US07-05: Deliver Backup and Operational Recovery (#92)

delivery_backlog/E08-container-deployment.md

@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+# E08 — Container Deployment
+
+Concept phase: none. This epic is a delivery-format addition on top of the concept:
+the same application, same safety invariants, packaged as a Docker image and deployed
+continuously from Gitea Actions instead of being started by hand from a working copy.
+
+It does not change the product scope in
+[`INTEGRATED_PIPELINE_CONCEPT.md`](../INTEGRATED_PIPELINE_CONCEPT.md). SQLite stays the
+store, one worker stays the writer, the library process lock stays authoritative, and
+no path outside the configured library roots becomes reachable because the process now
+runs in a container.
+
+One decision does extend the concept and is made here explicitly: the application may
+be reached through a reverse proxy under a real hostname, not only over loopback. That
+requires a configurable trust boundary and an authentication gate, because the
+loopback-only checks of US07-02 are what currently stand in for authentication.
+
+## Stories
+
+1. [US08-01 — Make the trust boundary configurable and authenticated](stories/US08-01-trusted-hosts-auth.md)
+2. [US08-02 — Build a reproducible application image](stories/US08-02-container-image.md)
+3. [US08-03 — Compose the runtime and mount the library safely](stories/US08-03-compose-runtime.md)
+4. [US08-04 — Publish and deploy from Gitea Actions](stories/US08-04-gitea-cicd.md)
+5. [US08-05 — Automate container deployment acceptance](stories/US08-05-container-e2e.md)
+
+## Epic outcome
+
+A tagged image built from `main` runs the API and the worker as separate containers
+against a mounted library and a persistent data volume, is published to the Gitea
+registry, is redeployed by webhook, survives restart and upgrade with its database and
+journals intact, and refuses every request that a loopback deployment would have
+refused.

delivery_backlog/README.md

@@ -2,11 +2,13 @@
 
 This backlog decomposes the phases in
 [`INTEGRATED_PIPELINE_CONCEPT.md`](../INTEGRATED_PIPELINE_CONCEPT.md) into seven
-epics and small, independently verifiable user stories.
+epics and small, independently verifiable user stories, plus one delivery-format
+epic (E08) that packages the released application as a deployable container.
 
 ## Numbering and file naming
 
-- Epics: `E01` through `E07`, matching concept Phases A through G.
+- Epics: `E01` through `E07`, matching concept Phases A through G; `E08` has no
+  concept phase and must not change product scope.
 - Stories: `US<epic>-<sequence>`, for example `US03-02`.
 - Epic files: `E01-<slug>.md`.
 - Story files: `stories/US01-01-<slug>.md`.
@@ -36,6 +38,7 @@ epics and small, independently verifiable user stories.
 5. [E05 — Immich upload](E05-immich-upload.md)
 6. [E06 — Archive lifecycle](E06-archive-lifecycle.md)
 7. [E07 — Hardening and release](E07-hardening-release.md)
+8. [E08 — Container deployment](E08-container-deployment.md)
 
 ## Shared definition of done
 

delivery_backlog/stories/US08-01-trusted-hosts-auth.md

@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+# US08-01 — Make the Trust Boundary Configurable and Authenticated
+
+Epic: [E08](../E08-container-deployment.md)
+
+As an operator, I want to reach the application through my own hostname without
+weakening it, so a container behind a reverse proxy is as safe as the loopback
+deployment it replaces.
+
+## Context
+
+`photo_pipeline/api/security.py` refuses any request whose `Host` or `Origin` is not
+loopback. That check is the current stand-in for authentication: whoever can reach
+`127.0.0.1:8000` is the owner. Behind a proxy the hostname is no longer loopback, so
+relaxing the check without adding an authentication gate would publish the library.
+
+## Acceptance criteria
+
+- Allowed hosts and origins come from configuration (`PHOTO_PIPELINE_*`), default to
+  the current loopback set, and an unset configuration behaves exactly as today.
+- Whenever a non-loopback host is configured, startup requires an access secret and
+  refuses to serve without one; loopback-only deployments keep working with no secret.
+- The secret is exchanged for the existing session cookie and CSRF token through the
+  bootstrap endpoint; every protected route keeps its current session and CSRF
+  requirements unchanged.
+- Forwarded headers (`X-Forwarded-Proto`, `X-Forwarded-Host`) are honored only from a
+  configured trusted proxy and ignored otherwise, so a client cannot forge its origin.
+- Cookies are marked `Secure` when the effective external scheme is HTTPS.
+- Failed authentication is rate-limited and logged without the secret, the session id,
+  or any request body.
+- Health endpoints stay reachable without the secret; nothing else does.
+
+## Automated tests
+
+- Unit tests for host/origin evaluation across loopback default, configured host,
+  unconfigured host, forged forwarded headers, and trusted-proxy forwarded headers.
+- Integration tests: startup refusal without a secret, successful exchange, wrong
+  secret, replay of an old session, cross-site request, and unauthenticated access to
+  every route class.
+
+## Dependencies
+
+- US07-02

delivery_backlog/stories/US08-02-container-image.md

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+# US08-02 — Build a Reproducible Application Image
+
+Epic: [E08](../E08-container-deployment.md)
+
+As an operator, I want one image that can run either application role, so deployment is
+a pull instead of a Python environment I have to reproduce by hand.
+
+## Context
+
+The application shells out to `exiftool` and `immich-go`, writes into the library as a
+normal filesystem user, and serves a static frontend from `frontend/`. All three have to
+be true inside the image, or the container starts and then fails on the first real
+operation.
+
+## Acceptance criteria
+
+- A `Dockerfile` builds from a pinned Python base, installs the project and its runtime
+  dependencies, and contains no test, playwright, or build-only tooling in the final
+  layer.
+- `exiftool` and `immich-go` are present at pinned versions, and their versions are
+  recorded in the image and reported by `python -m photo_pipeline diagnostics`.
+- The image runs as a non-root user whose UID/GID are build-time arguments, so files
+  the application renames or writes keep the ownership the host library expects.
+- One entrypoint selects the role: `serve` or `worker`, passing through the existing
+  CLI arguments; no supervisor runs two roles in one container.
+- `serve` containers declare a `HEALTHCHECK` against `/api/v1/health/ready`, so an
+  unmigrated or misconfigured database is not reported healthy.
+- The image contains no secrets, no library data, no database, and no `.git`; the build
+  context is constrained by `.dockerignore`.
+- Image build is reproducible from a clean checkout and documented in `README.md`.
+
+## Automated tests
+
+- A build-and-run test asserts the image starts, reports ready, serves the frontend
+  index, and returns the pinned `exiftool` and `immich-go` versions.
+- A test asserts the container refuses to run as UID 0 and that a file created by the
+  container is owned by the configured UID/GID.
+
+## Dependencies
+
+- US07-05

delivery_backlog/stories/US08-03-compose-runtime.md

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+# US08-03 — Compose the Runtime and Mount the Library Safely
+
+Epic: [E08](../E08-container-deployment.md)
+
+As an operator, I want a single compose file that runs the API and the worker against my
+real library, so a deployment is one command and the safety invariants survive it.
+
+## Context
+
+The library process lock (US07-05) assumes both roles see the same lock file, and SQLite
+in WAL mode assumes a real local filesystem. Container path policy is the same problem
+as host path policy with a new failure mode: the configured library roots must name the
+in-container mount paths, not the host paths.
+
+## Acceptance criteria
+
+- `docker-compose.yml` runs exactly one `serve` and one `worker` container from the same
+  image and the same data volume, and a second worker is refused by the existing lock
+  rather than by convention.
+- The library is a bind mount; `PHOTO_PIPELINE_LIBRARY_ROOTS` names the container-side
+  paths, and a mismatch between mounted and configured roots fails at startup with a
+  clear message instead of at the first write.
+- The data volume holds the database, WAL, thumbnail cache, and backups on a local
+  filesystem; the composition documents that a network mount is unsupported for it.
+- Migrations run before `serve` and `worker` accept work, using the existing backup-then-
+  migrate path, and an upgrade that fails leaves the previous database intact.
+- Configuration and secrets come from the environment, never from the image or a
+  committed file; a `.env.example` lists every `PHOTO_PIPELINE_*` variable with safe
+  defaults and no values.
+- The API port is published to host loopback by default; exposing it publicly requires
+  the configured hostname and access secret from US08-01.
+- Containers restart automatically, and a restart mid-job resumes exactly as a host
+  restart does today.
+- Backup, verify-backup, restore, and diagnostics are documented as container commands
+  and work against the mounted volumes.
+
+## Automated tests
+
+- An integration test brings the composition up against a temporary fixture library,
+  runs a job, restarts both containers, and asserts the job resumes and the database is
+  intact.
+- Tests for: second worker refused, library-root mismatch refused at startup, failed
+  migration leaving the previous database restorable.
+
+## Dependencies
+
+- US08-01, US08-02

delivery_backlog/stories/US08-04-gitea-cicd.md

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+# US08-04 — Publish and Deploy from Gitea Actions
+
+Epic: [E08](../E08-container-deployment.md)
+
+As a release owner, I want `main` to build, publish, and redeploy the image
+automatically, so deployment is the same reproducible path every time.
+
+## Context
+
+The workflow is adapted from the `crowdsec-admin` deployment workflow
+(`.gitea/workflows/deploy.yml` in that repository): build, log in to the Gitea registry,
+push, trigger a Portainer webhook, prune. This project needs the same shape plus a test
+gate, because unlike that project it has a required suite that must not be skipped.
+
+## Acceptance criteria
+
+- `.gitea/workflows/` contains a test workflow that runs on pull requests and on `main`,
+  executing the configured required suites, and a deploy workflow that runs only after
+  the tests pass on `main` and on manual dispatch.
+- The deploy workflow publishes to `git.domverse-berlin.eu` under this project's own
+  image path, tagged `latest` and the commit SHA, so a rollback is a tag change.
+- Registry credentials and the Portainer webhook come from repository secrets; runtime
+  secrets (vision key, Immich key, access secret) stay in the Portainer stack and never
+  enter the repository or the image.
+- Redeploy is triggered by webhook and the workflow fails when the webhook call fails.
+- Dangling images are pruned; published tags are not.
+- A concurrency guard prevents two deploys of different commits overlapping.
+- `README.md` documents the required secrets, the image path, the rollback procedure,
+  and that the stack is managed by Portainer from git.
+
+## Automated tests
+
+- Workflow files are validated (syntax and required job/step names) by a repository test
+  so a rename cannot silently disable the test gate.
+- A dry-run job builds and pushes to a scratch tag on manual dispatch without touching
+  `latest` or triggering a redeploy.
+
+## Dependencies
+
+- US08-02, US08-03

delivery_backlog/stories/US08-05-container-e2e.md

@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+# US08-05 — Automate Container Deployment Acceptance
+
+Epic: [E08](../E08-container-deployment.md)
+
+As a release owner, I want one automated gate that proves the deployed container, so the
+packaged application is verified the same way the host application is.
+
+## Acceptance criteria
+
+- One documented command provisions the composition from the built image against a
+  temporary fixture library and an isolated data volume, and destroys it afterwards.
+- A browser journey against the containerized application covers discovery, duplicate
+  review, analysis, album proposal, rename, upload preflight, and archive views.
+- An upgrade journey runs the previous published image, then the new one, and asserts
+  migrations, journals, jobs, and the thumbnail cache survive.
+- A restart journey kills both containers mid-job and asserts resume without duplicate
+  side effects.
+- Security gates run against the deployed instance: unauthenticated access refused,
+  forged forwarded headers refused, paths outside the mounted library roots refused, and
+  no secret in container logs.
+- Evidence is retained per run and the gate fails on any skipped required check.
+
+## Automated tests
+
+- The container acceptance suite runs on a `phase_h` marker in CI on `main` and before a
+  published deploy; earlier epic suites keep running unchanged.
+
+## Dependencies
+
+- US08-01 through US08-04