tests are now passing fully

server/tests/table_definition/post_table_definition_test5.rs

@@ -120,8 +120,8 @@ async fn test_unicode_in_schema_names_rejected(#[future] pool: PgPool) {
 #[tokio::test]
 async fn test_fk_column_name_uniqueness_collision(#[future] pool: PgPool) {
     let pool = pool.await;
-    
+
-    // Create tables that would cause FK column name collisions
+    // Create tables with similar suffixes
     let req1 = PostTableDefinitionRequest {
         profile_name: "default".into(),
         table_name: "customers_146053".into(),
@@ -130,7 +130,7 @@ async fn test_fk_column_name_uniqueness_collision(#[future] pool: PgPool) {
         links: vec![],
     };
     post_table_definition(&pool, req1).await.unwrap();
-    
+
     let req2 = PostTableDefinitionRequest {
         profile_name: "default".into(),
         table_name: "suppliers_146053".into(),
@@ -139,11 +139,11 @@ async fn test_fk_column_name_uniqueness_collision(#[future] pool: PgPool) {
         links: vec![],
     };
     post_table_definition(&pool, req2).await.unwrap();
-    
+
-    // Try to create a table linking to both - this should reveal the FK naming bug
+    // Create a table linking to both - should succeed with full table names
     let request = PostTableDefinitionRequest {
         profile_name: "default".into(),
-        table_name: "orders".into(),
+        table_name: "orders_test".into(), // Use unique name to avoid conflicts
         columns: vec![],
         indexes: vec![],
         links: vec![
@@ -157,23 +157,20 @@ async fn test_fk_column_name_uniqueness_collision(#[future] pool: PgPool) {
             },
         ],
     };
-    
+
     let result = post_table_definition(&pool, request).await;
-    
+
-    // This test documents the current bug - both tables create "146053_id" columns
+    // Should succeed - no collision with full table names
-    if result.is_err() {
+    assert!(result.is_ok());
-        let err = result.unwrap_err();
+    let response = result.unwrap();
-        if err.message().contains("specified more than once") {
+
-            // This confirms the FK naming collision bug described in the analysis
+    // Verify both FK columns are created with full table names
-            assert!(err.message().contains("146053_id"));
+    assert!(response.sql.contains("\"customers_146053_id\""));
-        } else {
+    assert!(response.sql.contains("\"suppliers_146053_id\""));
-            // If it's a different error, let it fail normally
+
-            panic!("Unexpected error: {:?}", err);
+    // Verify both are NOT NULL (required = true)
-        }
+    assert!(response.sql.contains("\"customers_146053_id\" BIGINT NOT NULL"));
-    } else {
+    assert!(response.sql.contains("\"suppliers_146053_id\" BIGINT NOT NULL"));
-        // If this passes, the bug has been fixed
-        assert!(result.is_ok());
-    }
 }
 
 #[rstest]
@@ -183,7 +180,7 @@ async fn test_cross_schema_references_prevented(#[future] pool: PgPool) {
     
     // Create table in schema A
     let req_a = PostTableDefinitionRequest {
-        profile_name: "A".into(),
+        profile_name: "scheam_a".into(),
         table_name: "users".into(),
         columns: vec![],
         indexes: vec![],
@@ -193,7 +190,7 @@ async fn test_cross_schema_references_prevented(#[future] pool: PgPool) {
     
     // Try to link from schema B to schema A's table
     let req_b = PostTableDefinitionRequest {
-        profile_name: "B".into(),
+        profile_name: "schema_b".into(),
         table_name: "orders".into(),
         columns: vec![],
         indexes: vec![],
@@ -309,31 +306,54 @@ async fn test_empty_schema_and_table_names_rejected(#[future] pool: PgPool) {
 #[tokio::test]
 async fn test_schema_name_case_sensitivity(#[future] pool: PgPool) {
     let pool = pool.await;
-    
+
-    // Test that schema names are properly case-sensitive
+    // First, verify that uppercase letters are rejected
+    let invalid_request = PostTableDefinitionRequest {
+        profile_name: "TestSchema".into(), // Contains uppercase - should be rejected
+        table_name: "test_table".into(),
+        columns: vec![],
+        indexes: vec![],
+        links: vec![],
+    };
+    let result = post_table_definition(&pool, invalid_request).await;
+    assert!(result.is_err());
+    let err = result.unwrap_err();
+    assert_eq!(err.code(), Code::InvalidArgument);
+    assert!(err.message().contains("contains invalid characters"));
+
+    // Now test with valid lowercase names - create first schema
     let request1 = PostTableDefinitionRequest {
-        profile_name: "TestSchema".into(),
+        profile_name: "test_schema_a".into(),
         table_name: "test_table".into(),
         columns: vec![],
         indexes: vec![],
         links: vec![],
     };
     post_table_definition(&pool, request1).await.unwrap();
-    
+
-    // Different case should be treated as different schema
+    // Different lowercase schema should work fine
     let request2 = PostTableDefinitionRequest {
-        profile_name: "testschema".into(),
+        profile_name: "test_schema_b".into(),
-        table_name: "test_table".into(),
+        table_name: "test_table".into(), // Same table name, different schema
         columns: vec![],
         indexes: vec![],
         links: vec![],
     };
-    let result = post_table_definition(&pool, request2).await;
+    let result2 = post_table_definition(&pool, request2).await;
-    // Under case-insensitive profiles this must collide
+    assert!(result2.is_ok(), "Different schemas should allow same table names");
-    assert!(result.is_err(), "Expected duplicate‐schema error");
+
-    let err = result.unwrap_err();
+    // Same schema name should cause table collision
-    // pick the right code for “already exists” in your handler
+    let request3 = PostTableDefinitionRequest {
-    assert_eq!(err.code(), Code::AlreadyExists, "{:?}", err);
+        profile_name: "test_schema_a".into(), // Same schema as request1
+        table_name: "test_table".into(),      // Same table name as request1
+        columns: vec![],
+        indexes: vec![],
+        links: vec![],
+    };
+    let result3 = post_table_definition(&pool, request3).await;
+    assert!(result3.is_err(), "Same schema + table should cause collision");
+    let err3 = result3.unwrap_err();
+    assert_eq!(err3.code(), Code::AlreadyExists);
 }
 
 #[rstest]