# QA procedure: edit_article_body

Package: `test` (black-box, extending `article_test.go`).

## Setup shared by every case
1. Call `validator.InitValidator()` once.
2. Reuse `mockArticleRepo` (`test/article_test.go`) as-is; its `UpdateBody` already
   supports everything this slice needs, no fake changes expected.
3. Wire the real use cases over the fake: `useCases.NewCreateArticleUseCase`,
   `useCases.NewGetArticleUseCase`, `useCases.NewListArticlesUseCase`,
   `useCases.NewDeleteArticleUseCase`, `useCases.NewUpdateArticleUseCase`. Build
   `article.NewHandler(...)` (existing signature, already takes the update use case),
   exposing the new `UpdateArticleBody` method.
4. Build a test `jwtauth.New("HS256", []byte("test-secret"), nil)`.
5. Mount the routes on a fresh `chi.NewRouter()` mirroring `api/router.go`'s current
   shape (per `article_publishing.qa.md`): `GET /` under `jwtauth.Verifier` only;
   `GET /{id}`, `POST /`, `DELETE /{id}`, `PATCH /{id}/publish`,
   `PATCH /{id}/unpublish` under `jwtauth.Verifier` + `jwtauth.Authenticator`. Add
   `PATCH /{id}` to that same authenticated group.
6. Mint a valid jwt cookie for user id 1: `token.Encode(map[string]any{"user_id": uint32(1)})`,
   set as the `jwt` cookie on the relevant `httptest.NewRequest`.
7. Seed the repo directly via the map pattern already used elsewhere, e.g.
   `repo.articles[1] = article.Article{ID: 1, Title: "Backyard Renovation Update", Body: "Old body text", IsOnline: true}`
   and `repo.articles[2] = article.Article{ID: 2, Title: "Draft: Kitchen Remodel", Body: "Draft notes", IsOnline: false}`.

## HTTP checks
8. `PATCH /v1/article/1` with the valid cookie and JSON body `{"body": "New body text"}`,
   repo seeded per step 7 -> status `200`; decode the JSON response and assert
   `id == 1`, `body == "New body text"`, `title == "Backyard Renovation Update"`,
   `is_online == true`; assert `repo.articles[1].Body` is now `"New body text"` and
   `repo.articles[1].Title`/`IsOnline` are unchanged.
9. `PATCH /v1/article/2` with the valid cookie and JSON body
   `{"body": "Revised draft notes"}`, repo seeded per step 7 -> status `200`; decode
   the JSON response and assert `id == 2`, `body == "Revised draft notes"`,
   `is_online == false`.
10. `PATCH /v1/article/9999` with the valid cookie and a valid JSON body, empty repo
    id `9999` -> status `404`, body `"Article not found\n"`.
11. `PATCH /v1/article/not-a-number` with the valid cookie and a valid JSON body ->
    status `400`, body matching `apperr.IdUint32ErrorMessage + "\n"`.
12. `PATCH /v1/article/1` with the valid cookie and a malformed JSON body (e.g. raw
    string `not-json`), repo seeded with article id 1 -> status `400`, body matching
    `apperr.BodyErrorMessage + "\n"`.
13. `PATCH /v1/article/1` with the valid cookie and JSON body `{"body": ""}`, repo
    seeded with article id 1 -> status `400`; assert `repo.articles[1].Body` is
    unchanged (nothing stored).
14. `PATCH /v1/article/1` with the valid cookie and JSON body `{"body": "<10001-char
    string>"}`, repo seeded with article id 1 -> status `400`; assert
    `repo.articles[1].Body` is unchanged.
15. `PATCH /v1/article/1` with **no** cookie, repo seeded with article id 1 -> status
    `401`.

## Manual verification (not exercised by the Go test)
- SPA-visible behaviour: confirm the back-office article editor exposes a body-editing
  control that calls `PATCH /v1/article/{id}` and reflects the updated body, against
  the real embedded frontend and a real SQLite file. Not exercised by `task test`;
  requires `task dev` or a built `task build` binary. (No such UI exists yet as of this
  slice.)
- No SMTP involvement.