c38b5f646a
Promote /tables, /excel-query, /query-tool, /mid-section-defect from deferred to full shell-governed in-scope routes with canonical redirects, content contracts, governance artifacts, and updated CI gates. Unify all page header gradients to #667eea → #764ba2 and h1 font-size to 24px for visual consistency across all dashboard pages. Remove Native Route-View dev annotations from job-query, excel-query, and query-tool headers. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
48 lines
2.8 KiB
Markdown
48 lines
2.8 KiB
Markdown
# unified-shell-route-coverage Specification
|
|
|
|
## Purpose
|
|
TBD - created by archiving change full-modernization-architecture-blueprint. Update Purpose after archive.
|
|
## Requirements
|
|
### Requirement: In-scope routes SHALL be shell-contract governed
|
|
All in-scope modernization routes, including deferred follow-up routes, SHALL be represented in shell route contracts, loader registration policy, and navigation visibility governance with complete metadata.
|
|
|
|
#### Scenario: In-scope coverage validation
|
|
- **WHEN** shell route contract validation is executed
|
|
- **THEN** every in-scope route SHALL have route metadata, ownership metadata, and visibility policy metadata
|
|
- **THEN** missing in-scope route contracts SHALL fail validation
|
|
|
|
#### Scenario: Admin route inclusion
|
|
- **WHEN** shell navigation is built for admin users
|
|
- **THEN** `/admin/pages` and `/admin/performance` SHALL be represented as governed navigation targets according to visibility/access policy
|
|
|
|
#### Scenario: Deferred route contract promotion
|
|
- **WHEN** follow-up route coverage validation is executed
|
|
- **THEN** `/tables`, `/excel-query`, `/query-tool`, and `/mid-section-defect` SHALL have route metadata, owner metadata, and visibility/access policy metadata
|
|
- **THEN** missing metadata on those deferred routes SHALL fail route-governance validation
|
|
|
|
### Requirement: Route coverage governance SHALL be CI-enforced
|
|
Route coverage and contract completeness checks for in-scope routes SHALL run as CI gates.
|
|
|
|
#### Scenario: CI gate failure on in-scope gap
|
|
- **WHEN** CI detects an in-scope route without required contract metadata
|
|
- **THEN** the modernization gate SHALL fail
|
|
- **THEN** release promotion SHALL be blocked until resolved
|
|
|
|
### Requirement: Frontend and backend route-contract inventories SHALL be cross-validated
|
|
Route-governance checks SHALL verify that frontend shell route contracts and backend route contract artifacts describe the same governed route set and scope classes.
|
|
|
|
#### Scenario: Cross-source contract parity gate
|
|
- **WHEN** modernization governance checks run in CI
|
|
- **THEN** mismatches between backend route contract JSON and frontend `routeContracts.js` route inventory SHALL fail the gate
|
|
|
|
#### Scenario: Scope classification drift detection
|
|
- **WHEN** a route has inconsistent scope classification between frontend and backend contract sources
|
|
- **THEN** governance checks SHALL report the specific route and conflicting scope values
|
|
|
|
### Requirement: Legacy contract-source fallback SHALL emit operational warning
|
|
When contract loading falls back from the primary modernization contract artifact to a legacy artifact path, the service SHALL emit explicit warning telemetry.
|
|
|
|
#### Scenario: Legacy contract fallback path selected
|
|
- **WHEN** the primary contract artifact is unavailable and a legacy contract file is loaded
|
|
- **THEN** the system SHALL log a warning that includes the selected legacy source path
|