give each member their own immich account and key

Photos had no user provisioning at all: one registry row, the owner's, and
every other account resolving to nothing. Same shape as the Jellyfin gap, but
this one was never built rather than built and dropped.

photos_accounts records who on Officer is who on Immich, and carries that
person's own API key. getConfig falls back to it when the caller has no
registry of their own, and there is no path from there to the owner's key —
an Immich key with permissions:['all'] can read and delete the whole library,
so a member resolving to it would be administering everyone's photographs
rather than reading their own.

Matching is on email, which Immich enforces uniqueness on and Officer already
holds. That is exact where the Jellyfin side has to go through an uppercased
username index and cope with two Officer names colliding into one.

Two deliberate differences from the Jellyfin flow:

The admin's own account is reported as itself, not as "no Officer account".
That bug shipped there and was fixed in 591c0da; there was no reason to write
it twice, so reconcile takes the key's identity from /api/users/me and the
test pins it.

And the temporary password is HANDED OVER rather than discarded. Jellyfin
discards because it has no must-change-password flag, so anything handed over
stays valid forever. Immich has one, and Immich's own app is where phone
backup runs — discarding would leave a photo account that can never back a
phone up again. So: set a password, spend it on a key, raise
shouldChangePassword, return it once. POST /_config/:id/handover re-issues on
demand, because "setting up my phone" happens long after provisioning and more
than once. Verified against the running 3.1.0 image that an API key survives a
password change, so re-issuing never costs Officer its access.

Applied on alpha: conceiba and fedra linked, guipinto and diogo created, all
four keyed and each resolving to their own Immich identity. jrg.conceicao left
alone. Members still need the photos grant on the Member role before the
permission gate lets them through.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

db/schema.ts

@@ -47,3 +47,66 @@ export const photosConfig = pgTable(
       .where(sql`${t.isActive}`),
   ],
 );
+
+// ── Which Officer account owns which Immich account ──
+//
+// The same shape as `jellyfin_accounts`, and for the same reason: Officer's users and Immich's are two
+// populations that overlap, and this records where they meet. Without it a member has a permission grant,
+// a dock tile, and no credential — which reads as a permissions fault and is not one.
+//
+// ── Matching is on EMAIL, not a username ──
+//
+// This is the one real difference from the Jellyfin side, and it is a simplification. Immich identifies an
+// account by email and enforces uniqueness on it, while Jellyfin has usernames and a case-folded
+// `NormalizedUsername` index to match against. Officer's `users.email` is therefore the same key on both
+// sides, so pairing is an exact lookup rather than a convention. `normalizedEmail` is lowercased, because
+// Immich lowercases what it stores (`ZodEmail` with a transform) and a mixed-case address would otherwise
+// fail to match the account it just created.
+//
+// ── `adopted` earns its column here too ──
+//
+// False means Officer created the account and may remove it. True means it pre-existed and was merely
+// linked — on this server `conceiba@gmail.com` and `fedrasantamaria@gmail.com` both had Immich accounts,
+// with photographs in them, before Officer knew who they were.
+export const photosAccounts = pgTable(
+  'photos_accounts',
+  {
+    id: serial('id').primaryKey(),
+    userId: integer('user_id')
+      .notNull()
+      .references(() => users.id, { onDelete: 'cascade' }),
+    /** Which registry row this account lives on. Immich users are per-instance. */
+    configId: integer('config_id')
+      .notNull()
+      .references(() => photosConfig.id, { onDelete: 'cascade' }),
+    /** Immich's own user id — a UUID. The only handle its admin API accepts. */
+    immichUserId: text('immich_user_id').notNull(),
+    /** As Immich holds it, for display. */
+    immichEmail: text('immich_email').notNull(),
+    /** Lowercased, mirroring what Immich stores. What matching compares. */
+    normalizedEmail: text('normalized_email').notNull(),
+    /** False = Officer created it and may remove it. True = it pre-existed and was linked. */
+    adopted: boolean('adopted').notNull().default(false),
+    /**
+     * That person's OWN Immich API key, encrypted — the credential their Officer session reads the library
+     * with.
+     *
+     * Nullable, and null is a real state rather than an error: minting requires a session, a session
+     * requires a password, and a password is not always ours to set. Null resolves to the 503 the UI
+     * already knows how to explain, never to the owner's key.
+     *
+     * An Immich key survives a later password change — `UserAdminService.update` hashes and writes the
+     * password and touches nothing else, verified against the running 3.1.0 image. That is what makes it
+     * safe to hand somebody a temporary password for their own mobile app without this going stale.
+     */
+    apiKey: text('api_key'), // encrypted
+    linkedAt: timestamp('linked_at', { withTimezone: true }).notNull().defaultNow(),
+  },
+  (t) => [
+    // One Immich account per Officer user per instance. uniqueIndex, not unique().on() — drizzle-kit
+    // re-creates named composite CONSTRAINTS on every push. See src/databases/CLAUDE.md.
+    uniqueIndex('uq_photos_accounts_user_config').on(t.userId, t.configId),
+    // And one Officer user per Immich account: two people cannot share a library.
+    uniqueIndex('uq_photos_accounts_config_immich_user').on(t.configId, t.immichUserId),
+  ],
+);