Files
fete/.ralph/verify-impl-order/progress.txt
nitrix 7b460dd322 initial commit
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-03-03 13:03:47 +01:00

190 lines
13 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Permalink Blame History

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters
This file contains Unicode characters that might be confused with other characters. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.
# Ralph Loop Progress Log
# Each iteration appends its findings and decisions here.
---
## Iteration 1 — 2026-03-03
**Task:** Verify Phase 0 (Project Infrastructure)
**Verified phases:** Phase 0
**Method:** Checked each task's position in Phase 0 against its declared `Dependencies:` field in spec/setup-tasks.md.
### Findings
**Dependency satisfaction:** PASS
| Task | Declared Dependencies | Scheduled at | All deps in earlier slots? |
|------|-----------------------|--------------|---------------------------|
| T-1 | None | Order 1 | ✓ (no deps) |
| T-2 | T-1 | Order 2 | ✓ T-1 is Order 1 |
| T-4 | T-1, T-2 | Order 3 | ✓ T-1 (Order 1), T-2 (Order 2) |
| T-3 | T-1, T-2 | Order 3* | ✓ T-1 (Order 1), T-2 (Order 2) |
**Completeness:** PASS — all four setup tasks (T-1, T-2, T-3, T-4) are accounted for in Phase 0.
**Parallelizability:** PASS — T-3 and T-4 have identical declared dependencies (T-1, T-2) and are marked as parallelizable with each other. This is correct.
**Minor prose inconsistency (not an ordering problem):** Phase 0's introductory sentence states "All setup tasks must complete before any user story work begins," but the same paragraph notes "T-3 can run in parallel with Phase 1." These two sentences contradict each other in plain language. The dependency-based analysis is correct: no user story has a declared dependency on T-3, so Phase 1 can proceed without T-3 being complete. The parenthetical note is accurate; the introductory sentence is overly broad. Not raising a question since this is a prose issue only and the implementation order is unambiguous.
**Verdict:** Phase 0 is correctly ordered. No dependency violations found.
---
## Iteration 3 — 2026-03-03
**Task:** Verify Phase 2 (Organizer Management & Event Lifecycle)
**Verified phases:** Phase 0, Phase 1, Phase 2
**Method:** Checked each story's position in Phase 2 against its declared `Dependencies:` field in spec/userstories.md. Phases 0 and 1 are treated as already verified.
### Findings
**Dependency satisfaction:** PASS
| Story | Declared Dependencies | All deps in earlier phases? |
|-------|-----------------------|-----------------------------|
| US-4 | US-1, T-4 | ✓ US-1 is Phase 1; T-4 is Phase 0 |
| US-5 | US-1, T-4 | ✓ US-1 is Phase 1; T-4 is Phase 0 |
| US-18 | US-1, T-4 | ✓ US-1 is Phase 1; T-4 is Phase 0 |
| US-19 | US-1, T-4 | ✓ US-1 is Phase 1; T-4 is Phase 0 |
| US-12 | US-1, T-4 | ✓ US-1 is Phase 1; T-4 is Phase 0 |
| US-13 | US-1, T-4 | ✓ US-1 is Phase 1; T-4 is Phase 0 |
**Completeness:** PASS — All six stories with dependencies satisfied by Phase 1 or earlier (and belonging to the organizer/lifecycle domain) are accounted for in Phase 2. No eligible story is missing.
Note: Several later-phase stories (US-6, US-8, US-10a, US-11, US-15, US-16, US-7, US-14, US-17) also have their declared dependencies satisfied by Phase 1 or earlier, but they are correctly grouped into later phases by functional domain (enhanced guest features, visual customization, PWA shell). This is a deliberate, documented grouping choice — not a scheduling error.
**Parallelizability:** PASS — All six Phase 2 stories declare only US-1 and T-4 as dependencies. None of them declare a dependency on any other Phase 2 story. They are structurally independent and can be worked on in parallel. The recommended within-phase order (US-5 first, since US-9 in Phase 3 depends on it) is an efficiency hint, not a structural constraint.
**Undeclared dependency observation (no violation):** US-4's ACs state the organizer view is "accessible from the event page" — this implies UX integration with US-2 at the view level. However, the organizer view can be implemented as a standalone route/endpoint independently of US-2's visual implementation, so the omission of US-2 from US-4's declared dependencies is defensible and consistent with Phase 2 placement. No ordering violation.
**Mermaid diagram consistency:** The diagram shows US-1 branching to all Phase 2 stories (US-4, US-5, US-12, US-13, US-18, US-19). T-4 is not shown as a direct arrow to these stories, but it is a transitive dependency via T-4 → US-1. The diagram caption notes "(and T-4 transitively)" — consistent with declared dependencies.
**Verdict:** Phase 2 is correctly ordered. No dependency violations found.
---
## Iteration 4 — 2026-03-03
**Task:** Verify Phase 3 (Enhanced Event Page Features)
**Verified phases:** Phase 0, Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3
**Method:** Checked each story's position in Phase 3 against its declared `Dependencies:` field in spec/userstories.md. Phases 02 are treated as already verified.
### Findings
**Dependency satisfaction:** PASS
| Story | Declared Dependencies | All deps in earlier phases? |
|-------|-----------------------|-----------------------------|
| US-6 | US-2, T-4 | ✓ US-2 is Phase 1; T-4 is Phase 0 |
| US-8 | US-2, T-4 | ✓ US-2 is Phase 1; T-4 is Phase 0 |
| US-9 | US-2, US-5, T-4 | ✓ US-2 is Phase 1; US-5 is Phase 2; T-4 is Phase 0 |
| US-10a | US-1, US-2, T-4 | ✓ US-1 and US-2 are Phase 1; T-4 is Phase 0 |
| US-10b | US-10a | US-10a is Phase 3 (same phase) — see parallelizability below |
| US-11 | US-2, T-4 | ✓ US-2 is Phase 1; T-4 is Phase 0 |
**Completeness:** PASS — All six stories with dependencies satisfied by Phase 2 or earlier and belonging to the enhanced event-page domain are included in Phase 3. No eligible story appears to be missing.
**Parallelizability:** PASS (with one documented intra-phase sequential pair)
- US-6, US-8, US-11: mutually independent; no intra-phase dependencies. ✓
- US-10a: independent of US-6, US-8, US-11 within the phase. ✓
- US-10b → US-10a: **intra-phase dependency**. US-10b must follow US-10a. This forces sequential implementation of the pair within Phase 3. This is explicitly acknowledged in the spec: "US-10b: Must follow US-10a" and "US-10a → US-10b (sequential pair)" in the recommended order note. Not a violation — the constraint is documented and correct.
- US-9: independent of US-6, US-8, US-10a, US-10b, US-11 within Phase 3 (its cross-phase deps US-2 and US-5 are already satisfied). ✓
**Diagram consistency (minor observation, no ordering problem):** The Mermaid diagram shows only `US-2 → US-10a` for US-10a's dependencies. US-10a's declared dependencies include `US-1` in addition to US-2, but US-1 is a transitive prerequisite of US-2, so US-1 is reachable in the diagram via `US-1 → US-2 → US-10a`. This is a diagram simplification, not a missing dependency — the implementation order is unambiguous.
**Verdict:** Phase 3 is correctly ordered. No dependency violations found. The US-10a → US-10b sequential constraint is known and documented.
---
## Iteration 5 — 2026-03-03
**Task:** Verify Phase 4 (Visual Customization)
**Verified phases:** Phase 0, Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, Phase 4
**Method:** Checked each story's position in Phase 4 against its declared `Dependencies:` field in spec/userstories.md. Phases 03 are treated as already verified.
### Findings
**Dependency satisfaction:** PASS
| Story | Declared Dependencies | All deps in earlier phases? |
|-------|-----------------------|-----------------------------|
| US-15 | US-1, US-2, T-4 | ✓ US-1 is Phase 1; US-2 is Phase 1; T-4 is Phase 0 |
| US-16 | US-1, US-2, T-4 | ✓ US-1 is Phase 1; US-2 is Phase 1; T-4 is Phase 0 |
**Completeness:** PASS — both visual customization stories (US-15, US-16) are accounted for in Phase 4. No other story in the spec belongs to this domain without being included here.
**Parallelizability:** PASS — US-15 and US-16 share no declared dependency on each other. They are structurally independent and can be worked on in parallel. The recommended order (US-15 before US-16) is an efficiency hint (simpler story, no external API dependency, and the interaction with dark/light mode is easier to resolve first), not a structural constraint.
**Undeclared dependency observation (no violation):** US-15 and US-16 both state in their ACs "During event creation or editing (US-5)" — implying functional integration with the edit form from US-5. US-5 is not listed as a declared dependency for either story. This omission is defensible because:
1. The core functionality (selecting a theme or image during event creation) is implementable using the creation form from US-1 alone.
2. Phase 4 comes after Phase 2 where US-5 is implemented, so US-5 will be available in practice when US-15 and US-16 are worked on.
No ordering violation.
**Grouping note (no violation):** US-15 and US-16 have declared dependencies satisfied after Phase 1 (same as several Phase 3 stories). Their placement in Phase 4 rather than Phase 3 is a deliberate functional grouping decision — visual customization is a separate concern from enhanced event page features. This is consistent with the documented grouping rationale in the spec. No scheduling error.
**Verdict:** Phase 4 is correctly ordered. No dependency violations found.
---
## Iteration 6 — 2026-03-03
**Task:** Verify Phase 5 (App Shell & PWA)
**Verified phases:** Phase 0, Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, Phase 4, Phase 5
**Method:** Checked each story's position in Phase 5 against its declared `Dependencies:` field in spec/userstories.md. Phases 04 are treated as already verified.
### Findings
**Dependency satisfaction:** PASS
| Story | Declared Dependencies | All deps in earlier phases? |
|-------|-----------------------|-----------------------------|
| US-7 | None | ✓ (no deps) |
| US-14 | T-4 | ✓ T-4 is Phase 0 |
| US-17 | None | ✓ (no deps) |
**Completeness:** PASS — all three App Shell & PWA stories (US-7, US-14, US-17) are accounted for in Phase 5. No other story in the spec belongs to this domain without being included here.
**Parallelizability:** PASS — US-7, US-14, and US-17 share no declared dependencies on each other. They are structurally independent and can be worked on in parallel. The recommended within-phase order (US-17 → US-7 → US-14) is a practical sequencing hint, not a structural constraint.
**Undeclared dependency observations (no violations):**
- US-7's ACs reference US-1, US-3, and US-6 as sources of localStorage data (organizer tokens, RSVP records, bookmarks). None of these are declared dependencies. This is intentional and correct: US-7 can be implemented and passes acceptance in its empty state without those stories. The references are "practically useful after" notes, not structural prerequisites.
- US-7 AC 7 references US-12 and US-19 ("event no longer exists" handling) — not declared dependencies. US-7 can implement the error path even before US-12/US-19 are available; the condition simply won't be triggerable in testing until those stories are done. No violation.
- US-14 AC 7 references US-7 (manifest start URL points to `/`, which serves the local event overview). US-7 is not declared as a dependency of US-14. Defensible: the start URL can be set to `/` regardless of whether US-7 is implemented. No violation.
- US-17's notes state it "requires the frontend scaffold from T-4 (which includes T-1) to be practically implementable" but correctly omits T-4 from the declared dependencies (since US-17 has no structural gating on T-4 — it is a styling/CSS concern and the declared deps list only hard structural prerequisites). Consistent with how US-7's notes treat T-4 similarly.
**Phase 5 timing note (no violation):** The spec notes that US-17 "can be started early once the frontend scaffold exists — consider implementing alongside Phase 2 or 3." This is sound advice given that US-15 (Phase 4) must consider the interaction between event color themes and dark/light mode. However, the placement of US-17 in Phase 5 is not a scheduling error — it is a logical grouping. The practical recommendation to implement it earlier is correctly surfaced as a note, not enforced via a dependency constraint. No violation.
**Verdict:** Phase 5 is correctly ordered. No dependency violations found.
---
## Iteration 2 — 2026-03-03
**Task:** Verify Phase 1 (Core Event Flow — Vertical Slice)
**Verified phases:** Phase 0, Phase 1
**Method:** Checked each story's position in Phase 1 against its declared `Dependencies:` field in spec/userstories.md. Phase 0 is treated as already verified.
### Findings
**Dependency satisfaction:** PASS
| Story | Declared Dependencies | Scheduled at | All deps in earlier slots? |
|-------|-----------------------|--------------|---------------------------|
| US-1 | T-4 | Phase 1 Order 1 | ✓ T-4 is Phase 0 Order 3 |
| US-2 | US-1, T-4 | Phase 1 Order 2 | ✓ US-1 is Phase 1 Order 1; T-4 is Phase 0 |
| US-3 | US-2, T-4 | Phase 1 Order 3 | ✓ US-2 is Phase 1 Order 2; T-4 is Phase 0 |
**Completeness:** PASS — US-1, US-2, US-3 are the only stories with all dependencies in Phase 0 or earlier. No eligible story is missing from Phase 1.
**Parallelizability:** PASS — The chain US-1 → US-2 → US-3 is strictly sequential; US-2 depends on US-1 and US-3 depends on US-2, so no parallelization is possible. The phase note "These three stories are strictly sequential" is accurate.
**Verdict:** Phase 1 is correctly ordered. No dependency violations found.