ahmido
6ca496233b
## Summary - add a shared tenant lifecycle presentation contract and referenced-tenant adapter for canonical lifecycle labels and helper copy - align tenant, chooser, onboarding, archived-banner, and tenantless operation viewer surfaces with the shared lifecycle vocabulary - add Spec 146 design artifacts, audit notes, and regression coverage for lifecycle presentation across Filament and onboarding surfaces ## Validation - `vendor/bin/sail bin pint --dirty --format agent` - `vendor/bin/sail artisan test --compact tests/Feature/Badges/TenantStatusBadgeTest.php tests/Unit/Badges/TenantBadgesTest.php tests/Unit/Tenants/TenantLifecycleTest.php tests/Unit/Support/Tenants/TenantLifecyclePresentationTest.php tests/Feature/Filament/TenantLifecyclePresentationAcrossTenantSurfacesTest.php tests/Feature/Filament/ReferencedTenantLifecyclePresentationTest.php tests/Feature/Filament/TenantLifecycleStatusDomainSeparationTest.php tests/Feature/Filament/TenantViewHeaderUiEnforcementTest.php tests/Feature/Onboarding/TenantLifecyclePresentationCopyTest.php tests/Feature/Onboarding/OnboardingDraftAuthorizationTest.php tests/Feature/Onboarding/OnboardingDraftLifecycleTest.php` ## Notes - Livewire v4.0+ compliance preserved; this change is presentation-only on existing Filament v5 surfaces. - Panel provider registration remains unchanged in `bootstrap/providers.php`. - No global-search behavior changed; no resource was newly made globally searchable or disabled. - No destructive actions were added or changed. - No asset registration strategy changed; existing deploy flow for `php artisan filament:assets` remains unchanged. Co-authored-by: Ahmed Darrazi <ahmed.darrazi@live.de> Reviewed-on: #175
37 lines
1.3 KiB
Markdown
37 lines
1.3 KiB
Markdown
# Specification Quality Checklist: Central Tenant Status Presentation
|
|
|
|
**Purpose**: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning
|
|
**Created**: 2026-03-16
|
|
**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 passed on the first review pass.
|
|
- Required constitution-alignment sections remain scope statements rather than implementation plans.
|
|
- No clarification questions are required before `/speckit.plan`.
|