ADR-146: Three more editorial writers, and what the third one reviewed 

Context 

Two writing tools shipped: update_page_metadata (ADR-135) and set_file_alternative_text. Both set named scalar fields on one existing record. ADR-141 then closed the gap that made them theoretical — the write fence now arms on every executing segment, not only under a queue worker's lease — so a third, fourth and fifth writer inherit a fenced execution path rather than each re-establishing one.

ADR-135 scheduled a review for exactly this moment:

"The next trigger is the third writer — and the question then is whether anything the trait deliberately left per tool has become common, not whether the trait should grow."

This record adds the three writers and answers that question with what five implementations actually show.

Decision 

Three more purpose-built editorial tools, on the terms the first two established: disabled by default, in the editing group, with an explicit ToolEffect, a human approval before every call (ADR-134), a preview at suspend (ADR-136), a write through the DataHandler under the acting user's permissions (ADR-083), a read-after-write verification, and a refusal vocabulary that never confirms a uid exists.

move_content_element

Moves one content element to a page and a column. Nothing is created and nothing is destroyed: the record keeps its uid, its content, its language, its history and its references. That is what makes it the safest of the three, and why it is the only one of them that is idempotent.

Both ends are authorised with Permission::CONTENT_EDIT. Moving an element out of a page edits that page's content as much as moving one in, so one grant is not enough. An after_content_uid anchor must be on the target page and in the same language; a wrong anchor is refused rather than silently corrected, because placing the element "somewhere" would be a correction of an instruction the model got wrong.

The destination column is always sent explicitly, through the DataHandler's extended paste form (['action' => 'paste', 'target' => …, 'update' => ['colPos' => …]]), so the element lands where the approval card said it would even when the anchor sits in a column the caller did not expect.

create_content_element_draft

Creates one content element. The first writer that brings a record into being, and every part of it is arranged to keep that commitment small:

• Always hidden. There is no argument to switch it off. Publishing is a separate act with a separate audience, and the approval that let the tool run approved a draft.
• The content type is an allow-list intersected with the live TCA: header, text, textmedia, bullets, and only those an installation declares. Types whose payload is configuration rather than prose — list, html, shortcut — are unreachable.
• The field set is fixed: headline, body, column, language, position.

bodytext reaches the DataHandler and its RTE transformation exactly as an editor's input does. It is bounded in length and not otherwise filtered: an editor may write the same markup by hand, and a tool enforcing a rule the CMS does not have would be enforcing a rule nobody agreed to.

create_translation_draft

Localizes one page or content element by running core's own localize command rather than copying fields between records. Connected-mode translations, the translation parent, inline children and every localisation hook are core's business; a second implementation would drift.

Two things are added on top, and both are the reason the tool exists:

• The result is hidden. localize copies the source's visibility, so a translation of a live page would go live the moment it was created.
• An existing translation stops the call, named in the refusal. overwrite is the only way past it: it deletes that translation through the DataHandler — recoverably (deleted = 1) and in sys_log — and the approval card carries that on a line of its own, so an approver who skims cannot miss it.

What is not re-implemented: whether the target language exists for the record's site, and whether the source is a well-formed default-language record. Core's DataHandler::localize() checks both. Its permission bar is not reused — it asks only for Permission::PAGE_SHOW, which is far too weak for a write, so the tool checks PAGE_EDIT (for a page) or CONTENT_EDIT (for an element) itself.

The effects diverge, exactly as ADR-135 predicted 

ADR-135 kept getEffect() per tool against the argument that "a third writer may be admin-only or non-idempotent, and a trait answering for it would turn a decision into an inheritance". That was a prediction. It is now an observation:

The two creations are not repeatable for different reasons, and both matter to an at-least-once runtime (ADR-104):

• create_content_element_draft has no caller-supplied key, so a repeat leaves two drafts where one was asked for.
• create_translation_draft is worse than that. Without overwrite a repeat refuses, so a reaped run that already succeeded would report failure for a write that happened; with overwrite it discards a translation a human may have started editing between the two attempts. Both are wrong answers, and a runtime must not produce either on its own.

Had the trait answered getEffect() for all writers, the fourth one would have inherited IDEMPOTENT_WRITE silently and the reaper would have been free to double it.

The review ADR-135 scheduled 

What has become common: one thing, and it is a query rather than a decision. Four of the five writers read a row by uid with only the deleted restriction. The restriction choice is the same in all four for the same stated reason: a hidden or timed-out record is still a record an editor may work on.

That answer needed splitting once it was measured. The duplication detector put the three new tools at 5.1 % new duplicated lines against a 3 % gate, and named 191 lines across them — not only the lookup but the unknown-argument refusal and the viewer gate, all three written three times in one pull request. Three copies made in one sitting are copy-paste, not three decisions, so they are extracted into PlansOneEditorialWriteTrait, used by exactly the three tools that share the shape. The two shipped writers keep their own lookups and are not touched.

What has not: everything else the trait left per tool, and each for the reason it was left:

• The neutral refusal string. Four distinct strings now, because each pairs with the shape of what its tool addresses — a page, an asset, a content element, a record of either table. A shared string would break that pairing four ways instead of two.
• The authorisation. Four different decisions: Permission::PAGE_EDIT on the record itself, CONTENT_EDIT on its page, CONTENT_EDIT on two pages, and a permission that depends on which table is being translated.
• The read-back. Five different shapes: a field map against a re-read row, one column of one record, a position, a created row's identity, and a translation's language-plus-parent-plus-hidden triple.
• The four declarations. See above — they diverged.

The decision: WritesThroughDataHandlerTrait does not grow. The question ADR-135 posed was what has become common across the writers, and the honest answer is a row lookup, not a mechanism. That trait carries what all five share; putting a query into it means either binding it to pages or adding a generic getter, and it means editing two shipped, tested writers to route through it. Neither buys what the trait bought the first time, which was that a decision stopped being made twice.

A second trait for the three tools that genuinely do share a shape is a different question and costs neither. The two traits are separated by what they answer: mechanics every writer performs, versus the consequences of resolving and authorising once for both the write and its preview.

One resolution for the write and the preview 

The three new tools share a shape the first two do not: a private plan() that resolves and authorises everything once, returning either the plan or the refusal message, and is called by both execute() and previewCall(). PlansOneEditorialWriteTrait declares it abstract and builds on it: the viewer gate is plan() asked about the viewer instead of the acting user, which is why one trait can carry it for all three.

It exists because these three have more to get right than a field map. The approver must read the destination the write will actually use — a computed column, an anchor, a translation that is about to be discarded — and two implementations of "where does this land" would eventually disagree with each other in front of somebody about to press Approve.

update_page_metadata and set_file_alternative_text are not retrofitted to it. They are shipped, tested code, the review ADR-135 asked for was about the trait rather than about the writers, and rewriting a working implementation to match a newer one is a change nobody asked for. A sixth writer should use plan().

Consequences 

✓ Five editorial writes are available where two were, each still one named act on one record.

✓ The write fence, the approval pause, the preview and the fail-closed audit apply to all five without any of them arranging it — that is what ADR-141 bought.

✓ NON_IDEMPOTENT_WRITE has real consumers for the first time. The retry decision that reads the persisted effect was previously exercised only by tests.

✕ create_translation_draft's overwrite is genuinely destructive. It is behind the approval pause, it names the translation it will discard, and the deletion is recoverable and logged — but a human who approves without reading loses work.

✕ The row lookup still exists twice — once in each of the two shipped writers, which this record deliberately does not touch. Only the three new tools share one.

✕ create_content_element_draft can create a free-mode element in a non-default language, which is legitimate but is not a translation. The tool description says so on the wire and points at create_translation_draft; a model that ignores both produces an element an editor has to clean up.

Revisit when 

A sixth writer is proposed, or any writer needs to write more than one record per call. The one-record rule is what makes every refusal whole and every preview readable; a tool that batches would need a different answer to "what did the approver agree to", not a bigger version of this one.

Also revisit if NON_IDEMPOTENT_WRITE ever produces a reaped run in practice. The effect is declared and the runtime honours it, but no production installation has yet had one abandoned mid-creation, so the failure path is argued rather than observed.