BeoordelingEscaleren` jobs → find the open `Beoordelen` task in the instance → add `teamlead`/remove `behandelaar` candidate group → complete the job. Red → green. - **Escalation drain loop** (`BeoordelingEscalatieProcessor`) + hosted `BeoordelingEscalatiePump`, mirroring the OpenZaak worker. Red → green. - **BPMN**: non-interrupting `P14D` boundary timer on `Beoordelen` → external task → escalation end. - **Both branches** (escalate after timeout; no-op when completed in time) covered by the `Een beoordeling escaleren` acceptance scenarios + Workflow Client unit tests. - **Live integration**: `verify-domain` fires the timer early via Flowable's management API and asserts the reassignment to teamlead. ## Notes for reviewers - Interface segregation: escalation is on `IBeoordelingEscalatieClient`, separate from the OpenZaak worker's `IExternalWorkerClient`. - Reassignment is two REST hops (add teamlead, remove behandelaar); idempotent on redelivery — see ADR-0015 consequences. - Local checks green: domain unit tests (104), acceptance (13), `dotnet format --verify-no-changes`, Release build (0 errors), **domain mutation 96.69%** (break 90). The `run-domain-check.sh` escalation path is CI-verified on verify-stack (local full-stack run is constrained here). - `BeoordelingEscalatiePump` excluded from mutation, mirroring the existing `OpenZaakJobPump` exclusion. Reviewed-on: #99	2026-07-17 09:45:36 +00:00
not	94699f3603	feat(self-service): trek aanvraag in — withdrawal action (S-11c-2, closes #12) (#93) ... ## What & why Final sub-slice of **S-11 · Withdrawal (Flow 3)** — the user-facing "trek aanvraag in" action, which **closes #12**. - **self-service portal**: the submit confirmation gains a **"Trek aanvraag in"** button. It withdraws the just-submitted registration via `postSelfServiceRegistrationsIdWithdraw(reference)`; success shows an *ingetrokken* confirmation, a failure is surfaced (`role="alert"`) and the action stays available — same confirm-and-surface pattern as submit. - **acceptance**: `Een registratie intrekken` — owner withdraws → INGETROKKEN + workflow cancelled; a different bsn is reported not-found. - **e2e**: `withdrawal.spec.ts` — DigiD submit → trek aanvraag in → the portal confirms ingetrokken. - **docs**: demo-script + frontend-decisions. Together with S-11a (#88), S-11b (#89), S-11c-1 (#90), this completes the flow: citizen withdraws → domain INGETROKKEN → BPMN message event cancels the process → the case leaves the behandelaar's werkbak. Closes #12 ## Definition of Done - [x] Linked Gitea issue (#12). - [x] Failing tests committed before the implementation. - [x] Implementation makes the tests pass. - [x] Conventional Commits referencing the issue (`refs #12`). - [ ] CI green — all Gitea Actions jobs. - [x] `docker compose up` unaffected. - [x] Docs updated (demo-script + frontend-decisions). - [x] ADR — ADR-0014 (from S-11b) covers the cancellation decision; nothing new here. ## Notes for reviewers - Full local gate run before pushing: `dotnet format --verify-no-changes` clean; `make unit` green (Acceptance **11** incl. the 2 new withdrawal scenarios, Big 95, BFF 30, Acl 27, EventSubscriber 19); self-service lint/test/build green (9 tests, incl. the 2 new withdraw tests). - `withdrawal.spec.ts` waits on the *ingetrokken* confirmation (which only renders after the withdraw POST returns), so it can't cancel the request early (the 499 lesson from #87). Live-validated by verify-stack. Reviewed-on: #93	2026-07-16 13:06:55 +00:00
not	d226b6402d	feat(#13): S-12c-2 — behandel decide → domain + complete workflow task (#86) ... ## What & why Second half of **S-12c** (behandel-portal backend), completing the decision path per **ADR-0013**: - **Domain:** `BeoordeelRegistratie` now, after applying the decision (aggregate + ACL for approval), **completes the open Flowable `Beoordelen` task** for that registration (found by registrationId) with the besluit, so the workflow advances. No open task → the decision still stands (completes nothing); idempotent. - **BFF:** `POST /behandel/registrations/{id}/decide` behind the medewerker/`behandelaar` policy, forwarding `goedkeuren`/`afwijzen` to the domain. Validates the besluit vocabulary (400 on unknown) without troubling the domain. Behavior: decide is **401** without a token, **403** without the role, **400** for an unknown besluit, **204** (forwarded) for a behandelaar. This completes the behandel backend. **S-12d** (the Angular behandel-portal + Playwright e2e) closes umbrella #13 and retires the temporary `/approve`. ## Definition of Done - [x] Linked issue: #13 (umbrella, `refs`) - [x] Tests first; red → green per layer - [x] Unit + acceptance green (`make unit`): domain 79, bff 27, acceptance 9 (acl/event-subscriber unaffected) - [x] Beoordeling acceptance scenario asserts task completion (goedkeuren + afwijzen) - [x] openapi.json + api-client regenerated (drift guard passes) - [x] Mutation ≥ break(90): **domain 100%, bff 100%** - [ ] CI green (pending) Part of #13. Reviewed-on: #86	2026-07-16 06:53:52 +00:00
not	d4ed0ffc22	feat(#13): S-12a — beoordeling decision model (domain) (#82) ... ## What & why First sub-slice of **S-12 (#13)** — the **beoordeling decision model** in the Domain Service. Foundation for the behandel-portal: it gives the domain a proper decision lifecycle before any UI/Flowable/BFF work. - **Statuses:** add `InBehandeling` and `Afgewezen` to `RegistrationStatus`. - **Aggregate:** `TakeIntoBehandeling()` (`Ingediend → InBehandeling`, idempotent, guards terminal states); generalise the behandelaar decision — `Approve()` (requires a zaak) and new `Reject()` both act on an `Ingediend`/`InBehandeling` registration → `Ingeschreven`/`Afgewezen`. - **Use-case:** `BeoordeelRegistratie` (`goedkeuren` sets the zaak's final status via the ACL §8.1 → `Ingeschreven`; `afwijzen` → `Afgewezen`, domain-only for now). Idempotent. - **Endpoint:** `POST /registrations/{id}/decide` (`{ "besluit": "goedkeuren" | "afwijzen" }`), superseding the temporary `/approve` (retired when the portal lands, S-12d). - **BDD:** `EenRegistratieBeoordelen.feature` — goedkeuren + afwijzen scenarios (feature-scoped bindings). **Scoped out** to later S-12 sub-slices: Flowable user-task claim/complete + BPMN `userTask` (S-12b), BFF `/behandel/*` + medewerker authz (S-12c), the Angular behandel-portal + e2e (S-12d), and propagating a *rejection* to the zaak/projection via the ACL. ## Definition of Done - [x] Linked issue: #13 (umbrella; this PR `refs`, does not close) - [x] Tests first; red → green per behaviour - [x] Unit + acceptance green (`make unit`): domain 65, acceptance 9 - [x] Mutation ≥ break(90): domain 98.77%, no survivors in new code (the one unkilled mutant is the pre-existing `FlowableWorkflowClient` baseline) - [ ] CI green (pending) Part of #13. Reviewed-on: #82	2026-07-15 07:12:19 +00:00
notandClaude Opus 4.8	5d32d4f15e	test(bff): acceptance scenario for BFF access (valid/invalid tokens) (refs #8) ... Use-case-level BDD (Reqnroll) driving the real BFF over HTTP with fake downstreams and locally-minted tokens: a valid DigiD token is accepted and the bsn forwarded to the domain; a tokenless submit is 401; the openbaar register is anonymous and never exposes the bsn (ADR-0010). Real Keycloak validation is the verify-bff check. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-01 11:03:37 +02:00
notandClaude Opus 4.8	79dcd8f14b	test(domain): acceptance scenario for submitting a registration (refs #6) ... Use-case-level BDD (Reqnroll) for S-05: a zorgprofessional submits a registration; the Domain Service starts the registratie process and the OpenZaakAanmaken external task opens a zaak via the ACL, recorded on the aggregate (ADR-0009). Driven against in-memory Workflow Client and ACL stand-ins; real Flowable+ACL+OpenZaak delivery is the live-stack verify-domain check. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-06-30 17:15:23 +02:00
notandClaude Opus 4.8	c70840e5b7	test(event-subscriber): project zaak-created notifications into the read projection (refs #7) ... Failing unit + acceptance tests for the Event Subscriber's NotificationProjector: a zaken/zaak/create notification yields one INGEDIEND projection row, duplicate deliveries collapse to one row, non-zaak/non-create notifications are ignored, and a rebuild repopulates the projection from the durable notification log (PRD §8.4). The projector is a no-op stub so the tests compile and fail on the assertions; the implementation follows in the green commit. The notification log doubles as the idempotency guard and rebuild source so a rebuild needs no OpenZaak access (§8.1). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-06-30 14:47:16 +02:00
eho	28041228bd	test(acl): BDD acceptance scenario for opening a zaak (closes #5) (#49)	2026-06-08 11:25:26 +00:00