/**
 * The intake form's fields. Spec: docs/05-backend-spec.md §Form fields.
 *
 * ⚠️ **THE LAMBDA HAS ITS OWN COPY OF THIS TABLE, AND THAT DUPLICATION IS
 * DELIBERATE — IT IS NOT THE SES-DKIM SHAPE.** `docs/05` is explicit: *"Client
 * side validation is a convenience. The Lambda re-validates everything."* A
 * server that validates against a list the client shipped it is not validating;
 * it is asking the attacker what the rules are. So `backend/intake/handler.mjs`
 * carries an independent table and trusts nothing from here.
 *
 * What stops the two drifting is a check rather than a shared import:
 * **`npm run check:intake`** asserts that the two tables agree on every field
 * name, on which are required, and on every length cap — and fails the build
 * script if they do not. Independent validation, mechanically cross-checked. If
 * you add a field here, add it there, and the check will tell you if you didn't.
 *
 * WHAT THIS DATA IS, because it changes how the form is built (`docs/05`): in a
 * live legal dispute this collects the inquirer's identity, **the names of
 * opposing parties and their counsel**, and the nature of the dispute. That is
 * personal information about identifiable third parties who have not consented
 * and do not know the submission happened. Hence: no dollar amounts, no
 * uploads, an explicit unchecked consent box, and a matter summary whose hint
 * tells the writer not to put privileged detail in it.
 */

export type IntakeField = {
  name: string;
  label: string;
  /** `select` and `radio` carry `options`; everything else does not. */
  type: 'text' | 'email' | 'tel' | 'select' | 'radio' | 'textarea' | 'checkbox';
  required: boolean;
  /** Maximum characters. The Lambda REJECTS over this rather than truncating —
   *  a silently truncated matter summary is a misread file. */
  max?: number;
  options?: readonly string[];
  /** Rendered under the field. */
  hint?: string;
  /** `autocomplete` token, where one genuinely applies. Omitted rather than
   *  guessed: a wrong token makes a browser fill the wrong value. */
  autocomplete?: string;
};

/**
 * ⚠️ **DO NOT ADD A DOLLAR-AMOUNT FIELD.** `docs/05`: *"Do not collect dollar
 * amounts, document uploads, or anything the inquirer might reasonably treat as
 * privileged. The intake call is for that."* The old site invented matter values;
 * this form is the one place a real one could arrive and then need storing.
 */
export const INTAKE_FIELDS: readonly IntakeField[] = [
  {
    name: 'name',
    label: 'Your name',
    type: 'text',
    required: true,
    max: 120,
    autocomplete: 'name',
  },
  {
    name: 'email',
    label: 'Email',
    type: 'email',
    required: true,
    max: 254, // RFC 5321 maximum path length; not a round number by choice.
    autocomplete: 'email',
  },
  {
    name: 'phone',
    label: 'Phone',
    type: 'tel',
    required: false,
    max: 40,
    autocomplete: 'tel',
    hint: 'Optional.',
  },
  {
    name: 'role',
    label: 'Your role',
    type: 'select',
    required: true,
    options: ['Counsel', 'In-house', 'Party', 'Institution', 'Other'],
  },
  {
    name: 'organisation',
    label: 'Firm or organisation',
    type: 'text',
    required: false,
    max: 160,
    autocomplete: 'organization',
  },
  {
    name: 'process',
    label: 'Process sought',
    type: 'select',
    required: true,
    /* The five from docs/05. "ENE" is expanded here because this is a form label
       read by a party as well as by counsel, and §11's glossary authority is
       about site copy rather than about abbreviating in a select. */
    options: [
      'Mediation',
      'Arbitration',
      'Med-Arb',
      'Early neutral evaluation',
      'Not sure',
    ],
  },
  {
    name: 'practiceArea',
    label: 'Subject matter',
    type: 'select',
    required: true,
    /* THE SIX AREAS PLUS OTHER. Deliberately the short display names rather
       than `PRACTICE_AREAS[].name`: those carry the full "Construction &
       Infrastructure" form for a card heading, and a select is not a card. The
       cross-check in `scripts/check-intake.mjs` compares these against the
       handler's list, and `PRACTICE_SLUGS` remains the site's own source for
       which areas exist. */
    options: [
      'Construction',
      'Technology',
      'Energy',
      'Insurance',
      'Shareholder',
      'Cross-border',
      'Other',
    ],
  },
  {
    name: 'otherParties',
    label: 'Other parties',
    type: 'text',
    required: false,
    max: 300,
    hint: 'Needed to run a conflicts check. Names only.',
  },
  {
    name: 'opposingCounsel',
    label: 'Opposing counsel',
    type: 'text',
    required: false,
    max: 300,
    hint: 'Also for the conflicts check.',
  },
  {
    name: 'summary',
    label: 'What the dispute is about',
    type: 'textarea',
    required: true,
    max: 2000,
    hint: 'A few sentences is enough. Please do not include privileged or confidential detail — that is what the intake call is for.',
  },
  {
    name: 'timing',
    label: 'Timing',
    type: 'select',
    required: false,
    options: ['Urgent', 'Within 30 days', 'Within 90 days', 'Exploring'],
  },
  {
    name: 'preferredContact',
    label: 'Preferred reply',
    type: 'radio',
    required: false,
    options: ['Email', 'Phone'],
  },
];

/**
 * THE CONSENT TEXT, VERBATIM FROM `docs/05` §Consent text. It is a legal notice
 * the inquirer agrees to, so it is rendered from here and never retyped or
 * reworded to fit a layout. Note that it says the same three things
 * `NO_RETAINER_NOTICE` says — that constant is the site-wide statement and this
 * is the one the inquirer ticks; both ship on `/contact/`, which is deliberate:
 * `docs/01` requires the page to carry the notice, and `docs/05` requires the
 * checkbox to carry it too.
 *
 * ⚠️ **IT NAMES SML COMPANY LTD — Pouya's ruling, 2026-09-02 — AND THREE
 * CONSTRAINTS RIDE ON THAT.** **Name only, no terminal period**, and never
 * beside the licence-status row (`AGENTS.md` §4). **`docs/05` §Consent text is a
 * byte-identical second copy with no `check:` script over it**, so it moves with
 * this string. And **`/legal/privacy/` must keep naming the same party** — it
 * does, under §Why it is collected; a consent naming a company the linked policy
 * never mentions is an accountability gap, not a matter of voice.
 */
export const CONSENT_TEXT =
  'I consent to SML Company Ltd storing and using the information in this form ' +
  'to respond to my inquiry and to run a conflicts check. I understand that ' +
  'submitting this form does not create a retainer, does not appoint a neutral, ' +
  'and does not itself establish a mediator–party relationship.';

/**
 * The honeypot. `docs/05`: *"hidden from sighted and screen-reader users, must
 * be empty"*.
 *
 * ⚠️ **`display: none` PLUS `tabindex="-1"` PLUS `aria-hidden`, AND THE NAME
 * MATTERS.** A honeypot named `honeypot` is skipped by any bot worth stopping;
 * one named like a real field is filled. `company_website` is a plausible field
 * on a professional intake form and is not one this form has. It must never be
 * reachable by keyboard or announced by a screen reader — a honeypot that traps
 * a screen-reader user is an accessibility defect that also loses a real inquiry.
 */
export const HONEYPOT_FIELD = 'company_website';

/**
 * WHERE THE FORM POSTS — AND IT IS A SAME-ORIGIN PATH, NOT THE API GATEWAY
 * HOSTNAME. This is a design decision with four consequences, taken at step 8
 * and recorded because the obvious implementation is the other one.
 *
 * The obvious version posts to the execute-api hostname `AGENTS.md` §7 records.
 * Posting to `/api/intake` instead, with a CloudFront behaviour routing `/api/*`
 * to that origin:
 *
 *  1. **`Content-Security-Policy: form-action 'self'`** — `docs/05` specifies
 *     `form-action 'self' <api-endpoint>`; with a same-origin post the second
 *     term is unnecessary, so the policy is strictly tighter.
 *  2. **No cross-origin POST at all**, so no CORS question for the form. (CORS
 *     never governed it anyway — a form POST is a top-level navigation, not an
 *     XHR, so it is exempt from preflight. `docs/05`'s CORS line protects the
 *     endpoint against scripted calls from other origins, which is a different
 *     control, and the handler's `Origin` check is what covers the form.)
 *  3. **The endpoint id stays out of the HTML.** ⚠️ It is NOT true that §7 is
 *     the only place it lives, and this bullet said so: `.env.example` still
 *     sets `PUBLIC_INTAKE_ENDPOINT` to the full execute-api hostname. That
 *     variable is now read by nothing, so the line is dead as well as
 *     duplicative. It is not edited here because this environment denies read
 *     access to `.env.example`, and nothing may edit a file it cannot read —
 *     it is in the batched list for Pouya instead. Found by
 *     `adversarial-reviewer` round 2, against an unscoped sweep.
 *  4. **Submitting locally does nothing.** `astro dev` has no `/api/` route, so
 *     a POST 404s. Under the alternative, clicking Submit on a laptop would
 *     write a real DynamoDB record and send two real emails.
 *
 * ⚠️ **THE COST, STATED RATHER THAN LEFT TO BE DISCOVERED: THE FORM DOES NOT
 * WORK UNTIL THAT CLOUDFRONT BEHAVIOUR EXISTS AND THE HANDLER IS DEPLOYED.**
 * Neither has been done — nothing on this project deploys before cutover (D11),
 * and both are checklist items in `docs/06`. Until then the page is complete and
 * the pipe behind it is not, which is why `/contact/` also publishes the email
 * address rather than treating the form as the only way in.
 */
export const INTAKE_ACTION = '/api/intake';