cc68ab2873
Closes m's primary complaint: today's `with_ccr` flag on UPC_INF only
swaps the Replik / Duplik durations. Per UPC RoP R.29 the with-CCR flow
ALSO adds 5–7 new submissions across the claimant / defendant exchange.
Same gap on UPC_REV: Application to amend (R.49.2.a → R.55 = R.32 m.m.)
and Counterclaim for infringement (R.49.2.b → R.50, R.56 cycle) were
entirely missing.
UPC_INF gets a nested `with_amend` flag under `with_ccr` (R.30 amend
is only available with a CCR). UPC_REV gets two parallel independent
flags `with_amend` + `with_cci`; both can be on. Citations verified
against data.laws_contents (youpcdb, UPCRoP).
Migration 041 (waved INSERTs because each subsequent rule references
the prior wave's parent_id):
- Wave 0: 11 new concept rows (counterclaim-for-revocation,
defence-to-counterclaim-for-revocation, defence-to-application-to-amend,
reply-to-defence-to-counterclaim-for-revocation,
reply-to-defence-to-application-to-amend,
rejoinder-on-reply-to-defence-to-ccr, rejoinder-on-reply-to-amend,
counterclaim-for-infringement, defence-to-counterclaim-for-infringement,
reply-to-defence-to-counterclaim-for-infringement,
rejoinder-on-counterclaim-for-infringement). counterclaim-for-revocation
also seeded for the search bar even though its rule lives implicitly
in inf.sod (the with_ccr flag captures it).
- UPC_INF + UPC_REV sequence_orders renumbered to leave gaps (10/20/30…)
so new cross-flow rows interleave chronologically with the backbone.
- 7 new UPC_INF rules: inf.def_to_ccr (R.29.a), inf.app_to_amend (R.30.1),
inf.def_to_amend (R.32.1), inf.reply_def_ccr (R.29.d),
inf.reply_def_amd (R.32.3), inf.rejoin_reply_ccr (R.29.e),
inf.rejoin_amd (R.32.3).
- 8 new UPC_REV rules: rev.app_to_amend (R.49.2.a), rev.def_to_amend
(R.43.3), rev.reply_def_amd (R.32.3 m.m.), rev.rejoin_amd (R.32.3 m.m.),
rev.cc_inf (R.49.2.b), rev.def_cci (R.56.1), rev.reply_def_cci (R.56.3),
rev.rejoin_cci (R.56.4).
Calculator (services/fristenrechner.go):
- Zero-duration rules now split into 4 buckets, not 2:
1. parent=nil + non-court → IsRootEvent (existing)
2. parent=nil + court → IsCourtSet (existing, e.g. inf.oral when stand-alone)
3. parent set + court → IsCourtSet (existing, waypoints)
4. parent set + non-court → "filed-with-parent" — inherit parent's
date. NEW. Used by rev.app_to_amend / rev.cc_inf which per
R.49(2) are filed AS PART OF the Defence to revocation.
- AnchorOverrides on a zero-duration rule short-circuits to the user's
date, propagating downstream as before.
Frontend:
- New checkboxes inf-amend-flag (UPC_INF, nested under ccr-flag),
rev-amend-flag, rev-cci-flag (UPC_REV). Visibility per proceeding
type; inf-amend disabled until ccr is on (R.30 dependency).
- Three new i18n keys (DE+EN). Small CSS for nested-checkbox indent
and disabled-state colour.
Live-verified via curl on paliad.de against tester@hlc.de:
UPC_INF + with_ccr+with_amend, trigger 2026-05-04 → all 7 new rules
render at correct dates (R.29.a 2mo, R.30.1 2mo, R.32.1 2mo from
app_to_amend, R.29.d 2mo from def_to_ccr, R.32.3 1mo, R.29.e 1mo,
R.32.3 1mo).
UPC_REV + with_amend+with_cci → rev.app_to_amend / rev.cc_inf show
rev.defence's date (filed-with-parent), R.43.3 2mo / R.56.1 2mo /
R.32.3 + R.56.3 1mo / R.32.3 + R.56.4 1mo all line up.
61 lines
2.4 KiB
SQL
61 lines
2.4 KiB
SQL
-- Reverses 041_upc_counterclaim_cross_flows. Removes the new rules first,
|
|
-- then the new concepts, then restores the original sequence_order on the
|
|
-- existing UPC_INF / UPC_REV rows. Concept rows that are still referenced
|
|
-- elsewhere are kept (defensive — concepts may be reused by future
|
|
-- migrations).
|
|
|
|
DELETE FROM paliad.deadline_rules
|
|
WHERE proceeding_type_id IN (
|
|
SELECT id FROM paliad.proceeding_types WHERE code IN ('UPC_INF','UPC_REV')
|
|
)
|
|
AND code IN (
|
|
'inf.def_to_ccr','inf.app_to_amend','inf.def_to_amend','inf.reply_def_ccr',
|
|
'inf.reply_def_amd','inf.rejoin_reply_ccr','inf.rejoin_amd',
|
|
'rev.app_to_amend','rev.def_to_amend','rev.reply_def_amd','rev.rejoin_amd',
|
|
'rev.cc_inf','rev.def_cci','rev.reply_def_cci','rev.rejoin_cci'
|
|
);
|
|
|
|
DELETE FROM paliad.deadline_concepts
|
|
WHERE slug IN (
|
|
'counterclaim-for-revocation','defence-to-counterclaim-for-revocation',
|
|
'application-to-amend','defence-to-application-to-amend',
|
|
'reply-to-defence-to-counterclaim-for-revocation',
|
|
'reply-to-defence-to-application-to-amend',
|
|
'rejoinder-on-reply-to-defence-to-ccr','rejoinder-on-reply-to-amend',
|
|
'counterclaim-for-infringement','defence-to-counterclaim-for-infringement',
|
|
'reply-to-defence-to-counterclaim-for-infringement',
|
|
'rejoinder-on-counterclaim-for-infringement'
|
|
)
|
|
AND id NOT IN (SELECT concept_id FROM paliad.deadline_rules WHERE concept_id IS NOT NULL);
|
|
|
|
WITH proc AS (SELECT id FROM paliad.proceeding_types WHERE code = 'UPC_INF')
|
|
UPDATE paliad.deadline_rules dr
|
|
SET sequence_order = CASE dr.code
|
|
WHEN 'inf.soc' THEN 0
|
|
WHEN 'inf.sod' THEN 1
|
|
WHEN 'inf.reply' THEN 2
|
|
WHEN 'inf.rejoin' THEN 3
|
|
WHEN 'inf.interim' THEN 4
|
|
WHEN 'inf.oral' THEN 5
|
|
WHEN 'inf.decision' THEN 6
|
|
WHEN 'inf.cost_app' THEN 7
|
|
ELSE dr.sequence_order
|
|
END
|
|
FROM proc p
|
|
WHERE dr.proceeding_type_id = p.id;
|
|
|
|
WITH proc AS (SELECT id FROM paliad.proceeding_types WHERE code = 'UPC_REV')
|
|
UPDATE paliad.deadline_rules dr
|
|
SET sequence_order = CASE dr.code
|
|
WHEN 'rev.app' THEN 0
|
|
WHEN 'rev.defence' THEN 1
|
|
WHEN 'rev.reply' THEN 2
|
|
WHEN 'rev.rejoin' THEN 3
|
|
WHEN 'rev.interim' THEN 4
|
|
WHEN 'rev.oral' THEN 5
|
|
WHEN 'rev.decision' THEN 6
|
|
ELSE dr.sequence_order
|
|
END
|
|
FROM proc p
|
|
WHERE dr.proceeding_type_id = p.id;
|