ahmido
3c38192405
## Summary This PR implements Spec 206 end to end and establishes the first checked-in test suite governance foundation for the platform app. Key changes: - add manifest-backed test lanes for fast-feedback, confidence, browser, heavy-governance, profiling, and junit - add budget and report helpers plus app-local artifact generation under `apps/platform/storage/logs/test-lanes` - add repo-root Sail-friendly lane/report wrappers - switch the default contributor test path to the fast-feedback lane - introduce explicit fixture profiles and cheaper defaults for shared tenant/provider test setup - add minimal/heavy factory states for tenant and provider connection setup - migrate the first high-usage and provider-sensitive tests to explicit fixture profiles - document budgets, taxonomy rules, DB reset guidance, and the full Spec 206 plan/contracts/tasks set ## Validation Executed during implementation: - focused Spec 206 guard/support/factory validation pack: 31 passed - provider-sensitive regression pack: 29 passed - first high-usage caller migration pack: 120 passed - lane routing and wrapper validation succeeded - pint completed successfully Measured lane baselines captured in docs: - fast-feedback: 176.74s - confidence: 394.38s - heavy-governance: 83.66s - browser: 128.87s - junit: 380.14s - profiling: 2701.51s - full-suite baseline anchor: 2624.60s ## Notes - Livewire v4 / Filament v5 runtime behavior is unchanged by this PR. - No new runtime routes, product UI flows, or database migrations are introduced. - Panel provider registration remains unchanged in `bootstrap/providers.php`. Co-authored-by: Ahmed Darrazi <ahmed.darrazi@live.de> Reviewed-on: #239
37 lines
1.5 KiB
Markdown
37 lines
1.5 KiB
Markdown
# Specification Quality Checklist: Test Suite Governance & Performance Foundation
|
|
|
|
**Purpose**: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning
|
|
**Created**: 2026-04-16
|
|
**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 run: 2026-04-16
|
|
- The spec stays focused on repository governance outcomes: lane definitions, honest taxonomy, cheap shared defaults, slow-test visibility, and runtime budgets.
|
|
- Runtime budgets are intentionally expressed as measurable outcomes and documented governance expectations rather than hardwired implementation details.
|
|
- No clarification markers were needed; the user description supplied the required scope, non-goals, and rollout boundaries. |