ahmido
b0a724acef
## Summary - harden the canonical operation run viewer so mismatched, missing, archived, onboarding, and selector-excluded tenant context no longer invalidates authorized canonical run viewing - extend canonical route, header-context, deep-link, and presentation coverage for Spec 144 and add the full spec artifact set under `specs/144-canonical-operation-viewer-context-decoupling/` - harden onboarding draft provider-connection resume logic so stale persisted provider connections fall back to the connect-provider step instead of resuming invalid state - add architecture-audit follow-up candidate material and prompt assets for the next governance hardening wave ## Testing - `vendor/bin/sail bin pint --dirty --format agent` - `vendor/bin/sail artisan test --compact tests/Feature/144/CanonicalOperationViewerContextMismatchTest.php tests/Feature/144/CanonicalOperationViewerDeepLinkTrustTest.php tests/Feature/Operations/TenantlessOperationRunViewerTest.php tests/Feature/OpsUx/OperateHubShellTest.php tests/Feature/Monitoring/OperationsTenantScopeTest.php tests/Feature/RunAuthorizationTenantIsolationTest.php tests/Feature/Filament/OperationRunEnterpriseDetailPageTest.php tests/Feature/Monitoring/HeaderContextBarTest.php tests/Feature/Monitoring/OperationRunResolvedReferencePresentationTest.php tests/Feature/Monitoring/OperationsCanonicalUrlsTest.php` - `vendor/bin/sail artisan test --compact tests/Feature/ManagedTenantOnboardingWizardTest.php tests/Unit/Onboarding/OnboardingDraftStageResolverTest.php tests/Unit/Onboarding/OnboardingLifecycleServiceTest.php` ## Notes - branch: `144-canonical-operation-viewer-context-decoupling` - base: `dev` Co-authored-by: Ahmed Darrazi <ahmed.darrazi@live.de> Reviewed-on: #173
36 lines
1.5 KiB
Markdown
36 lines
1.5 KiB
Markdown
# Specification Quality Checklist: Canonical Operation Viewer Context Decoupling
|
|
|
|
**Purpose**: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning
|
|
**Created**: 2026-03-15
|
|
**Feature**: [spec.md](../spec.md)
|
|
|
|
## Content Quality
|
|
|
|
- [x] No implementation details (languages, frameworks, APIs)
|
|
- [x] Focused on user value and business needs
|
|
- [x] Written for non-technical stakeholders
|
|
- [x] All mandatory sections completed
|
|
|
|
## Requirement Completeness
|
|
|
|
- [x] No [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers remain
|
|
- [x] Requirements are testable and unambiguous
|
|
- [x] Success criteria are measurable
|
|
- [x] Success criteria are technology-agnostic (no implementation details)
|
|
- [x] All acceptance scenarios are defined
|
|
- [x] Edge cases are identified
|
|
- [x] Scope is clearly bounded
|
|
- [x] Dependencies and assumptions identified
|
|
|
|
## Feature Readiness
|
|
|
|
- [x] All functional requirements have clear acceptance criteria
|
|
- [x] User scenarios cover primary flows
|
|
- [x] Feature meets measurable outcomes defined in Success Criteria
|
|
- [x] No implementation details leak into specification
|
|
|
|
## Notes
|
|
|
|
- Validation pass completed on 2026-03-15 after replacing the scaffolded template with a complete draft.
|
|
- The spec stays at policy and UX-contract level: it defines route legitimacy, authorization semantics, deep-link behavior, and messaging expectations without prescribing code structure.
|
|
- No clarification markers remain. The draft assumes existing canonical run links and capability registry stay in place while this feature hardens their trust semantics. |