ahmido
2bf53f6337
Some checks failed
Main Confidence / confidence (push) Failing after 44s
## Summary - enforce shared operation run link generation across admin and system surfaces - add guard coverage to block new raw operation route bypasses outside explicit exceptions - harden Filament theme asset resolution so stale or wrong-stack hot files fall back to built assets ## Testing - export PATH="/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/local/bin:$PATH" && cd apps/platform && ./vendor/bin/sail bin pint --dirty --format agent - export PATH="/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/local/bin:$PATH" && cd apps/platform && ./vendor/bin/sail artisan test --compact tests/Feature/OpsUx/CanonicalViewRunLinksTest.php tests/Feature/Monitoring/OperationsDashboardDrillthroughTest.php tests/Feature/Filament/RecentOperationsSummaryWidgetTest.php tests/Feature/Filament/InventoryCoverageRunContinuityTest.php tests/Feature/ReviewPack/ReviewPackResourceTest.php tests/Feature/144/CanonicalOperationViewerDeepLinkTrustTest.php tests/Feature/078/RelatedLinksOnDetailTest.php tests/Feature/RunAuthorizationTenantIsolationTest.php tests/Feature/System/Spec195/SystemDirectoryResidualSurfaceTest.php tests/Feature/System/Spec113/AuthorizationSemanticsTest.php tests/Feature/Guards/OperationRunLinkContractGuardTest.php tests/Unit/Filament/PanelThemeAssetTest.php Co-authored-by: Ahmed Darrazi <ahmed.darrazi@live.de> Reviewed-on: #268
37 lines
1.6 KiB
Markdown
37 lines
1.6 KiB
Markdown
# Specification Quality Checklist: Operation Run Link Contract Enforcement
|
|
|
|
**Purpose**: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning
|
|
**Created**: 2026-04-23
|
|
**Feature**: [spec.md](/Users/ahmeddarrazi/Documents/projects/wt-plattform/specs/232-operation-run-link-contract/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 1 completed on 2026-04-23.
|
|
- The spec stays intentionally narrow: existing helper families remain the contract, and the feature only standardizes adoption plus a bounded allowlist guard.
|
|
- A few requirement lines necessarily name existing shared contract classes and canonical routes because the subject of the spec is contract enforcement on those existing platform surfaces. The spec avoids prescribing implementation structure beyond reuse of the already-shipped canonical paths.
|