# API2 Specialist Report — PAPI-3631 Asset PATCH endpoint

## Interpretation (GitHub feedback round)

One line per reviewer comment / CI failure — how I read it before changing code:

- **Copilot [fn_UpdateAsset.sql] — "RFC 7396 reference is misleading":** I read this as: our
  "NULL means omitted/unchanged" semantics are *not* true RFC 7396, so I should drop the
  misleading RFC 7396 references from the API-side code/docs. (In-scope documentation fix.)
- **Copilot [fn_UpdateAsset.sql] — "AssetTypeId not validated on update; LastModifiedBy cleared if NULL":**
  I read this as: the update path lets callers point AssetTypeId/ParentAssetId at non-existent
  rows. But patching those *relational* fields is explicitly **out of scope** per the spec, so the
  correct fix is to remove them from the PATCH surface — not to add DB-side FK validation
  (that would be scope creep, and it lives in the DB repo anyway).
- **Copilot [fn_UpdateAsset.sql] — "COALESCE means ParentAssetId cannot be cleared":**
  I read this as: same root cause. ParentAssetId patching is out of scope; remove it from the
  endpoint rather than add a `_clearParentAssetId` flag / JSONB merge-patch (scope creep).
- **dave-webb [fn_UpdateAsset.sql] — "COALESCE will not work to clear an existing parent asset id":**
  I read this as: confirmation that ParentAssetId clearing is broken by design; resolved by
  descoping the endpoint to `name`-only per the approved plan.
- **XYZPlatformApi PR #857 — `build` CI failure:** I read this as: `npm test` (unit) passes locally,
  so the failure is in the integration-test step, which runs the e2e specs against the real
  `PostgreSQLDatabase` (`fn_UpdateAsset.sql`). The e2e specs asserted relational-field behaviour the
  DB function does not support (e.g. expecting **404** for a non-existent `assetTypeId` — the update
  path performs no such validation, per Copilot's own comment). Descoping to `name`-only removes
  those assertions and aligns the API contract with the plan and the DB function.

## Summary of changes made this round

Descoped `PATCH /api/v2/projects/{projectId}/assets/{assetId}` from `{name, assetTypeId, parentAssetId}`
to **`name`-only**, matching the approved plan (relational fields are explicitly out of scope), and
removed the misleading RFC 7396 references. This is the root-cause fix for the four `fn_UpdateAsset.sql`
reviewer comments (all of which concern the relational fields the API no longer sends) and the most
likely cause of the integration-test build failure.

### Files changed

- `src/api/v2/projects/assets/assets.validator.ts` — `PATCHABLE_FIELDS` reduced to `{ "name" }`; any
  `assetTypeId` / `parentAssetId` (or other) field now returns **406**. Dropped the RFC 7396 wording;
  removed the per-field UUID validation for the now-rejected relational fields.
- `src/api/v2/projects/assets/assets.controller.ts` — `patchAsset` destructures and forwards only
  `name`.
- `src/services/assets.service.ts` — `AssetPatch` narrowed to `{ name?: string }`; `updateAsset` passes
  explicit `null` for the `assetTypeId` / `parentAssetId` positional args of `fn_UpdateAsset` (kept the
  6-arg call for compatibility with the current DB signature — see open question). Dropped RFC 7396 comment.
- `src/api/v2/projects/assets/assets.routes.ts` — Swagger `patch` block: description now says
  "partial update … only patchable field is `name`" (no RFC 7396 claim); request body properties
  reduced to `name`.
- `test/unit/api/v2/assets/assets.validator.spec.ts` — relational-field cases now assert **406**;
  removed the obsolete "invalid relational UUID → 400" cases.
- `test/unit/api/v2/assets/assets.controller.spec.ts` — the forwarding test now asserts only `name`
  reaches the service and relational fields are dropped.
- `test/e2e/api/assets.e2e.spec.ts` — removed the relational-patch happy-path/404 cases and the
  now-unneeded second-asset-type / parent-asset setup; added 406 cases for `assetTypeId` / `parentAssetId`.

### Verification

- `npm run build` (tsc): passes.
- `npm test` (unit + coverage): **1728 passing, 5 pending, 0 failing**.
- Asset unit specs (controller + validator): 23 passing.
- Integration/e2e step not run locally (needs the `PostgreSQLDatabase` + Citus DB harness); the CI
  pipeline runs it.

### Deviations from the spec

- None. The change brings the endpoint back in line with the spec's stated scope
  ("only the Name field"; relational fields out of scope). The previous round had added
  `assetTypeId` / `parentAssetId` as patchable — that was the scope creep the reviewers flagged.

### Beyond-scope reviewer requests NOT implemented (flagged, per ground rules)

- Copilot's suggestions to add **AssetTypeId existence validation** and a **`_clearParentAssetId`
  flag / JSONB merge-patch** to `fn_UpdateAsset` are out of the approved plan scope (relational-field
  patching). Not implemented. They also live in the `PostgreSQLDatabase` repo, which is outside this PR.

### Open questions for the human reviewer

1. **Cross-repo coupling with `fn_UpdateAsset` (PR #688).** The service still calls the 6-arg
   `fn_UpdateAsset(projectId, assetId, name, NULL, NULL, lastModifiedBy)` for compatibility with the
   current DB signature; with the API descoped, the DB team can now simplify the function to
   `fn_UpdateAsset(projectId, assetId, name, lastModifiedBy)` and drop the COALESCE/relational logic
   entirely. If they do, `src/services/assets.service.ts` (`SQL.UPDATE` + the `updateAsset` args) must
   be updated in lockstep. Please coordinate the merge order of PR #688 and PR #857 — the API PR's
   integration test needs `fn_UpdateAsset` present in the checked-out `PostgreSQLDatabase` branch.
2. **RFC 7396 wording.** I removed the RFC 7396 references rather than implementing true merge-patch
   (a presence indicator to distinguish "field omitted" from "field set to null"). For a single
   required non-null column (`name`) this distinction is moot, so I opted for the lighter fix. Confirm
   this is the preferred direction if relational fields are ever brought back into scope.
3. Should a future ticket re-introduce `assetTypeId` / `parentAssetId` patching, it will need the DB
   fixes the reviewers described (FK/existence validation + a real clear-vs-omit indicator). Tracked
   here for whoever picks that up.