The by_unit lens shows 151 finished tasks and pages out a whole business unit — scope it to open work #86

Description

@os-warren

Observation, not a regression — noticed while verifying #76 in the browser and deliberately kept out of that PR.

Measured

With #76's fix in place (business_unit now fetched), /_console/apps/ai.objectstack.duly/duly_task/view/by_unit on the #75 seed renders:

Business unit ▸ Northgate Operations 33
Business unit ▸ Northgate Plant 3
Business unit ▸ Northgate Quality 46
Business unit ▸ Riverside Plant 18
───
100 ← "100 records · Showing first 100 records."

The grouping is client-side over the fetched page. The request is top=100, and the store holds 186 tasks across five business units — 61 / 86 / 31 / 7 / 1 per the count in #76. So:

  • one business unit has no group at all on page 1, and nothing on screen says a unit is missing;
  • the counts that are shown are page slices, not totals (the largest unit holds 86 rows in the store; its header reads 46).

Why it is worth a card rather than a shrug

The footer does disclose "Showing first 100 records. More data may be available." — but the number that reads as authoritative is the one in the group header, next to the unit's name, and that number is a slice. This is the same shape as #76 itself: nothing errors, the screen is internally consistent, and it reads as data rather than as a bug. A manager's org lens is exactly where a partial count is most likely to be taken as a total.

Note that #76's own acceptance criterion says "counts summing to the visible row total", so the page scoping was known and accepted there. This card is only about whether it should stay that way, and it is unmeasured beyond the above — no view has been changed for it.

Options, unranked

  1. Leave it. Grouping is a page-level convenience; the footer already discloses the truncation.
  2. Raise the page size on the grouped lens if the view schema exposes it — cheap, and it moves the cliff rather than removing it.
  3. Server-side grouping / aggregate counts — the honest fix, and probably a platform capability question rather than an app one (the dashboard's "Not moving, by business unit" chart already groups server-side through a dataset and gets true totals).

No file is assigned; needs triage rather than an implementation.

Activity

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Type

No type

Projects

No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions

    , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Add copy buttons to all
     blocks\n(function() {\n function addCopyButtons() {\n document.querySelectorAll('pre code').forEach(function(codeBlock) {\n if (codeBlock.parentElement.hasAttribute('data-copy-added')) return;\n codeBlock.parentElement.setAttribute('data-copy-added', 'true');\n \n var btn = document.createElement('button');\n btn.textContent = 'Copy';\n btn.style.cssText = 'position:absolute;top:4px;right:4px;padding:2px 8px;font-size:11px;background:#4ecdc4;border:none;border-radius:4px;color:#1a1a2e;cursor:pointer;opacity:0.7;transition:opacity 0.2s;';\n btn.onmouseover = function() { this.style.opacity = '1'; };\n btn.onmouseout = function() { this.style.opacity = '0.7'; };\n btn.onclick = function() {\n navigator.clipboard.writeText(codeBlock.textContent).then(function() {\n btn.textContent = 'Copied!';\n setTimeout(function() { btn.textContent = 'Copy'; }, 1500);\n });\n };\n codeBlock.parentElement.style.position = 'relative';\n codeBlock.parentElement.appendChild(btn);\n });\n }\n \n addCopyButtons();\n \n // Re-run on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(addCopyButtons);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks");
    }
    } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks]', __e); }
    })();
    (function(){
    try {
    var __m = "github.com";
    var __re = new RegExp('^' + "github\\.com" + '
    
    Skip to content

    The by_unit lens shows 151 finished tasks and pages out a whole business unit — scope it to open work #86

    Description

    @os-warren

    Observation, not a regression — noticed while verifying #76 in the browser and deliberately kept out of that PR.

    Measured

    With #76's fix in place (business_unit now fetched), /_console/apps/ai.objectstack.duly/duly_task/view/by_unit on the #75 seed renders:

    Business unit ▸ Northgate Operations 33
    Business unit ▸ Northgate Plant 3
    Business unit ▸ Northgate Quality 46
    Business unit ▸ Riverside Plant 18
    ───
    100 ← "100 records · Showing first 100 records."
    

    The grouping is client-side over the fetched page. The request is top=100, and the store holds 186 tasks across five business units — 61 / 86 / 31 / 7 / 1 per the count in #76. So:

    • one business unit has no group at all on page 1, and nothing on screen says a unit is missing;
    • the counts that are shown are page slices, not totals (the largest unit holds 86 rows in the store; its header reads 46).

    Why it is worth a card rather than a shrug

    The footer does disclose "Showing first 100 records. More data may be available." — but the number that reads as authoritative is the one in the group header, next to the unit's name, and that number is a slice. This is the same shape as #76 itself: nothing errors, the screen is internally consistent, and it reads as data rather than as a bug. A manager's org lens is exactly where a partial count is most likely to be taken as a total.

    Note that #76's own acceptance criterion says "counts summing to the visible row total", so the page scoping was known and accepted there. This card is only about whether it should stay that way, and it is unmeasured beyond the above — no view has been changed for it.

    Options, unranked

    1. Leave it. Grouping is a page-level convenience; the footer already discloses the truncation.
    2. Raise the page size on the grouped lens if the view schema exposes it — cheap, and it moves the cliff rather than removing it.
    3. Server-side grouping / aggregate counts — the honest fix, and probably a platform capability question rather than an app one (the dashboard's "Not moving, by business unit" chart already groups server-side through a dataset and gets true totals).

    No file is assigned; needs triage rather than an implementation.

    Activity

    Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

    Metadata

    Metadata

    Assignees

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions

      , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Force GitHub README to respect dark mode\n(function() {\n var style = document.createElement('style');\n style.textContent = '\n .markdown-body {\n color-scheme: dark light;\n }\n .markdown-body pre { background: #161b22 !important; }\n .markdown-body code { background: rgba(110, 118, 129, 0.4) !important; }\n .markdown-body table th, .markdown-body table td { border-color: #30363d !important; }\n .markdown-body img { background: #0d1117; }\n .markdown-body blockquote { border-left-color: #8b949e; }\n .markdown-body hr { border-color: #30363d; }\n ';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n})();", "GitHub Dark Mode README Fix"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:GitHub Dark Mode README Fix]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
      Skip to content

      The by_unit lens shows 151 finished tasks and pages out a whole business unit — scope it to open work #86

      Description

      @os-warren

      Observation, not a regression — noticed while verifying #76 in the browser and deliberately kept out of that PR.

      Measured

      With #76's fix in place (business_unit now fetched), /_console/apps/ai.objectstack.duly/duly_task/view/by_unit on the #75 seed renders:

      Business unit ▸ Northgate Operations 33
      Business unit ▸ Northgate Plant 3
      Business unit ▸ Northgate Quality 46
      Business unit ▸ Riverside Plant 18
      ───
      100 ← "100 records · Showing first 100 records."
      

      The grouping is client-side over the fetched page. The request is top=100, and the store holds 186 tasks across five business units — 61 / 86 / 31 / 7 / 1 per the count in #76. So:

      • one business unit has no group at all on page 1, and nothing on screen says a unit is missing;
      • the counts that are shown are page slices, not totals (the largest unit holds 86 rows in the store; its header reads 46).

      Why it is worth a card rather than a shrug

      The footer does disclose "Showing first 100 records. More data may be available." — but the number that reads as authoritative is the one in the group header, next to the unit's name, and that number is a slice. This is the same shape as #76 itself: nothing errors, the screen is internally consistent, and it reads as data rather than as a bug. A manager's org lens is exactly where a partial count is most likely to be taken as a total.

      Note that #76's own acceptance criterion says "counts summing to the visible row total", so the page scoping was known and accepted there. This card is only about whether it should stay that way, and it is unmeasured beyond the above — no view has been changed for it.

      Options, unranked

      1. Leave it. Grouping is a page-level convenience; the footer already discloses the truncation.
      2. Raise the page size on the grouped lens if the view schema exposes it — cheap, and it moves the cliff rather than removing it.
      3. Server-side grouping / aggregate counts — the honest fix, and probably a platform capability question rather than an app one (the dashboard's "Not moving, by business unit" chart already groups server-side through a dataset and gets true totals).

      No file is assigned; needs triage rather than an implementation.

      Activity

      Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

      Metadata

      Metadata

      Assignees

      Type

      No type

      Projects

      No projects

        Milestone

        No milestone

        Relationships

        None yet

        Development

        No branches or pull requests

        Issue actions

        , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Highlight search terms from Google/DuckDuckGo/Bing referrer\n(function() {\n var ref = document.referrer;\n var terms = [];\n \n if (ref.includes('google.com') || ref.includes('duckduckgo.com') || ref.includes('bing.com')) {\n var url = new URL(ref);\n var q = url.searchParams.get('q') || url.searchParams.get('p');\n if (q) {\n terms = q.split(/\\s+/).filter(function(t) { return t.length > 2; });\n }\n }\n \n if (terms.length === 0) return;\n \n var style = document.createElement('style');\n style.textContent = '.userscript-highlight { background: #fbbf24; color: #1a1a2e; padding: 1px 3px; border-radius: 2px; }';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n \n function highlight(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 3) { // text node\n var text = node.textContent;\n var found = false;\n terms.forEach(function(term) {\n var regex = new RegExp('(' + term.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\\]\\\\]/g, '\\\\') + ')', 'gi');\n if (regex.test(text)) {\n found = true;\n var frag = document.createDocumentFragment();\n var parts = text.split(regex);\n parts.forEach(function(part, i) {\n if (i % 2 === 0) {\n frag.appendChild(document.createTextNode(part));\n } else {\n var span = document.createElement('span');\n span.className = 'userscript-highlight';\n span.textContent = part;\n frag.appendChild(span);\n }\n });\n node.parentNode.replaceChild(frag, node);\n }\n });\n } else if (node.nodeType === 1 && node.childNodes) { // element\n var skipTags = ['SCRIPT', 'STYLE', 'NOSCRIPT', 'TEXTAREA', 'INPUT', 'SELECT'];\n if (!skipTags.includes(node.tagName)) {\n Array.from(node.childNodes).forEach(highlight);\n }\n }\n }\n \n highlight(document.body);\n \n // Re-highlight on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n mutations.forEach(function(m) {\n m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 1 || node.nodeType === 3) highlight(node);\n });\n });\n });\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Highlight Search Terms"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Highlight Search Terms]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
        Skip to content

        The by_unit lens shows 151 finished tasks and pages out a whole business unit — scope it to open work #86

        Description

        @os-warren

        Observation, not a regression — noticed while verifying #76 in the browser and deliberately kept out of that PR.

        Measured

        With #76's fix in place (business_unit now fetched), /_console/apps/ai.objectstack.duly/duly_task/view/by_unit on the #75 seed renders:

        Business unit ▸ Northgate Operations 33
        Business unit ▸ Northgate Plant 3
        Business unit ▸ Northgate Quality 46
        Business unit ▸ Riverside Plant 18
        ───
        100 ← "100 records · Showing first 100 records."
        

        The grouping is client-side over the fetched page. The request is top=100, and the store holds 186 tasks across five business units — 61 / 86 / 31 / 7 / 1 per the count in #76. So:

        • one business unit has no group at all on page 1, and nothing on screen says a unit is missing;
        • the counts that are shown are page slices, not totals (the largest unit holds 86 rows in the store; its header reads 46).

        Why it is worth a card rather than a shrug

        The footer does disclose "Showing first 100 records. More data may be available." — but the number that reads as authoritative is the one in the group header, next to the unit's name, and that number is a slice. This is the same shape as #76 itself: nothing errors, the screen is internally consistent, and it reads as data rather than as a bug. A manager's org lens is exactly where a partial count is most likely to be taken as a total.

        Note that #76's own acceptance criterion says "counts summing to the visible row total", so the page scoping was known and accepted there. This card is only about whether it should stay that way, and it is unmeasured beyond the above — no view has been changed for it.

        Options, unranked

        1. Leave it. Grouping is a page-level convenience; the footer already discloses the truncation.
        2. Raise the page size on the grouped lens if the view schema exposes it — cheap, and it moves the cliff rather than removing it.
        3. Server-side grouping / aggregate counts — the honest fix, and probably a platform capability question rather than an app one (the dashboard's "Not moving, by business unit" chart already groups server-side through a dataset and gets true totals).

        No file is assigned; needs triage rather than an implementation.

        Activity

        Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

        Metadata

        Metadata

        Assignees

        Type

        No type

        Projects

        No projects

          Milestone

          No milestone

          Relationships

          None yet

          Development

          No branches or pull requests

          Issue actions

          , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Strip utm_, fbclid, gclid, etc. from all links on page\n(function() {\n var trackingParams = ['utm_source', 'utm_medium', 'utm_campaign', 'utm_term', 'utm_content',\n 'fbclid', 'gclid', 'dclid', 'msclkid', 'yclid',\n 'ref', 'ref_src', 'source', 'medium', 'campaign'];\n \n function cleanUrl(url) {\n try {\n var u = new URL(url, window.location.origin);\n var changed = false;\n trackingParams.forEach(function(p) {\n if (u.searchParams.has(p)) {\n u.searchParams.delete(p);\n changed = true;\n }\n });\n return changed ? u.toString() : url;\n } catch (e) {\n return url;\n }\n }\n \n function cleanLinks() {\n document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {\n var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);\n if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;\n });\n }\n \n cleanLinks();\n \n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n mutations.forEach(function(m) {\n m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 1) {\n if (node.tagName === 'A') cleanLinks();\n node.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {\n var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);\n if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;\n });\n }\n });\n });\n });\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Remove Tracking Parameters from Links"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Remove Tracking Parameters from Links]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "youtube.com"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + "youtube\\.com" + '
          Skip to content

          The by_unit lens shows 151 finished tasks and pages out a whole business unit — scope it to open work #86

          Description

          @os-warren

          Observation, not a regression — noticed while verifying #76 in the browser and deliberately kept out of that PR.

          Measured

          With #76's fix in place (business_unit now fetched), /_console/apps/ai.objectstack.duly/duly_task/view/by_unit on the #75 seed renders:

          Business unit ▸ Northgate Operations 33
          Business unit ▸ Northgate Plant 3
          Business unit ▸ Northgate Quality 46
          Business unit ▸ Riverside Plant 18
          ───
          100 ← "100 records · Showing first 100 records."
          

          The grouping is client-side over the fetched page. The request is top=100, and the store holds 186 tasks across five business units — 61 / 86 / 31 / 7 / 1 per the count in #76. So:

          • one business unit has no group at all on page 1, and nothing on screen says a unit is missing;
          • the counts that are shown are page slices, not totals (the largest unit holds 86 rows in the store; its header reads 46).

          Why it is worth a card rather than a shrug

          The footer does disclose "Showing first 100 records. More data may be available." — but the number that reads as authoritative is the one in the group header, next to the unit's name, and that number is a slice. This is the same shape as #76 itself: nothing errors, the screen is internally consistent, and it reads as data rather than as a bug. A manager's org lens is exactly where a partial count is most likely to be taken as a total.

          Note that #76's own acceptance criterion says "counts summing to the visible row total", so the page scoping was known and accepted there. This card is only about whether it should stay that way, and it is unmeasured beyond the above — no view has been changed for it.

          Options, unranked

          1. Leave it. Grouping is a page-level convenience; the footer already discloses the truncation.
          2. Raise the page size on the grouped lens if the view schema exposes it — cheap, and it moves the cliff rather than removing it.
          3. Server-side grouping / aggregate counts — the honest fix, and probably a platform capability question rather than an app one (the dashboard's "Not moving, by business unit" chart already groups server-side through a dataset and gets true totals).

          No file is assigned; needs triage rather than an implementation.

          Activity

          Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

          Metadata

          Metadata

          Assignees

          Type

          No type

          Projects

          No projects

            Milestone

            No milestone

            Relationships

            None yet

            Development

            No branches or pull requests

            Issue actions

            , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Auto-enable theater mode on YouTube\n(function() {\n function tryTheater() {\n var btn = document.querySelector('button[aria-label=\"Theater mode\"], ytd-player #player button[title=\"Theater mode\"]');\n if (btn && !btn.classList.contains('activated')) {\n btn.click();\n }\n }\n \n // Try immediately\n tryTheater();\n \n // Try after navigation (SPA)\n var lastUrl = location.href;\n setInterval(function() {\n if (location.href !== lastUrl) {\n lastUrl = location.href;\n setTimeout(tryTheater, 500);\n }\n }, 1000);\n \n // Also try on player load\n var observer = new MutationObserver(tryTheater);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "YouTube Theater Mode Default"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:YouTube Theater Mode Default]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
            Skip to content

            The by_unit lens shows 151 finished tasks and pages out a whole business unit — scope it to open work #86

            Description

            @os-warren

            Observation, not a regression — noticed while verifying #76 in the browser and deliberately kept out of that PR.

            Measured

            With #76's fix in place (business_unit now fetched), /_console/apps/ai.objectstack.duly/duly_task/view/by_unit on the #75 seed renders:

            Business unit ▸ Northgate Operations 33
            Business unit ▸ Northgate Plant 3
            Business unit ▸ Northgate Quality 46
            Business unit ▸ Riverside Plant 18
            ───
            100 ← "100 records · Showing first 100 records."
            

            The grouping is client-side over the fetched page. The request is top=100, and the store holds 186 tasks across five business units — 61 / 86 / 31 / 7 / 1 per the count in #76. So:

            • one business unit has no group at all on page 1, and nothing on screen says a unit is missing;
            • the counts that are shown are page slices, not totals (the largest unit holds 86 rows in the store; its header reads 46).

            Why it is worth a card rather than a shrug

            The footer does disclose "Showing first 100 records. More data may be available." — but the number that reads as authoritative is the one in the group header, next to the unit's name, and that number is a slice. This is the same shape as #76 itself: nothing errors, the screen is internally consistent, and it reads as data rather than as a bug. A manager's org lens is exactly where a partial count is most likely to be taken as a total.

            Note that #76's own acceptance criterion says "counts summing to the visible row total", so the page scoping was known and accepted there. This card is only about whether it should stay that way, and it is unmeasured beyond the above — no view has been changed for it.

            Options, unranked

            1. Leave it. Grouping is a page-level convenience; the footer already discloses the truncation.
            2. Raise the page size on the grouped lens if the view schema exposes it — cheap, and it moves the cliff rather than removing it.
            3. Server-side grouping / aggregate counts — the honest fix, and probably a platform capability question rather than an app one (the dashboard's "Not moving, by business unit" chart already groups server-side through a dataset and gets true totals).

            No file is assigned; needs triage rather than an implementation.

            Activity

            Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

            Metadata

            Metadata

            Assignees

            Type

            No type

            Projects

            No projects

              Milestone

              No milestone

              Relationships

              None yet

              Development

              No branches or pull requests

              Issue actions

              , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Remove or un-stick sticky/fixed headers that block content\n(function() {\n function unstick() {\n document.querySelectorAll('header, nav, [role=\"banner\"], .header, .navbar, .sticky, .fixed-top, [style*=\"position: fixed\"], [style*=\"position:sticky\"]').forEach(function(el) {\n if (el.style.position === 'fixed' || el.style.position === 'sticky' || \n getComputedStyle(el).position === 'fixed' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'sticky') {\n el.style.position = 'static';\n el.style.top = 'auto';\n el.style.zIndex = 'auto';\n }\n });\n }\n \n unstick();\n \n var observer = new MutationObserver(unstick);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true, attributes: true, attributeFilter: ['style', 'class'] });\n})();", "Kill Sticky Headers"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Kill Sticky Headers]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
              Skip to content

              The by_unit lens shows 151 finished tasks and pages out a whole business unit — scope it to open work #86

              Description

              @os-warren

              Observation, not a regression — noticed while verifying #76 in the browser and deliberately kept out of that PR.

              Measured

              With #76's fix in place (business_unit now fetched), /_console/apps/ai.objectstack.duly/duly_task/view/by_unit on the #75 seed renders:

              Business unit ▸ Northgate Operations 33
              Business unit ▸ Northgate Plant 3
              Business unit ▸ Northgate Quality 46
              Business unit ▸ Riverside Plant 18
              ───
              100 ← "100 records · Showing first 100 records."
              

              The grouping is client-side over the fetched page. The request is top=100, and the store holds 186 tasks across five business units — 61 / 86 / 31 / 7 / 1 per the count in #76. So:

              • one business unit has no group at all on page 1, and nothing on screen says a unit is missing;
              • the counts that are shown are page slices, not totals (the largest unit holds 86 rows in the store; its header reads 46).

              Why it is worth a card rather than a shrug

              The footer does disclose "Showing first 100 records. More data may be available." — but the number that reads as authoritative is the one in the group header, next to the unit's name, and that number is a slice. This is the same shape as #76 itself: nothing errors, the screen is internally consistent, and it reads as data rather than as a bug. A manager's org lens is exactly where a partial count is most likely to be taken as a total.

              Note that #76's own acceptance criterion says "counts summing to the visible row total", so the page scoping was known and accepted there. This card is only about whether it should stay that way, and it is unmeasured beyond the above — no view has been changed for it.

              Options, unranked

              1. Leave it. Grouping is a page-level convenience; the footer already discloses the truncation.
              2. Raise the page size on the grouped lens if the view schema exposes it — cheap, and it moves the cliff rather than removing it.
              3. Server-side grouping / aggregate counts — the honest fix, and probably a platform capability question rather than an app one (the dashboard's "Not moving, by business unit" chart already groups server-side through a dataset and gets true totals).

              No file is assigned; needs triage rather than an implementation.

              Activity

              Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

              Metadata

              Metadata

              Assignees

              Type

              No type

              Projects

              No projects

                Milestone

                No milestone

                Relationships

                None yet

                Development

                No branches or pull requests

                Issue actions

                , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Universal Dark Mode - works on any site\n(function() {\n var enabled = true;\n \n function applyDarkMode() {\n if (!enabled) return;\n \n // Create style element if it doesn't exist\n var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');\n if (!style) {\n style = document.createElement('style');\n style.id = 'universal-dark-mode-style';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n }\n \n // Dark mode CSS - inverts colors but preserves images/video\n style.textContent = '\n /* Invert everything except media */\n html {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n background: #1a1a2e !important;\n }\n \n /* Restore images, videos, iframes, canvas */\n img, video, iframe, canvas, svg, picture, [style*=\"background-image\"] {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n }\n \n /* Preserve specific elements that should not be inverted */\n .no-dark-mode, .no-dark-mode *,\n [data-theme=\"light\"], [data-theme=\"light\"],\n .ace_editor, .ace_editor *,\n .CodeMirror, .CodeMirror *,\n .monaco-editor, .monaco-editor *,\n .markdown-body pre, .markdown-body pre *,\n .highlight, .highlight *,\n pre code, pre code * {\n filter: none !important;\n }\n \n /* Fix common UI elements */\n .modal, .popup, .dropdown-menu, .tooltip, .popover {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n background: #2d2d44 !important;\n border-color: #444 !important;\n }\n \n /* Scrollbars */\n ::-webkit-scrollbar { background: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb { background: #444 !important; }\n ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb:hover { background: #555 !important; }\n \n /* Selection */\n ::selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ::-moz-selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ';\n }\n \n function removeDarkMode() {\n var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');\n if (style) style.remove();\n }\n \n // Toggle with Alt+Shift+D\n document.addEventListener('keydown', function(e) {\n if (e.altKey && e.shiftKey && e.key === 'D') {\n e.preventDefault();\n enabled = !enabled;\n if (enabled) {\n applyDarkMode();\n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Enabled');\n } else {\n removeDarkMode();\n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Disabled');\n }\n }\n });\n \n // Apply on load\n applyDarkMode();\n \n // Re-apply on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n if (enabled && !document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style')) {\n applyDarkMode();\n }\n });\n observer.observe(document.head, { childList: true });\n \n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Loaded - Press Alt+Shift+D to toggle');\n})();", "Universal Dark Mode"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Universal Dark Mode]', __e); } })(); })();
                Skip to content

                The by_unit lens shows 151 finished tasks and pages out a whole business unit — scope it to open work #86

                Description

                @os-warren

                Observation, not a regression — noticed while verifying #76 in the browser and deliberately kept out of that PR.

                Measured

                With #76's fix in place (business_unit now fetched), /_console/apps/ai.objectstack.duly/duly_task/view/by_unit on the #75 seed renders:

                Business unit ▸ Northgate Operations 33
                Business unit ▸ Northgate Plant 3
                Business unit ▸ Northgate Quality 46
                Business unit ▸ Riverside Plant 18
                ───
                100 ← "100 records · Showing first 100 records."
                

                The grouping is client-side over the fetched page. The request is top=100, and the store holds 186 tasks across five business units — 61 / 86 / 31 / 7 / 1 per the count in #76. So:

                • one business unit has no group at all on page 1, and nothing on screen says a unit is missing;
                • the counts that are shown are page slices, not totals (the largest unit holds 86 rows in the store; its header reads 46).

                Why it is worth a card rather than a shrug

                The footer does disclose "Showing first 100 records. More data may be available." — but the number that reads as authoritative is the one in the group header, next to the unit's name, and that number is a slice. This is the same shape as #76 itself: nothing errors, the screen is internally consistent, and it reads as data rather than as a bug. A manager's org lens is exactly where a partial count is most likely to be taken as a total.

                Note that #76's own acceptance criterion says "counts summing to the visible row total", so the page scoping was known and accepted there. This card is only about whether it should stay that way, and it is unmeasured beyond the above — no view has been changed for it.

                Options, unranked

                1. Leave it. Grouping is a page-level convenience; the footer already discloses the truncation.
                2. Raise the page size on the grouped lens if the view schema exposes it — cheap, and it moves the cliff rather than removing it.
                3. Server-side grouping / aggregate counts — the honest fix, and probably a platform capability question rather than an app one (the dashboard's "Not moving, by business unit" chart already groups server-side through a dataset and gets true totals).

                No file is assigned; needs triage rather than an implementation.

                Activity

                Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

                Metadata

                Metadata

                Assignees

                Type

                No type

                Projects

                No projects

                  Milestone

                  No milestone

                  Relationships

                  None yet

                  Development

                  No branches or pull requests

                  Issue actions