Merge: fix reload-in-Design mis-tagging Arrange tracks into Design

tests/test_guid_diff.cpp

@@ -124,6 +124,61 @@ static void testResetReBaselines() {
     CHECK(p2new.size() == 1 && has(p2new, "{W}"));
 }
 
+// -- 6. Reload-mis-tag regression: a project LOAD must re-baseline before the first
+//       post-load observe, so the newly-loaded project's PRE-EXISTING content is never
+//       reported as new. This locks the exact failure behind the reload-mis-tag bug:
+//       the detector used to re-arm on a `proj != lastProject` pointer compare, which a
+//       recycled ReaProject* address defeats; the previous project's stale baseline then
+//       reported the whole just-loaded project as new content and it got mass-tagged into
+//       the active mode. The fix routes the re-arm through persist's authoritative load
+//       signal (bankPanelNotifyProjectLoaded -> reset()), modeled here as: on a load,
+//       reset() runs BEFORE the first observe of the new project's set.
+//
+//       The seam under test is GuidBaseline; the shell wiring (main.cpp notify ->
+//       bank_panel reset()) is DAW-verified, but the load-then-observe DECISION lives
+//       here and is what the bug got wrong.
+static void testReloadReBaselinesBeforeFirstObserve() {
+    // Project A is open and settled: its content is the baseline, steady state reports
+    // nothing new. This is the "extension already running against project A" precondition
+    // the bug needs (a NON-empty stale baseline to mis-diff the next project against).
+    GuidBaseline b;
+    b.observe({"{A1}", "{A2}"});                 // A baseline (first-poll guard)
+    CHECK(b.observe({"{A1}", "{A2}"}).empty());  // steady: nothing new
+    CHECK(b.primed());
+
+    // Daniel opens project B (saved in Design). B's pre-existing tracks are an ENTIRELY
+    // different GUID set from A. persist raises its load signal; the fix calls reset()
+    // (via bankPanelNotifyProjectLoaded) BEFORE the first post-load observe.
+    b.reset();
+    auto afterLoad = b.observe({"{B1}", "{B2}", "{B3}"});
+    // The load must tag NOTHING: B's pre-existing content is the baseline, not "new".
+    // Untagged/Arrange leaves stay Arrange; nothing is mass-tagged into Design.
+    CHECK(afterLoad.empty());
+
+    // And genuine post-load creation in B is still detected (the fix must not deafen the
+    // detector — only suppress the pre-existing set at the load boundary).
+    auto createdInB = b.observe({"{B1}", "{B2}", "{B3}", "{B4}"});
+    CHECK(createdInB.size() == 1 && has(createdInB, "{B4}"));
+}
+
+// -- 6b. Negative control: WITHOUT the load re-baseline (the old pointer-miss path where
+//        reset() never fired), the just-loaded project's pre-existing content IS reported
+//        as new — i.e. it would be mass-tagged. This proves the assertion in test 6 is
+//        load-bearing (the reset() is what prevents the mis-tag), not self-affirming.
+static void testMissingReBaselineWouldMisTag() {
+    GuidBaseline b;
+    b.observe({"{A1}", "{A2}"});                 // A baseline
+    b.observe({"{A1}", "{A2}"});                 // settled against A
+
+    // Simulate the BUG: no reset() on the load (the pointer compare missed a recycled
+    // ReaProject*). The next observe diffs B's set against A's stale baseline.
+    auto misdetected = b.observe({"{B1}", "{B2}", "{B3}"});
+    // Every one of B's pre-existing tracks looks "new" — exactly the mass-tag that
+    // parked the Arrange tracks into Design on open. This is the failure the fix removes.
+    CHECK(misdetected.size() == 3);
+    CHECK(has(misdetected, "{B1}") && has(misdetected, "{B2}") && has(misdetected, "{B3}"));
+}
+
 int main() {
     testNewGuidsDifference();
     testNewGuidsIgnoresEmpty();
@@ -131,6 +186,8 @@ int main() {
     testBaselineIncremental();
     testBaselineDeletionReDetect();
     testResetReBaselines();
+    testReloadReBaselinesBeforeFirstObserve();
+    testMissingReBaselineWouldMisTag();
 
     if (g_fail == 0) std::printf("All tests passed.\n");
     return g_fail ? 1 : 0;