style: standardize quotes and formatting across YAML and JS files
This commit is contained in:
manjaroblack
parent
b9968f312e
commit
5bfca9138c
|
|
@ -4,9 +4,9 @@ on:
|
|||
workflow_dispatch:
|
||||
inputs:
|
||||
version_bump:
|
||||
description: 'Version bump type'
|
||||
description: "Version bump type"
|
||||
required: true
|
||||
default: 'minor'
|
||||
default: "minor"
|
||||
type: choice
|
||||
options:
|
||||
- patch
|
||||
|
|
@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ jobs:
|
|||
permissions:
|
||||
contents: write
|
||||
pull-requests: write
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
steps:
|
||||
- name: Checkout repository
|
||||
uses: actions/checkout@v4
|
||||
|
|
@ -30,8 +30,8 @@ jobs:
|
|||
- name: Setup Node.js
|
||||
uses: actions/setup-node@v4
|
||||
with:
|
||||
node-version: '20'
|
||||
registry-url: 'https://registry.npmjs.org'
|
||||
node-version: "20"
|
||||
registry-url: "https://registry.npmjs.org"
|
||||
|
||||
- name: Configure Git
|
||||
run: |
|
||||
|
|
@ -57,17 +57,17 @@ jobs:
|
|||
# Get current version from package.json
|
||||
CURRENT_VERSION=$(node -p "require('./package.json').version")
|
||||
echo "current_version=$CURRENT_VERSION" >> $GITHUB_OUTPUT
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
# Remove beta suffix if present
|
||||
BASE_VERSION=$(echo $CURRENT_VERSION | sed 's/-beta\.[0-9]\+//')
|
||||
echo "base_version=$BASE_VERSION" >> $GITHUB_OUTPUT
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
# Calculate new version based on bump type
|
||||
IFS='.' read -ra VERSION_PARTS <<< "$BASE_VERSION"
|
||||
MAJOR=${VERSION_PARTS[0]}
|
||||
MINOR=${VERSION_PARTS[1]}
|
||||
PATCH=${VERSION_PARTS[2]}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
case "${{ github.event.inputs.version_bump }}" in
|
||||
"major")
|
||||
NEW_VERSION="$((MAJOR + 1)).0.0"
|
||||
|
|
@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ jobs:
|
|||
NEW_VERSION="$BASE_VERSION"
|
||||
;;
|
||||
esac
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
echo "new_version=$NEW_VERSION" >> $GITHUB_OUTPUT
|
||||
echo "Promoting from $CURRENT_VERSION to $NEW_VERSION"
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ jobs:
|
|||
run: |
|
||||
# Update main package.json
|
||||
npm version ${{ steps.version.outputs.new_version }} --no-git-tag-version
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
# Update installer package.json
|
||||
sed -i 's/"version": ".*"/"version": "${{ steps.version.outputs.new_version }}"/' tools/installer/package.json
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -119,4 +119,4 @@ jobs:
|
|||
echo "🎉 Successfully promoted to stable!"
|
||||
echo "📦 Version: ${{ steps.version.outputs.new_version }}"
|
||||
echo "🚀 The stable release will be automatically published to NPM via semantic-release"
|
||||
echo "✅ Users running 'npx bmad-method install' will now get version ${{ steps.version.outputs.new_version }}"
|
||||
echo "✅ Users running 'npx bmad-method install' will now get version ${{ steps.version.outputs.new_version }}"
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -25,10 +25,10 @@ Comprehensive guide for determining appropriate test levels (unit, integration,
|
|||
|
||||
```yaml
|
||||
unit_test:
|
||||
component: "PriceCalculator"
|
||||
scenario: "Calculate discount with multiple rules"
|
||||
justification: "Complex business logic with multiple branches"
|
||||
mock_requirements: "None - pure function"
|
||||
component: 'PriceCalculator'
|
||||
scenario: 'Calculate discount with multiple rules'
|
||||
justification: 'Complex business logic with multiple branches'
|
||||
mock_requirements: 'None - pure function'
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Integration Tests
|
||||
|
|
@ -52,10 +52,10 @@ unit_test:
|
|||
|
||||
```yaml
|
||||
integration_test:
|
||||
components: ["UserService", "AuthRepository"]
|
||||
scenario: "Create user with role assignment"
|
||||
justification: "Critical data flow between service and persistence"
|
||||
test_environment: "In-memory database"
|
||||
components: ['UserService', 'AuthRepository']
|
||||
scenario: 'Create user with role assignment'
|
||||
justification: 'Critical data flow between service and persistence'
|
||||
test_environment: 'In-memory database'
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### End-to-End Tests
|
||||
|
|
@ -79,10 +79,10 @@ integration_test:
|
|||
|
||||
```yaml
|
||||
e2e_test:
|
||||
journey: "Complete checkout process"
|
||||
scenario: "User purchases with saved payment method"
|
||||
justification: "Revenue-critical path requiring full validation"
|
||||
environment: "Staging with test payment gateway"
|
||||
journey: 'Complete checkout process'
|
||||
scenario: 'User purchases with saved payment method'
|
||||
justification: 'Revenue-critical path requiring full validation'
|
||||
environment: 'Staging with test payment gateway'
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Test Level Selection Rules
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -6,18 +6,19 @@ Quick NFR validation focused on the core four: security, performance, reliabilit
|
|||
|
||||
```yaml
|
||||
required:
|
||||
- story_id: "{epic}.{story}" # e.g., "1.3"
|
||||
- story_path: "docs/stories/{epic}.{story}.*.md"
|
||||
|
||||
- story_id: '{epic}.{story}' # e.g., "1.3"
|
||||
- story_path: 'docs/stories/{epic}.{story}.*.md'
|
||||
|
||||
optional:
|
||||
- architecture_refs: "docs/architecture/*.md"
|
||||
- technical_preferences: "docs/technical-preferences.md"
|
||||
- architecture_refs: 'docs/architecture/*.md'
|
||||
- technical_preferences: 'docs/technical-preferences.md'
|
||||
- acceptance_criteria: From story file
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Purpose
|
||||
|
||||
Assess non-functional requirements for a story and generate:
|
||||
|
||||
1. YAML block for the gate file's `nfr_validation` section
|
||||
2. Brief markdown assessment saved to `docs/qa/assessments/{epic}.{story}-nfr-{YYYYMMDD}.md`
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -26,6 +27,7 @@ Assess non-functional requirements for a story and generate:
|
|||
### 0. Fail-safe for Missing Inputs
|
||||
|
||||
If story_path or story file can't be found:
|
||||
|
||||
- Still create assessment file with note: "Source story not found"
|
||||
- Set all selected NFRs to CONCERNS with notes: "Target unknown / evidence missing"
|
||||
- Continue with assessment to provide value
|
||||
|
|
@ -38,7 +40,7 @@ If story_path or story file can't be found:
|
|||
```text
|
||||
Which NFRs should I assess? (Enter numbers or press Enter for default)
|
||||
[1] Security (default)
|
||||
[2] Performance (default)
|
||||
[2] Performance (default)
|
||||
[3] Reliability (default)
|
||||
[4] Maintainability (default)
|
||||
[5] Usability
|
||||
|
|
@ -52,6 +54,7 @@ Which NFRs should I assess? (Enter numbers or press Enter for default)
|
|||
### 2. Check for Thresholds
|
||||
|
||||
Look for NFR requirements in:
|
||||
|
||||
- Story acceptance criteria
|
||||
- `docs/architecture/*.md` files
|
||||
- `docs/technical-preferences.md`
|
||||
|
|
@ -72,6 +75,7 @@ No security requirements found. Required auth method?
|
|||
### 3. Quick Assessment
|
||||
|
||||
For each selected NFR, check:
|
||||
|
||||
- Is there evidence it's implemented?
|
||||
- Can we validate it?
|
||||
- Are there obvious gaps?
|
||||
|
|
@ -86,24 +90,24 @@ Generate ONLY for NFRs actually assessed (no placeholders):
|
|||
# Gate YAML (copy/paste):
|
||||
nfr_validation:
|
||||
_assessed: [security, performance, reliability, maintainability]
|
||||
security:
|
||||
security:
|
||||
status: CONCERNS
|
||||
notes: "No rate limiting on auth endpoints"
|
||||
notes: 'No rate limiting on auth endpoints'
|
||||
performance:
|
||||
status: PASS
|
||||
notes: "Response times < 200ms verified"
|
||||
notes: 'Response times < 200ms verified'
|
||||
reliability:
|
||||
status: PASS
|
||||
notes: "Error handling and retries implemented"
|
||||
notes: 'Error handling and retries implemented'
|
||||
maintainability:
|
||||
status: CONCERNS
|
||||
notes: "Test coverage at 65%, target is 80%"
|
||||
notes: 'Test coverage at 65%, target is 80%'
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Deterministic Status Rules
|
||||
|
||||
- **FAIL**: Any selected NFR has critical gap or target clearly not met
|
||||
- **CONCERNS**: No FAILs, but any NFR is unknown/partial/missing evidence
|
||||
- **CONCERNS**: No FAILs, but any NFR is unknown/partial/missing evidence
|
||||
- **PASS**: All selected NFRs meet targets with evidence
|
||||
|
||||
## Quality Score Calculation
|
||||
|
|
@ -123,18 +127,21 @@ If `technical-preferences.md` defines custom weights, use those instead.
|
|||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
# NFR Assessment: {epic}.{story}
|
||||
|
||||
Date: {date}
|
||||
Reviewer: Quinn
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- Note: Source story not found (if applicable) -->
|
||||
|
||||
## Summary
|
||||
|
||||
- Security: CONCERNS - Missing rate limiting
|
||||
- Performance: PASS - Meets <200ms requirement
|
||||
- Reliability: PASS - Proper error handling
|
||||
- Maintainability: CONCERNS - Test coverage below target
|
||||
|
||||
## Critical Issues
|
||||
|
||||
1. **No rate limiting** (Security)
|
||||
- Risk: Brute force attacks possible
|
||||
- Fix: Add rate limiting middleware to auth endpoints
|
||||
|
|
@ -144,6 +151,7 @@ Reviewer: Quinn
|
|||
- Fix: Add tests for uncovered branches
|
||||
|
||||
## Quick Wins
|
||||
|
||||
- Add rate limiting: ~2 hours
|
||||
- Increase test coverage: ~4 hours
|
||||
- Add performance monitoring: ~1 hour
|
||||
|
|
@ -152,6 +160,7 @@ Reviewer: Quinn
|
|||
## Output 3: Story Update Line
|
||||
|
||||
**End with this line for the review task to quote:**
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
NFR assessment: docs/qa/assessments/{epic}.{story}-nfr-{YYYYMMDD}.md
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
|
@ -159,6 +168,7 @@ NFR assessment: docs/qa/assessments/{epic}.{story}-nfr-{YYYYMMDD}.md
|
|||
## Output 4: Gate Integration Line
|
||||
|
||||
**Always print at the end:**
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Gate NFR block ready → paste into docs/qa/gates/{epic}.{story}-{slug}.yml under nfr_validation
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
|
@ -166,66 +176,82 @@ Gate NFR block ready → paste into docs/qa/gates/{epic}.{story}-{slug}.yml unde
|
|||
## Assessment Criteria
|
||||
|
||||
### Security
|
||||
|
||||
**PASS if:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Authentication implemented
|
||||
- Authorization enforced
|
||||
- Input validation present
|
||||
- No hardcoded secrets
|
||||
|
||||
**CONCERNS if:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Missing rate limiting
|
||||
- Weak encryption
|
||||
- Incomplete authorization
|
||||
|
||||
**FAIL if:**
|
||||
|
||||
- No authentication
|
||||
- Hardcoded credentials
|
||||
- SQL injection vulnerabilities
|
||||
|
||||
### Performance
|
||||
|
||||
**PASS if:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Meets response time targets
|
||||
- No obvious bottlenecks
|
||||
- Reasonable resource usage
|
||||
|
||||
**CONCERNS if:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Close to limits
|
||||
- Missing indexes
|
||||
- No caching strategy
|
||||
|
||||
**FAIL if:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Exceeds response time limits
|
||||
- Memory leaks
|
||||
- Unoptimized queries
|
||||
|
||||
### Reliability
|
||||
|
||||
**PASS if:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Error handling present
|
||||
- Graceful degradation
|
||||
- Retry logic where needed
|
||||
|
||||
**CONCERNS if:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Some error cases unhandled
|
||||
- No circuit breakers
|
||||
- Missing health checks
|
||||
|
||||
**FAIL if:**
|
||||
|
||||
- No error handling
|
||||
- Crashes on errors
|
||||
- No recovery mechanisms
|
||||
|
||||
### Maintainability
|
||||
|
||||
**PASS if:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Test coverage meets target
|
||||
- Code well-structured
|
||||
- Documentation present
|
||||
|
||||
**CONCERNS if:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Test coverage below target
|
||||
- Some code duplication
|
||||
- Missing documentation
|
||||
|
||||
**FAIL if:**
|
||||
|
||||
- No tests
|
||||
- Highly coupled code
|
||||
- No documentation
|
||||
|
|
@ -283,7 +309,7 @@ maintainability:
|
|||
|
||||
1. **Functional Suitability**: Completeness, correctness, appropriateness
|
||||
2. **Performance Efficiency**: Time behavior, resource use, capacity
|
||||
3. **Compatibility**: Co-existence, interoperability
|
||||
3. **Compatibility**: Co-existence, interoperability
|
||||
4. **Usability**: Learnability, operability, accessibility
|
||||
5. **Reliability**: Maturity, availability, fault tolerance
|
||||
6. **Security**: Confidentiality, integrity, authenticity
|
||||
|
|
@ -291,6 +317,7 @@ maintainability:
|
|||
8. **Portability**: Adaptability, installability
|
||||
|
||||
Use these when assessing beyond the core four.
|
||||
|
||||
</details>
|
||||
|
||||
<details>
|
||||
|
|
@ -304,12 +331,13 @@ performance_deep_dive:
|
|||
p99: 350ms
|
||||
database:
|
||||
slow_queries: 2
|
||||
missing_indexes: ["users.email", "orders.user_id"]
|
||||
missing_indexes: ['users.email', 'orders.user_id']
|
||||
caching:
|
||||
hit_rate: 0%
|
||||
recommendation: "Add Redis for session data"
|
||||
recommendation: 'Add Redis for session data'
|
||||
load_test:
|
||||
max_rps: 150
|
||||
breaking_point: 200 rps
|
||||
```
|
||||
</details>
|
||||
|
||||
</details>
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -27,11 +27,11 @@ Slug rules:
|
|||
|
||||
```yaml
|
||||
schema: 1
|
||||
story: "{epic}.{story}"
|
||||
story: '{epic}.{story}'
|
||||
gate: PASS|CONCERNS|FAIL|WAIVED
|
||||
status_reason: "1-2 sentence explanation of gate decision"
|
||||
reviewer: "Quinn"
|
||||
updated: "{ISO-8601 timestamp}"
|
||||
status_reason: '1-2 sentence explanation of gate decision'
|
||||
reviewer: 'Quinn'
|
||||
updated: '{ISO-8601 timestamp}'
|
||||
top_issues: [] # Empty array if no issues
|
||||
waiver: { active: false } # Only set active: true if WAIVED
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
|
@ -40,20 +40,20 @@ waiver: { active: false } # Only set active: true if WAIVED
|
|||
|
||||
```yaml
|
||||
schema: 1
|
||||
story: "1.3"
|
||||
story: '1.3'
|
||||
gate: CONCERNS
|
||||
status_reason: "Missing rate limiting on auth endpoints poses security risk."
|
||||
reviewer: "Quinn"
|
||||
updated: "2025-01-12T10:15:00Z"
|
||||
status_reason: 'Missing rate limiting on auth endpoints poses security risk.'
|
||||
reviewer: 'Quinn'
|
||||
updated: '2025-01-12T10:15:00Z'
|
||||
top_issues:
|
||||
- id: "SEC-001"
|
||||
- id: 'SEC-001'
|
||||
severity: high # ONLY: low|medium|high
|
||||
finding: "No rate limiting on login endpoint"
|
||||
suggested_action: "Add rate limiting middleware before production"
|
||||
- id: "TEST-001"
|
||||
finding: 'No rate limiting on login endpoint'
|
||||
suggested_action: 'Add rate limiting middleware before production'
|
||||
- id: 'TEST-001'
|
||||
severity: medium
|
||||
finding: "No integration tests for auth flow"
|
||||
suggested_action: "Add integration test coverage"
|
||||
finding: 'No integration tests for auth flow'
|
||||
suggested_action: 'Add integration test coverage'
|
||||
waiver: { active: false }
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -61,20 +61,20 @@ waiver: { active: false }
|
|||
|
||||
```yaml
|
||||
schema: 1
|
||||
story: "1.3"
|
||||
story: '1.3'
|
||||
gate: WAIVED
|
||||
status_reason: "Known issues accepted for MVP release."
|
||||
reviewer: "Quinn"
|
||||
updated: "2025-01-12T10:15:00Z"
|
||||
status_reason: 'Known issues accepted for MVP release.'
|
||||
reviewer: 'Quinn'
|
||||
updated: '2025-01-12T10:15:00Z'
|
||||
top_issues:
|
||||
- id: "PERF-001"
|
||||
- id: 'PERF-001'
|
||||
severity: low
|
||||
finding: "Dashboard loads slowly with 1000+ items"
|
||||
suggested_action: "Implement pagination in next sprint"
|
||||
finding: 'Dashboard loads slowly with 1000+ items'
|
||||
suggested_action: 'Implement pagination in next sprint'
|
||||
waiver:
|
||||
active: true
|
||||
reason: "MVP release - performance optimization deferred"
|
||||
approved_by: "Product Owner"
|
||||
reason: 'MVP release - performance optimization deferred'
|
||||
approved_by: 'Product Owner'
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Gate Decision Criteria
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -6,10 +6,10 @@ Generate a comprehensive risk assessment matrix for a story implementation using
|
|||
|
||||
```yaml
|
||||
required:
|
||||
- story_id: "{epic}.{story}" # e.g., "1.3"
|
||||
- story_path: "docs/stories/{epic}.{story}.*.md"
|
||||
- story_title: "{title}" # If missing, derive from story file H1
|
||||
- story_slug: "{slug}" # If missing, derive from title (lowercase, hyphenated)
|
||||
- story_id: '{epic}.{story}' # e.g., "1.3"
|
||||
- story_path: 'docs/stories/{epic}.{story}.*.md'
|
||||
- story_title: '{title}' # If missing, derive from story file H1
|
||||
- story_slug: '{slug}' # If missing, derive from title (lowercase, hyphenated)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Purpose
|
||||
|
|
@ -79,14 +79,14 @@ For each category, identify specific risks:
|
|||
|
||||
```yaml
|
||||
risk:
|
||||
id: "SEC-001" # Use prefixes: SEC, PERF, DATA, BUS, OPS, TECH
|
||||
id: 'SEC-001' # Use prefixes: SEC, PERF, DATA, BUS, OPS, TECH
|
||||
category: security
|
||||
title: "Insufficient input validation on user forms"
|
||||
description: "Form inputs not properly sanitized could lead to XSS attacks"
|
||||
title: 'Insufficient input validation on user forms'
|
||||
description: 'Form inputs not properly sanitized could lead to XSS attacks'
|
||||
affected_components:
|
||||
- "UserRegistrationForm"
|
||||
- "ProfileUpdateForm"
|
||||
detection_method: "Code review revealed missing validation"
|
||||
- 'UserRegistrationForm'
|
||||
- 'ProfileUpdateForm'
|
||||
detection_method: 'Code review revealed missing validation'
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Risk Assessment
|
||||
|
|
@ -133,20 +133,20 @@ For each identified risk, provide mitigation:
|
|||
|
||||
```yaml
|
||||
mitigation:
|
||||
risk_id: "SEC-001"
|
||||
strategy: "preventive" # preventive|detective|corrective
|
||||
risk_id: 'SEC-001'
|
||||
strategy: 'preventive' # preventive|detective|corrective
|
||||
actions:
|
||||
- "Implement input validation library (e.g., validator.js)"
|
||||
- "Add CSP headers to prevent XSS execution"
|
||||
- "Sanitize all user inputs before storage"
|
||||
- "Escape all outputs in templates"
|
||||
- 'Implement input validation library (e.g., validator.js)'
|
||||
- 'Add CSP headers to prevent XSS execution'
|
||||
- 'Sanitize all user inputs before storage'
|
||||
- 'Escape all outputs in templates'
|
||||
testing_requirements:
|
||||
- "Security testing with OWASP ZAP"
|
||||
- "Manual penetration testing of forms"
|
||||
- "Unit tests for validation functions"
|
||||
residual_risk: "Low - Some zero-day vulnerabilities may remain"
|
||||
owner: "dev"
|
||||
timeline: "Before deployment"
|
||||
- 'Security testing with OWASP ZAP'
|
||||
- 'Manual penetration testing of forms'
|
||||
- 'Unit tests for validation functions'
|
||||
residual_risk: 'Low - Some zero-day vulnerabilities may remain'
|
||||
owner: 'dev'
|
||||
timeline: 'Before deployment'
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Outputs
|
||||
|
|
@ -172,12 +172,12 @@ risk_summary:
|
|||
highest:
|
||||
id: SEC-001
|
||||
score: 9
|
||||
title: "XSS on profile form"
|
||||
title: 'XSS on profile form'
|
||||
recommendations:
|
||||
must_fix:
|
||||
- "Add input sanitization & CSP"
|
||||
- 'Add input sanitization & CSP'
|
||||
monitor:
|
||||
- "Add security alerts for auth endpoints"
|
||||
- 'Add security alerts for auth endpoints'
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Output 2: Markdown Report
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -6,10 +6,10 @@ Create comprehensive test scenarios with appropriate test level recommendations
|
|||
|
||||
```yaml
|
||||
required:
|
||||
- story_id: "{epic}.{story}" # e.g., "1.3"
|
||||
- story_path: "{devStoryLocation}/{epic}.{story}.*.md" # Path from core-config.yaml
|
||||
- story_title: "{title}" # If missing, derive from story file H1
|
||||
- story_slug: "{slug}" # If missing, derive from title (lowercase, hyphenated)
|
||||
- story_id: '{epic}.{story}' # e.g., "1.3"
|
||||
- story_path: '{devStoryLocation}/{epic}.{story}.*.md' # Path from core-config.yaml
|
||||
- story_title: '{title}' # If missing, derive from story file H1
|
||||
- story_slug: '{slug}' # If missing, derive from title (lowercase, hyphenated)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Purpose
|
||||
|
|
@ -62,13 +62,13 @@ For each identified test need, create:
|
|||
|
||||
```yaml
|
||||
test_scenario:
|
||||
id: "{epic}.{story}-{LEVEL}-{SEQ}"
|
||||
requirement: "AC reference"
|
||||
id: '{epic}.{story}-{LEVEL}-{SEQ}'
|
||||
requirement: 'AC reference'
|
||||
priority: P0|P1|P2|P3
|
||||
level: unit|integration|e2e
|
||||
description: "What is being tested"
|
||||
justification: "Why this level was chosen"
|
||||
mitigates_risks: ["RISK-001"] # If risk profile exists
|
||||
description: 'What is being tested'
|
||||
justification: 'Why this level was chosen'
|
||||
mitigates_risks: ['RISK-001'] # If risk profile exists
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### 5. Validate Coverage
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -31,21 +31,21 @@ Identify all testable requirements from:
|
|||
For each requirement, document which tests validate it. Use Given-When-Then to describe what the test validates (not how it's written):
|
||||
|
||||
```yaml
|
||||
requirement: "AC1: User can login with valid credentials"
|
||||
requirement: 'AC1: User can login with valid credentials'
|
||||
test_mappings:
|
||||
- test_file: "auth/login.test.ts"
|
||||
test_case: "should successfully login with valid email and password"
|
||||
- test_file: 'auth/login.test.ts'
|
||||
test_case: 'should successfully login with valid email and password'
|
||||
# Given-When-Then describes WHAT the test validates, not HOW it's coded
|
||||
given: "A registered user with valid credentials"
|
||||
when: "They submit the login form"
|
||||
then: "They are redirected to dashboard and session is created"
|
||||
given: 'A registered user with valid credentials'
|
||||
when: 'They submit the login form'
|
||||
then: 'They are redirected to dashboard and session is created'
|
||||
coverage: full
|
||||
|
||||
- test_file: "e2e/auth-flow.test.ts"
|
||||
test_case: "complete login flow"
|
||||
given: "User on login page"
|
||||
when: "Entering valid credentials and submitting"
|
||||
then: "Dashboard loads with user data"
|
||||
- test_file: 'e2e/auth-flow.test.ts'
|
||||
test_case: 'complete login flow'
|
||||
given: 'User on login page'
|
||||
when: 'Entering valid credentials and submitting'
|
||||
then: 'Dashboard loads with user data'
|
||||
coverage: integration
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -67,19 +67,19 @@ Document any gaps found:
|
|||
|
||||
```yaml
|
||||
coverage_gaps:
|
||||
- requirement: "AC3: Password reset email sent within 60 seconds"
|
||||
gap: "No test for email delivery timing"
|
||||
- requirement: 'AC3: Password reset email sent within 60 seconds'
|
||||
gap: 'No test for email delivery timing'
|
||||
severity: medium
|
||||
suggested_test:
|
||||
type: integration
|
||||
description: "Test email service SLA compliance"
|
||||
description: 'Test email service SLA compliance'
|
||||
|
||||
- requirement: "AC5: Support 1000 concurrent users"
|
||||
gap: "No load testing implemented"
|
||||
- requirement: 'AC5: Support 1000 concurrent users'
|
||||
gap: 'No load testing implemented'
|
||||
severity: high
|
||||
suggested_test:
|
||||
type: performance
|
||||
description: "Load test with 1000 concurrent connections"
|
||||
description: 'Load test with 1000 concurrent connections'
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Outputs
|
||||
|
|
@ -95,11 +95,11 @@ trace:
|
|||
full: Y
|
||||
partial: Z
|
||||
none: W
|
||||
planning_ref: "docs/qa/assessments/{epic}.{story}-test-design-{YYYYMMDD}.md"
|
||||
planning_ref: 'docs/qa/assessments/{epic}.{story}-test-design-{YYYYMMDD}.md'
|
||||
uncovered:
|
||||
- ac: "AC3"
|
||||
reason: "No test found for password reset timing"
|
||||
notes: "See docs/qa/assessments/{epic}.{story}-trace-{YYYYMMDD}.md"
|
||||
- ac: 'AC3'
|
||||
reason: 'No test found for password reset timing'
|
||||
notes: 'See docs/qa/assessments/{epic}.{story}-trace-{YYYYMMDD}.md'
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Output 2: Traceability Report
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -11,8 +11,8 @@ template:
|
|||
schema: 1
|
||||
story: "{{epic_num}}.{{story_num}}"
|
||||
story_title: "{{story_title}}"
|
||||
gate: "{{gate_status}}" # PASS|CONCERNS|FAIL|WAIVED
|
||||
status_reason: "{{status_reason}}" # 1-2 sentence summary of why this gate decision
|
||||
gate: "{{gate_status}}" # PASS|CONCERNS|FAIL|WAIVED
|
||||
status_reason: "{{status_reason}}" # 1-2 sentence summary of why this gate decision
|
||||
reviewer: "Quinn (Test Architect)"
|
||||
updated: "{{iso_timestamp}}"
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ examples:
|
|||
severity: medium
|
||||
finding: "Missing integration tests for auth flow"
|
||||
suggested_action: "Add test coverage for critical paths"
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
when_waived: |
|
||||
waiver:
|
||||
active: true
|
||||
|
|
@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ optional_fields_examples:
|
|||
quality_and_expiry: |
|
||||
quality_score: 75 # 0-100 (optional scoring)
|
||||
expires: "2025-01-26T00:00:00Z" # Optional gate freshness window
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
evidence: |
|
||||
evidence:
|
||||
tests_reviewed: 15
|
||||
|
|
@ -63,14 +63,14 @@ optional_fields_examples:
|
|||
trace:
|
||||
ac_covered: [1, 2, 3] # AC numbers with test coverage
|
||||
ac_gaps: [4] # AC numbers lacking coverage
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
nfr_validation: |
|
||||
nfr_validation:
|
||||
security: { status: CONCERNS, notes: "Rate limiting missing" }
|
||||
performance: { status: PASS, notes: "" }
|
||||
reliability: { status: PASS, notes: "" }
|
||||
maintainability: { status: PASS, notes: "" }
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
history: |
|
||||
history: # Append-only audit trail
|
||||
- at: "2025-01-12T10:00:00Z"
|
||||
|
|
@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ optional_fields_examples:
|
|||
- at: "2025-01-12T15:00:00Z"
|
||||
gate: CONCERNS
|
||||
note: "Tests added but rate limiting still missing"
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
risk_summary: |
|
||||
risk_summary: # From risk-profile task
|
||||
totals:
|
||||
|
|
@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ optional_fields_examples:
|
|||
recommendations:
|
||||
must_fix: []
|
||||
monitor: []
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
recommendations: |
|
||||
recommendations:
|
||||
immediate: # Must fix before production
|
||||
|
|
@ -99,4 +99,4 @@ optional_fields_examples:
|
|||
refs: ["api/auth/login.ts:42-68"]
|
||||
future: # Can be addressed later
|
||||
- action: "Consider caching for better performance"
|
||||
refs: ["services/data.service.ts"]
|
||||
refs: ["services/data.service.ts"]
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -29,14 +29,14 @@ The Test Architect (Quinn) provides comprehensive quality assurance throughout t
|
|||
|
||||
### Quick Command Reference
|
||||
|
||||
| **Stage** | **Command** | **Purpose** | **Output** | **Priority** |
|
||||
|-----------|------------|-------------|------------|--------------|
|
||||
| **After Story Approval** | `*risk` | Identify integration & regression risks | `docs/qa/assessments/{epic}.{story}-risk-{YYYYMMDD}.md` | High for complex/brownfield |
|
||||
| | `*design` | Create test strategy for dev | `docs/qa/assessments/{epic}.{story}-test-design-{YYYYMMDD}.md` | High for new features |
|
||||
| **During Development** | `*trace` | Verify test coverage | `docs/qa/assessments/{epic}.{story}-trace-{YYYYMMDD}.md` | Medium |
|
||||
| | `*nfr` | Validate quality attributes | `docs/qa/assessments/{epic}.{story}-nfr-{YYYYMMDD}.md` | High for critical features |
|
||||
| **After Development** | `*review` | Comprehensive assessment | QA Results in story + `docs/qa/gates/{epic}.{story}-{slug}.yml` | **Required** |
|
||||
| **Post-Review** | `*gate` | Update quality decision | Updated `docs/qa/gates/{epic}.{story}-{slug}.yml` | As needed |
|
||||
| **Stage** | **Command** | **Purpose** | **Output** | **Priority** |
|
||||
| ------------------------ | ----------- | --------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------- |
|
||||
| **After Story Approval** | `*risk` | Identify integration & regression risks | `docs/qa/assessments/{epic}.{story}-risk-{YYYYMMDD}.md` | High for complex/brownfield |
|
||||
| | `*design` | Create test strategy for dev | `docs/qa/assessments/{epic}.{story}-test-design-{YYYYMMDD}.md` | High for new features |
|
||||
| **During Development** | `*trace` | Verify test coverage | `docs/qa/assessments/{epic}.{story}-trace-{YYYYMMDD}.md` | Medium |
|
||||
| | `*nfr` | Validate quality attributes | `docs/qa/assessments/{epic}.{story}-nfr-{YYYYMMDD}.md` | High for critical features |
|
||||
| **After Development** | `*review` | Comprehensive assessment | QA Results in story + `docs/qa/gates/{epic}.{story}-{slug}.yml` | **Required** |
|
||||
| **Post-Review** | `*gate` | Update quality decision | Updated `docs/qa/gates/{epic}.{story}-{slug}.yml` | As needed |
|
||||
|
||||
### Stage 1: After Story Creation (Before Dev Starts)
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -134,24 +134,24 @@ The Test Architect (Quinn) provides comprehensive quality assurance throughout t
|
|||
|
||||
### Understanding Gate Decisions
|
||||
|
||||
| **Status** | **Meaning** | **Action Required** | **Can Proceed?** |
|
||||
|------------|-------------|-------------------|------------------|
|
||||
| **PASS** | All critical requirements met | None | ✅ Yes |
|
||||
| **CONCERNS** | Non-critical issues found | Team review recommended | ⚠️ With caution |
|
||||
| **FAIL** | Critical issues (security, missing P0 tests) | Must fix | ❌ No |
|
||||
| **WAIVED** | Issues acknowledged and accepted | Document reasoning | ✅ With approval |
|
||||
| **Status** | **Meaning** | **Action Required** | **Can Proceed?** |
|
||||
| ------------ | -------------------------------------------- | ----------------------- | ---------------- |
|
||||
| **PASS** | All critical requirements met | None | ✅ Yes |
|
||||
| **CONCERNS** | Non-critical issues found | Team review recommended | ⚠️ With caution |
|
||||
| **FAIL** | Critical issues (security, missing P0 tests) | Must fix | ❌ No |
|
||||
| **WAIVED** | Issues acknowledged and accepted | Document reasoning | ✅ With approval |
|
||||
|
||||
### Risk-Based Testing Strategy
|
||||
|
||||
The Test Architect uses risk scoring to prioritize testing:
|
||||
|
||||
| **Risk Score** | **Calculation** | **Testing Priority** | **Gate Impact** |
|
||||
|---------------|----------------|-------------------|----------------|
|
||||
| **9** | High probability × High impact | P0 - Must test thoroughly | FAIL if untested |
|
||||
| **6** | Medium-high combinations | P1 - Should test well | CONCERNS if gaps |
|
||||
| **4** | Medium combinations | P1 - Should test | CONCERNS if notable gaps |
|
||||
| **2-3** | Low-medium combinations | P2 - Nice to have | Note in review |
|
||||
| **1** | Minimal risk | P2 - Minimal | Note in review |
|
||||
| **Risk Score** | **Calculation** | **Testing Priority** | **Gate Impact** |
|
||||
| -------------- | ------------------------------ | ------------------------- | ------------------------ |
|
||||
| **9** | High probability × High impact | P0 - Must test thoroughly | FAIL if untested |
|
||||
| **6** | Medium-high combinations | P1 - Should test well | CONCERNS if gaps |
|
||||
| **4** | Medium combinations | P1 - Should test | CONCERNS if notable gaps |
|
||||
| **2-3** | Low-medium combinations | P2 - Nice to have | Note in review |
|
||||
| **1** | Minimal risk | P2 - Minimal | Note in review |
|
||||
|
||||
### Special Situations & Best Practices
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -227,14 +227,14 @@ All Test Architect activities create permanent records:
|
|||
|
||||
**Should I run Test Architect commands?**
|
||||
|
||||
| **Scenario** | **Before Dev** | **During Dev** | **After Dev** |
|
||||
|-------------|---------------|----------------|---------------|
|
||||
| **Simple bug fix** | Optional | Optional | Required `*review` |
|
||||
| **New feature** | Recommended `*risk`, `*design` | Optional `*trace` | Required `*review` |
|
||||
| **Brownfield change** | **Required** `*risk`, `*design` | Recommended `*trace`, `*nfr` | Required `*review` |
|
||||
| **API modification** | **Required** `*risk`, `*design` | **Required** `*trace` | Required `*review` |
|
||||
| **Performance-critical** | Recommended `*design` | **Required** `*nfr` | Required `*review` |
|
||||
| **Data migration** | **Required** `*risk`, `*design` | **Required** `*trace` | Required `*review` + `*gate` |
|
||||
| **Scenario** | **Before Dev** | **During Dev** | **After Dev** |
|
||||
| ------------------------ | ------------------------------- | ---------------------------- | ---------------------------- |
|
||||
| **Simple bug fix** | Optional | Optional | Required `*review` |
|
||||
| **New feature** | Recommended `*risk`, `*design` | Optional `*trace` | Required `*review` |
|
||||
| **Brownfield change** | **Required** `*risk`, `*design` | Recommended `*trace`, `*nfr` | Required `*review` |
|
||||
| **API modification** | **Required** `*risk`, `*design` | **Required** `*trace` | Required `*review` |
|
||||
| **Performance-critical** | Recommended `*design` | **Required** `*nfr` | Required `*review` |
|
||||
| **Data migration** | **Required** `*risk`, `*design` | **Required** `*trace` | Required `*review` + `*gate` |
|
||||
|
||||
### Success Metrics
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -277,7 +277,7 @@ The documentation uses short forms for convenience. Both styles are valid:
|
|||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
*risk → *risk-profile
|
||||
*design → *test-design
|
||||
*design → *test-design
|
||||
*nfr → *nfr-assess
|
||||
*trace → *trace-requirements (or just *trace)
|
||||
*review → *review
|
||||
|
|
@ -376,14 +376,14 @@ Manages quality gate decisions:
|
|||
|
||||
The Test Architect provides value throughout the entire development lifecycle. Here's when and how to leverage each capability:
|
||||
|
||||
| **Stage** | **Command** | **When to Use** | **Value** | **Output** |
|
||||
|-----------|------------|-----------------|-----------|------------|
|
||||
| **Story Drafting** | `*risk` | After SM drafts story | Identify pitfalls early | `docs/qa/assessments/{epic}.{story}-risk-{YYYYMMDD}.md` |
|
||||
| | `*design` | After risk assessment | Guide dev on test strategy | `docs/qa/assessments/{epic}.{story}-test-design-{YYYYMMDD}.md` |
|
||||
| **Development** | `*trace` | Mid-implementation | Verify test coverage | `docs/qa/assessments/{epic}.{story}-trace-{YYYYMMDD}.md` |
|
||||
| | `*nfr` | While building features | Catch quality issues early | `docs/qa/assessments/{epic}.{story}-nfr-{YYYYMMDD}.md` |
|
||||
| **Review** | `*review` | Story marked complete | Full quality assessment | QA Results in story + gate file |
|
||||
| **Post-Review** | `*gate` | After fixing issues | Update quality decision | Updated `docs/qa/gates/{epic}.{story}-{slug}.yml` |
|
||||
| **Stage** | **Command** | **When to Use** | **Value** | **Output** |
|
||||
| ------------------ | ----------- | ----------------------- | -------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| **Story Drafting** | `*risk` | After SM drafts story | Identify pitfalls early | `docs/qa/assessments/{epic}.{story}-risk-{YYYYMMDD}.md` |
|
||||
| | `*design` | After risk assessment | Guide dev on test strategy | `docs/qa/assessments/{epic}.{story}-test-design-{YYYYMMDD}.md` |
|
||||
| **Development** | `*trace` | Mid-implementation | Verify test coverage | `docs/qa/assessments/{epic}.{story}-trace-{YYYYMMDD}.md` |
|
||||
| | `*nfr` | While building features | Catch quality issues early | `docs/qa/assessments/{epic}.{story}-nfr-{YYYYMMDD}.md` |
|
||||
| **Review** | `*review` | Story marked complete | Full quality assessment | QA Results in story + gate file |
|
||||
| **Post-Review** | `*gate` | After fixing issues | Update quality decision | Updated `docs/qa/gates/{epic}.{story}-{slug}.yml` |
|
||||
|
||||
#### Example Commands
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ const yaml = require('js-yaml');
|
|||
const chalk = require('chalk').default || require('chalk');
|
||||
const inquirer = require('inquirer').default || require('inquirer');
|
||||
const semver = require('semver');
|
||||
const https = require('https');
|
||||
const https = require('node:https');
|
||||
|
||||
// Handle both execution contexts (from root via npx or from installer directory)
|
||||
let version;
|
||||
|
|
@ -104,28 +104,30 @@ program
|
|||
.description('Check for BMad Update')
|
||||
.action(async () => {
|
||||
console.log('Checking for updates...');
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
// Make HTTP request to npm registry for latest version info
|
||||
const req = https.get(`https://registry.npmjs.org/${packageName}/latest`, res => {
|
||||
const req = https.get(`https://registry.npmjs.org/${packageName}/latest`, (res) => {
|
||||
// Check for HTTP errors (non-200 status codes)
|
||||
if (res.statusCode !== 200) {
|
||||
console.error(chalk.red(`Update check failed: Received status code ${res.statusCode}`));
|
||||
return;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
// Accumulate response data chunks
|
||||
let data = '';
|
||||
res.on('data', chunk => data += chunk);
|
||||
|
||||
res.on('data', (chunk) => (data += chunk));
|
||||
|
||||
// Process complete response
|
||||
res.on('end', () => {
|
||||
try {
|
||||
// Parse npm registry response and extract version
|
||||
const latest = JSON.parse(data).version;
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
// Compare versions using semver
|
||||
if (semver.gt(latest, version)) {
|
||||
console.log(chalk.bold.blue(`⚠️ ${packageName} update available: ${version} → ${latest}`));
|
||||
console.log(
|
||||
chalk.bold.blue(`⚠️ ${packageName} update available: ${version} → ${latest}`),
|
||||
);
|
||||
console.log(chalk.bold.blue('\nInstall latest by running:'));
|
||||
console.log(chalk.bold.magenta(` npm install ${packageName}@latest`));
|
||||
console.log(chalk.dim(' or'));
|
||||
|
|
@ -139,14 +141,14 @@ program
|
|||
}
|
||||
});
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
// Handle network/connection errors
|
||||
req.on('error', error => {
|
||||
req.on('error', (error) => {
|
||||
console.error(chalk.red('Update check failed:'), error.message);
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
// Set 30 second timeout to prevent hanging
|
||||
req.setTimeout(30000, () => {
|
||||
req.setTimeout(30_000, () => {
|
||||
req.destroy();
|
||||
console.error(chalk.red('Update check timed out'));
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
|
|||
* Reduces duplication and provides shared methods
|
||||
*/
|
||||
|
||||
const path = require('path');
|
||||
const path = require('node:path');
|
||||
const fs = require('fs-extra');
|
||||
const yaml = require('js-yaml');
|
||||
const chalk = require('chalk').default || require('chalk');
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue