Files
ignacionelson 74d1de2d6e Say why an invitation was refused when the installation is full
Two halves of the same gap. Redemption always provisions with
autoApprove: true, so it always meets SeatAllowance::guardClient(), which
refuses on the `email` field -- and the redemption form's email input is
read-only, never submitted, and had nowhere to render an error. The account
was correctly not created and the person was told nothing at all: the form
simply came back. The field now renders errors.email, which is where every
other account form's refusal already lands.

The other half is the button. "New client" has been seat-limited since the
limit existed -- it goes dead with the reason beside it, rather than
offering a form that cannot be submitted. "Invite client" sat next to it,
live, on a full installation. Worse than the original complaint, because
the refusal is met by the invited person rather than by the staff member
who caused it.

So the invite button is seat-limited too, and sending guards as well as
redeeming. An outstanding invitation is still not a client and is still not
counted as one -- the rule a pending account request follows, for the
reason SeatAllowance spells out -- so this reserves nothing. It refuses to
send a link a full installation could not honour, and redemption keeps its
own guard, because the seat can be taken by somebody else in the days
between.

SeatLimitedAction's usage caption is now optional, and the invite button
omits it. Two buttons governed by one limit, each captioned with the same
sentence, reads as two limits.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01CPk8qAs38pudYGWwmGkYPe
2026-09-12 15:50:21 -03:00
..
2026-08-14 01:38:12 -03:00
2026-08-14 01:38:12 -03:00
2026-08-14 01:38:12 -03:00