ahmido
3971c315d8
## Summary - replace the static Inventory Coverage HTML tables with a Filament native searchable, sortable, filterable table on the existing tenant page - normalize supported policy types and foundations into one runtime dataset while preserving centralized badge semantics and the documented read-only action-surface exemption - add the full spec kit artifact set for feature 124 and focused Pest coverage for rendering, search, sort, filters, empty state, and regression-sensitive page copy ## Testing - `vendor/bin/sail bin pint --dirty --format agent` - `vendor/bin/sail artisan test --compact tests/Feature/Filament/InventoryCoverageTableTest.php tests/Feature/Filament/InventoryPagesTest.php tests/Feature/Filament/InventoryHubDbOnlyTest.php` ## Filament Notes - Livewire v4.0+ compliance: yes, this uses Filament v5 table APIs on the existing page and does not introduce any Livewire v3 patterns - Provider registration: unchanged; Laravel 11+ provider registration remains in `bootstrap/providers.php` - Globally searchable resources: none changed in this feature; no Resource global-search behavior was added or modified - Destructive actions: none; the page remains read-only and only exposes a non-destructive clear-filters empty-state action - Asset strategy: no new panel or shared assets were added, so no `filament:assets` deployment change is required for this feature - Testing plan delivered: focused Filament/Pest coverage for the page table surface plus existing page-load regressions ## Follow-up - Manual dark-mode and badge-regression QA from task `T018` is still pending and should be completed before merge if that check remains mandatory in your review flow. Co-authored-by: Ahmed Darrazi <ahmed.darrazi@live.de> Reviewed-on: #151
35 lines
1.3 KiB
Markdown
35 lines
1.3 KiB
Markdown
# Specification Quality Checklist: Inventory Coverage Interactive Table
|
|
|
|
**Purpose**: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning
|
|
**Created**: 2026-03-08
|
|
**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
|
|
|
|
- Validated after first drafting pass; no clarification markers remain.
|
|
- The spec keeps framework-specific language only where the product requirement explicitly demands native table behavior, without introducing code-level implementation detail. |