ahmido/TenantAtlas
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects 1 Releases Wiki Activity
a089350f98
TenantAtlas/specs/216-provider-dispatch-gate/checklists/requirements.md
ahmido a089350f98
Some checks failed
Main Confidence / confidence (push) Failing after 49s
Details
feat: unify provider-backed action dispatch gating (#255) 
## Summary
- unify provider-backed action starts behind the shared provider dispatch gate and shared start-result presenter
- align tenant, onboarding, provider-connection, restore, directory, and monitoring surfaces with the same blocked, deduped, scope-busy, and accepted semantics
- include the spec kit artifacts for spec 216 and the regression fixes that brought the full suite back to green

## Validation
- `cd apps/platform && ./vendor/bin/sail artisan test --compact tests/Feature/RestoreRunIdempotencyTest.php tests/Feature/ExecuteRestoreRunJobTest.php tests/Feature/Restore/RestoreRunProviderStartTest.php tests/Feature/Hardening/ExecuteRestoreRunJobGateTest.php tests/Feature/Hardening/BlockedWriteAuditLogTest.php tests/Feature/Onboarding/OnboardingDraftLifecycleTest.php`
- `cd apps/platform && ./vendor/bin/sail artisan test --compact tests/Browser/Spec177InventoryCoverageTruthSmokeTest.php`
- `cd apps/platform && ./vendor/bin/sail artisan test --compact`

## Notes
- branch: `216-provider-dispatch-gate`
- commit: `34230be7`

Co-authored-by: Ahmed Darrazi <ahmed.darrazi@live.de>
Reviewed-on: #255
2026-04-20 06:52:38 +00:00

1.4 KiB
Raw Blame History

Specification Quality Checklist: Provider-Backed Action Preflight and Dispatch Gate Unification

Purpose: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning
Created: 2026-04-19
Feature: spec.md

Content Quality

  • No implementation details (languages, frameworks, APIs)
  • Focused on user value and business needs
  • Written for non-technical stakeholders
  • All mandatory sections completed

Requirement Completeness

  • No [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers remain
  • Requirements are testable and unambiguous
  • Success criteria are measurable
  • Success criteria are technology-agnostic (no implementation details)
  • All acceptance scenarios are defined
  • Edge cases are identified
  • Scope is clearly bounded
  • Dependencies and assumptions identified

Feature Readiness

  • All functional requirements have clear acceptance criteria
  • User scenarios cover primary flows
  • Feature meets measurable outcomes defined in Success Criteria
  • No implementation details leak into specification

Notes

  • Validation pass completed on 2026-04-19.
  • The chosen spec is aligned with the active / near-term roadmap lane and the highest-priority unspecced qualified candidate in spec-candidates.md.
  • No clarification questions were needed; the candidate already had sufficient scope, sequencing, and boundary detail for planning readiness.