fix(billing): migrate default packs to the V4 pricing-card schema

[PierreBrisorgueil]

Summary

• What changed: Migrated the devkit default packs static content from the legacy { packId, label, priceUsd, meterUnits, featureSections } shape to the V4 unified pricing-card schema ({ id, title, subtitle, price:{amount,period}, cta, features, meta:{packId,priceUsd,meterUnits} }) that BillingCardComponent requires. Also adapted billing.subscriptions.component.vue's extrasPacks getter at the consumer boundary so the extras-checkout modal (which still expects the legacy flat shape) maps correctly from the same V4 static-content source, fixed stale docstrings that told downstream projects to edit/override this stack-managed file directly (real contract is config.billing.staticContent, resolved by billing.resolveStaticContent.js), and genericized demo pack copy (scrap runs → compute jobs, autofix sessions → automation runs) plus a misleading "Saves ~10%" claim (large pack is actually ~45% cheaper per-unit) for the public repo.
• Why: plans were migrated to the V4 schema in 53ec981 but packs were missed. Opening /pricing#units crashed on the unguarded item.price.amount read (packs had no price object), and item.id being undefined (packs used packId) no-opped the CTA.
• Related issues: Closes 🐛 Migrate default packs to the V4 pricing-card schema #4458

Scope

• Modules impacted: billing
• Cross-module impact: none
• Risk level: low (static demo content + one adapter getter, no backend/contract changes; Stripe-facing packId/priceUsd/meterUnits values preserved unchanged under meta)

Validation

• npm run lint
• npm run test:unit
• npm run build
• Manual checks done (if applicable)

Tests: new suites render/click against the REAL packs export from billing.static-content.js (not a hand-written V4 mock) in both billing.packs.component.unit.tests.js and billing.subscriptions.component.unit.tests.js — verified red (reproduced the exact /pricing#units crash) against the pre-fix shape, green after. Full suite: 2474 tests green, build green.

Guardrails check

• No secrets or credentials introduced (.env*, secrets/**, keys, tokens)
• No risky rename/move of core stack paths
• Changes remain merge-friendly for downstream projects
• Tests added or updated when behavior changed

Notes for reviewers

• Security considerations: none — static demo content only, no auth/data paths touched.
• Mergeability considerations: billing.static-content.js is stack-managed (wiped by /update-stack --theirs); downstream projects customize via config.billing.staticContent, unaffected by this change.
• Follow-up tasks (optional): none.

https://claude.ai/code/session_01WfNC8bt1TgL4AsiYgCEGup

Summary by CodeRabbit

• New Features

  • Updated billing pack content with clearer pricing, descriptions, calls to action, and feature details.
  • Improved compatibility between billing pack displays and extras checkout.

• Bug Fixes

  • Fixed fallback billing packs so extras checkout consistently receives valid pack IDs, prices, and usage units.

• Tests

  • Added coverage for rendering real billing packs, displaying prices and IDs, and starting checkout with the correct pack.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

@PierreBrisorgueil, you've reached your PR review limit, so we couldn't start this review.

Next review available in: 49 minutes

Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available.
You're only billed for reviews past your plan's rate limits ($0.25/file).

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews.

How do review limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window.

Please refer docs for additional details.

Review details

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 19ad371a-73dc-4dea-8da2-405c25d92391

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between de47ec0 and cef9ab3.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• src/modules/billing/config/billing.static-content.js

Walkthrough

Default billing packs now use the V4 pricing-card schema. Subscription extras checkout adapts those packs to its legacy modal contract, with regression tests covering real static content, card rendering, identifiers, and checkout mapping.

Changes

Billing pack migration

Layer / File(s)	Summary
V4 pack schema src/modules/billing/config/billing.static-content.js	Default packs now expose V4 card fields, flattened features, and aligned metadata; static-content documentation describes stack-managed overrides.
Real pack card validation src/modules/billing/tests/billing.packs.component.unit.tests.js	Tests render the real packs, validate price.amount and id, and verify CTA checkout uses the pack identifier.
Extras checkout boundary adapter src/modules/billing/components/billing.subscriptions.component.vue, src/modules/billing/tests/billing.subscriptions.component.unit.tests.js	The fallback converts V4 packs into { packId, label, priceUsd, meterUnits }, with tests verifying values from real static content.

Estimated code review effort: 3 (Moderate) | ~20 minutes

Possibly related PRs

• pierreb-devkit/Vue#4102: Also changes the static billing packs schema.
• pierreb-devkit/Vue#4166: Also changes packsConfig sourcing and extras-pack handling.

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly summarizes the main change: migrating default billing packs to the V4 pricing-card schema.
Description check	✅ Passed	The description includes the required summary, scope, validation, guardrails, and reviewer notes in the expected template.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	The changes satisfy #4458 by migrating packs to V4, adapting the extras modal boundary, updating docs, and adding real-export tests.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	The extra edits stay within billing static content, docs, copy, and tests, with no clear unrelated changes introduced.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch fix/4458-packs-v4-schema

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 99.56%. Comparing base (1f7cce7) to head (cef9ab3).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #4463   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   99.56%   99.56%           
=======================================
  Files          35       35           
  Lines        1391     1391           
  Branches      436      436           
=======================================
  Hits         1385     1385           
  Misses          6        6           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 2

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

Inline comments:
In `@src/modules/billing/config/billing.static-content.js`:
- Around line 9-10: Update the documentation comment in
billing.static-content.js to clarify that explicit null overrides are honored
only for display-optional keys. Document that billing.resolveStaticContent.js
replaces null plans, packs, and faqs values with the devkit defaults as a
structural-key exception, while preserving the existing precedence description.
- Line 176: Update the expiration text entries in the billing static content,
including the lines corresponding to “Never expires (24mo)” and the two
additional occurrences, so each states one consistent policy: either credits
expire after 24 months or never expire. Ensure no copy combines “never expires”
with a 24-month limit.

🪄 Autofix (Beta)

Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:

• Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
• Create a new PR with the fixes

---

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 57d47d8c-6001-4531-9e84-d933278c5dfb

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 1f7cce7 and de47ec0.

📒 Files selected for processing (4)

• src/modules/billing/components/billing.subscriptions.component.vue
• src/modules/billing/config/billing.static-content.js
• src/modules/billing/tests/billing.packs.component.unit.tests.js
• src/modules/billing/tests/billing.subscriptions.component.unit.tests.js