fix(admin): name the schema on an Operations table row

[JavierparraDev]

Description

The admin Operations page listed tables without their schema, so two tables that share a name in different schemas rendered as identical rows and an operator choosing between them could not tell which was which. The row now prints schema.table.

Type of Change

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)

Related Issue

Closes #977

Changes Made

• src/components/admin/tabs/OperationsTab.tsx: the table row now renders the schema in a muted span outside the truncating span, followed by . and the table name. The table name keeps its existing truncate max-w-[160px], so a long name still truncates and the schema survives it.
• tests/components/admin/OperationsTab.test.tsx: added a test that pins the schema on the row for two schemas sharing a label (it goes red if the schema is dropped), and a test that pins the truncation on the table name. Corrected the now-stale comment in the deep-link collision test that recorded the row did not print its schema.

Testing

• I have tested this locally
• I have added/updated tests
• All existing tests pass

Ran locally (Bun 1.4.2, linux-x64):

• bun run format — clean
• bun run lint — 0 errors (228 pre-existing warnings)
• bun run typecheck — clean
• bun run knip — clean
• bun tests/run-tests.ts tests/components — 92 files, 2983 tests pass
• bun tests/run-tests.ts tests/components/admin/OperationsTab.test.tsx --coverage --merge-into=coverage/lcov.info — OperationsTab.tsx 507/507 lines (100%)

Not run locally: bun run build, bun run build:lib + bun run attw, and the full bun run test:coverage over every file. I ran coverage for the changed component only; the required CI job runs the whole suite. Please approve the workflow run for this fork so CI can verify the rest.

Test Environment

• Bun: 1.4.2 · Node: 24 · OS: linux-x64

Checklist

• My code follows the project's code style guidelines
• I have performed a self-review of my code
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have updated the documentation accordingly
• My changes generate no new warnings
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
• The required CI test job passes the 100% line-coverage gate (bun run test:coverage and bun run coverage:check) — for the changed component; the whole-suite run is left to CI
• If I changed src/lib/db/providers/, I updated the matching docs/providers/ documentation and tests/integration/db/ tests in the same PR (provider triad) — not applicable, no provider touched
• Any dependent changes have been merged and published

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!

[cevheri]

thanks and welcome