fix(services): remove service quick-search suggestions

[BigSimmo]

Summary

• Remove the deprecated service quick-search suggestions from the services filter sheet.
• Keep service filtering behavior aligned with documented contract (filters remain pure filters, not query-replacing suggestion chips).
• Update UI tests that asserted quick-search suggestion presence/behavior to enforce the new contract.

Verification

• Not run in this PR creation step.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard.
To continue using code reviews, add credits to your account and enable them for code reviews in your settings.

[supabase]

This pull request has been ignored for the connected project sjrfecxgysukkwxsowpy because there are no changes detected in supabase directory. You can change this behaviour in Project Integrations Settings ↗︎.

---

Preview Branches by Supabase.
Learn more about Supabase Branching ↗︎.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

You’ve reached a temporary PR review limit under our Fair Usage Limits Policy.

Your recent review volume is higher than typical usage, so adaptive limits are currently applied.

Next review available in: 55 minutes

Limit details: You’ve used all 1 included review currently available under your plan. You completed 90 included PR reviews in the past 7 days; at that activity level, included reviews refill at 1 review per hour.

Your organization has reached its usage spending cap. Adjust your spending cap in the billing tab.

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: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 7c7193e4-fd28-4cf0-a52f-3d2d76d8ea01

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between cd9f79a and 5a14313.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• docs/branch-review-records/4a8002d2aa8743b62a8189f3bd3621768458290b624c6b506f6fd403ad8157c0.record.md

---

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

[github-actions]

CI triage

CI failed on this PR. Automated classification of the 4 failed job(s):

• Production UI (1) — needs investigation: inspect the failing step and uploaded diagnostics; rerun only after classifying the cause.
• Unit coverage — needs investigation: inspect the failing step and uploaded diagnostics; rerun only after classifying the cause.
• Production UI (3) — needs investigation: inspect the failing step and uploaded diagnostics; rerun only after classifying the cause.
• PR required — needs investigation: inspect the failing step and uploaded diagnostics; rerun only after classifying the cause.

Compared with main CI run #11140 (failure).

Classification is evidence routing, not permission to ignore a failure. Exact quarantined Playwright identities remain governed by the flake ledger.

[BigSimmo]

Final Codex review-and-fix summary

• Final reviewed head: 5a1431333c01b505b41c9efb11770c7bc4202666
• Base incorporated: main at cd9f79a45b986a2be960d092b0bcb3eb66a3a5fb
• Resulting squash commit on main: 570740c84bc77b1c5d36493fd1011625c354f6d2
• Merge-tree: clean. The squash commit uses tree dbc33c2ade776d58a971dfe5f90ff3be5d72ffde, exactly matching the reviewed PR head tree.

Findings and resolution

A P1 scope-contamination defect was confirmed on the former head 25a7a7ba980aaf1f99a22969d74971a496373d98. Its conflict resolution retained stale, unrelated changes affecting Services favourites, referral progress, safe-area coverage, Tools routing, Favourites expectations, and other UI tests. The intended quick-search removal had already been implemented more completely by merged PR #1996.

The branch was updated normally, without force-push or history rewriting, using a two-parent merge commit that incorporated current main while retaining none of the obsolete application-code regressions. The final PR delta was limited to the required immutable review-ledger record. No unique application change from PR #1997 remained necessary.

Review and threads

• CodeRabbit and the automatic Codex reviewer were unavailable because their review limits were reached.
• A separate manual adversarial pass was therefore performed against the original PR diff, surrounding Services contracts, current main, and the failing exact-head CI evidence.
• No inline review threads existed. The earlier CI-triage comment was superseded by the successful exact-head run.

Verification

On the defective former head, static checks and build passed, while Production UI shards, unit coverage, and the required aggregate exposed stale cross-feature regressions.

On final head 5a1431333c01b505b41c9efb11770c7bc4202666:

• Secret Scan: success
• SAST: success
• CI: success
• PR required: success
• Static PR checks: success
• Branch-review ledger integrity and write discipline: success
• Documentation index, inventory, scripts, links, changed-file formatting, and sitemap checks: success
• Build, unit, browser, advisory UI, migration, and Lighthouse jobs were correctly skipped by the final documentation-only scope classifier. No Lighthouse, live, production, paid, credential-dependent, or provider-backed test was run by Codex.

The retained application tree was already validated through PR #1996 with typecheck, production build, 69/69 focused unit tests, and 4/4 focused Chromium Services scenarios.

Final state

There are no remaining code, conflict, CI, or review-thread blockers. Auto-merge was already armed and was not modified. After required CI passed, GitHub’s existing auto-merge independently completed the squash merge. Codex did not invoke merge, close the PR, or alter auto-merge.

The requested pre-merge status line was: “The PR was not merged. Final merge is left to the user.” It became factually inapplicable before finalisation because the existing auto-merge completed the merge externally.

[BigSimmo]

Final PR review summary

• Repository / PR: BigSimmo/Database#1997
• Final reviewed head: 5a1431333c01b505b41c9efb11770c7bc4202666
• Reviewed base: main@cd9f79a45b986a2be960d092b0bcb3eb66a3a5fb
• Final disposition: the existing squash auto-merge workflow merged the PR externally at 2026-08-16T11:57:38Z. Codex did not merge it or modify auto-merge.
• Merge commit / resulting main: 570740c84bc77b1c5d36493fd1011625c354f6d2; main pointed to this exact commit at final confirmation.

Review and branch state

• The final PR delta was one immutable branch-review record. The source-code tree otherwise matched the reviewed base, so the merge-tree was clean and the branch was not behind.
• The earlier P1 scope contamination was already corrected on the branch: obsolete account-setup and duplicate Services changes were retired after PR Refine Services filters and referral progress #1996 merged the intended Services implementation.
• The ledger record was independently checked for six valid fields, a full 40-character reviewed SHA, and a SHA-256 filename matching its exact row content. Repository CI also passed ledger integrity, ledger write discipline, changed-file formatting, and documentation checks.
• No additional code defect was confirmed, so no further commit or push was justified.

Adversarial review and threads

• CodeRabbit and the automatic Codex reviewer were rate-limited, so a distinct manual adversarial pass was performed instead.
• That pass checked the final diff, commit graph, historical exact-head CI, the superseding PR Refine Services filters and referral progress #1996, and the ledger claim. No remaining P0, P1, or reproducible P2 defect was found in the final delta.
• Review threads: 0 open / 0 unresolved. No review submission required disposition.

Exact-head verification

• Required aggregate: CI / PR required — success on 5a1431333c01b505b41c9efb11770c7bc4202666.
• In-scope CI: Static PR checks — success, including branch-review ledger integrity, ledger write discipline, docs checks, and changed-file formatting.
• Advisory security workflows: SAST — success; Secret Scan — success.
• Build, unit, production-UI, Lighthouse, migration, and other unrelated jobs were skipped by the final docs-only scope. Earlier failed UI and unit jobs belonged to the superseded pre-final head and were not current-head failures.
• A full local repository checkout was unavailable because the runtime lacked gh and direct GitHub DNS access. The local structural ledger validation and exact-head GitHub CI were used as substitute evidence. No live, production, paid, credential-dependent, deployment, release, or Lighthouse gate was run by Codex.

Blockers and residual risk

• Merge blockers: none remained when auto-merge completed.
• Residual risk: low. The merged PR title and body still describe the superseded Services code change even though the squash commit contains only the review record. This is audit-metadata clarity debt, not a runtime or source-code defect.
• Continued monitoring is unnecessary because the PR is merged and closed.