DopingControl v0.6.4

data/classbuffs.lua

@@ -66,3 +66,37 @@ for name, def in pairs(DC.CLASSBUFFS) do
         DC.SPELL_TO_SLOT[def.ids[i]] = def.slot
     end
 end
+
+-- ------------------------------------------------------------------
+-- Name-only aura collisions with CONSUMABLE slots (decision 2026-08-15):
+-- a name-only aura match (no spell ID at all for that scan) must NEVER
+-- satisfy a CONSUMABLE slot when the matched display name is also a class
+-- buff name -- the scan cannot tell the two apart, and defaulting to HAS
+-- would hide a missing consumable behind someone else's class buff. Such
+-- a slot classifies UNKNOWN instead (core/model.lua's aura name-fallback
+-- branch consults this table; core/const.lua's Iron Rule: UNKNOWN is
+-- never collapsed into HAS or MISSING).
+--
+-- Scope is deliberately ONE-SIDED: only the CONSUMABLE slot side of the
+-- collision is affected. The class-buff slot (e.g. SPROT) keeps the
+-- existing name-fallback behavior unchanged -- the ambiguity here means
+-- "we can't prove the CONSUMABLE was used", not "we can't prove the class
+-- buff is missing". Do not widen this into "name-only never counts"; that
+-- would make every ID-less scan MISSING/UNKNOWN across the whole matrix.
+--
+-- Keyed by buff display name (a key shared by DC.CONSUMABLES and
+-- DC.CLASSBUFFS). test_data.lua asserts every entry here is a key in BOTH
+-- tables, so a stale or speculative entry cannot ship silently.
+--   "Shadow Protection" -- DC.CONSUMABLES["Shadow Protection"] (SR slot,
+--   Shadow Protection Potion, spell 7242, data/consumables.lua) vs.
+--   DC.CLASSBUFFS["Shadow Protection"] above (SPROT slot, priest buff,
+--   ids 976/10957/10958) -- identical display name, already flagged as a
+--   collision at both definitions and wowhead-confirmed 2026-08-11 (see
+--   the SR entry's comment in data/consumables.lua). This is the ONLY
+--   name shared between DC.CONSUMABLES and DC.CLASSBUFFS (checked against
+--   every key in both tables) -- no other entry is added without the same
+--   level of evidence.
+-- ------------------------------------------------------------------
+DC.CONSUMABLE_CLASSBUFF_NAME_COLLISION = {
+    ["Shadow Protection"] = true,
+}