Read in the calendar, edit in the original workflow

The calendar displays existing records

The inspected calendar code reads existing documents, site schedules and retained business records to produce dated entries. It keeps source identifiers so the reader can open the document or ledger. Opening the calendar does not create another copy of the same transaction.

A read-only overview can use its own layout without taking over document confirmation. Cards show the kind and status of the source. A person who needs to change it returns to the relevant workflow, where the underlying document is identified before a date or status changes.

For example, a requested delivery date need not be the date of an actual delivery. The source gives requested dates and recorded actions different identifiers and descriptions. A calendar colour or a completed-looking arrangement should not substitute for reading which record an entry represents.

Carry the restriction into linked details

Removing an edit-schedule button is insufficient if the linked document detail still offers confirmation or cancellation. The first screen would be read-only while the next could change the transaction. In the inspected parent screen, opening details while the calendar is selected passes a readOnly condition to the detail component.

The detail component uses that condition to restrict edits and document state changes. It also tells the reader that a document opened from the calendar is for viewing and that edits belong in its business menu. The design reuses the detail screen while passing along the role of the current entry point.

Links to evidence still matter. A card can open a retained source row, a linked document or its ledger. This does not remove editing authority after an explicit move to a different business menu. Explain both what can be inspected and where a change belongs.

An account with write authority still cannot save through the calendar

Account permissions determine who may edit. A read-only calendar determines where editing is allowed. To keep administrators from changing transactions through the calendar, the implementation needs a route restriction as well as an account check.

For /api/calendar and its child paths, the inspected server route check rejects requests other than GET with 405. This HTTP status means that the route does not allow that request method. The calendar restriction comes before the ordinary write-permission check. Existing tests check for rejection on that route even when the account has write authority.

The local backend also has an early rejection for calendar POST requests and a refusal in the schedule-saving function itself. The interface, server route and internal function express the same role. Reading this code is not a fresh security audit of every route in the deployed system.

1. Screen: offer viewing and source access instead of schedule creation or editing.
2. Details: retain the read-only condition when opened from the calendar.
3. Server route: reject calendar writes independently of general write authority.
4. Business menu: retain its normal editing process and account permissions.

Stopping new input does not mean deleting old reminders

If reminders were stored before the change, decide how they remain readable. Removing existing records or making them disappear merely because new input is no longer accepted can take away information the user already relies on.

The inspected implementation reads the old reminders table if it exists. When it does not exist, the projection continues without those entries instead of creating the table. It also explains a changed document association or a cancelled source document. A reminder linked to a cancelled document is presented as needing review.

This does not turn an old reminder’s status into evidence of a payment or a completed delivery. It determines how current records are presented. Even when simplifying a screen, record separately which existing information must survive and which new inputs are no longer allowed.

Check rejection and preservation together

An error response alone does not establish that the data remained unchanged. A request could create a table or a record before refusing the final action. Existing isolated tests compare database contents before and after the rejected requests and check that no new reminders table appears.

The UI tests distinguish several requirements: no schedule creation or edit actions in the calendar, continued access to linked documents, and retained editing in normal business details. Their UI stand-in is not a real browser. A code-level check for the absence of a button is different from interacting with the rendered screen.

For this article I read the implementation, existing test definitions and historical verification record. I did not access an operating account or rerun the original product’s tests. The historical record itself leaves user screen review pending. The new manuscript’s checks cover evidence comparison, editing, related links and static previews.

Apply the same questions to another viewing screen

If a dashboard or report should direct edits to one place, first identify where the underlying records are created and changed. Define what the new screen reads and which identifiers connect it to the source. Then check whether linked details and server routes retain that role.

Do not test only with a read-only account. Check that an account with write authority is still refused on the viewing route while necessary edits remain available through the normal business menu. Include retained entries, entries linked to cancelled sources and entries without dates in the reading scope.

This approach suits an overview. A calendar that allows direct rescheduling needs separate rules for which source values change and what confirmation is required. In this case, transaction entry remains in the original business screens.