fix(goals): stop the first goal being told about earmarks it has none of (#3216)

* fix(goals): stop the first goal being told about earmarks it has none of

Linking an account and leaving the amount blank shows "This account will
fund whatever is left after the other earmarks". On a first goal there are
no other earmarks — so the sentence points at something absent, and it is
where a user meets the word for the first time.

The row already carries `data-earmarked-by-others`, and it is zero in that
case. With the account to itself the hint now says so plainly, and
"earmark" appears only where earmarks actually exist — which lets the
context do the explaining instead of the vocabulary needing it.

Pinned server-side rather than in JS. The branch is a ternary; the failure
that matters is the form not handing over the second string, which does not
raise — the value reads as undefined and the line renders empty. There is
also a test that the two hints stay different, since identical copy would
leave the branch doing nothing and the first-time reader back where they
started.

Nothing runs `test/javascript` — no npm script, no CI step — so a test
there would have guarded nothing.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_016GTNba5qE5NwzaHzbp27ye

* fix(goals): tell an account claimed in full from one claimed by nobody

Review on #3216. The new "this account is yours alone" hint keyed off
`earmarked_by_other_goals`, which sums `allocated_amount` — and a
whole-account link carries nil, so it contributes zero. An account another
goal already claims in full therefore looked exactly like an unclaimed one.

The form promised the whole balance, and `whole_account_link_must_be_exclusive`
refused the blank allocation on submit. That is worse than the sentence
this PR set out to fix: it does not merely describe something absent, it
describes something the save then contradicts.

The row carries both readings now, because neither can be derived from the
other. `whole_account_claimed_by_other_goals?` asks the question the sum
cannot answer, and the two share the same row filter so the goal being
edited is excluded from both.

The two tests added here also move above the first `private`, same as on
`define_method`, which is public regardless — but they read as a mistake
sitting among the helpers.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_016GTNba5qE5NwzaHzbp27ye

---------

Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

app/javascript/controllers/goal_earmark_controller.js

@@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ export default class extends Controller {
     wholeBalance: String,
     prorata: String,
     headroom: String,
+    wholeBalanceAlone: String,
   }
 
   // A complete number, optionally with one decimal separator and digits after
@@ -49,10 +50,19 @@ export default class extends Controller {
 
     const balance = Number.parseFloat(row.dataset.balance || "0")
     const others = Number.parseFloat(row.dataset.earmarkedByOthers || "0")
+    // A whole-account link elsewhere sums to zero above, so the amount alone
+    // cannot tell "nobody else claims this" from "somebody claims all of it".
+    const claimedWhole = row.dataset.wholeAccountClaimed === "true"
     const raw = input.value.trim()
 
+    // "whatever is left after the other earmarks" describes nothing when there
+    // are none — and this is where a first-time user meets the word, pointed
+    // at something absent. With the account to itself, say that instead.
     if (raw === "") {
-      return this.#show(warning, this.wholeBalanceValue)
+      return this.#show(
+        warning,
+        others > 0 || claimedWhole ? this.wholeBalanceValue : this.wholeBalanceAloneValue,
+      )
     }
 
     if (!this.constructor.ALLOCATION_PATTERN.test(raw)) return this.#hide(warning)