feat(api): checklist writes on /api/v1 - #342
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Check lists were readable over the API but not writable, so an external
client could show a list and its coverage but never create or edit one.
This is the last "local-until-API" item scanme deferred on.
Add, wrapping the service layer in src/checklists.py unchanged:
- POST /api/v1/checklists create from pasted names
- DELETE /api/v1/checklists/{id} delete (idempotent)
- POST /api/v1/checklists/{id}/items add cards, reports `added`
- PATCH /api/v1/checklists/{id}/items/{item_id} rename + re-resolve
- DELETE /api/v1/checklists/{id}/items/{item_id} remove one card
- POST /api/v1/checklists/{id}/wishlist missing -> wishlist
`ChecklistRowOut` gains **item_id**. Without it the item endpoints are
unusable: the read model had no way to address a row, so a client could see
a mis-resolved card but not fix it. Additive field.
Semantics follow the offline-replay reasoning used for saved searches
(#340): DELETE is idempotent, and adding items reports how many were
actually new so a caller can tell a duplicate-skip from a success. Editing
an item 400s on a blank name and 404s when the item belongs to a different
checklist. Removing an item 404s on an unknown *checklist* but tolerates an
already-removed item.
Unblocks Leyline-Coding/scanme#313.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
![github-code-quality[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/9919?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
| async def test_api_checklist_delete_item_idempotent_but_404s_unknown_list(client, session): | ||
| body = await _checklist(client, "Edges", "Card A") | ||
| # already-gone item on a real list -> ok (offline replay) | ||
| assert (await client.delete(f"/api/v1/checklists/{body['id']}/items/9999")).status_code == 200 |
| # already-gone item on a real list -> ok (offline replay) | ||
| assert (await client.delete(f"/api/v1/checklists/{body['id']}/items/9999")).status_code == 200 | ||
| # wrong list entirely -> 404 | ||
| assert (await client.delete("/api/v1/checklists/9999/items/1")).status_code == 404 |
| monkeypatch.setattr(get_settings(), "read_only", True) | ||
|
|
||
| assert (await client.post("/api/v1/checklists", json={"name": "x"})).status_code == 403 | ||
| assert (await client.delete(f"/api/v1/checklists/{cid}")).status_code == 403 |
Comment on lines
+404
to
+405
| assert (await client.delete( | ||
| f"/api/v1/checklists/{cid}/items/{item_id}")).status_code == 403 |
This was referenced Aug 17, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Why
Check lists were readable over the API (#313 confirmed
GET /api/v1/checklists{,/{id}}ships) but not writable. A client could display a list and its coverage and never create or edit one — so check lists stayed local-only in scanme. This is the last "local-until-API" item on that list.What
Six endpoints, wrapping the existing
src/checklists.pyservice unchanged — the service layer was already fully extracted, so this is a thin surface, not a refactor.POST /api/v1/checklists201+ChecklistDetailOutDELETE /api/v1/checklists/{id}OkOutPOST /api/v1/checklists/{id}/items{added, checklist}PATCH /api/v1/checklists/{id}/items/{item_id}ChecklistDetailOutDELETE /api/v1/checklists/{id}/items/{item_id}OkOutPOST /api/v1/checklists/{id}/wishlistOkOutwithquantityaddedCreate accepts decklist-shaped input (the service already strips leading counts,
(set) 123printing hints and*foil*markers, skips comment/sideboard lines, and collapses duplicates). Unresolvable names are kept as unmatched rows, never dropped.ChecklistRowOutgainsitem_idThis is the part worth a look. The read model returned
{name, scryfall_id, matched, owned}— no id, so there was no way to address a row. The item endpoints would have been unusable without it: a client could see that "Delver of Secrets" failed to resolve and have no way to fix it. Additive field, so existing consumers are unaffected.Semantics, chosen for offline clients
Following the reasoning from #340:
added, so a caller can tell "all duplicates, nothing happened" from "worked". Silently returning success for a no-op is the kind of thing that makes a sync client lie to its user.All six honor
SCRYME_READ_ONLY.Tests
16 new cases in
test_api.py, including the decklist-noise stripping, unresolvable lines being kept, duplicate-skip reportingadded: 0, an item id from another checklist being rejected, the idempotent-delete/404-unknown-list split, wishlist push skipping both owned and unmatched rows, and the read-only guard across all six verbs.ruff check src testsclean; full suite 1165 passed.Unblocks scanme#313; refs Leyline-Coding/scanme#209.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code