feat(validate): flag bare field refs in record-scoped CEL sites (#1928) (#1931)

A Field.formula and an object validation predicate evaluate against the
`record` namespace only (no field flattening), so a bare top-level identifier
(`amount`, `status`) resolves to nothing and the expression silently evaluates
to null / never fires — the silent-at-runtime class behind #1927.

`validateExpression` gains an evaluation `scope`; for `scope: 'record'` it
reports a bare reference with the corrective `record.<field>` form. It acts only
on cel-js's `Unknown variable` fault, so it cannot false-positive on
arithmetic/comparison/null-guard overloads. Flow & automation conditions keep
the default `scope: 'flattened'` — the record's fields are spread to top-level
there alongside flow variables, so bare refs are correct and NOT flagged.
`objectstack compile` wires record scope for field formulas + validation
predicates; flow conditions stay flattened.

Also fixes three latent bare-ref bugs surfaced by the new check:
- crm_lead validation `lead_score_range` (rule silently never fired)
- showcase field_zoo `f_formula`, showcase project `budget_remaining` (null)

Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

Author: os-zhuang

.changeset/validate-formula-bare-refs.md

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+---
+"@objectstack/formula": patch
+"@objectstack/cli": patch
+---
+
+feat(validate): flag bare field references in record-scoped CEL sites at build time
+
+A `Field.formula` and an object validation predicate evaluate against the
+`record` namespace only — there is no field flattening — so a bare top-level
+identifier (`amount`, `status`) resolves to nothing and the expression silently
+evaluates to `null` / never fires. This is the silent-at-runtime class behind
+the broken example-crm formulas (#1927) and is exactly what AI authors get wrong.
+
+`validateExpression` now takes an evaluation `scope` and, for `scope: 'record'`,
+reports a bare reference with the corrective form (`write record.<field>`). The
+check is schema-free and acts only on cel-js's `Unknown variable` fault, so it
+cannot false-positive on arithmetic/comparison/null-guard type overloads. Flow
+and automation conditions keep the default `scope: 'flattened'` — the record's
+fields ARE spread to top-level there (alongside flow variables), so bare refs
+are correct and are NOT flagged. `objectstack compile` wires `record` scope for
+field formulas and validation predicates; flow conditions stay flattened.

examples/app-crm/src/objects/lead.object.ts

@@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ export const Lead = ObjectSchema.create({
       name: 'lead_score_range',
       label: 'Lead Score 0–100',
       description: 'Lead score must be between 0 and 100.',
-      condition: P`lead_score != null && (lead_score < 0 || lead_score > 100)`,
+      condition: P`record.lead_score != null && (record.lead_score < 0 || record.lead_score > 100)`,
       message: 'Lead score must be between 0 and 100.',
     },
   ],

examples/app-showcase/src/objects/field-zoo.object.ts

@@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ export const FieldZoo = ObjectSchema.create({
     // ── Calculated / system ──────────────────────────────────────────────
     f_formula: Field.formula({
       label: 'Formula (number × percent)',
-      expression: cel`(f_number == null ? 0 : f_number) * (f_percent == null ? 0 : f_percent) / 100`,
+      expression: cel`(record.f_number == null ? 0 : record.f_number) * (record.f_percent == null ? 0 : record.f_percent) / 100`,
     }),
     f_summary: Field.summary({ label: 'Roll-up Summary' }),
     f_autonumber: Field.autonumber({ label: 'Auto Number' }),

examples/app-showcase/src/objects/project.object.ts

@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ export const Project = ObjectSchema.create({
     spent: Field.currency({ label: 'Spent', scale: 2, min: 0, defaultValue: 0 }),
     budget_remaining: Field.formula({
       label: 'Budget Remaining',
-      expression: cel`(budget == null ? 0 : budget) - (spent == null ? 0 : spent)`,
+      expression: cel`(record.budget == null ? 0 : record.budget) - (record.spent == null ? 0 : record.spent)`,
     }),
     start_date: Field.date({ label: 'Start Date' }),
     end_date: Field.date({ label: 'Target End Date' }),

packages/cli/src/utils/validate-expressions.test.ts

@@ -129,4 +129,67 @@ describe('validateStackExpressions (ADR-0032 build-time)', () => {
     expect(issues).toHaveLength(1);
     expect(issues[0].message).toMatch(/invoke_function.*no .*function/i);
   });
+
+  // #1928 — bare field references are silently null in `record`-scoped sites
+  // (field formulas + validation predicates) but correct in flattened flow
+  // conditions. The validator wires the scope per site.
+  describe('bare-reference detection by site scope (#1928)', () => {
+    it('flags a bare reference in a field formula', () => {
+      const issues = validateStackExpressions({
+        objects: [{
+          name: 'crm_opportunity',
+          fields: {
+            amount: { type: 'currency' },
+            probability: { type: 'percent' },
+            expected_revenue: { type: 'formula', name: 'expected_revenue', formula: 'amount * probability / 100' },
+          },
+        }],
+      });
+      expect(issues).toHaveLength(1);
+      expect(issues[0].where).toContain("field 'expected_revenue' formula");
+      expect(issues[0].message).toMatch(/bare reference `(amount|probability)`/);
+    });
+
+    it('flags a bare reference in a validation predicate', () => {
+      const issues = validateStackExpressions({
+        objects: [{
+          name: 'crm_lead',
+          fields: { lead_score: { type: 'number' } },
+          validations: [{ name: 'lead_score_range', expression: 'lead_score != null && lead_score > 100' }],
+        }],
+      });
+      expect(issues).toHaveLength(1);
+      expect(issues[0].where).toContain("validation 'lead_score_range'");
+      expect(issues[0].message).toMatch(/bare reference `lead_score`/);
+    });
+
+    it('accepts the record-qualified forms', () => {
+      const issues = validateStackExpressions({
+        objects: [{
+          name: 'crm_opportunity',
+          fields: {
+            amount: { type: 'currency' },
+            probability: { type: 'percent' },
+            expected_revenue: { type: 'formula', name: 'expected_revenue', formula: 'record.amount * record.probability / 100' },
+          },
+          validations: [{ name: 'amt', expression: 'record.amount != null && record.amount >= 0' }],
+        }],
+      });
+      expect(issues).toHaveLength(0);
+    });
+
+    it('does NOT flag bare references in a flow condition (flattened scope)', () => {
+      const issues = validateStackExpressions({
+        objects: [{ name: 'crm_opportunity', fields: { stage: { type: 'select' }, amount: { type: 'currency' } } }],
+        flows: [{
+          name: 'high_value_deal',
+          nodes: [
+            { id: 'start', type: 'start', config: { objectName: 'crm_opportunity', condition: 'amount > 100000 && previous.amount <= 100000' } },
+          ],
+          edges: [{ id: 'e1', source: 'start', target: 'end', condition: 'stage != "closed_won"' }],
+        }],
+      });
+      expect(issues).toHaveLength(0);
+    });
+  });
 });

packages/cli/src/utils/validate-expressions.ts

@@ -57,11 +57,16 @@ export function validateStackExpressions(stack: AnyRec): ExprIssue[] {
   const objects = asArray(stack.objects);
   const fieldIndex = buildFieldIndex(objects);
 
-  const check = (where: string, raw: unknown, objectName?: string): void => {
+  const check = (
+    where: string,
+    raw: unknown,
+    objectName?: string,
+    scope: 'record' | 'flattened' = 'flattened',
+  ): void => {
     if (raw == null) return;
     const fields = objectName ? fieldIndex.get(objectName) : undefined;
     const res = validateExpression('predicate', raw as string | { dialect?: string; source?: string },
-      objectName ? { objectName, fields } : undefined);
+      objectName ? { objectName, fields, scope } : { scope });
     for (const e of res.errors) issues.push({ where, message: e.message, source: e.source });
   };
 
@@ -126,8 +131,9 @@ export function validateStackExpressions(stack: AnyRec): ExprIssue[] {
     const validations = obj.validations ?? obj.validationRules;
     for (const rule of asArray(validations)) {
       const where = `object '${objectName}' · validation '${(rule.name as string) ?? '?'}'`;
-      // Common predicate keys across rule shapes.
-      check(where, rule.expression ?? rule.predicate ?? rule.condition ?? rule.formula, objectName);
+      // Common predicate keys across rule shapes. Validation predicates are
+      // `record`-scoped — no field flattening — so bare refs are flagged (#1928).
+      check(where, rule.expression ?? rule.predicate ?? rule.condition ?? rule.formula, objectName, 'record');
     }
     // Field-level formulas (computed fields) reference the same object.
     const fields = obj.fields;
@@ -136,9 +142,10 @@ export function validateStackExpressions(stack: AnyRec): ExprIssue[] {
       : (fields && typeof fields === 'object' ? Object.values(fields as AnyRec) as AnyRec[] : []);
     for (const f of fieldList) {
       if (f && typeof f === 'object' && f.formula) {
-        // formulas are `value` role (any return type), still CEL.
+        // formulas are `value` role (any return type), still CEL. They are
+        // `record`-scoped — `record.<field>`, never bare — so flag bare refs (#1928).
         const res = validateExpression('value', f.formula as string | { dialect?: string; source?: string },
-          objectName ? { objectName, fields: fieldIndex.get(objectName) } : undefined);
+          objectName ? { objectName, fields: fieldIndex.get(objectName), scope: 'record' } : { scope: 'record' });
         for (const e of res.errors) {
           issues.push({ where: `object '${objectName}' · field '${(f.name as string) ?? '?'}' formula`, message: e.message, source: e.source });
         }

packages/formula/src/cel-engine.ts

@@ -41,6 +41,71 @@ function buildEnv(now: () => Date): Environment {
   return registerNumericCoercions(registerStdLib(env, now));
 }
 
+/**
+ * Namespace roots that a `record`-scoped CEL site may legitimately reference.
+ * Declared as `map` (dyn values) so member access (`record.foo`) and any
+ * arithmetic/comparison on it defers to runtime — the strict env faults ONLY on
+ * an *undeclared* top-level identifier, i.e. a bare field reference. Generous on
+ * purpose: an unknown root is a missed catch, a missing root is a false positive
+ * that would break the build, so we err toward declaring more.
+ */
+const SCOPE_ROOTS = [
+  'record', 'previous', 'input', 'output', 'os', 'vars', 'variables',
+  'automation', 'context', 'args', 'item', 'env', 'user', 'step', 'result',
+  'trigger', 'event', 'payload', 'data', 'params', 'config', 'settings',
+] as const;
+
+/**
+ * A `record`-scoped environment (`unlistedVariablesAreDyn: false`) for detecting
+ * bare field references. It reuses the real stdlib so function calls don't fault;
+ * only undeclared *variables* do. Built once — `parse`/`check` do not mutate it.
+ */
+let scopedEnv: Environment | undefined;
+function getScopedEnv(): Environment {
+  if (scopedEnv) return scopedEnv;
+  const env = new Environment({
+    unlistedVariablesAreDyn: false,
+    enableOptionalTypes: true,
+    limits: DEFAULT_LIMITS,
+  });
+  registerStdLib(env, () => new Date(0));
+  for (const root of SCOPE_ROOTS) {
+    try { env.registerVariable(root, 'map'); } catch { /* duplicate — ignore */ }
+  }
+  scopedEnv = env;
+  return env;
+}
+
+/**
+ * In a `record`-scoped CEL site — a `Field.formula` or an object validation
+ * predicate — the evaluation scope binds only the `record`/`previous`/… *namespaces*
+ * (no field flattening). A bare top-level identifier like `amount` or `status`
+ * therefore resolves to nothing and the expression silently evaluates to `null`
+ * / never fires (#1928, the class behind #1927's broken formulas). Returns the
+ * first such bare reference, or `null`.
+ *
+ * Acts ONLY on cel-js's `Unknown variable: X` fault, so it cannot false-positive
+ * on arithmetic/comparison overloads — and it must NOT be applied to flow /
+ * automation conditions, where the record's fields ARE flattened to top-level
+ * and bare references are correct.
+ */
+export function detectBareReference(source: string): string | null {
+  if (typeof source !== 'string' || !source.trim()) return null;
+  try {
+    const result = getScopedEnv().parse(source).check?.() as
+      | { valid: boolean; error?: { message?: string } }
+      | undefined;
+    if (result && result.valid === false) {
+      const m = /Unknown variable:\s*([A-Za-z_$][\w$]*)/.exec(result.error?.message ?? '');
+      if (m) return m[1];
+    }
+  } catch {
+    // Parse/other faults are the syntax checker's job (celEngine.compile); this
+    // helper only reports the undeclared-variable case.
+  }
+  return null;
+}
+
 /** Coerce cel-js's BigInt-flavored return into spec-friendly JS values. */
 function coerce(value: unknown): unknown {
   if (typeof value === 'bigint') {

packages/formula/src/validate.test.ts

@@ -80,6 +80,45 @@ describe('validateExpression (ADR-0032)', () => {
     });
   });
 
+  // #1928 — a bare top-level identifier is a silent bug in a `record`-scoped
+  // site (formula field / validation predicate) but correct in a `flattened`
+  // flow/automation condition. The validator must distinguish by `scope`.
+  describe('bare-reference detection by scope (#1928)', () => {
+    it('flags a bare field reference in a record-scoped predicate', () => {
+      const r = validateExpression('predicate', 'lead_score != null && lead_score > 100', { scope: 'record' });
+      expect(r.ok).toBe(false);
+      expect(r.errors[0].message).toMatch(/bare reference `lead_score`/);
+      expect(r.errors[0].message).toMatch(/record\.lead_score/);
+    });
+
+    it('flags a bare reference in a record-scoped value (formula) expression', () => {
+      const r = validateExpression('value', '(budget == null ? 0 : budget) - (spent == null ? 0 : spent)', { scope: 'record' });
+      expect(r.ok).toBe(false);
+      expect(r.errors[0].message).toMatch(/bare reference `(budget|spent)`/);
+    });
+
+    it('accepts the record-qualified form in a record-scoped site', () => {
+      const r = validateExpression('value', '(record.budget == null ? 0 : record.budget) - (record.spent == null ? 0 : record.spent)', { scope: 'record' });
+      expect(r.ok).toBe(true);
+    });
+
+    it('does NOT flag bare references in a flattened (flow) condition', () => {
+      // The record's fields are flattened to top-level for flow conditions, and
+      // flow variables share that namespace, so bare refs are correct here.
+      expect(validateExpression('predicate', 'status == "done" && previous.status != "done"', { scope: 'flattened' }).ok).toBe(true);
+      expect(validateExpression('predicate', 'budget > 100000', { scope: 'flattened' }).ok).toBe(true);
+      expect(validateExpression('predicate', 'expiring_deals.length > 0', { scope: 'flattened' }).ok).toBe(true);
+    });
+
+    it('defaults to flattened scope (no bare-ref flag) when scope is unset', () => {
+      expect(validateExpression('predicate', 'status == "done"').ok).toBe(true);
+    });
+
+    it('does not flag a null-guard on a record-qualified field (no type false-positive)', () => {
+      expect(validateExpression('predicate', 'record.lead_score != null && record.lead_score > 100', { scope: 'record' }).ok).toBe(true);
+    });
+  });
+
   describe('introspection', () => {
     it('reports the dialect + scope for a field role', () => {
       expect(expectedDialect('predicate')).toBe('cel');

packages/formula/src/validate.ts

@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@
  * This validator detects that specific mistake and returns the exact fix.
  */
 
-import { celEngine } from './cel-engine';
+import { celEngine, detectBareReference } from './cel-engine';
 import { templateEngine } from './template-engine';
 
 export type FieldRole = 'predicate' | 'value' | 'template';
@@ -36,6 +36,21 @@ export interface ExprSchemaHint {
   objectName?: string;
   /** Known top-level field names, so `record.<field>` can be checked. */
   fields?: readonly string[];
+  /**
+   * Evaluation scope of the authoring site — determines whether a bare top-level
+   * identifier is legal (#1928):
+   *  - `'record'`    → the record is bound only as the `record` namespace, with
+   *                    no field flattening (`Field.formula`, object validation
+   *                    predicates). A bare `amount` resolves to nothing and the
+   *                    expression silently evaluates to `null` / never fires, so
+   *                    it MUST be written `record.amount`. We flag bare refs.
+   *  - `'flattened'` → the record's own fields are spread to top-level alongside
+   *                    flow variables (flow / automation conditions), so bare
+   *                    `status` is correct. We do NOT flag bare refs here — flow
+   *                    variables are not schema-knowable, so a bare identifier
+   *                    can't be soundly told apart from a typo. (Default.)
+   */
+  scope?: 'record' | 'flattened';
 }
 
 export interface ExprValidationError {
@@ -169,6 +184,21 @@ export function validateExpression(
     });
   } else {
     checkFieldExistence(source, schema, errors);
+    // In a `record`-scoped site a bare top-level identifier is a silent bug —
+    // it must be `record.<field>` (#1928). Only flagged here; flow/automation
+    // conditions (`scope: 'flattened'`, the default) legitimately use bare refs.
+    if (schema?.scope === 'record') {
+      const bare = detectBareReference(source);
+      if (bare) {
+        errors.push({
+          source,
+          message:
+            `bare reference \`${bare}\` — a formula/validation expression binds the record as the ` +
+            `\`record\` namespace, not at top level, so \`${bare}\` resolves to nothing and the ` +
+            `expression silently evaluates to null. Write \`record.${bare}\`.`,
+        });
+      }
+    }
   }
   return { ok: errors.length === 0, errors };
 }