pastilhas rendered on the Jellyfin side with nothing opposite it, labelled as belonging to nobody —
reported by the owner, about their own name, which is the only line on that screen that could not
possibly be true.
The cause is a correct exclusion used for the wrong question. `listProvisionableUsers` leaves the
owner out on purpose: they hold the admin account this flow authenticates as, and provisioning them
would be a second admin nobody asked for. But this view is not the provisioning list, it is "who
exists on each side", and an account absent from the input read as an account that does not exist.
So the viewer is looked up directly and joined onto the account the connection signs in as — known
exactly from `jellyfinUserId` on the server row, never matched by name. It gets its own state rather
than being called "linked", because there is no row in jellyfin_accounts and there should not be: it
is the credential, not a provisioned account. It is also excluded from the "Jellyfin only" count,
which was counting the one account both sides agree on as belonging to neither.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Provisioning was invisible. Connecting a server can create accounts, adopt accounts and leave
accounts alone, and the only record of which happened was a JSON field in a response nobody reads and
rows in a table nobody can see. "Did it work" could only be answered by opening Jellyfin and counting.
The nav entry is Settings rather than Connection, since it is now more than the connection.
The join is computed in the sidecar and shares `normalize` with the reconcile planner, so the screen
cannot disagree with the matching rule about whether Diogo and diogo are one person — a settings page
saying two would be lying about what the next connection will do. It joins by the link ROW first and
by folded name only where none exists: a recorded pairing is a fact, a matching name is a candidate.
Four states, because they mean different things — linked (adopted or created), names match but not
recorded yet, Officer account with no Jellyfin one, and a Jellyfin account with no Officer user. The
last is never touched, and a linked pairing whose Jellyfin account has vanished is shown as such
rather than silently re-matched by name.
"Not known" is kept distinct from "none": if the platform has not sent the account list, or the
server cannot be reached, it says so instead of rendering an empty table that would read as a fact
about the server.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
pastilhasandClaude Opus 5