Jose Olarte III
1 week ago
161 changed files with 19620 additions and 6110 deletions
@ -0,0 +1,151 @@ |
|||
# .cursor Rules Organization |
|||
|
|||
This directory contains all the rules and guidelines for AI assistants working |
|||
with the TimeSafari project. |
|||
|
|||
## Directory Structure |
|||
|
|||
### **`core/`** - Core Principles and Context |
|||
|
|||
Core rules that apply to all AI interactions and provide fundamental context. |
|||
|
|||
- **`base_context.mdc`** - Human competence first principles and interaction guidelines |
|||
- **`harbor_pilot_universal.mdc`** - Technical guide creation and investigation rules |
|||
- **`less_complex.mdc`** - Minimalist solution principle and complexity guidelines |
|||
|
|||
### **`development/`** - Development Practices and Standards |
|||
|
|||
Rules for software development, coding standards, and development workflows. |
|||
|
|||
- **`software_development.mdc`** - Core development principles and evidence requirements |
|||
- **`type_safety_guide.mdc`** - TypeScript type safety guidelines and best practices |
|||
- **`development_guide.mdc`** - Development environment setup and standards |
|||
- **`logging_standards.mdc`** - Logging implementation standards and rules |
|||
- **`logging_migration.mdc`** - Migration from console.* to structured logging |
|||
- **`time.mdc`** - Time handling principles and UTC standards |
|||
- **`time_examples.mdc`** - Practical time implementation examples |
|||
- **`time_implementation.mdc`** - Detailed time implementation guidelines |
|||
- **`realistic_time_estimation.mdc`** - Time estimation framework and principles |
|||
- **`planning_examples.mdc`** - Planning examples and best practices |
|||
- **`complexity_assessment.mdc`** - Complexity evaluation and assessment |
|||
- **`dependency_management.mdc`** - Dependency management and version control |
|||
- **`asset_configuration.mdc`** - Asset configuration and build integration |
|||
- **`research_diagnostic.mdc`** - Research and investigation workflows |
|||
- **`investigation_report_example.mdc`** - Investigation report templates and examples |
|||
- **`historical_comment_management.mdc`** - Historical comment transformation rules |
|||
- **`historical_comment_patterns.mdc`** - Comment transformation patterns and examples |
|||
|
|||
### **`architecture/`** - Architecture and Design Patterns |
|||
|
|||
Rules for architectural decisions, patterns, and system design. |
|||
|
|||
- **`build_architecture_guard.mdc`** - Build system protection and change levels |
|||
- **`build_validation.mdc`** - Build validation procedures and testing |
|||
- **`build_testing.mdc`** - Build testing requirements and feedback collection |
|||
|
|||
### **`app/`** - Application-Specific Rules |
|||
|
|||
Rules specific to the TimeSafari application and its architecture. |
|||
|
|||
- **`timesafari.mdc`** - Core application context and principles |
|||
- **`timesafari_platforms.mdc`** - Platform-specific implementation guidelines |
|||
- **`timesafari_development.mdc`** - TimeSafari development workflow |
|||
- **`architectural_decision_record.mdc`** - ADR creation and management |
|||
- **`architectural_implementation.mdc`** - Architecture implementation guidelines |
|||
- **`architectural_patterns.mdc`** - Architectural patterns and examples |
|||
- **`architectural_examples.mdc`** - Architecture examples and testing |
|||
|
|||
### **`database/`** - Database and Data Management |
|||
|
|||
Rules for database operations, migrations, and data handling. |
|||
|
|||
- **`absurd-sql.mdc`** - Absurd SQL implementation and worker thread setup |
|||
- **`legacy_dexie.mdc`** - Legacy Dexie migration guidelines |
|||
|
|||
### **`workflow/`** - Process and Workflow Management |
|||
|
|||
Rules for development workflows, version control, and process management. |
|||
|
|||
- **`version_control.mdc`** - Version control principles and commit guidelines |
|||
- **`version_sync.mdc`** - Version synchronization and changelog management |
|||
- **`commit_messages.mdc`** - Commit message format and conventions |
|||
|
|||
### **`features/** - Feature-Specific Implementations |
|||
|
|||
Rules for implementing specific features across platforms. |
|||
|
|||
- **`camera-implementation.mdc`** - Camera feature implementation overview |
|||
- **`camera_technical.mdc`** - Technical camera implementation details |
|||
- **`camera_platforms.mdc`** - Platform-specific camera implementation |
|||
|
|||
### **`docs/`** - Documentation Standards |
|||
|
|||
Rules for creating and maintaining documentation. |
|||
|
|||
- **`markdown_core.mdc`** - Core markdown formatting standards |
|||
- **`markdown_templates.mdc`** - Document templates and examples |
|||
- **`markdown_workflow.mdc`** - Markdown validation and workflow |
|||
- **`documentation.mdc`** - Documentation generation principles |
|||
- **`meta_rule_usage_guide.md`** - How to use meta-rules in practice |
|||
|
|||
### **`templates/`** - Templates and Examples |
|||
|
|||
Template files and examples for various documentation types. |
|||
|
|||
- **`adr_template.mdc`** - Architectural Decision Record template |
|||
|
|||
### **Meta-Rules** - Workflow Bundling |
|||
|
|||
High-level meta-rules that bundle related sub-rules for specific workflows. |
|||
|
|||
- **`meta_core_always_on.mdc`** - Core rules that apply to every single prompt |
|||
- **`meta_documentation.mdc`** - Documentation writing and education workflow |
|||
- **`meta_feature_planning.mdc`** - Feature planning workflow bundling |
|||
- **`meta_bug_diagnosis.mdc`** - Bug investigation workflow bundling |
|||
- **`meta_bug_fixing.mdc`** - Bug fix implementation workflow bundling |
|||
- **`meta_feature_implementation.mdc`** - Feature implementation workflow bundling |
|||
|
|||
## Usage Guidelines |
|||
|
|||
1. **Always-On Rules**: Start with `meta_core_always_on.mdc` for every |
|||
single prompt |
|||
2. **Core Rules**: Always apply rules from `core/` directory |
|||
3. **Context-Specific**: Use rules from appropriate subdirectories based on |
|||
your task |
|||
4. **Meta-Rules**: Use workflow-specific meta-rules for specialized tasks |
|||
- **Documentation**: Use `meta_documentation.mdc` for all documentation work |
|||
- **Getting Started**: See `docs/meta_rule_usage_guide.md` for comprehensive usage instructions |
|||
5. **Cross-References**: All files contain updated cross-references to |
|||
reflect the new structure |
|||
6. **Validation**: All files pass markdown validation and maintain |
|||
consistent formatting |
|||
|
|||
## Benefits of New Organization |
|||
|
|||
1. **Logical grouping** - Related rules are now co-located |
|||
2. **Easier navigation** - Developers can quickly find relevant rules |
|||
3. **Better maintainability** - Clear separation of concerns |
|||
4. **Scalable structure** - Easy to add new rules in appropriate categories |
|||
5. **Consistent cross-references** - All file links updated and working |
|||
6. **Workflow bundling** - Meta-rules provide high-level workflow guidance |
|||
7. **Feedback integration** - Built-in feedback mechanisms for continuous improvement |
|||
8. **Educational focus** - Documentation emphasizes human competence over technical description |
|||
|
|||
## File Naming Convention |
|||
|
|||
- **Lowercase with underscores**: `file_name.mdc` |
|||
- **Descriptive names**: Names clearly indicate the rule's purpose |
|||
- **Consistent extensions**: All files use `.mdc` extension |
|||
|
|||
## Maintenance |
|||
|
|||
- **Cross-references**: Update when moving files between directories |
|||
- **Markdown validation**: Run `npm run markdown:check` after any changes |
|||
- **Organization**: Keep related rules in appropriate subdirectories |
|||
- **Documentation**: Update this README when adding new rules or directories |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
**Status**: Active organization structure |
|||
**Last Updated**: 2025-08-21 |
|||
**Maintainer**: Development team |
|||
@ -0,0 +1,246 @@ |
|||
# Time Safari Architecture — Examples and Testing |
|||
|
|||
> **Agent role**: Reference this file for architectural examples and |
|||
testing patterns when working with TimeSafari architecture. |
|||
|
|||
## Error Handling Patterns |
|||
|
|||
### Global Error Handler |
|||
|
|||
```typescript |
|||
|
|||
// main.ts |
|||
app.config.errorHandler = (err, instance, info) => { |
|||
const componentName = instance?.$options?.name || 'Unknown'; |
|||
logger.error(`[${componentName}] Vue error`, err, info); |
|||
}; |
|||
|
|||
window.addEventListener('unhandledrejection', (event) => { |
|||
logger.error('[Global] Unhandled promise rejection', event.reason); |
|||
}); |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### Platform-Specific Error Wrapping |
|||
|
|||
```typescript |
|||
|
|||
// services/platforms/CapacitorPlatformService.ts |
|||
export class CapacitorPlatformService { |
|||
async getFileContents(path: string): Promise<string> { |
|||
try { |
|||
const result = await Filesystem.readFile({ |
|||
path: path, |
|||
encoding: 'utf8' |
|||
}); |
|||
return result.data; |
|||
} catch (error) { |
|||
logger.error('[Capacitor API Error] Failed to read file', error, path); |
|||
throw new Error(`Failed to read file: ${path}`); |
|||
} |
|||
} |
|||
} |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
## Testing Patterns |
|||
|
|||
### Platform-Specific Test Skipping |
|||
|
|||
```typescript |
|||
|
|||
// tests/QRScanner.test.ts |
|||
describe('QRScanner Service', () => { |
|||
test('should start scanning on web', async () => { |
|||
test.skip(process.env.VITE_PLATFORM !== 'web', 'Web-only test'); |
|||
|
|||
const scanner = new WebInlineQRScanner(); |
|||
await scanner.startScanning(); |
|||
// Assert scanning started |
|||
}); |
|||
|
|||
test('should start scanning on mobile', async () => { |
|||
test.skip(process.env.VITE_PLATFORM !== 'capacitor', 'Mobile-only test'); |
|||
|
|||
const scanner = new CapacitorQRScanner(); |
|||
await scanner.startScanning(); |
|||
// Assert scanning started |
|||
}); |
|||
}); |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### Mock Service Testing |
|||
|
|||
```typescript |
|||
|
|||
// tests/mocks/QRScannerMock.ts |
|||
export class QRScannerMock implements QRScannerService { |
|||
private isScanning = false; |
|||
private listeners: Map<string, Function[]> = new Map(); |
|||
|
|||
async startScanning(): Promise<void> { |
|||
this.isScanning = true; |
|||
this.emit('scanningStarted'); |
|||
} |
|||
|
|||
async stopScanning(): Promise<void> { |
|||
this.isScanning = false; |
|||
this.emit('scanningStopped'); |
|||
} |
|||
|
|||
addListener(event: string, callback: Function): void { |
|||
if (!this.listeners.has(event)) { |
|||
this.listeners.set(event, []); |
|||
} |
|||
this.listeners.get(event)!.push(callback); |
|||
} |
|||
|
|||
removeListener(event: string, callback: Function): void { |
|||
const callbacks = this.listeners.get(event); |
|||
if (callbacks) { |
|||
const index = callbacks.indexOf(callback); |
|||
if (index > -1) { |
|||
callbacks.splice(index, 1); |
|||
} |
|||
} |
|||
} |
|||
|
|||
private emit(event: string, ...args: any[]): void { |
|||
const callbacks = this.listeners.get(event); |
|||
if (callbacks) { |
|||
callbacks.forEach(callback => callback(...args)); |
|||
} |
|||
} |
|||
|
|||
getScanningState(): boolean { |
|||
return this.isScanning; |
|||
} |
|||
} |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
## Integration Examples |
|||
|
|||
### Service Composition |
|||
|
|||
```typescript |
|||
|
|||
// services/QRScannerService.ts |
|||
export class QRScannerService { |
|||
constructor( |
|||
private platformService: PlatformService, |
|||
private notificationService: NotificationService |
|||
) {} |
|||
|
|||
async startScanning(): Promise<void> { |
|||
try { |
|||
await this.platformService.startCamera(); |
|||
this.notificationService.show('Camera started'); |
|||
} catch (error) { |
|||
this.notificationService.showError('Failed to start camera'); |
|||
throw error; |
|||
} |
|||
} |
|||
} |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### Component Integration |
|||
|
|||
```typescript |
|||
|
|||
// components/QRScannerDialog.vue |
|||
export default class QRScannerDialog extends Vue { |
|||
@Inject() private qrScannerService!: QRScannerService; |
|||
|
|||
async mounted() { |
|||
try { |
|||
await this.qrScannerService.startScanning(); |
|||
} catch (error) { |
|||
this.$notify.error('Failed to start scanner'); |
|||
} |
|||
} |
|||
|
|||
beforeDestroy() { |
|||
this.qrScannerService.stopScanning(); |
|||
} |
|||
} |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
## Best Practices |
|||
|
|||
### Service Design |
|||
|
|||
- Keep services focused and single-purpose |
|||
|
|||
- Use dependency injection for service composition |
|||
|
|||
- Implement proper error handling and logging |
|||
|
|||
- Provide clear interfaces and contracts |
|||
|
|||
### Testing Strategy |
|||
|
|||
- Test platform-specific behavior separately |
|||
|
|||
- Use mocks for external dependencies |
|||
|
|||
- Test error conditions and edge cases |
|||
|
|||
- Validate service contracts and interfaces |
|||
|
|||
### Error Handling |
|||
|
|||
- Log errors with appropriate context |
|||
|
|||
- Provide user-friendly error messages |
|||
|
|||
- Implement graceful degradation |
|||
|
|||
- Handle platform-specific error scenarios |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
**See also**: |
|||
|
|||
- `.cursor/rules/app/architectural_decision_record.mdc` for |
|||
|
|||
core architecture principles |
|||
|
|||
- `.cursor/rules/app/architectural_implementation.mdc` for |
|||
|
|||
implementation details |
|||
|
|||
- `.cursor/rules/app/architectural_patterns.mdc` for core patterns |
|||
|
|||
**Status**: Active examples and testing guide |
|||
**Priority**: Medium |
|||
**Estimated Effort**: Ongoing reference |
|||
**Dependencies**: architectural_patterns.mdc |
|||
**Stakeholders**: Development team, Testing team |
|||
|
|||
## Model Implementation Checklist |
|||
|
|||
### Before Architectural Examples |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Pattern Selection**: Choose appropriate architectural pattern for the use |
|||
case |
|||
- [ ] **Service Design**: Plan service structure and dependencies |
|||
- [ ] **Testing Strategy**: Plan testing approach for the example |
|||
- [ ] **Error Handling**: Plan error handling and logging strategy |
|||
|
|||
### During Architectural Examples |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Service Implementation**: Implement focused, single-purpose services |
|||
- [ ] **Dependency Injection**: Use proper dependency injection patterns |
|||
- [ ] **Error Handling**: Implement proper error handling and logging |
|||
- [ ] **Interface Design**: Provide clear interfaces and contracts |
|||
|
|||
### After Architectural Examples |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Testing Execution**: Test platform-specific behavior separately |
|||
- [ ] **Service Validation**: Validate service contracts and interfaces |
|||
- [ ] **Error Testing**: Test error conditions and edge cases |
|||
- [ ] **Documentation**: Update architectural examples documentation |
|||
@ -0,0 +1,139 @@ |
|||
# Time Safari Architecture — Implementation Details |
|||
|
|||
> **Agent role**: Reference this file for detailed implementation details when |
|||
working with TimeSafari architecture implementation. |
|||
|
|||
## Error Handling |
|||
|
|||
- Global Vue error handler → logs with component name. |
|||
|
|||
- Platform-specific wrappers log API errors with platform prefix |
|||
|
|||
(`[Capacitor API Error]`, etc). |
|||
|
|||
- Use structured logging (not `console.log`). |
|||
|
|||
## Best Practices |
|||
|
|||
- Keep platform code **isolated** in `platforms/`. |
|||
|
|||
- Always define a **shared interface** first. |
|||
|
|||
- Use feature detection, not platform detection, when possible. |
|||
|
|||
- Dependency injection for services → improves testability. |
|||
|
|||
- Maintain **Competence Hooks** in PRs (2–3 prompts for dev |
|||
|
|||
discussion). |
|||
|
|||
## Dependency Management |
|||
|
|||
- Key deps: `@capacitor/core`, `electron`, `vue`. |
|||
|
|||
- Use conditional `import()` for platform-specific libs. |
|||
|
|||
## Security Considerations |
|||
|
|||
- **Permissions**: Always check + request gracefully. |
|||
|
|||
- **Storage**: Secure storage for sensitive data; encrypt when possible. |
|||
|
|||
- **Audits**: Schedule quarterly security reviews. |
|||
|
|||
## ADR Process |
|||
|
|||
- All major architecture choices → log in `doc/adr/`. |
|||
|
|||
- Use ADR template with Context, Decision, Consequences, Status. |
|||
|
|||
- Link related ADRs in PR descriptions. |
|||
|
|||
> 🔗 **Human Hook:** When proposing a new ADR, schedule a 30-min |
|||
> design sync for discussion, not just async review. |
|||
|
|||
## Collaboration Hooks |
|||
|
|||
- **QR features**: Sync with Security before merging → permissions & |
|||
|
|||
privacy. |
|||
|
|||
- **New platform builds**: Demo in team meeting → confirm UX |
|||
|
|||
differences. |
|||
|
|||
- **Critical ADRs**: Present in guild or architecture review. |
|||
|
|||
## Testing Implementation |
|||
|
|||
- **Unit tests** for services. |
|||
|
|||
- **Playwright** for Web + Capacitor: |
|||
|
|||
- `playwright.config-local.ts` includes web + Pixel 5. |
|||
|
|||
- **Electron tests**: add `spectron` or Playwright-Electron. |
|||
|
|||
- Mark tests with platform tags: |
|||
|
|||
```ts |
|||
|
|||
test.skip(!process.env.MOBILE_TEST, "Mobile-only test"); |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
> 🔗 **Human Hook:** Before merging new tests, hold a short sync (≤15 |
|||
> min) with QA to align on coverage and flaky test risks. |
|||
|
|||
## Self-Check |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] Does this feature implement a shared interface? |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] Are fallbacks + errors handled gracefully? |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] Have relevant ADRs been updated/linked? |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] Did I add competence hooks or prompts for the team? |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] Was human interaction (sync/review/demo) scheduled? |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
**See also**: |
|||
|
|||
- `.cursor/rules/app/architectural_decision_record.mdc` for |
|||
|
|||
core architecture principles |
|||
|
|||
- `.cursor/rules/app/architectural_patterns.mdc` for architectural patterns and |
|||
|
|||
examples |
|||
|
|||
**Status**: Active implementation guidelines |
|||
**Priority**: High |
|||
**Estimated Effort**: Ongoing reference |
|||
**Dependencies**: architectural_decision_record.mdc |
|||
**Stakeholders**: Development team, Architecture team |
|||
|
|||
## Model Implementation Checklist |
|||
|
|||
### Before Architectural Implementation |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Interface Review**: Verify feature implements shared interface |
|||
- [ ] **ADR Review**: Check if ADR is required for major changes |
|||
- [ ] **Security Assessment**: Assess security implications for QR features |
|||
- [ ] **Platform Planning**: Plan platform-specific implementation details |
|||
|
|||
### During Architectural Implementation |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Interface Implementation**: Implement shared interfaces consistently |
|||
- [ ] **Error Handling**: Implement graceful fallbacks and error handling |
|||
- [ ] **Testing Strategy**: Plan unit tests for services and E2E tests |
|||
- [ ] **Human Interaction**: Schedule syncs/reviews/demos as needed |
|||
|
|||
### After Architectural Implementation |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Interface Validation**: Verify shared interfaces are properly implemented |
|||
- [ ] **Testing Execution**: Run unit tests and platform-specific tests |
|||
- [ ] **ADR Updates**: Update relevant ADRs and link in PR descriptions |
|||
- [ ] **Team Communication**: Share implementation results with team |
|||
@ -0,0 +1,214 @@ |
|||
# Time Safari Architecture — Patterns and Examples |
|||
|
|||
> **Agent role**: Reference this file for architectural patterns and |
|||
> examples when working with TimeSafari architecture design. |
|||
|
|||
## Architectural Patterns |
|||
|
|||
### Factory Pattern Implementation |
|||
|
|||
```typescript |
|||
// PlatformServiceFactory.ts |
|||
export class PlatformServiceFactory { |
|||
private static instance: PlatformServiceFactory; |
|||
|
|||
static getInstance(): PlatformServiceFactory { |
|||
if (!PlatformServiceFactory.instance) { |
|||
PlatformServiceFactory.instance = new PlatformServiceFactory(); |
|||
} |
|||
return PlatformServiceFactory.instance; |
|||
} |
|||
|
|||
getQRScannerService(): QRScannerService { |
|||
const platform = process.env.VITE_PLATFORM; |
|||
|
|||
switch (platform) { |
|||
case 'web': |
|||
return new WebInlineQRScanner(); |
|||
case 'capacitor': |
|||
return new CapacitorQRScanner(); |
|||
case 'electron': |
|||
return new ElectronQRScanner(); |
|||
default: |
|||
throw new Error(`Unsupported platform: ${platform}`); |
|||
} |
|||
} |
|||
} |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### Service Interface Definition |
|||
|
|||
```typescript |
|||
// interfaces/QRScannerService.ts |
|||
export interface QRScannerService { |
|||
startScanning(): Promise<void>; |
|||
stopScanning(): Promise<void>; |
|||
addListener(event: string, callback: Function): void; |
|||
removeListener(event: string, callback: Function): void; |
|||
} |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### Platform-Specific Implementation |
|||
|
|||
```typescript |
|||
// services/QRScanner/WebInlineQRScanner.ts |
|||
export class WebInlineQRScanner implements QRScannerService { |
|||
private listeners: Map<string, Function[]> = new Map(); |
|||
|
|||
async startScanning(): Promise<void> { |
|||
// Web-specific implementation |
|||
const stream = await navigator.mediaDevices.getUserMedia({ video: true }); |
|||
// Process video stream for QR codes |
|||
} |
|||
|
|||
async stopScanning(): Promise<void> { |
|||
// Stop video stream |
|||
} |
|||
|
|||
addListener(event: string, callback: Function): void { |
|||
if (!this.listeners.has(event)) { |
|||
this.listeners.set(event, []); |
|||
} |
|||
this.listeners.get(event)!.push(callback); |
|||
} |
|||
|
|||
removeListener(event: string, callback: Function): void { |
|||
const callbacks = this.listeners.get(event); |
|||
if (callbacks) { |
|||
const index = callbacks.indexOf(callback); |
|||
if (index > -1) { |
|||
callbacks.splice(index, 1); |
|||
} |
|||
} |
|||
} |
|||
} |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
## Deep Linking Implementation |
|||
|
|||
### URL Format |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
timesafari://<route>[/<param>][?query=value] |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### Web Implementation |
|||
|
|||
```typescript |
|||
// router/index.ts |
|||
router.beforeEach((to, from, next) => { |
|||
// Parse deep link parameters |
|||
if (to.query.deepLink) { |
|||
const deepLink = to.query.deepLink as string; |
|||
// Process deep link |
|||
handleDeepLink(deepLink); |
|||
} |
|||
next(); |
|||
}); |
|||
|
|||
function handleDeepLink(deepLink: string) { |
|||
// Parse and route deep link |
|||
const url = new URL(deepLink); |
|||
const route = url.pathname; |
|||
const params = url.searchParams; |
|||
|
|||
// Navigate to appropriate route |
|||
router.push({ name: route, query: Object.fromEntries(params) }); |
|||
} |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### Capacitor Implementation |
|||
|
|||
```typescript |
|||
// main.capacitor.ts |
|||
import { App } from '@capacitor/app'; |
|||
|
|||
App.addListener('appUrlOpen', (data) => { |
|||
const url = data.url; |
|||
// Parse deep link and navigate |
|||
handleDeepLink(url); |
|||
}); |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
## Platform Detection |
|||
|
|||
### Feature Detection vs Platform Detection |
|||
|
|||
```typescript |
|||
// ✅ Good: Feature detection |
|||
function hasCameraAccess(): boolean { |
|||
return 'mediaDevices' in navigator && |
|||
'getUserMedia' in navigator.mediaDevices; |
|||
} |
|||
|
|||
// ❌ Bad: Platform detection |
|||
function isWeb(): boolean { |
|||
return process.env.VITE_PLATFORM === 'web'; |
|||
} |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### Conditional Imports |
|||
|
|||
```typescript |
|||
// services/platforms/index.ts |
|||
export async function getPlatformService() { |
|||
const platform = process.env.VITE_PLATFORM; |
|||
|
|||
switch (platform) { |
|||
case 'capacitor': |
|||
const { CapacitorPlatformService } = |
|||
await import('./CapacitorPlatformService'); |
|||
return new CapacitorPlatformService(); |
|||
case 'electron': |
|||
const { ElectronPlatformService } = |
|||
await import('./ElectronPlatformService'); |
|||
return new ElectronPlatformService(); |
|||
default: |
|||
const { WebPlatformService } = |
|||
await import('./WebPlatformService'); |
|||
return new WebPlatformService(); |
|||
} |
|||
} |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
**See also**: |
|||
|
|||
- `.cursor/rules/app/architectural_decision_record.mdc` for core |
|||
architecture principles |
|||
- `.cursor/rules/app/architectural_implementation.mdc` for |
|||
implementation details |
|||
- `.cursor/rules/app/architectural_examples.mdc` for examples and |
|||
testing patterns |
|||
|
|||
**Status**: Active patterns and examples |
|||
**Priority**: Medium |
|||
**Estimated Effort**: Ongoing reference |
|||
**Dependencies**: architectural_decision_record.mdc, |
|||
architectural_implementation.mdc |
|||
**Stakeholders**: Development team, Architecture team |
|||
|
|||
## Model Implementation Checklist |
|||
|
|||
### Before Architectural Patterns |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Pattern Selection**: Choose appropriate architectural pattern for the use |
|||
case |
|||
- [ ] **Platform Analysis**: Identify platform-specific requirements |
|||
- [ ] **Service Planning**: Plan service structure and dependencies |
|||
- [ ] **Testing Strategy**: Plan testing approach for the pattern |
|||
|
|||
### During Architectural Patterns |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Pattern Implementation**: Implement chosen architectural pattern |
|||
- [ ] **Platform Abstraction**: Use platform abstraction layers appropriately |
|||
- [ ] **Service Composition**: Compose services using dependency injection |
|||
- [ ] **Interface Design**: Provide clear interfaces and contracts |
|||
|
|||
### After Architectural Patterns |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Pattern Validation**: Verify pattern is implemented correctly |
|||
- [ ] **Platform Testing**: Test across all target platforms |
|||
- [ ] **Service Testing**: Test service composition and dependencies |
|||
- [ ] **Documentation**: Update architectural patterns documentation |
|||
@ -1,316 +1,173 @@ |
|||
--- |
|||
description: |
|||
globs: |
|||
alwaysApply: true |
|||
alwaysApply: false |
|||
--- |
|||
# Time Safari Context |
|||
|
|||
**Author**: Matthew Raymer |
|||
**Date**: 2025-08-19 |
|||
**Status**: 🎯 **ACTIVE** - Core application context |
|||
|
|||
## Project Overview |
|||
|
|||
Time Safari is an application designed to foster community building through gifts, |
|||
gratitude, and collaborative projects. The app should make it extremely easy and |
|||
intuitive for users of any age and capability to recognize contributions, build |
|||
trust networks, and organize collective action. It is built on services that |
|||
preserve privacy and data sovereignty. |
|||
Time Safari is an application designed to foster community building through |
|||
gifts, gratitude, and collaborative projects. The app makes it easy and |
|||
intuitive for users of any age and capability to recognize contributions, |
|||
build trust networks, and organize collective action. It is built on services |
|||
that preserve privacy and data sovereignty. |
|||
|
|||
## Core Goals |
|||
|
|||
The ultimate goals of Time Safari are two-fold: |
|||
1. **Connect**: Make it easy, rewarding, and non-threatening for people to |
|||
|
|||
1. **Connect** Make it easy, rewarding, and non-threatening for people to |
|||
connect with others who have similar interests, and to initiate activities |
|||
together. This helps people accomplish and learn from other individuals in |
|||
less-structured environments; moreover, it helps them discover who they want |
|||
to continue to support and with whom they want to maintain relationships. |
|||
together. |
|||
|
|||
2. **Reveal** Widely advertise the great support and rewards that are being |
|||
given and accepted freely, especially non-monetary ones. Using visuals and text, |
|||
display the kind of impact that gifts are making in the lives of others. Also |
|||
show useful and engaging reports of project statistics and personal accomplishments. |
|||
2. **Reveal**: Widely advertise the great support and rewards that are being |
|||
|
|||
given and accepted freely, especially non-monetary ones, showing the impact |
|||
gifts make in people's lives. |
|||
|
|||
## Core Approaches |
|||
## Technical Foundation |
|||
|
|||
Time Safari should help everyday users build meaningful connections and organize |
|||
collective efforts by: |
|||
### Architecture |
|||
|
|||
1. **Recognizing Contributions**: Creating permanent, verifiable records of gifts |
|||
and contributions people give to each other and their communities. |
|||
- **Privacy-preserving claims architecture** via endorser.ch |
|||
|
|||
2. **Facilitating Collaboration**: Making it ridiculously easy for people to ask |
|||
for or propose help on projects and interests that matter to them. |
|||
- **Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs)**: User identities based on |
|||
|
|||
3. **Building Trust Networks**: Enabling users to maintain their network and activity |
|||
visibility. Developing reputation through verified contributions and references, |
|||
which can be selectively shown to others outside the network. |
|||
public/private key pairs stored on devices |
|||
|
|||
4. **Preserving Privacy**: Ensuring personal identifiers are only shared with |
|||
explicitly authorized contacts, allowing private individuals including children |
|||
to participate safely. |
|||
- **Cryptographic Verification**: All claims and confirmations are |
|||
|
|||
5. **Engaging Content**: Displaying people's records in compelling stories, and |
|||
highlighting those projects that are lifting people's lives long-term, both in |
|||
physical support and in emotional-spiritual-creative thriving. |
|||
cryptographically signed |
|||
|
|||
- **User-Controlled Visibility**: Users explicitly control who can see their |
|||
|
|||
## Technical Foundation |
|||
identifiers and data |
|||
|
|||
This application is built on a privacy-preserving claims architecture (via |
|||
endorser.ch) with these key characteristics: |
|||
- **Cross-Platform**: Web (PWA), Mobile (Capacitor), Desktop (Electron) |
|||
|
|||
- **Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs)**: User identities are based on public/private |
|||
key pairs stored on their devices |
|||
- **Cryptographic Verification**: All claims and confirmations are |
|||
cryptographically signed |
|||
- **User-Controlled Visibility**: Users explicitly control who can see their |
|||
identifiers and data |
|||
- **Merkle-Chained Claims**: Claims are cryptographically chained for verification |
|||
and integrity |
|||
- **Native and Web App**: Works on Capacitor (iOS, Android), Desktop (Electron |
|||
and CEFPython), and web browsers |
|||
### Current Database State |
|||
|
|||
- **Database**: SQLite via Absurd SQL (browser) and native SQLite |
|||
|
|||
(mobile/desktop) |
|||
|
|||
## User Journey |
|||
- **Legacy Support**: IndexedDB (Dexie) for backward compatibility |
|||
|
|||
The typical progression of usage follows these stages: |
|||
- **Status**: Modern database architecture fully implemented |
|||
|
|||
1. **Gratitude & Recognition**: Users begin by expressing and recording gratitude |
|||
for gifts received, building a foundation of acknowledgment. |
|||
### Core Technologies |
|||
|
|||
2. **Project Proposals**: Users propose projects and ideas, reaching out to connect |
|||
with others who share similar interests. |
|||
- **Frontend**: Vue 3 + TypeScript + vue-facing-decorator |
|||
|
|||
3. **Action Triggers**: Offers of help serve as triggers and motivations to execute |
|||
proposed projects, moving from ideas to action. |
|||
- **Styling**: TailwindCSS |
|||
|
|||
## Context for LLM Development |
|||
- **Build**: Vite with platform-specific configs |
|||
|
|||
When developing new functionality for Time Safari, consider these design principles: |
|||
- **Testing**: Playwright E2E, Jest unit tests |
|||
|
|||
1. **Accessibility First**: Features should be usable by non-technical users with |
|||
minimal learning curve. |
|||
- **Database**: SQLite (Absurd SQL in browser), IndexedDB (legacy) |
|||
|
|||
2. **Privacy by Design**: All features must respect user privacy and data sovereignty. |
|||
- **State**: Pinia stores |
|||
|
|||
3. **Progressive Enhancement**: Core functionality should work across all devices, |
|||
with richer experiences where supported. |
|||
- **Platform Services**: Abstracted behind interfaces with factory pattern |
|||
|
|||
4. **Voluntary Collaboration**: The system should enable but never coerce participation. |
|||
## Development Principles |
|||
|
|||
5. **Trust Building**: Features should help build verifiable trust between users. |
|||
### Code Organization |
|||
|
|||
6. **Network Effects**: Consider how features scale as more users join the platform. |
|||
- **Platform Services**: Abstract platform-specific code behind interfaces |
|||
|
|||
7. **Low Resource Requirements**: The system should be lightweight enough to run |
|||
on inexpensive devices users already own. |
|||
- **Service Factory**: Use `PlatformServiceFactory` for platform selection |
|||
|
|||
## Use Cases to Support |
|||
- **Type Safety**: Strict TypeScript, no `any` types, use type guards |
|||
|
|||
LLM development should focus on enhancing these key use cases: |
|||
- **Modern Architecture**: Use current platform service patterns |
|||
|
|||
1. **Community Building**: Tools that help people find others with shared |
|||
interests and values. |
|||
### Architecture Patterns |
|||
|
|||
2. **Project Coordination**: Features that make it easy to propose collaborative |
|||
projects and to submit suggestions and offers to existing ones. |
|||
- **Dependency Injection**: Services injected via mixins and factory pattern |
|||
|
|||
3. **Reputation Building**: Methods for users to showcase their contributions |
|||
and reliability, in contexts where they explicitly reveal that information. |
|||
- **Interface Segregation**: Small, focused interfaces over large ones |
|||
|
|||
4. **Governance Experimentation**: Features that facilitate decision-making and |
|||
collective governance. |
|||
- **Composition over Inheritance**: Prefer mixins and composition |
|||
|
|||
## Constraints |
|||
- **Single Responsibility**: Each component/service has one clear purpose |
|||
|
|||
When developing new features, be mindful of these constraints: |
|||
### Testing Strategy |
|||
|
|||
1. **Privacy Preservation**: User identifiers must remain private except when |
|||
explicitly shared. |
|||
- **E2E**: Playwright for critical user journeys |
|||
|
|||
2. **Platform Limitations**: Features must work within the constraints of the target |
|||
app platforms, while aiming to leverage the best platform technology available. |
|||
- **Unit**: Jest with F.I.R.S.T. principles |
|||
|
|||
3. **Endorser API Limitations**: Backend features are constrained by the endorser.ch |
|||
API capabilities. |
|||
- **Platform Coverage**: Web + Capacitor (Pixel 5) in CI |
|||
|
|||
4. **Performance on Low-End Devices**: The application should remain performant |
|||
on older/simpler devices. |
|||
- **Quality Assurance**: Comprehensive testing and validation |
|||
|
|||
5. **Offline-First When Possible**: Key functionality should work offline when feasible. |
|||
## Current Development Focus |
|||
|
|||
### Active Development |
|||
|
|||
- **Feature Development**: Build new functionality using modern platform |
|||
|
|||
services |
|||
|
|||
- **Performance Optimization**: Improve app performance and user experience |
|||
|
|||
- **Platform Enhancement**: Leverage platform-specific capabilities |
|||
|
|||
- **Code Quality**: Maintain high standards and best practices |
|||
|
|||
### Development Metrics |
|||
|
|||
- **Code Quality**: High standards maintained across all platforms |
|||
|
|||
- **Performance**: Optimized for all target devices |
|||
|
|||
- **Testing**: Comprehensive coverage maintained |
|||
|
|||
- **User Experience**: Focus on intuitive, accessible interfaces |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
## Project Technologies |
|||
**See also**: |
|||
|
|||
- Typescript using ES6 classes using vue-facing-decorator |
|||
- TailwindCSS |
|||
- Vite Build Tool |
|||
- Playwright E2E testing |
|||
- IndexDB |
|||
- Camera, Image uploads, QR Code reader, ... |
|||
- `.cursor/rules/app/timesafari_platforms.mdc` for platform-specific details |
|||
|
|||
## Mobile Features |
|||
- `.cursor/rules/app/timesafari_development.mdc` for |
|||
|
|||
- Deep Linking |
|||
- Local Notifications via a custom Capacitor plugin |
|||
development workflow details |
|||
|
|||
## Project Architecture |
|||
**Status**: Active application context |
|||
**Priority**: Critical |
|||
**Estimated Effort**: Ongoing reference |
|||
**Dependencies**: None |
|||
**Stakeholders**: Development team, Product team |
|||
|
|||
- The application must work on web browser, PWA (Progressive Web Application), |
|||
desktop via Electron, and mobile via Capacitor |
|||
- Building for each platform is managed via Vite |
|||
- **Dependencies**: Vue 3, TypeScript, SQLite, Capacitor, Electron |
|||
|
|||
## Core Development Principles |
|||
- **Stakeholders**: Development team, Product team |
|||
|
|||
### DRY development |
|||
## Model Implementation Checklist |
|||
|
|||
- **Code Reuse** |
|||
- Extract common functionality into utility functions |
|||
- Create reusable components for UI patterns |
|||
- Implement service classes for shared business logic |
|||
- Use mixins for cross-cutting concerns |
|||
- Leverage TypeScript interfaces for shared type definitions |
|||
### Before TimeSafari Development |
|||
|
|||
- **Component Patterns** |
|||
- Create base components for common UI elements |
|||
- Implement higher-order components for shared behavior |
|||
- Use slot patterns for flexible component composition |
|||
- Create composable services for business logic |
|||
- Implement factory patterns for component creation |
|||
- [ ] **Application Context**: Understand TimeSafari's community-building purpose |
|||
- [ ] **Platform Analysis**: Identify target platforms (web, mobile, desktop) |
|||
- [ ] **Architecture Review**: Review current platform service patterns |
|||
- [ ] **Testing Strategy**: Plan testing approach for all platforms |
|||
|
|||
- **State Management** |
|||
- Centralize state in Pinia stores |
|||
- Use computed properties for derived state |
|||
- Implement shared state selectors |
|||
- Create reusable state mutations |
|||
- Use action creators for common operations |
|||
### During TimeSafari Development |
|||
|
|||
- **Error Handling** |
|||
- Implement centralized error handling |
|||
- Create reusable error components |
|||
- Use error boundary components |
|||
- Implement consistent error logging |
|||
- Create error type definitions |
|||
- [ ] **Platform Services**: Use abstracted platform services via interfaces |
|||
- [ ] **Type Safety**: Implement strict TypeScript with type guards |
|||
- **Modern Architecture**: Follow current platform service patterns |
|||
- [ ] **Performance Focus**: Ensure performance on all target devices |
|||
|
|||
- **Type Definitions** |
|||
- Create shared interfaces for common data structures |
|||
- Use type aliases for complex types |
|||
- Implement generic types for reusable components |
|||
- Create utility types for common patterns |
|||
- Use discriminated unions for state management |
|||
### After TimeSafari Development |
|||
|
|||
- **API Integration** |
|||
- Create reusable API client classes |
|||
- Implement request/response interceptors |
|||
- Use consistent error handling patterns |
|||
- Create type-safe API endpoints |
|||
- Implement caching strategies |
|||
|
|||
- **Platform Services** |
|||
- Abstract platform-specific code behind interfaces |
|||
- Create platform-agnostic service layers |
|||
- Implement feature detection |
|||
- Use dependency injection for services |
|||
- Create service factories |
|||
|
|||
- **Testing** |
|||
- Create reusable test utilities |
|||
- Implement test factories |
|||
- Use shared test configurations |
|||
- Create reusable test helpers |
|||
- Implement consistent test patterns |
|||
- F.I.R.S.T. (for Unit Tests) |
|||
F – Fast |
|||
I – Independent |
|||
R – Repeatable |
|||
S – Self-validating |
|||
T – Timely |
|||
|
|||
### SOLID Principles |
|||
|
|||
- **Single Responsibility**: Each class/component should have only one reason to |
|||
change |
|||
- Components should focus on one specific feature (e.g., QR scanning, DID management) |
|||
- Services should handle one type of functionality (e.g., platform services, |
|||
crypto services) |
|||
- Utilities should provide focused helper functions |
|||
|
|||
- **Open/Closed**: Software entities should be open for extension but closed for |
|||
modification |
|||
- Use interfaces for service definitions |
|||
- Implement plugin architecture for platform-specific features |
|||
- Allow component behavior extension through props and events |
|||
|
|||
- **Liskov Substitution**: Objects should be replaceable with their subtypes |
|||
- Platform services should work consistently across web/mobile |
|||
- Authentication providers should be interchangeable |
|||
- Storage implementations should be swappable |
|||
|
|||
- **Interface Segregation**: Clients shouldn't depend on interfaces they don't use |
|||
- Break down large service interfaces into smaller, focused ones |
|||
- Component props should be minimal and purposeful |
|||
- Event emissions should be specific and targeted |
|||
|
|||
- **Dependency Inversion**: High-level modules shouldn't depend on low-level modules |
|||
- Use dependency injection for services |
|||
- Abstract platform-specific code behind interfaces |
|||
- Implement factory patterns for component creation |
|||
|
|||
### Law of Demeter |
|||
|
|||
- Components should only communicate with immediate dependencies |
|||
- Avoid chaining method calls (e.g., `this.service.getUser().getProfile().getName()`) |
|||
- Use mediator patterns for complex component interactions |
|||
- Implement facade patterns for subsystem access |
|||
- Keep component communication through defined events and props |
|||
|
|||
### Composition over Inheritance |
|||
|
|||
- Prefer building components through composition |
|||
- Use mixins for shared functionality |
|||
- Implement feature toggles through props |
|||
- Create higher-order components for common patterns |
|||
- Use service composition for complex features |
|||
|
|||
### Interface Segregation |
|||
|
|||
- Define clear interfaces for services |
|||
- Keep component APIs minimal and focused |
|||
- Split large interfaces into smaller, specific ones |
|||
- Use TypeScript interfaces for type definitions |
|||
- Implement role-based interfaces for different use cases |
|||
|
|||
### Fail Fast |
|||
|
|||
- Validate inputs early in the process |
|||
- Use TypeScript strict mode |
|||
- Implement comprehensive error handling |
|||
- Add runtime checks for critical operations |
|||
- Use assertions for development-time validation |
|||
|
|||
### Principle of Least Astonishment |
|||
|
|||
- Follow Vue.js conventions consistently |
|||
- Use familiar naming patterns |
|||
- Implement predictable component behaviors |
|||
- Maintain consistent error handling |
|||
- Keep UI interactions intuitive |
|||
|
|||
### Information Hiding |
|||
|
|||
- Encapsulate implementation details |
|||
- Use private class members |
|||
- Implement proper access modifiers |
|||
- Hide complex logic behind simple interfaces |
|||
- Use TypeScript's access modifiers effectively |
|||
|
|||
### Single Source of Truth |
|||
|
|||
- Use Pinia for state management |
|||
- Maintain one source for user data |
|||
- Centralize configuration management |
|||
- Use computed properties for derived state |
|||
- Implement proper state synchronization |
|||
|
|||
### Principle of Least Privilege |
|||
|
|||
- Implement proper access control |
|||
- Use minimal required permissions |
|||
- Follow privacy-by-design principles |
|||
- Restrict component access to necessary data |
|||
- Implement proper authentication/authorization |
|||
- [ ] **Cross-Platform Testing**: Test functionality across all platforms |
|||
- [ ] **Performance Validation**: Verify performance meets requirements |
|||
- [ ] **Code Quality**: Ensure high standards maintained |
|||
- [ ] **Documentation Update**: Update relevant documentation |
|||
|
|||
@ -0,0 +1,174 @@ |
|||
# Time Safari Development — Workflow and Processes |
|||
|
|||
> **Agent role**: Reference this file for development workflow details when |
|||
working with TimeSafari development processes. |
|||
|
|||
## Development Workflow |
|||
|
|||
### Build Commands |
|||
|
|||
```bash |
|||
|
|||
# Web (development) |
|||
|
|||
npm run build:web |
|||
|
|||
# Mobile |
|||
|
|||
npm run build:capacitor |
|||
npm run build:native |
|||
|
|||
# Desktop |
|||
|
|||
npm run build:electron |
|||
npm run build:electron:appimage |
|||
npm run build:electron:deb |
|||
npm run build:electron:dmg |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### Testing Commands |
|||
|
|||
```bash |
|||
|
|||
# Web E2E |
|||
|
|||
npm run test:web |
|||
|
|||
# Mobile |
|||
|
|||
npm run test:mobile |
|||
npm run test:android |
|||
npm run test:ios |
|||
|
|||
# Type checking |
|||
|
|||
npm run type-check |
|||
npm run lint-fix |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
## Development Principles |
|||
|
|||
### Code Organization |
|||
|
|||
- **Platform Services**: Abstract platform-specific code behind interfaces |
|||
|
|||
- **Service Factory**: Use `PlatformServiceFactory` for platform selection |
|||
|
|||
- **Type Safety**: Strict TypeScript, no `any` types, use type guards |
|||
|
|||
- **Modern Architecture**: Use current platform service patterns |
|||
|
|||
### Architecture Patterns |
|||
|
|||
- **Dependency Injection**: Services injected via mixins and factory pattern |
|||
|
|||
- **Interface Segregation**: Small, focused interfaces over large ones |
|||
|
|||
- **Composition over Inheritance**: Prefer mixins and composition |
|||
|
|||
- **Single Responsibility**: Each component/service has one clear purpose |
|||
|
|||
### Testing Strategy |
|||
|
|||
- **E2E**: Playwright for critical user journeys |
|||
|
|||
- **Unit**: Jest with F.I.R.S.T. principles |
|||
|
|||
- **Platform Coverage**: Web + Capacitor (Pixel 5) in CI |
|||
|
|||
- **Quality Assurance**: Comprehensive testing and validation |
|||
|
|||
## Current Development Focus |
|||
|
|||
### Active Development |
|||
|
|||
- **Feature Development**: Build new functionality using modern platform |
|||
|
|||
services |
|||
|
|||
- **Performance Optimization**: Improve app performance and user experience |
|||
|
|||
- **Platform Enhancement**: Leverage platform-specific capabilities |
|||
|
|||
- **Code Quality**: Maintain high standards and best practices |
|||
|
|||
### Development Metrics |
|||
|
|||
- **Code Quality**: High standards maintained across all platforms |
|||
|
|||
- **Performance**: Optimized for all target devices |
|||
|
|||
- **Testing**: Comprehensive coverage maintained |
|||
|
|||
- **User Experience**: Focus on intuitive, accessible interfaces |
|||
|
|||
## Development Environment |
|||
|
|||
### Required Tools |
|||
|
|||
- **Node.js**: LTS version with npm |
|||
|
|||
- **Git**: Version control with proper branching strategy |
|||
|
|||
- **IDE**: VS Code with recommended extensions |
|||
|
|||
- **Platform Tools**: Android Studio, Xcode (for mobile development) |
|||
|
|||
### Environment Setup |
|||
|
|||
1. **Clone Repository**: `git clone <repository-url>` |
|||
|
|||
2. **Install Dependencies**: `npm install` |
|||
|
|||
3. **Environment Variables**: Copy `.env.example` to `.env.local` |
|||
|
|||
4. **Platform Setup**: Follow platform-specific setup guides |
|||
|
|||
### Quality Assurance |
|||
|
|||
- **Linting**: ESLint with TypeScript rules |
|||
|
|||
- **Formatting**: Prettier for consistent code style |
|||
|
|||
- **Type Checking**: TypeScript strict mode enabled |
|||
|
|||
- **Testing**: Comprehensive test coverage requirements |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
**See also**: |
|||
|
|||
- `.cursor/rules/app/timesafari.mdc` for core application context |
|||
|
|||
- `.cursor/rules/app/timesafari_platforms.mdc` for platform-specific details |
|||
|
|||
**Status**: Active development workflow |
|||
**Priority**: High |
|||
**Estimated Effort**: Ongoing reference |
|||
**Dependencies**: timesafari.mdc, timesafari_platforms.mdc |
|||
**Stakeholders**: Development team, DevOps team |
|||
|
|||
## Model Implementation Checklist |
|||
|
|||
### Before TimeSafari Development |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Environment Setup**: Verify development environment is ready |
|||
- [ ] **Platform Tools**: Ensure platform-specific tools are available |
|||
- [ ] **Dependencies**: Check all required dependencies are installed |
|||
- [ ] **Environment Variables**: Configure local environment variables |
|||
|
|||
### During TimeSafari Development |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Platform Services**: Use modern platform service patterns |
|||
- [ ] **Code Quality**: Follow ESLint and TypeScript strict rules |
|||
- [ ] **Testing**: Implement comprehensive testing strategy |
|||
- [ ] **Performance**: Optimize for all target platforms |
|||
|
|||
### After TimeSafari Development |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Quality Checks**: Run linting, formatting, and type checking |
|||
- [ ] **Testing**: Execute comprehensive tests across platforms |
|||
- [ ] **Performance Validation**: Verify performance meets requirements |
|||
- [ ] **Documentation**: Update development documentation |
|||
@ -0,0 +1,167 @@ |
|||
# Time Safari Platforms — Platform-Specific Considerations |
|||
|
|||
> **Agent role**: Reference this file for platform-specific details when working |
|||
with TimeSafari development across different platforms. |
|||
|
|||
## Platform-Specific Considerations |
|||
|
|||
### Web (PWA) |
|||
|
|||
- **QR Scanning**: WebInlineQRScanner |
|||
|
|||
- **Deep Linking**: URL parameters |
|||
|
|||
- **File System**: Limited browser APIs |
|||
|
|||
- **Build**: `npm run build:web` (development build) |
|||
|
|||
### Mobile (Capacitor) |
|||
|
|||
- **QR Scanning**: @capacitor-mlkit/barcode-scanning |
|||
|
|||
- **Deep Linking**: App URL open events |
|||
|
|||
- **File System**: Capacitor Filesystem |
|||
|
|||
- **Build**: `npm run build:capacitor` |
|||
|
|||
### Desktop (Electron) |
|||
|
|||
- **File System**: Node.js fs |
|||
|
|||
- **Build**: `npm run build:electron` |
|||
|
|||
- **Distribution**: AppImage, DEB, DMG packages |
|||
|
|||
## Platform Compatibility Requirements |
|||
|
|||
### Cross-Platform Features |
|||
|
|||
- **Core functionality** must work identically across all platforms |
|||
|
|||
- **Platform-specific enhancements** should be additive, not required |
|||
|
|||
- **Fallback behavior** must be graceful when platform features unavailable |
|||
|
|||
### Platform-Specific Capabilities |
|||
|
|||
- **Web**: Browser APIs, PWA features, responsive design |
|||
|
|||
- **Mobile**: Native device features, offline capability, app store compliance |
|||
|
|||
- **Desktop**: File system access, system integration, native performance |
|||
|
|||
## Build and Distribution |
|||
|
|||
### Build Commands |
|||
|
|||
```bash |
|||
|
|||
# Web (development) |
|||
|
|||
npm run build:web |
|||
|
|||
# Mobile |
|||
|
|||
npm run build:capacitor |
|||
npm run build:native |
|||
|
|||
# Desktop |
|||
|
|||
npm run build:electron |
|||
npm run build:electron:appimage |
|||
npm run build:electron:deb |
|||
npm run build:electron:dmg |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### Testing Commands |
|||
|
|||
```bash |
|||
|
|||
# Web E2E |
|||
|
|||
npm run test:web |
|||
|
|||
# Mobile |
|||
|
|||
npm run test:mobile |
|||
npm run test:android |
|||
npm run test:ios |
|||
|
|||
# Type checking |
|||
|
|||
npm run type-check |
|||
npm run lint-fix |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
## Key Constraints |
|||
|
|||
1. **Privacy First**: User identifiers remain private except when explicitly |
|||
|
|||
shared |
|||
|
|||
2. **Platform Compatibility**: Features must work across all target platforms |
|||
|
|||
3. **Performance**: Must remain performant on older/simpler devices |
|||
|
|||
4. **Modern Architecture**: New features should use current platform services |
|||
|
|||
5. **Offline Capability**: Key functionality should work offline when feasible |
|||
|
|||
## Use Cases to Support |
|||
|
|||
1. **Community Building**: Tools for finding others with shared interests |
|||
|
|||
2. **Project Coordination**: Easy proposal and collaboration on projects |
|||
|
|||
3. **Reputation Building**: Showcasing contributions and reliability |
|||
|
|||
4. **Governance**: Facilitating decision-making and collective governance |
|||
|
|||
## Resources |
|||
|
|||
- **Testing**: `docs/migration-testing/` |
|||
|
|||
- **Architecture**: `docs/architecture-decisions.md` |
|||
|
|||
- **Build Context**: `docs/build-modernization-context.md` |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
**See also**: |
|||
|
|||
- `.cursor/rules/app/timesafari.mdc` for core application context |
|||
- `.cursor/rules/app/timesafari_development.mdc` for |
|||
|
|||
development workflow details |
|||
|
|||
**Status**: Active platform guidelines |
|||
**Priority**: High |
|||
**Estimated Effort**: Ongoing reference |
|||
**Dependencies**: timesafari.mdc |
|||
**Stakeholders**: Development team, Platform teams |
|||
|
|||
## Model Implementation Checklist |
|||
|
|||
### Before Platform Development |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Platform Analysis**: Identify all target platforms (web, mobile, desktop) |
|||
- [ ] **Feature Requirements**: Understand feature requirements across platforms |
|||
- [ ] **Platform Constraints**: Review platform-specific limitations and capabilities |
|||
- [ ] **Testing Strategy**: Plan testing approach for all target platforms |
|||
|
|||
### During Platform Development |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Cross-Platform Implementation**: Implement features across all platforms |
|||
- [ ] **Platform Services**: Use current platform services for new features |
|||
- [ ] **Performance Optimization**: Ensure performance on older/simpler devices |
|||
- [ ] **Offline Capability**: Implement offline functionality where feasible |
|||
|
|||
### After Platform Development |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Cross-Platform Testing**: Test functionality across all target platforms |
|||
- [ ] **Performance Validation**: Verify performance meets requirements |
|||
- [ ] **Documentation Update**: Update platform-specific documentation |
|||
- [ ] **Team Communication**: Share platform implementation results with team |
|||
@ -0,0 +1,75 @@ |
|||
# Architecture Rules Directory |
|||
|
|||
**Author**: Matthew Raymer |
|||
**Date**: 2025-08-20 |
|||
**Status**: 🎯 **ACTIVE** - Architecture protection guidelines |
|||
|
|||
## Overview |
|||
|
|||
This directory contains MDC (Model Directive Configuration) rules that protect |
|||
critical architectural components of the TimeSafari project. These rules ensure |
|||
that changes to system architecture follow proper review, testing, and |
|||
documentation procedures. |
|||
|
|||
## Available Rules |
|||
|
|||
### Build Architecture Guard (`build_architecture_guard.mdc`) |
|||
|
|||
Protects the multi-platform build system including: |
|||
|
|||
- Vite configuration files |
|||
- Build scripts and automation |
|||
- Platform-specific configurations (iOS, Android, Electron, Web) |
|||
- Docker and deployment infrastructure |
|||
- CI/CD pipeline components |
|||
|
|||
**When to use**: Any time you're modifying build scripts, configuration files, |
|||
or deployment processes. |
|||
|
|||
**Authorization levels**: |
|||
|
|||
- **Level 1**: Minor changes (review required) |
|||
- **Level 2**: Moderate changes (testing required) |
|||
- **Level 3**: Major changes (ADR required) |
|||
|
|||
## Usage Guidelines |
|||
|
|||
### For Developers |
|||
|
|||
1. **Check the rule**: Before making architectural changes, review the relevant |
|||
rule |
|||
2. **Follow the process**: Use the appropriate authorization level |
|||
3. **Complete validation**: Run through the required checklist |
|||
4. **Update documentation**: Keep BUILDING.md and related docs current |
|||
|
|||
### For Reviewers |
|||
|
|||
1. **Verify authorization**: Ensure changes match the required level |
|||
2. **Check testing**: Confirm appropriate testing has been completed |
|||
3. **Validate documentation**: Ensure BUILDING.md reflects changes |
|||
4. **Assess risk**: Consider impact on other platforms and systems |
|||
|
|||
## Integration with Other Rules |
|||
|
|||
- **Version Control**: Works with `workflow/version_control.mdc` |
|||
- **Research & Diagnostic**: Supports `research_diagnostic.mdc` for |
|||
investigations |
|||
- **Software Development**: Aligns with development best practices |
|||
- **Markdown Automation**: Integrates with `docs/markdown-automation.mdc` for |
|||
consistent documentation formatting |
|||
|
|||
## Emergency Procedures |
|||
|
|||
If architectural changes cause system failures: |
|||
|
|||
1. **Immediate rollback** to last known working state |
|||
2. **Document the failure** with full error details |
|||
3. **Investigate root cause** using diagnostic workflows |
|||
4. **Update procedures** to prevent future failures |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
**Status**: Active architecture protection |
|||
**Priority**: Critical |
|||
**Maintainer**: Development team |
|||
**Next Review**: 2025-09-20 |
|||
@ -0,0 +1,186 @@ |
|||
|
|||
# Build Architecture Guard Directive |
|||
|
|||
**Author**: Matthew Raymer |
|||
**Date**: 2025-08-22 |
|||
**Status**: 🎯 **ACTIVE** - Build system protection guidelines |
|||
|
|||
## Purpose |
|||
|
|||
Protect the TimeSafari building architecture from unauthorized changes that |
|||
could break the multi-platform build pipeline, deployment processes, or |
|||
development workflow. This directive ensures all build system modifications |
|||
follow proper review, testing, and documentation procedures. |
|||
|
|||
**Note**: Recent Android build system enhancements (2025-08-22) include |
|||
sophisticated asset validation, platform-specific API routing, and automatic |
|||
resource regeneration. These features require enhanced testing and validation |
|||
procedures. |
|||
|
|||
## Protected Architecture Components |
|||
|
|||
### Core Build Infrastructure |
|||
|
|||
- **Vite Configuration Files**: `vite.config.*.mts` files |
|||
|
|||
- **Build Scripts**: All scripts in `scripts/` directory |
|||
|
|||
- **Package Scripts**: `package.json` build-related scripts |
|||
|
|||
- **Platform Configs**: `capacitor.config.ts`, `electron/`, `android/`, |
|||
|
|||
`ios/` |
|||
|
|||
- **Docker Configuration**: `Dockerfile`, `docker-compose.yml` |
|||
|
|||
- **Environment Files**: `.env.*`, `.nvmrc`, `.node-version` |
|||
|
|||
### Android-Specific Build Validation |
|||
|
|||
- **Asset Validation Scripts**: |
|||
|
|||
`validate_android_assets()` function and resource checking |
|||
|
|||
- **Resource Generation**: `capacitor-assets` integration and verification |
|||
|
|||
- **Platform-Specific IP Handling**: |
|||
|
|||
Android emulator vs physical device API routing |
|||
|
|||
- **Build Mode Validation**: Development/test/production mode handling |
|||
|
|||
- **Resource Fallback Logic**: |
|||
|
|||
Automatic regeneration of missing Android resources |
|||
|
|||
### Critical Build Dependencies |
|||
|
|||
- **Build Tools**: Vite, Capacitor, Electron, Android SDK, Xcode |
|||
|
|||
- **Asset Management**: `capacitor-assets.config.json`, asset scripts |
|||
|
|||
- **Testing Infrastructure**: Playwright, Jest, mobile test scripts |
|||
|
|||
- **CI/CD Pipeline**: GitHub Actions, build validation scripts |
|||
|
|||
- **Service Worker Assembly**: `sw_scripts/`, `sw_combine.js`, WASM copy steps |
|||
|
|||
## Change Authorization Requirements |
|||
|
|||
### Level 1: Minor Changes (Requires Review) |
|||
|
|||
- Documentation updates to `BUILDING.md` |
|||
|
|||
- Non-breaking script improvements |
|||
|
|||
- Test additions or improvements |
|||
|
|||
- Asset configuration updates |
|||
|
|||
**Process**: Code review + basic testing |
|||
|
|||
### Level 2: Moderate Changes (Requires Testing) |
|||
|
|||
- New build script additions |
|||
|
|||
- Environment variable changes |
|||
|
|||
- Dependency version updates |
|||
|
|||
- Platform-specific optimizations |
|||
|
|||
- **Build script argument parsing**: |
|||
|
|||
New flag handling (--api-ip, --auto-run, --deploy) |
|||
|
|||
- **Platform-specific environment overrides**: |
|||
|
|||
Android API server IP customization |
|||
|
|||
- **Asset regeneration logic**: Automatic fallback for missing Android resources |
|||
|
|||
**Process**: Code review + platform testing + documentation update |
|||
|
|||
### Level 3: Major Changes (Requires ADR) |
|||
|
|||
- Build system architecture changes |
|||
|
|||
- New platform support |
|||
|
|||
- Breaking changes to build scripts |
|||
|
|||
- Major dependency migrations |
|||
|
|||
**Process**: ADR creation + comprehensive testing + team review |
|||
|
|||
## Prohibited Actions |
|||
|
|||
### ❌ Never Allow Without ADR |
|||
|
|||
- **Delete or rename** core build scripts |
|||
|
|||
- **Modify** `package.json` build script names |
|||
|
|||
- **Change** Vite configuration structure |
|||
|
|||
- **Remove** platform-specific build targets |
|||
|
|||
- **Alter** Docker build process |
|||
|
|||
- **Modify** CI/CD pipeline without testing |
|||
|
|||
### ❌ Never Allow Without Testing |
|||
|
|||
- **Update** build dependencies |
|||
|
|||
- **Change** environment configurations |
|||
|
|||
- **Modify** asset generation scripts |
|||
|
|||
- **Alter** test infrastructure |
|||
|
|||
- **Update** platform SDK versions |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
**See also**: |
|||
|
|||
- `.cursor/rules/architecture/build_validation.mdc` for |
|||
|
|||
detailed validation procedures |
|||
|
|||
- `.cursor/rules/architecture/build_testing.mdc` for testing requirements |
|||
|
|||
**Status**: Active build protection guidelines |
|||
**Priority**: Critical |
|||
**Estimated Effort**: Ongoing reference |
|||
**Dependencies**: None |
|||
**Stakeholders**: Development team, DevOps team, Build team |
|||
|
|||
**Estimated Effort**: Ongoing vigilance |
|||
**Dependencies**: All build system components |
|||
**Stakeholders**: Development team, DevOps, Platform owners |
|||
**Next Review**: 2025-09-22 |
|||
|
|||
## Model Implementation Checklist |
|||
|
|||
### Before Build Changes |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Change Level**: Determine if change is L1, L2, or L3 |
|||
- [ ] **Impact Assessment**: Assess impact on build system architecture |
|||
- [ ] **ADR Requirement**: Check if ADR is required for major changes |
|||
- [ ] **Testing Planning**: Plan appropriate testing for change level |
|||
|
|||
### During Build Changes |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Guard Compliance**: Ensure changes comply with build architecture guard |
|||
- [ ] **Documentation**: Document changes according to level requirements |
|||
- [ ] **Testing**: Execute appropriate testing for change level |
|||
- [ ] **Review Process**: Follow required review process for change level |
|||
|
|||
### After Build Changes |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Validation**: Verify build system still functions correctly |
|||
- [ ] **Documentation Update**: Update relevant documentation |
|||
- [ ] **Team Communication**: Communicate changes to affected teams |
|||
- [ ] **Monitoring**: Monitor for any build system issues |
|||
@ -0,0 +1,248 @@ |
|||
# Build Testing — Requirements and Emergency Procedures |
|||
|
|||
> **Agent role**: Reference this file for testing requirements and |
|||
emergency procedures when working with build architecture changes. |
|||
|
|||
## Emergency Procedures |
|||
|
|||
### Build System Broken |
|||
|
|||
1. **Immediate**: Revert to last known working commit |
|||
|
|||
2. **Investigation**: Create issue with full error details |
|||
|
|||
3. **Testing**: Verify all platforms work after revert |
|||
|
|||
4. **Documentation**: Update `BUILDING.md` with failure notes |
|||
|
|||
### Platform-Specific Failure |
|||
|
|||
1. **Isolate**: Identify which platform is affected |
|||
|
|||
2. **Test Others**: Verify other platforms still work |
|||
|
|||
3. **Rollback**: Revert platform-specific changes |
|||
|
|||
4. **Investigation**: Debug in isolated environment |
|||
|
|||
## Rollback Playbook |
|||
|
|||
### Immediate Rollback |
|||
|
|||
1. `git revert` or `git reset --hard <prev>`; restore prior `scripts/` or config |
|||
|
|||
files |
|||
|
|||
2. Rebuild affected targets; verify old behavior returns |
|||
|
|||
3. Post-mortem notes → update this guard and `BUILDING.md` if gaps found |
|||
|
|||
### Rollback Verification |
|||
|
|||
- **Web**: `npm run build:web:dev` and `npm run build:web:prod` |
|||
|
|||
- **Mobile**: `npm run build:android:test` and `npm run build:ios:test` |
|||
|
|||
- **Desktop**: `npm run build:electron:dev` and packaging commands |
|||
|
|||
- **Clean**: Run relevant `clean:*` scripts and verify re-build works |
|||
|
|||
### Android-Specific Rollback Verification |
|||
|
|||
- **Asset Generation**: `npm run build:android --assets` - |
|||
|
|||
verify resources regenerate |
|||
|
|||
- **API Routing**: Test both `--dev` and `--dev --api-ip <custom>` modes |
|||
|
|||
- **Resource Validation**: |
|||
|
|||
Check `android/app/src/main/res/` for all required assets |
|||
|
|||
- **Build Modes**: Verify development, test, and production modes all work |
|||
|
|||
- **Resource Fallback**: |
|||
|
|||
Confirm missing resources trigger automatic regeneration |
|||
|
|||
## Integration Points |
|||
|
|||
### With Version Control |
|||
|
|||
- **Branch Protection**: Require reviews for build script changes |
|||
|
|||
- **Commit Messages**: Must reference ADR for major changes |
|||
|
|||
- **Testing**: All build changes must pass CI/CD pipeline |
|||
|
|||
### With Documentation |
|||
|
|||
- **BUILDING.md**: Must be updated for any script changes |
|||
|
|||
- **README.md**: Must reflect new build requirements |
|||
|
|||
- **CHANGELOG.md**: Must document breaking build changes |
|||
|
|||
### With Testing |
|||
|
|||
- **Pre-commit**: Run basic build validation |
|||
|
|||
- **CI/CD**: Full platform build testing |
|||
|
|||
- **Manual Testing**: Human verification of critical paths |
|||
|
|||
## Competence Hooks |
|||
|
|||
### Why This Works |
|||
|
|||
- **Prevents Build Failures**: Catches issues before they reach production |
|||
|
|||
- **Maintains Consistency**: Ensures all platforms build identically |
|||
|
|||
- **Reduces Debugging Time**: Prevents build system regressions |
|||
|
|||
### Common Pitfalls |
|||
|
|||
- **Silent Failures**: Changes that work on one platform but break others |
|||
|
|||
- **Dependency Conflicts**: Updates that create version incompatibilities |
|||
|
|||
- **Documentation Drift**: Build scripts that don't match documentation |
|||
|
|||
### Next Skill Unlock |
|||
|
|||
- Learn to test build changes across all platforms simultaneously |
|||
|
|||
### Teach-back |
|||
|
|||
- "What three platforms must I test before committing a build script change?" |
|||
|
|||
## Collaboration Hooks |
|||
|
|||
### Team Review Requirements |
|||
|
|||
- **Platform Owners**: iOS, Android, Electron, Web specialists |
|||
|
|||
- **DevOps**: CI/CD pipeline maintainers |
|||
|
|||
- **QA**: Testing infrastructure owners |
|||
|
|||
### Discussion Prompts |
|||
|
|||
- "Which platforms will be affected by this build change?" |
|||
|
|||
- "How can we test this change without breaking existing builds?" |
|||
|
|||
- "What's our rollback plan if this change fails?" |
|||
|
|||
## Self-Check (Before Allowing Changes) |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Authorization Level**: Is this change appropriate for the level? |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Testing Plan**: Is there a comprehensive testing strategy? |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Documentation**: Will BUILDING.md be updated? |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Rollback**: Is there a safe rollback mechanism? |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Team Review**: Have appropriate stakeholders been consulted? |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **CI/CD**: Will this pass the build pipeline? |
|||
|
|||
## Continuous Improvement & Feedback |
|||
|
|||
### Feedback Collection |
|||
|
|||
The Build Architecture Guard system includes feedback mechanisms to continuously |
|||
improve its effectiveness: |
|||
|
|||
- **User Feedback**: Script includes feedback prompts for guard improvements |
|||
|
|||
- **Pattern Analysis**: |
|||
|
|||
Monitor which file patterns trigger false positives/negatives |
|||
|
|||
- **Documentation Gaps**: Track which changes lack proper documentation |
|||
|
|||
- **Testing Effectiveness**: Measure how often guard catches actual issues |
|||
|
|||
### Feedback Integration Process |
|||
|
|||
1. **Collect Feedback**: Monitor guard execution logs and user reports |
|||
|
|||
2. **Analyze Patterns**: Identify common false positives or missed patterns |
|||
|
|||
3. **Update Rules**: Modify `build_architecture_guard.mdc` based on feedback |
|||
|
|||
4. **Enhance Script**: Update `build-arch-guard.sh` with new validations |
|||
|
|||
5. **Test Changes**: Verify guard improvements don't introduce new issues |
|||
|
|||
6. **Document Updates**: Update guard documentation with new patterns |
|||
|
|||
### Feedback Categories |
|||
|
|||
- **False Positives**: Files flagged as sensitive that shouldn't be |
|||
|
|||
- **False Negatives**: Sensitive files that weren't caught |
|||
|
|||
- **Missing Patterns**: New file types that should be protected |
|||
|
|||
- **Overly Strict**: Patterns that are too restrictive |
|||
|
|||
- **Documentation Gaps**: Missing guidance for specific change types |
|||
|
|||
- **Testing Improvements**: Better validation procedures |
|||
|
|||
### Feedback Reporting |
|||
|
|||
When reporting guard issues, include: |
|||
|
|||
- **File patterns** that triggered false positives/negatives |
|||
|
|||
- **Build system changes** that weren't properly caught |
|||
|
|||
- **Documentation gaps** in current guard rules |
|||
|
|||
- **Testing procedures** that could be improved |
|||
|
|||
- **User experience** issues with guard enforcement |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
**See also**: |
|||
|
|||
- `.cursor/rules/architecture/build_architecture_guard.mdc` for |
|||
|
|||
core protection guidelines |
|||
|
|||
- `.cursor/rules/architecture/build_validation.mdc` for validation procedures |
|||
|
|||
**Status**: Active testing requirements |
|||
**Priority**: High |
|||
**Estimated Effort**: Ongoing reference |
|||
**Dependencies**: build_architecture_guard.mdc, build_validation.mdc |
|||
**Stakeholders**: Development team, DevOps team, Build team |
|||
|
|||
## Model Implementation Checklist |
|||
|
|||
### Before Build Testing |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Test Planning**: Plan comprehensive testing strategy for build changes |
|||
- [ ] **Platform Coverage**: Identify all platforms that need testing |
|||
- [ ] **Risk Assessment**: Assess testing risks and mitigation strategies |
|||
- [ ] **Resource Planning**: Plan testing resources and time requirements |
|||
|
|||
### During Build Testing |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Test Execution**: Execute planned tests across all platforms |
|||
- [ ] **Issue Tracking**: Track and document any issues found |
|||
- [ ] **Feedback Collection**: Collect feedback on testing effectiveness |
|||
- [ ] **Documentation**: Document testing procedures and results |
|||
|
|||
### After Build Testing |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Result Analysis**: Analyze testing results and identify patterns |
|||
- [ ] **Feedback Integration**: Integrate feedback into testing procedures |
|||
- [ ] **Process Improvement**: Update testing procedures based on feedback |
|||
- [ ] **Team Communication**: Share testing results and improvements with team |
|||
@ -0,0 +1,224 @@ |
|||
# Build Validation — Procedures and Requirements |
|||
|
|||
> **Agent role**: Reference this file for |
|||
detailed validation procedures when working with build architecture changes. |
|||
|
|||
## Required Validation Checklist |
|||
|
|||
### Before Any Build System Change |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Impact Assessment**: Which platforms are affected? |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Testing Plan**: How will this be tested across platforms? |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Rollback Plan**: How can this be reverted if it breaks? |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Documentation**: Will `BUILDING.md` need updates? |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Dependencies**: Are all required tools available? |
|||
|
|||
### After Build System Change |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Web Platform**: Does `npm run build:web:dev` work? |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Mobile Platforms**: Do iOS/Android builds succeed? |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Desktop Platform**: Does Electron build and run? |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Tests Pass**: Do all build-related tests pass? |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Documentation Updated**: Is `BUILDING.md` current? |
|||
|
|||
## Specific Test Commands (Minimum Required) |
|||
|
|||
### Web Platform |
|||
|
|||
- **Development**: `npm run build:web:dev` - serve and load app |
|||
|
|||
- **Production**: `npm run build:web:prod` - verify SW and WASM present |
|||
|
|||
### Mobile Platforms |
|||
|
|||
- **Android**: `npm run build:android:test` or `:prod` - confirm assets copied |
|||
|
|||
- **iOS**: `npm run build:ios:test` or `:prod` - verify build succeeds |
|||
|
|||
### Android Platform (Enhanced) |
|||
|
|||
- **Development Mode**: `npm run build:android --dev` - |
|||
|
|||
verify 10.0.2.2 API routing |
|||
|
|||
- **Custom IP Mode**: `npm run build:android --dev --api-ip 192.168.1.100` - |
|||
|
|||
verify custom IP |
|||
|
|||
- **Asset Validation**: `npm run build:android --assets` - |
|||
|
|||
verify resource generation |
|||
|
|||
- **Deploy Mode**: `npm run build:android --deploy` - verify device deployment |
|||
|
|||
### Desktop Platform |
|||
|
|||
- **Electron**: `npm run build:electron:dev` and packaging for target OS |
|||
|
|||
- **Verify**: Single-instance behavior and app boot |
|||
|
|||
### Auto-run (if affected) |
|||
|
|||
- **Test Mode**: `npm run auto-run:test` and platform variants |
|||
|
|||
- **Production Mode**: `npm run auto-run:prod` and platform variants |
|||
|
|||
### Clean and Rebuild |
|||
|
|||
- Run relevant `clean:*` scripts and ensure re-build works |
|||
|
|||
## Risk Matrix & Required Validation |
|||
|
|||
### Environment Handling |
|||
|
|||
- **Trigger**: Change to `.env.*` loading / variable names |
|||
|
|||
- **Validation**: Prove `dev/test/prod` builds; show environment echo in logs |
|||
|
|||
### Script Flow |
|||
|
|||
- **Trigger**: Reorder steps (prebuild → build → package), new flags |
|||
|
|||
- **Validation**: Dry-run + normal run, show exit codes & timing |
|||
|
|||
### Platform Packaging |
|||
|
|||
- **Trigger**: Electron NSIS/DMG/AppImage, Android/iOS bundle |
|||
|
|||
- **Validation**: Produce installer/artifact and open it; |
|||
|
|||
verify single-instance, |
|||
icons, signing |
|||
|
|||
### Service Worker / WASM |
|||
|
|||
- **Trigger**: `sw_combine.js`, WASM copy path |
|||
|
|||
- **Validation**: Verify combined SW exists and is injected; page loads offline; |
|||
|
|||
WASM present |
|||
|
|||
### Docker |
|||
|
|||
- **Trigger**: New base image, build args |
|||
|
|||
- **Validation**: Build image locally; run container; list produced `/dist` |
|||
|
|||
### Android Asset Management |
|||
|
|||
- **Trigger**: Changes to `validate_android_assets()` function or resource paths |
|||
|
|||
- **Validation**: |
|||
|
|||
Run `npm run build:android --assets` and verify all mipmap/drawable resources |
|||
|
|||
- **Risk**: Missing splash screens or app icons causing build failures |
|||
|
|||
### Android API Routing |
|||
|
|||
- **Trigger**: Changes to Android-specific API server IP logic |
|||
|
|||
- **Validation**: Test both emulator (10.0.2.2) and custom IP modes |
|||
|
|||
- **Risk**: API connectivity failures on different device types |
|||
|
|||
### Signing/Notarization |
|||
|
|||
- **Trigger**: Cert path/profiles |
|||
|
|||
- **Validation**: Show signing logs + verify on target OS |
|||
|
|||
## PR Template (Paste into Description) |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Level**: L1 / L2 / L3 + justification |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Files & platforms touched**: |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Risk triggers & mitigations**: |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Commands run (paste logs)**: |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Artifacts (names + sha256)**: |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Docs updated (sections/links)**: |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Rollback steps verified**: |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **CI**: Jobs passing and artifacts uploaded |
|||
|
|||
## ADR Trigger List |
|||
|
|||
Raise an ADR when you propose any of: |
|||
|
|||
- **New build stage** or reorder of canonical stages |
|||
|
|||
- **Replacement of packager** / packaging format |
|||
|
|||
- **New environment model** or secure secret handling scheme |
|||
|
|||
- **New service worker assembly** strategy or cache policy |
|||
|
|||
- **New Docker base** or multi-stage pipeline |
|||
|
|||
- **Relocation of build outputs** or directory conventions |
|||
|
|||
- **New Android build modes** or argument parsing logic |
|||
|
|||
- **Changes to asset validation** or resource generation strategy |
|||
|
|||
- **Modifications to platform-specific API routing** ( |
|||
|
|||
Android emulator vs physical) |
|||
|
|||
- **New Android deployment strategies** or device management |
|||
|
|||
**ADR must include**: |
|||
motivation, alternatives, risks, validation plan, rollback, |
|||
doc diffs. |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
**See also**: |
|||
|
|||
- `.cursor/rules/architecture/build_architecture_guard.mdc` for |
|||
|
|||
core protection guidelines |
|||
|
|||
- `.cursor/rules/architecture/build_testing.mdc` for testing requirements |
|||
|
|||
**Status**: Active validation procedures |
|||
**Priority**: High |
|||
**Estimated Effort**: Ongoing reference |
|||
**Dependencies**: build_architecture_guard.mdc |
|||
**Stakeholders**: Development team, DevOps team, Build team |
|||
|
|||
## Model Implementation Checklist |
|||
|
|||
### Before Build Changes |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Level Assessment**: Determine build validation level (L1/L2/L3) |
|||
- [ ] **Platform Analysis**: Identify all platforms affected by changes |
|||
- [ ] **Risk Assessment**: Identify risk triggers and mitigation strategies |
|||
- [ ] **Rollback Planning**: Plan rollback steps for build failures |
|||
|
|||
### During Build Implementation |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Validation Commands**: Run appropriate validation commands for level |
|||
- [ ] **Platform Testing**: Test changes across all affected platforms |
|||
- [ ] **Risk Mitigation**: Implement identified risk mitigation strategies |
|||
- [ ] **Documentation**: Document all commands run and their outputs |
|||
|
|||
### After Build Implementation |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Artifact Validation**: Verify build artifacts are correct and accessible |
|||
- [ ] **CI Verification**: Ensure CI jobs pass and artifacts are uploaded |
|||
- [ ] **Documentation Update**: Update relevant documentation sections |
|||
- [ ] **Team Communication**: Share build validation results with team |
|||
@ -1,32 +0,0 @@ |
|||
--- |
|||
alwaysApply: true |
|||
--- |
|||
# Asset Configuration Directive |
|||
*Scope: Assets Only (icons, splashes, image pipelines) — not overall build orchestration* |
|||
|
|||
## Intent |
|||
- Version **asset configuration files** (optionally dev-time generated). |
|||
- **Do not** version platform asset outputs (Android/iOS/Electron); generate them **at build-time** with standard tools. |
|||
- Keep existing per-platform build scripts unchanged. |
|||
|
|||
## Source of Truth |
|||
- **Preferred (Capacitor default):** `resources/` as the single master source. |
|||
- **Alternative:** `assets/` is acceptable **only** if `capacitor-assets` is explicitly configured to read from it. |
|||
- **Never** maintain both `resources/` and `assets/` as parallel sources. Migrate and delete the redundant folder. |
|||
|
|||
## Config Files |
|||
- Live under: `config/assets/` (committed). |
|||
- Examples: |
|||
- `config/assets/capacitor-assets.config.json` (or the path the tool expects) |
|||
- `config/assets/android.assets.json` |
|||
- `config/assets/ios.assets.json` |
|||
- `config/assets/common.assets.yaml` (optional shared layer) |
|||
- **Dev-time generation allowed** for these configs; **build-time generation is forbidden**. |
|||
|
|||
## Build-Time Behavior |
|||
- Build generates platform assets (not configs) using the standard chain: |
|||
```bash |
|||
npm run build:capacitor # web build via Vite (.mts) |
|||
npx cap sync |
|||
npx capacitor-assets generate # produces platform assets; not committed |
|||
# then platform-specific build steps |
|||
@ -0,0 +1,202 @@ |
|||
```json |
|||
|
|||
{ |
|||
"coaching_level": "standard", |
|||
"socratic_max_questions": 2, |
|||
"verbosity": "concise", |
|||
"timebox_minutes": 10, |
|||
"format_enforcement": "strict" |
|||
} |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
# Harbor Pilot Universal — Technical Guide Standards |
|||
|
|||
> **Agent role**: When creating technical guides, reference documents, or |
|||
> implementation plans, apply these universal directives to ensure consistent |
|||
> quality and structure. |
|||
|
|||
## Purpose |
|||
|
|||
- **Purpose fit**: Prioritizes human competence and collaboration while |
|||
delivering reproducible artifacts. |
|||
|
|||
- **Output Contract**: This directive **adds universal constraints** for any |
|||
technical topic while **inheriting** the Base Context contract sections. |
|||
|
|||
- **Toggles honored**: Uses the same toggle semantics; defaults above can be |
|||
overridden by the caller. |
|||
|
|||
## Core Directive |
|||
|
|||
Produce a **developer-grade, reproducible guide** for any technical topic |
|||
that onboards a competent practitioner **without meta narration** and **with |
|||
evidence-backed steps**. |
|||
|
|||
## Required Elements |
|||
|
|||
### 1. Time & Date Standards |
|||
|
|||
- Use **absolute dates** in **UTC** (e.g., `2025-08-21T14:22Z`) — avoid |
|||
"today/yesterday". |
|||
|
|||
- Include at least **one diagram** (Mermaid preferred). Choose the most |
|||
fitting type: |
|||
|
|||
- `sequenceDiagram` (protocols/flows), `flowchart`, `stateDiagram`, |
|||
`gantt` (timelines), or `classDiagram` (schemas). |
|||
|
|||
### 2. Evidence Requirements |
|||
|
|||
- **Reproducible Steps**: Every claim must have copy-paste commands |
|||
|
|||
- **Verifiable Outputs**: Include expected results, status codes, or |
|||
error messages |
|||
|
|||
- **Cite evidence** for *Works/Doesn't* items (timestamps, filenames, |
|||
line numbers, IDs/status codes, or logs). |
|||
|
|||
## Required Sections |
|||
|
|||
Follow this exact order **after** the Base Contract's **Objective → Result |
|||
→ Use/Run** headers: |
|||
|
|||
1. **Artifacts & Links** - Repos/PRs, design docs, datasets/HARs/pcaps, |
|||
scripts/tools, dashboards. |
|||
|
|||
2. **Environment & Preconditions** - OS/runtime, versions/build IDs, |
|||
services/endpoints/URLs, credentials/auth mode. |
|||
|
|||
3. **Architecture / Process Overview** - Short prose + **one diagram** |
|||
selected from the list above. |
|||
|
|||
4. **Interfaces & Contracts** - Choose one: API-based (endpoint table), |
|||
Data/Files (I/O contract), or Systems/Hardware (interfaces). |
|||
|
|||
5. **Repro: End-to-End Procedure** - Minimal copy-paste steps with |
|||
code/commands and **expected outputs**. |
|||
6. **What Works (with Evidence)** - Each item: **Time (UTC)** • |
|||
**Artifact/Req IDs** • **Status/Result** • **Where to verify**. |
|||
7. **What Doesn't (Evidence & Hypotheses)** - Each failure: locus, |
|||
evidence snippet; short hypothesis and **next probe**. |
|||
8. **Risks, Limits, Assumptions** - SLOs/limits, rate/size caps, |
|||
security boundaries, retries/backoff/idempotency patterns. |
|||
9. **Next Steps (Owner • Exit Criteria • Target Date)** - Actionable, |
|||
assigned, and time-bound. |
|||
|
|||
## Quality Standards |
|||
|
|||
### Do |
|||
|
|||
- **Do** quantify progress only against a defined scope with acceptance |
|||
criteria. |
|||
|
|||
- **Do** include minimal sample payloads/headers or I/O schemas; redact |
|||
sensitive values. |
|||
|
|||
- **Do** keep commentary lean; if timeboxed, move depth to **Deferred |
|||
for depth**. |
|||
|
|||
- **Do** use specific, actionable language that guides implementation. |
|||
|
|||
### Don't |
|||
|
|||
- **Don't** use marketing language or meta narration ("Perfect!", |
|||
"tool called", "new chat"). |
|||
|
|||
- **Don't** include IDE-specific chatter or internal rules unrelated to |
|||
the task. |
|||
|
|||
- **Don't** assume reader knowledge; provide context for all technical |
|||
decisions. |
|||
|
|||
## Model Implementation Checklist |
|||
|
|||
### Before Creating Technical Guides |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Scope Definition**: Clearly define problem, audience, and scope |
|||
- [ ] **Evidence Collection**: Gather specific timestamps, file references, and logs |
|||
- [ ] **Diagram Planning**: Plan appropriate diagram type for the technical process |
|||
- [ ] **Template Selection**: Choose relevant sections from required sections list |
|||
|
|||
### During Guide Creation |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Evidence Integration**: Include UTC timestamps and verifiable evidence |
|||
- [ ] **Diagram Creation**: Create Mermaid diagram that illustrates the process |
|||
- [ ] **Repro Steps**: Write copy-paste ready commands with expected outputs |
|||
- [ ] **Section Completion**: Fill in all required sections completely |
|||
|
|||
### After Guide Creation |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Validation**: Run through the validation checklist below |
|||
- [ ] **Evidence Review**: Verify all claims have supporting evidence |
|||
- [ ] **Repro Testing**: Test reproduction steps to ensure they work |
|||
- [ ] **Peer Review**: Share with technical leads for feedback |
|||
|
|||
## Validation Checklist |
|||
|
|||
Before publishing, verify: |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Diagram included** and properly formatted (Mermaid syntax valid) |
|||
- [ ] If API-based, **Auth** and **Key Headers/Params** are listed for |
|||
each endpoint |
|||
- [ ] **Environment section** includes all required dependencies and |
|||
versions |
|||
- [ ] Every Works/Doesn't item has **UTC timestamp**, **status/result**, |
|||
and **verifiable evidence** |
|||
- [ ] **Repro steps** are copy-paste ready with expected outputs |
|||
- [ ] Base **Output Contract** sections satisfied |
|||
(Objective/Result/Use/Run/Competence/Collaboration/Assumptions/References) |
|||
|
|||
## Integration Points |
|||
|
|||
### Base Context Integration |
|||
|
|||
- Apply historical comment management rules (see |
|||
|
|||
`.cursor/rules/development/historical_comment_management.mdc`) |
|||
|
|||
- Apply realistic time estimation rules (see |
|||
|
|||
`.cursor/rules/development/realistic_time_estimation.mdc`) |
|||
|
|||
### Competence Hooks |
|||
|
|||
- **Why this works**: Structured approach ensures completeness and |
|||
reproducibility |
|||
|
|||
- **Common pitfalls**: Skipping evidence requirements, vague language |
|||
|
|||
- **Next skill unlock**: Practice creating Mermaid diagrams for different |
|||
use cases |
|||
|
|||
- **Teach-back**: Explain how you would validate this guide's |
|||
reproducibility |
|||
|
|||
### Collaboration Hooks |
|||
|
|||
- **Reviewers**: Technical leads, subject matter experts |
|||
|
|||
- **Stakeholders**: Development teams, DevOps, QA teams |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
**Status**: 🚢 ACTIVE — General ruleset extending *Base Context — Human |
|||
Competence First* |
|||
|
|||
**Priority**: Critical |
|||
**Estimated Effort**: Ongoing reference |
|||
**Dependencies**: base_context.mdc |
|||
**Stakeholders**: All AI interactions, Development teams |
|||
|
|||
## Example Diagram Template |
|||
|
|||
```mermaid |
|||
|
|||
<one suitable diagram: sequenceDiagram | flowchart | stateDiagram | gantt | |
|||
classDiagram> |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
**Note**: Replace the placeholder with an actual diagram that illustrates |
|||
the technical process, architecture, or workflow being documented. |
|||
@ -0,0 +1,99 @@ |
|||
|
|||
alwaysApply: false |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
# Minimalist Solution Principle (Cursor MDC) |
|||
|
|||
role: Engineering assistant optimizing for least-complex changes |
|||
focus: Deliver the smallest viable diff that fully resolves the current |
|||
bug/feature. Defer generalization unless justified with evidence. |
|||
language: Match repository languages and conventions |
|||
|
|||
## Rules |
|||
|
|||
1. **Default to the least complex solution.** Fix the problem directly |
|||
where it occurs; avoid new layers, indirection, or patterns unless |
|||
strictly necessary. |
|||
2. **Keep scope tight.** Implement only what is needed to satisfy the |
|||
acceptance criteria and tests for *this* issue. |
|||
3. **Avoid speculative abstractions.** Use the **Rule of Three**: |
|||
don't extract helpers/patterns until the third concrete usage proves |
|||
the shape. |
|||
4. **No drive-by refactors.** Do not rename, reorder, or reformat |
|||
unrelated code in the same change set. |
|||
5. **Minimize surface area.** Prefer local changes over cross-cutting |
|||
rewires; avoid new public APIs unless essential. |
|||
6. **Be dependency-frugal.** Do not add packages or services for |
|||
single, simple needs unless there's a compelling, documented reason. |
|||
7. **Targeted tests only.** Add the smallest set of tests that prove |
|||
the fix and guard against regression; don't rewrite suites. |
|||
8. **Document the "why enough."** Include a one-paragraph note |
|||
explaining why this minimal solution is sufficient *now*. |
|||
|
|||
## Future-Proofing Requires Evidence + Discussion |
|||
|
|||
Any added complexity "for the future" **must** include: |
|||
|
|||
- A referenced discussion/ADR (or issue link) summarizing the decision. |
|||
- **Substantial evidence**, e.g.: |
|||
- Recurring incidents or tickets that this prevents (list IDs). |
|||
- Benchmarks or profiling showing a real bottleneck. |
|||
- Concrete upcoming requirements with dates/owners, not hypotheticals. |
|||
- Risk assessment comparing maintenance cost vs. expected benefit. |
|||
- A clear trade-off table showing why minimal won't suffice. |
|||
|
|||
If this evidence is not available, **ship the minimal fix** and open a |
|||
follow-up discussion item. |
|||
|
|||
## PR / Change Checklist (enforced by reviewer + model) |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] Smallest diff that fully fixes the issue (attach `git diff --stat` |
|||
if useful). |
|||
- [ ] No unrelated refactors or formatting. |
|||
- [ ] No new dependencies, or justification + ADR link provided. |
|||
- [ ] Abstractions only if ≥3 call sites or strong evidence says |
|||
otherwise (cite). |
|||
- [ ] Targeted tests proving the fix/regression guard. |
|||
- [ ] Short "Why this is enough now" note in the PR description. |
|||
- [ ] Optional: "Future Work (non-blocking)" section listing deferred |
|||
ideas. |
|||
|
|||
## Assistant Output Contract |
|||
|
|||
When proposing a change, provide: |
|||
|
|||
1. **Minimal Plan**: 3–6 bullet steps scoped to the immediate fix. |
|||
2. **Patch Sketch**: Focused diffs/snippets touching only necessary |
|||
files. |
|||
3. **Risk & Rollback**: One paragraph each on risk, quick rollback, |
|||
and test points. |
|||
4. **(If proposing complexity)**: Link/inline ADR summary + evidence + |
|||
trade-offs; otherwise default to minimal. |
|||
|
|||
One paragraph each on risk, quick rollback, and test points. |
|||
5. **(If proposing complexity)**: Link/inline ADR summary + evidence + |
|||
trade-offs; otherwise default to minimal. |
|||
|
|||
## Model Implementation Checklist |
|||
|
|||
### Before Proposing Changes |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Problem Analysis**: Clearly understand the specific issue scope |
|||
- [ ] **Evidence Review**: Gather evidence that justifies the change |
|||
- [ ] **Complexity Assessment**: Evaluate if change requires added complexity |
|||
- [ ] **Alternative Research**: Consider simpler solutions first |
|||
|
|||
### During Change Design |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Minimal Scope**: Design solution that addresses only the current issue |
|||
- [ ] **Evidence Integration**: Include specific evidence for any complexity |
|||
- [ ] **Dependency Review**: Minimize new dependencies and packages |
|||
- [ ] **Testing Strategy**: Plan minimal tests that prove the fix |
|||
|
|||
### After Change Design |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Self-Review**: Verify solution follows minimalist principles |
|||
- [ ] **Evidence Validation**: Confirm all claims have supporting evidence |
|||
- [ ] **Complexity Justification**: Document why minimal approach suffices |
|||
- [ ] **Future Work Planning**: Identify deferred improvements for later |
|||
@ -1,5 +1,62 @@ |
|||
# Legacy Dexie Database — Migration Guidelines |
|||
|
|||
> **Agent role**: Reference this file when working with legacy Dexie |
|||
> database code or migration patterns. |
|||
|
|||
## Overview |
|||
|
|||
All references in the codebase to Dexie apply only to migration from |
|||
IndexedDb to Absurd SQL. Dexie is no longer used for new development. |
|||
|
|||
## Migration Status |
|||
|
|||
- **Legacy Code**: Existing Dexie implementations being migrated |
|||
- **Target**: Absurd SQL with IndexedDB backend |
|||
- **Timeline**: Gradual migration as features are updated |
|||
|
|||
## Key Principles |
|||
|
|||
- **No New Dexie**: All new database operations use Absurd SQL |
|||
- **Migration Path**: Legacy code should be migrated when updated |
|||
- **Backward Compatibility**: Maintain existing functionality during |
|||
migration |
|||
|
|||
## Integration Points |
|||
|
|||
- Apply these rules when updating database-related code |
|||
- Use during feature development and refactoring |
|||
- Include in database architecture decisions |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
globs: **/databaseUtil.ts,**/AccountViewView.vue,**/ContactsView.vue,**/DatabaseMigration.vue,**/NewIdentifierView.vue |
|||
alwaysApply: false |
|||
--- |
|||
All references in the codebase to Dexie apply only to migration from IndexedDb to Sqlite and will be deprecated in future versions. |
|||
|
|||
**Status**: Legacy migration guidelines |
|||
**Priority**: Low |
|||
**Estimated Effort**: Ongoing reference |
|||
**Dependencies**: absurd-sql.mdc |
|||
**Stakeholders**: Database team, Development team |
|||
|
|||
All references in the codebase to Dexie apply only to migration from IndexedDb |
|||
to Sqlite and will be deprecated in future versions. |
|||
|
|||
## Model Implementation Checklist |
|||
|
|||
### Before Legacy Dexie Work |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Migration Analysis**: Identify legacy Dexie code that needs migration |
|||
- [ ] **Target Planning**: Plan migration to Absurd SQL with IndexedDB backend |
|||
- [ ] **Backward Compatibility**: Plan to maintain existing functionality |
|||
- [ ] **Testing Strategy**: Plan testing approach for migration |
|||
|
|||
### During Legacy Dexie Migration |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **No New Dexie**: Ensure no new Dexie code is introduced |
|||
- [ ] **Migration Implementation**: Implement migration to Absurd SQL |
|||
- [ ] **Functionality Preservation**: Maintain existing functionality during migration |
|||
- [ ] **Error Handling**: Implement proper error handling for migration |
|||
|
|||
### After Legacy Dexie Migration |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Functionality Testing**: Verify all functionality still works correctly |
|||
- [ ] **Performance Validation**: Ensure performance meets or exceeds legacy |
|||
- [ ] **Documentation Update**: Update database documentation |
|||
- [ ] **Legacy Cleanup**: Remove deprecated Dexie code |
|||
|
|||
@ -0,0 +1,105 @@ |
|||
--- |
|||
description: when doing anything with capacitor assets |
|||
alwaysApply: false |
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
# Asset Configuration Directive |
|||
|
|||
**Author**: Matthew Raymer |
|||
**Date**: 2025-08-19 |
|||
**Status**: 🎯 **ACTIVE** - Asset management guidelines |
|||
|
|||
*Scope: Assets Only (icons, splashes, image pipelines) — not overall build |
|||
orchestration* |
|||
|
|||
## Intent |
|||
|
|||
- Version **asset configuration files** (optionally dev-time generated). |
|||
|
|||
- **Do not** version platform asset outputs (Android/iOS/Electron); generate |
|||
|
|||
them **at build-time** with standard tools. |
|||
|
|||
- Keep existing per-platform build scripts unchanged. |
|||
|
|||
## Source of Truth |
|||
|
|||
- **Preferred (Capacitor default):** `resources/` as the single master source. |
|||
|
|||
- **Alternative:** `assets/` is acceptable **only** if `capacitor-assets` is |
|||
|
|||
explicitly configured to read from it. |
|||
|
|||
- **Never** maintain both `resources/` and `assets/` as parallel sources. |
|||
|
|||
Migrate and delete the redundant folder. |
|||
|
|||
## Config Files |
|||
|
|||
- Live under: `config/assets/` (committed). |
|||
|
|||
- Examples: |
|||
|
|||
- `config/assets/capacitor-assets.config.json` (or the path the tool |
|||
|
|||
expects) |
|||
|
|||
- `config/assets/android.assets.json` |
|||
|
|||
- `config/assets/ios.assets.json` |
|||
|
|||
- `config/assets/common.assets.yaml` (optional shared layer) |
|||
|
|||
- **Dev-time generation allowed** for these configs; **build-time |
|||
|
|||
generation is forbidden**. |
|||
|
|||
## Build-Time Behavior |
|||
|
|||
- Build generates platform assets (not configs) using the standard chain: |
|||
|
|||
```bash |
|||
|
|||
npm run build:capacitor # web build via Vite (.mts) |
|||
npx cap sync |
|||
npx capacitor-assets generate # produces platform assets; not committed |
|||
|
|||
# then platform-specific build steps |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
**Status**: Active asset management directive |
|||
**Priority**: Medium |
|||
**Estimated Effort**: Ongoing reference |
|||
**Dependencies**: capacitor-assets toolchain |
|||
**Stakeholders**: Development team, Build team |
|||
|
|||
npx capacitor-assets generate # produces platform assets; not committed |
|||
|
|||
# then platform-specific build steps |
|||
|
|||
## Model Implementation Checklist |
|||
|
|||
### Before Asset Configuration |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Source Review**: Identify current asset source location (`resources/` or |
|||
`assets/`) |
|||
- [ ] **Tool Assessment**: Verify capacitor-assets toolchain is available |
|||
- [ ] **Config Planning**: Plan configuration file structure and location |
|||
- [ ] **Platform Analysis**: Understand asset requirements for all target platforms |
|||
|
|||
### During Asset Configuration |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Source Consolidation**: Ensure single source of truth (prefer `resources/`) |
|||
- [ ] **Config Creation**: Create platform-specific asset configuration files |
|||
- [ ] **Tool Integration**: Configure capacitor-assets to read from correct source |
|||
- [ ] **Build Integration**: Integrate asset generation into build pipeline |
|||
|
|||
### After Asset Configuration |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Build Testing**: Verify assets generate correctly at build time |
|||
- [ ] **Platform Validation**: Test asset generation across all platforms |
|||
- [ ] **Documentation**: Update build documentation with asset generation steps |
|||
- [ ] **Team Communication**: Communicate asset workflow changes to team |
|||
@ -0,0 +1,177 @@ |
|||
# Complexity Assessment — Evaluation Frameworks |
|||
|
|||
> **Agent role**: Reference this file for |
|||
complexity evaluation frameworks when assessing project complexity. |
|||
|
|||
## 📊 Complexity Assessment Framework |
|||
|
|||
### **Technical Complexity Factors** |
|||
|
|||
#### **Code Changes** |
|||
|
|||
- **Simple**: Text, styling, configuration updates |
|||
|
|||
- **Medium**: New components, refactoring existing code |
|||
|
|||
- **Complex**: Architecture changes, new patterns, integrations |
|||
|
|||
- **Unknown**: New technologies, APIs, or approaches |
|||
|
|||
#### **Platform Impact** |
|||
|
|||
- **Single platform**: Web-only or mobile-only changes |
|||
|
|||
- **Two platforms**: Web + mobile or web + desktop |
|||
|
|||
- **Three platforms**: Web + mobile + desktop |
|||
|
|||
- **Cross-platform consistency**: Ensuring behavior matches across all platforms |
|||
|
|||
#### **Testing Requirements** |
|||
|
|||
- **Basic**: Unit tests for new functionality |
|||
|
|||
- **Comprehensive**: Integration tests, cross-platform testing |
|||
|
|||
- **User acceptance**: User testing, feedback integration |
|||
|
|||
- **Performance**: Load testing, optimization validation |
|||
|
|||
### **Dependency Complexity** |
|||
|
|||
#### **Internal Dependencies** |
|||
|
|||
- **Low**: Self-contained changes, no other components affected |
|||
|
|||
- **Medium**: Changes affect related components or services |
|||
|
|||
- **High**: Changes affect core architecture or multiple systems |
|||
|
|||
- **Critical**: Changes affect data models or core business logic |
|||
|
|||
#### **External Dependencies** |
|||
|
|||
- **None**: No external services or APIs involved |
|||
|
|||
- **Low**: Simple API calls or service integrations |
|||
|
|||
- **Medium**: Complex integrations with external systems |
|||
|
|||
- **High**: Third-party platform dependencies or complex APIs |
|||
|
|||
#### **Infrastructure Dependencies** |
|||
|
|||
- **None**: No infrastructure changes required |
|||
|
|||
- **Low**: Configuration updates or environment changes |
|||
|
|||
- **Medium**: New services or infrastructure components |
|||
|
|||
- **High**: Platform migrations or major infrastructure changes |
|||
|
|||
## 🔍 Complexity Evaluation Process |
|||
|
|||
### **Step 1: Technical Assessment** |
|||
|
|||
1. **Identify scope of changes** - what files/components are affected |
|||
|
|||
2. **Assess platform impact** - which platforms need updates |
|||
|
|||
3. **Evaluate testing needs** - what testing is required |
|||
|
|||
4. **Consider performance impact** - will this affect performance |
|||
|
|||
### **Step 2: Dependency Mapping** |
|||
|
|||
1. **Map internal dependencies** - what other components are affected |
|||
|
|||
2. **Identify external dependencies** - what external services are involved |
|||
|
|||
3. **Assess infrastructure needs** - what infrastructure changes are required |
|||
|
|||
4. **Evaluate risk factors** - what could go wrong |
|||
|
|||
### **Step 3: Complexity Classification** |
|||
|
|||
1. **Assign complexity levels** to each factor |
|||
|
|||
2. **Identify highest complexity** areas that need attention |
|||
|
|||
3. **Plan mitigation strategies** for high-complexity areas |
|||
|
|||
4. **Set realistic expectations** based on complexity assessment |
|||
|
|||
## 📋 Complexity Assessment Checklist |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] Technical scope identified and mapped |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] Platform impact assessed across all targets |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] Testing requirements defined and planned |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] Internal dependencies mapped and evaluated |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] External dependencies identified and assessed |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] Infrastructure requirements evaluated |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] Risk factors identified and mitigation planned |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] Complexity levels assigned to all factors |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] Realistic expectations set based on assessment |
|||
|
|||
## 🎯 Complexity Reduction Strategies |
|||
|
|||
### **Scope Reduction** |
|||
|
|||
- Break large features into smaller, manageable pieces |
|||
|
|||
- Focus on core functionality first, add polish later |
|||
|
|||
- Consider phased rollout to reduce initial complexity |
|||
|
|||
### **Dependency Management** |
|||
|
|||
- Minimize external dependencies when possible |
|||
|
|||
- Use abstraction layers to isolate complex integrations |
|||
|
|||
- Plan for dependency failures and fallbacks |
|||
|
|||
### **Testing Strategy** |
|||
|
|||
- Start with basic testing and expand coverage |
|||
|
|||
- Use automated testing to reduce manual testing complexity |
|||
|
|||
- Plan for iterative testing and feedback cycles |
|||
|
|||
## **See also** |
|||
|
|||
- `.cursor/rules/development/realistic_time_estimation.mdc` for the core principles |
|||
|
|||
- `.cursor/rules/development/planning_examples.mdc` for planning examples |
|||
|
|||
## Model Implementation Checklist |
|||
|
|||
### Before Complexity Assessment |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Problem Scope**: Clearly define the problem to be assessed |
|||
- [ ] **Stakeholder Identification**: Identify all parties affected by complexity |
|||
- [ ] **Context Analysis**: Understand technical and business context |
|||
- [ ] **Assessment Criteria**: Define what factors determine complexity |
|||
|
|||
### During Complexity Assessment |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Technical Mapping**: Map technical scope and platform impact |
|||
- [ ] **Dependency Analysis**: Identify internal and external dependencies |
|||
- [ ] **Risk Evaluation**: Assess infrastructure needs and risk factors |
|||
- [ ] **Complexity Classification**: Assign complexity levels to all factors |
|||
|
|||
### After Complexity Assessment |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Mitigation Planning**: Plan strategies for high-complexity areas |
|||
- [ ] **Expectation Setting**: Set realistic expectations based on assessment |
|||
- [ ] **Documentation**: Document assessment process and findings |
|||
- [ ] **Stakeholder Communication**: Share results and recommendations |
|||
@ -0,0 +1,177 @@ |
|||
# Dependency Management — Best Practices |
|||
|
|||
> **Agent role**: Reference this file for dependency management strategies and |
|||
best practices when working with software projects. |
|||
|
|||
## Dependency Management Best Practices |
|||
|
|||
### Pre-build Validation |
|||
|
|||
- **Check Critical Dependencies**: |
|||
|
|||
Validate essential tools before executing build |
|||
scripts |
|||
|
|||
- **Use npx for Local Dependencies**: Prefer `npx tsx` over direct `tsx` to |
|||
|
|||
avoid PATH issues |
|||
|
|||
- **Environment Consistency**: Ensure all team members have identical dependency |
|||
|
|||
versions |
|||
|
|||
### Common Pitfalls |
|||
|
|||
- **Missing npm install**: Team members cloning without running `npm install` |
|||
|
|||
- **PATH Issues**: Direct command execution vs. npm script execution differences |
|||
|
|||
- **Version Mismatches**: Different Node.js/npm versions across team members |
|||
|
|||
### Validation Strategies |
|||
|
|||
- **Dependency Check Scripts**: Implement pre-build validation for critical |
|||
|
|||
dependencies |
|||
|
|||
- **Environment Requirements**: |
|||
|
|||
Document and enforce minimum Node.js/npm versions |
|||
|
|||
- **Onboarding Checklist**: Standardize team member setup procedures |
|||
|
|||
### Error Messages and Guidance |
|||
|
|||
- **Specific Error Context**: |
|||
|
|||
Provide clear guidance when dependency issues occur |
|||
|
|||
- **Actionable Solutions**: Direct users to specific commands (`npm install`, |
|||
|
|||
`npm run check:dependencies`) |
|||
|
|||
- **Environment Diagnostics**: Implement comprehensive environment validation |
|||
|
|||
tools |
|||
|
|||
### Build Script Enhancements |
|||
|
|||
- **Early Validation**: Check dependencies before starting build processes |
|||
|
|||
- **Graceful Degradation**: Continue builds when possible but warn about issues |
|||
|
|||
- **Helpful Tips**: Remind users about dependency management best practices |
|||
|
|||
## Environment Setup Guidelines |
|||
|
|||
### Required Tools |
|||
|
|||
- **Node.js**: Minimum version requirements and LTS recommendations |
|||
|
|||
- **npm**: Version compatibility and global package management |
|||
|
|||
- **Platform-specific tools**: Android SDK, Xcode, etc. |
|||
|
|||
### Environment Variables |
|||
|
|||
- **NODE_ENV**: Development, testing, production environments |
|||
|
|||
- **PATH**: Ensure tools are accessible from command line |
|||
|
|||
- **Platform-specific**: Android SDK paths, Xcode command line tools |
|||
|
|||
### Validation Commands |
|||
|
|||
```bash |
|||
|
|||
# Check Node.js version |
|||
|
|||
node --version |
|||
|
|||
# Check npm version |
|||
|
|||
npm --version |
|||
|
|||
# Check global packages |
|||
|
|||
npm list -g --depth=0 |
|||
|
|||
# Validate platform tools |
|||
|
|||
npx capacitor doctor |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
## Dependency Troubleshooting |
|||
|
|||
### Common Issues |
|||
|
|||
1. **Permission Errors**: Use `sudo` sparingly, prefer `npm config set prefix` |
|||
|
|||
2. **Version Conflicts**: Use `npm ls` to identify dependency conflicts |
|||
|
|||
3. **Cache Issues**: Clear npm cache with `npm cache clean --force` |
|||
|
|||
4. **Lock File Issues**: Delete `package-lock.json` and `node_modules`, |
|||
|
|||
then reinstall |
|||
|
|||
### Resolution Strategies |
|||
|
|||
- **Dependency Audit**: Run `npm audit` to identify security issues |
|||
|
|||
- **Version Pinning**: Use exact versions for critical dependencies |
|||
|
|||
- **Peer Dependency Management**: Ensure compatible versions across packages |
|||
|
|||
- **Platform-specific Dependencies**: Handle different requirements per platform |
|||
|
|||
## Best Practices for Teams |
|||
|
|||
### Onboarding |
|||
|
|||
- **Environment Setup Script**: Automated setup for new team members |
|||
|
|||
- **Version Locking**: Use `package-lock.json` and `yarn.lock` consistently |
|||
|
|||
- **Documentation**: Clear setup instructions with troubleshooting steps |
|||
|
|||
### Maintenance |
|||
|
|||
- **Regular Updates**: Schedule dependency updates and security patches |
|||
|
|||
- **Testing**: Validate changes don't break existing functionality |
|||
|
|||
- **Rollback Plan**: Maintain ability to revert to previous working versions |
|||
|
|||
**See also**: |
|||
`.cursor/rules/development/software_development.mdc` for core development principles. |
|||
|
|||
**Status**: Active dependency management guidelines |
|||
**Priority**: Medium |
|||
**Estimated Effort**: Ongoing reference |
|||
**Dependencies**: software_development.mdc |
|||
**Stakeholders**: Development team, DevOps team |
|||
|
|||
## Model Implementation Checklist |
|||
|
|||
### Before Dependency Changes |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Current State Review**: Check current dependency versions and status |
|||
- [ ] **Impact Analysis**: Assess impact of dependency changes on codebase |
|||
- [ ] **Compatibility Check**: Verify compatibility with existing code |
|||
- [ ] **Security Review**: Review security implications of dependency changes |
|||
|
|||
### During Dependency Management |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Version Selection**: Choose appropriate dependency versions |
|||
- [ ] **Testing**: Test with new dependency versions |
|||
- [ ] **Documentation**: Update dependency documentation |
|||
- [ ] **Team Communication**: Communicate changes to team members |
|||
|
|||
### After Dependency Changes |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Comprehensive Testing**: Test all functionality with new dependencies |
|||
- [ ] **Documentation Update**: Update all relevant documentation |
|||
- [ ] **Deployment Planning**: Plan and execute deployment strategy |
|||
- [ ] **Monitoring**: Monitor for issues after deployment |
|||
@ -0,0 +1,119 @@ |
|||
# Historical Comment Management — Code Clarity Guidelines |
|||
|
|||
> **Agent role**: When encountering historical comments about removed |
|||
> methods, deprecated patterns, or architectural changes, apply these |
|||
> guidelines to maintain code clarity and developer guidance. |
|||
|
|||
## Overview |
|||
|
|||
Historical comments should either be **removed entirely** or **transformed |
|||
into actionable guidance** for future developers. Avoid keeping comments |
|||
that merely state what was removed without explaining why or what to do |
|||
instead. |
|||
|
|||
## Decision Framework |
|||
|
|||
### When to Remove Comments |
|||
|
|||
- **Obsolete Information**: Comment describes functionality that no |
|||
longer exists |
|||
- **Outdated Context**: Comment refers to old patterns that are no |
|||
longer relevant |
|||
- **No Actionable Value**: Comment doesn't help future developers |
|||
make decisions |
|||
|
|||
### When to Transform Comments |
|||
|
|||
- **Migration Guidance**: Future developers might need to understand |
|||
the evolution |
|||
- **Alternative Approaches**: The comment can guide future |
|||
implementation choices |
|||
- **Historical Context**: Understanding the change helps with |
|||
current decisions |
|||
|
|||
## Transformation Patterns |
|||
|
|||
### 1. **Removed Method** → **Alternative Approach** |
|||
|
|||
```typescript |
|||
// Before: Historical comment |
|||
// turnOffNotifyingFlags method removed - notification state is now |
|||
// managed by NotificationSection component |
|||
|
|||
// After: Actionable guidance |
|||
// Note: Notification state management has been migrated to |
|||
// NotificationSection component |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### 2. **Deprecated Pattern** → **Current Best Practice** |
|||
|
|||
```typescript |
|||
// Before: Historical comment |
|||
// Database access has been migrated from direct IndexedDB calls to |
|||
// PlatformServiceMixin |
|||
|
|||
// After: Actionable guidance |
|||
// This provides better platform abstraction and consistent error |
|||
// handling across web/mobile/desktop |
|||
|
|||
// When adding new database operations, use this.$getContact(), |
|||
// this.$saveSettings(), etc. |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
## Best Practices |
|||
|
|||
### 1. **Use Actionable Language**: Guide future decisions, not just |
|||
|
|||
document history |
|||
|
|||
### 2. **Provide Alternatives**: Always suggest what to use instead |
|||
|
|||
### 3. **Update Related Docs**: If removing from code, consider |
|||
|
|||
adding to documentation |
|||
|
|||
### 4. **Keep Context**: Include enough information to understand |
|||
|
|||
why the change was made |
|||
|
|||
## Integration Points |
|||
|
|||
- Apply these rules when reviewing code changes |
|||
- Use during code cleanup and refactoring |
|||
- Include in code review checklists |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
**See also**: |
|||
|
|||
- `.cursor/rules/development/historical_comment_patterns.mdc` for detailed |
|||
transformation examples and patterns |
|||
|
|||
**Status**: Active comment management guidelines |
|||
**Priority**: Medium |
|||
**Estimated Effort**: Ongoing reference |
|||
**Dependencies**: None |
|||
**Stakeholders**: Development team, Code reviewers |
|||
|
|||
## Model Implementation Checklist |
|||
|
|||
### Before Comment Review |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Code Analysis**: Review code for historical or outdated comments |
|||
- [ ] **Context Understanding**: Understand the current state of the codebase |
|||
- [ ] **Pattern Identification**: Identify comments that need transformation or removal |
|||
- [ ] **Documentation Planning**: Plan where to move important historical context |
|||
|
|||
### During Comment Management |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Transformation**: Convert historical comments to actionable guidance |
|||
- [ ] **Alternative Provision**: Suggest current best practices and alternatives |
|||
- [ ] **Context Preservation**: Maintain enough information to understand changes |
|||
- [ ] **Documentation Update**: Move important context to appropriate documentation |
|||
|
|||
### After Comment Management |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Code Review**: Ensure transformed comments provide actionable value |
|||
- [ ] **Documentation Sync**: Verify related documentation is updated |
|||
- [ ] **Team Communication**: Share comment transformation patterns with team |
|||
- [ ] **Process Integration**: Include comment management in code review checklists |
|||
@ -0,0 +1,139 @@ |
|||
# Historical Comment Patterns — Transformation Examples |
|||
|
|||
> **Agent role**: Reference this file for specific patterns and |
|||
examples when transforming historical comments into actionable guidance. |
|||
|
|||
## 🔄 Transformation Patterns |
|||
|
|||
### 1. From Removal Notice to Migration Note |
|||
|
|||
```typescript |
|||
|
|||
// ❌ REMOVE THIS |
|||
// turnOffNotifyingFlags method removed - |
|||
notification state is now managed by NotificationSection component |
|||
|
|||
// ✅ TRANSFORM TO THIS |
|||
// Note: Notification state management has been migrated to NotificationSection |
|||
component |
|||
// which handles its own lifecycle and persistence via PlatformServiceMixin |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### 2. From Deprecation Notice to Implementation Guide |
|||
|
|||
```typescript |
|||
|
|||
// ❌ REMOVE THIS |
|||
// This will be handled by the NewComponent now |
|||
// No need to call oldMethod() as it's no longer needed |
|||
|
|||
// ✅ TRANSFORM TO THIS |
|||
// Note: This functionality has been migrated to NewComponent |
|||
// which provides better separation of concerns and testability |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### 3. From Historical Note to Architectural Context |
|||
|
|||
```typescript |
|||
|
|||
// ❌ REMOVE THIS |
|||
// Old approach: used direct database calls |
|||
// New approach: uses service layer |
|||
|
|||
// ✅ TRANSFORM TO THIS |
|||
// Note: Database access has been abstracted through service layer |
|||
// for better testability and platform independence |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
## 🚫 Anti-Patterns to Remove |
|||
|
|||
- Comments that only state what was removed |
|||
|
|||
- Comments that don't explain the current approach |
|||
|
|||
- Comments that reference non-existent methods |
|||
|
|||
- Comments that are self-evident from the code |
|||
|
|||
- Comments that don't help future decision-making |
|||
|
|||
## 📚 Examples |
|||
|
|||
### Good Historical Comment (Keep & Transform) |
|||
|
|||
```typescript |
|||
|
|||
// Note: Database access has been migrated from direct IndexedDB calls to |
|||
PlatformServiceMixin |
|||
// This provides better platform abstraction and |
|||
consistent error handling across web/mobile/desktop |
|||
// When adding new database operations, use this.$getContact(), |
|||
this.$saveSettings(), etc. |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### Bad Historical Comment (Remove) |
|||
|
|||
```typescript |
|||
|
|||
// Old method getContactFromDB() removed - now handled by PlatformServiceMixin |
|||
// No need to call the old method anymore |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
## 🎯 When to Use Each Pattern |
|||
|
|||
### Migration Notes |
|||
|
|||
- Use when functionality has moved to a different component/service |
|||
|
|||
- Explain the new location and why it's better |
|||
|
|||
- Provide guidance on how to use the new approach |
|||
|
|||
### Implementation Guides |
|||
|
|||
- Use when patterns have changed significantly |
|||
|
|||
- Explain the architectural benefits |
|||
|
|||
- Show how to implement the new pattern |
|||
|
|||
### Architectural Context |
|||
|
|||
- Use when the change represents a system-wide improvement |
|||
|
|||
- Explain the reasoning behind the change |
|||
|
|||
- Help future developers understand the evolution |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
**See also**: `.cursor/rules/development/historical_comment_management.mdc` for |
|||
the core decision framework and best practices. |
|||
|
|||
## Model Implementation Checklist |
|||
|
|||
### Before Comment Review |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Code Analysis**: Review code for historical or outdated comments |
|||
- [ ] **Pattern Identification**: Identify comments that need transformation or removal |
|||
- [ ] **Context Understanding**: Understand the current state of the codebase |
|||
- [ ] **Transformation Planning**: Plan how to transform or remove comments |
|||
|
|||
### During Comment Transformation |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Pattern Selection**: Choose appropriate transformation pattern |
|||
- [ ] **Content Creation**: Create actionable guidance for future developers |
|||
- [ ] **Alternative Provision**: Suggest current best practices and approaches |
|||
- [ ] **Context Preservation**: Maintain enough information to understand changes |
|||
|
|||
### After Comment Transformation |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Code Review**: Ensure transformed comments provide actionable value |
|||
- [ ] **Pattern Documentation**: Document transformation patterns for team use |
|||
- [ ] **Team Communication**: Share comment transformation patterns with team |
|||
- [ ] **Process Integration**: Include comment patterns in code review checklists |
|||
@ -1,76 +1,178 @@ |
|||
# Investigation Report Example |
|||
|
|||
**Author**: Matthew Raymer |
|||
**Date**: 2025-08-19 |
|||
**Status**: 🎯 **ACTIVE** - Investigation methodology example |
|||
|
|||
## Investigation — Registration Dialog Test Flakiness |
|||
|
|||
## Objective |
|||
Identify root cause of flaky tests related to registration dialogs in contact import scenarios. |
|||
|
|||
Identify root cause of flaky tests related to registration dialogs in contact |
|||
import scenarios. |
|||
|
|||
## System Map |
|||
- User action → ContactInputForm → ContactsView.addContact() → handleRegistrationPrompt() |
|||
|
|||
- User action → ContactInputForm → ContactsView.addContact() → |
|||
|
|||
handleRegistrationPrompt() |
|||
|
|||
- setTimeout(1000ms) → Modal dialog → User response → Registration API call |
|||
- Test execution → Wait for dialog → Assert dialog content → Click response button |
|||
|
|||
- Test execution → Wait for dialog → Assert dialog content → Click response |
|||
|
|||
button |
|||
|
|||
## Findings (Evidence) |
|||
- **1-second timeout causes flakiness** — evidence: `src/views/ContactsView.vue:971-1000`; setTimeout(..., 1000) in handleRegistrationPrompt() |
|||
- **Import flow bypasses dialogs** — evidence: `src/views/ContactImportView.vue:500-520`; importContacts() calls $insertContact() directly, no handleRegistrationPrompt() |
|||
- **Dialog only appears in direct add flow** — evidence: `src/views/ContactsView.vue:774-800`; addContact() calls handleRegistrationPrompt() after database insert |
|||
|
|||
- **1-second timeout causes flakiness** — evidence: |
|||
|
|||
`src/views/ContactsView.vue:971-1000`; setTimeout(..., 1000) in |
|||
handleRegistrationPrompt() |
|||
|
|||
- **Import flow bypasses dialogs** — evidence: |
|||
|
|||
`src/views/ContactImportView.vue:500-520`; importContacts() calls |
|||
$insertContact() directly, no handleRegistrationPrompt() |
|||
|
|||
- **Dialog only appears in direct add flow** — evidence: |
|||
|
|||
`src/views/ContactsView.vue:774-800`; addContact() calls |
|||
handleRegistrationPrompt() after database insert |
|||
|
|||
## Hypotheses & Failure Modes |
|||
- H1: 1-second timeout makes dialog appearance unpredictable; would fail when tests run faster than 1000ms |
|||
- H2: Test environment timing differs from development; watch for CI vs local test differences |
|||
|
|||
- H1: 1-second timeout makes dialog appearance unpredictable; would fail when |
|||
|
|||
tests run faster than 1000ms |
|||
|
|||
- H2: Test environment timing differs from development; watch for CI vs local |
|||
|
|||
test differences |
|||
|
|||
## Corrections |
|||
- Updated: "Multiple dialogs interfere with imports" → "Import flow never triggers dialogs - they only appear in direct contact addition" |
|||
- Updated: "Complex batch registration needed" → "Simple timeout removal and test mode flag sufficient" |
|||
|
|||
- Updated: "Multiple dialogs interfere with imports" → "Import flow never |
|||
|
|||
triggers dialogs - they only appear in direct contact addition" |
|||
|
|||
- Updated: "Complex batch registration needed" → "Simple timeout removal and |
|||
|
|||
test mode flag sufficient" |
|||
|
|||
## Diagnostics (Next Checks) |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] Repro on CI environment vs local |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] Measure actual dialog appearance timing |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] Test with setTimeout removed |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] Verify import flow doesn't call handleRegistrationPrompt |
|||
|
|||
## Risks & Scope |
|||
- Impacted: Contact addition tests, registration workflow tests; Data: None; Users: Test suite reliability |
|||
|
|||
- Impacted: Contact addition tests, registration workflow tests; Data: None; |
|||
|
|||
Users: Test suite reliability |
|||
|
|||
## Decision / Next Steps |
|||
|
|||
- Owner: Development Team; By: 2025-01-28 |
|||
- Action: Remove 1-second timeout + add test mode flag; Exit criteria: Tests pass consistently |
|||
|
|||
- Action: Remove 1-second timeout + add test mode flag; Exit criteria: Tests |
|||
|
|||
pass consistently |
|||
|
|||
## References |
|||
|
|||
- `src/views/ContactsView.vue:971-1000` |
|||
|
|||
- `src/views/ContactImportView.vue:500-520` |
|||
|
|||
- `src/views/ContactsView.vue:774-800` |
|||
|
|||
## Competence Hooks |
|||
- Why this works: Code path tracing revealed separate execution flows, evidence disproved initial assumptions |
|||
- Common pitfalls: Assuming related functionality without tracing execution paths, over-engineering solutions to imaginary problems |
|||
- Next skill: Learn to trace code execution before proposing architectural changes |
|||
- Teach-back: "What evidence shows that contact imports bypass registration dialogs?" |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
- Why this works: Code path tracing revealed separate execution flows, |
|||
|
|||
evidence disproved initial assumptions |
|||
|
|||
- Common pitfalls: Assuming related functionality without tracing execution |
|||
|
|||
paths, over-engineering solutions to imaginary problems |
|||
|
|||
- Next skill: Learn to trace code execution before proposing architectural |
|||
|
|||
changes |
|||
|
|||
- Teach-back: "What evidence shows that contact imports bypass registration |
|||
|
|||
dialogs?" |
|||
|
|||
## Key Learning Points |
|||
|
|||
### Evidence-First Approach |
|||
|
|||
This investigation demonstrates the importance of: |
|||
|
|||
1. **Tracing actual code execution** rather than making assumptions |
|||
|
|||
2. **Citing specific evidence** with file:line references |
|||
|
|||
3. **Validating problem scope** before proposing solutions |
|||
|
|||
4. **Considering simpler alternatives** before complex architectural changes |
|||
|
|||
### Code Path Tracing Value |
|||
|
|||
By tracing the execution paths, we discovered: |
|||
|
|||
- Import flow and direct add flow are completely separate |
|||
|
|||
- The "multiple dialog interference" problem didn't exist |
|||
|
|||
- A simple timeout removal would solve the actual issue |
|||
|
|||
### Prevention of Over-Engineering |
|||
|
|||
The investigation prevented: |
|||
|
|||
- Unnecessary database schema changes |
|||
|
|||
- Complex batch registration systems |
|||
|
|||
- Migration scripts for non-existent problems |
|||
|
|||
- Architectural changes based on assumptions |
|||
description: |
|||
globs: |
|||
alwaysApply: false |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
**Status**: Active investigation methodology |
|||
**Priority**: High |
|||
**Estimated Effort**: Ongoing reference |
|||
**Dependencies**: software_development.mdc |
|||
**Stakeholders**: Development team, QA team |
|||
|
|||
## Model Implementation Checklist |
|||
|
|||
### Before Investigation |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Problem Definition**: Clearly define the problem to investigate |
|||
- [ ] **Scope Definition**: Determine investigation scope and boundaries |
|||
- [ ] **Methodology Planning**: Plan investigation approach and methods |
|||
- [ ] **Resource Assessment**: Identify required resources and tools |
|||
|
|||
### During Investigation |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Evidence Collection**: Gather relevant evidence and data systematically |
|||
- [ ] **Code Path Tracing**: Map execution flow for software investigations |
|||
- [ ] **Analysis**: Analyze evidence using appropriate methods |
|||
- [ ] **Documentation**: Document investigation process and findings |
|||
|
|||
### After Investigation |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Synthesis**: Synthesize findings into actionable insights |
|||
- [ ] **Report Creation**: Create comprehensive investigation report |
|||
- [ ] **Recommendations**: Provide clear, actionable recommendations |
|||
- [ ] **Team Communication**: Share findings and next steps with team |
|||
@ -0,0 +1,358 @@ |
|||
--- |
|||
alwaysApply: false |
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
# Logging Migration — Patterns and Examples |
|||
|
|||
> **Agent role**: Reference this file for specific migration patterns and |
|||
examples when converting console.* calls to logger usage. |
|||
|
|||
## Migration — Auto‑Rewrites (Apply Every Time) |
|||
|
|||
### Exact Transforms |
|||
|
|||
- `console.debug(...)` → `logger.debug(...)` |
|||
|
|||
- `console.log(...)` → `logger.log(...)` (or `logger.info(...)` when |
|||
|
|||
clearly stateful) |
|||
|
|||
- `console.info(...)` → `logger.info(...)` |
|||
|
|||
- `console.warn(...)` → `logger.warn(...)` |
|||
|
|||
- `console.error(...)` → `logger.error(...)` |
|||
|
|||
### Multi-arg Handling |
|||
|
|||
- First arg becomes `message` (stringify safely if non-string). |
|||
|
|||
- Remaining args map 1:1 to `...args`: |
|||
|
|||
`console.info(msg, a, b)` → `logger.info(String(msg), a, b)` |
|||
|
|||
### Sole `Error` |
|||
|
|||
- `console.error(err)` → `logger.error(err.message, err)` |
|||
|
|||
### Object-wrapping Cleanup |
|||
|
|||
Replace `{{ userId, meta }}` wrappers with separate args: |
|||
`logger.info('User signed in', userId, meta)` |
|||
|
|||
## Level Guidelines with Examples |
|||
|
|||
### DEBUG Examples |
|||
|
|||
```typescript |
|||
|
|||
logger.debug('[HomeView] reloadFeedOnChange() called'); |
|||
logger.debug('[HomeView] Current filter settings', |
|||
settings.filterFeedByVisible, |
|||
settings.filterFeedByNearby, |
|||
settings.searchBoxes?.length ?? 0); |
|||
logger.debug('[FeedFilters] Toggling nearby filter', |
|||
this.isNearby, this.settingChanged, this.activeDid); |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
**Avoid**: Vague messages (`'Processing data'`). |
|||
|
|||
### INFO Examples |
|||
|
|||
```typescript |
|||
|
|||
logger.info('[StartView] Component mounted', process.env.VITE_PLATFORM); |
|||
logger.info('[StartView] User selected new seed generation'); |
|||
logger.info('[SearchAreaView] Search box stored', |
|||
searchBox.name, searchBox.bbox); |
|||
logger.info('[ContactQRScanShowView] Contact registration OK', |
|||
contact.did); |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
**Avoid**: Diagnostic details that belong in `debug`. |
|||
|
|||
### WARN Examples |
|||
|
|||
```typescript |
|||
|
|||
logger.warn('[ContactQRScanShowView] Invalid scan result – no value', |
|||
resultType); |
|||
logger.warn('[ContactQRScanShowView] Invalid QR format – no JWT in URL'); |
|||
logger.warn('[ContactQRScanShowView] JWT missing "own" field'); |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
**Avoid**: Hard failures (those are `error`). |
|||
|
|||
### ERROR Examples |
|||
|
|||
```typescript |
|||
|
|||
logger.error('[HomeView Settings] initializeIdentity() failed', err); |
|||
logger.error('[StartView] Failed to load initialization data', error); |
|||
logger.error('[ContactQRScanShowView] Error processing contact QR', |
|||
error, rawValue); |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
**Avoid**: Expected user cancels (use `info`/`debug`). |
|||
|
|||
## Context Hygiene Examples |
|||
|
|||
### Component Context |
|||
|
|||
```typescript |
|||
|
|||
const log = logger.withContext('UserService'); |
|||
log.info('User created', userId); |
|||
log.error('Failed to create user', error); |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
If not using `withContext`, prefix message with `[ComponentName]`. |
|||
|
|||
### Emoji Guidelines |
|||
|
|||
Recommended set for visual scanning: |
|||
|
|||
- Start/finish: 🚀 / ✅ |
|||
|
|||
- Retry/loop: 🔄 |
|||
|
|||
- External call: 📡 |
|||
|
|||
- Data/metrics: 📊 |
|||
|
|||
- Inspection: 🔍 |
|||
|
|||
## Quick Before/After |
|||
|
|||
### **Before** |
|||
|
|||
```typescript |
|||
|
|||
console.log('User signed in', user.id, meta); |
|||
console.error('Failed to update profile', err); |
|||
console.info('Filter toggled', this.hasVisibleDid); |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### **After** |
|||
|
|||
```typescript |
|||
|
|||
import { logger } from '@/utils/logger'; |
|||
|
|||
logger.info('User signed in', user.id, meta); |
|||
logger.error('Failed to update profile', err); |
|||
logger.debug('[FeedFilters] Filter toggled', this.hasVisibleDid); |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
## Checklist (for every PR) |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] No `console.*` (or properly pragma'd in the allowed locations) |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] Correct import path for `logger` |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] Rest-parameter call shape (`message, ...args`) |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] Right level chosen (debug/info/warn/error) |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] No secrets / oversized payloads / throwaway context objects |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] Component context provided (scoped logger or `[Component]` prefix) |
|||
|
|||
**See also**: |
|||
`.cursor/rules/development/logging_standards.mdc` for the core standards and rules. |
|||
|
|||
# Logging Migration — Patterns and Examples |
|||
|
|||
> **Agent role**: Reference this file for specific migration patterns and |
|||
examples when converting console.* calls to logger usage. |
|||
|
|||
## Migration — Auto‑Rewrites (Apply Every Time) |
|||
|
|||
### Exact Transforms |
|||
|
|||
- `console.debug(...)` → `logger.debug(...)` |
|||
|
|||
- `console.log(...)` → `logger.log(...)` (or `logger.info(...)` when |
|||
|
|||
clearly stateful) |
|||
|
|||
- `console.info(...)` → `logger.info(...)` |
|||
|
|||
- `console.warn(...)` → `logger.warn(...)` |
|||
|
|||
- `console.error(...)` → `logger.error(...)` |
|||
|
|||
### Multi-arg Handling |
|||
|
|||
- First arg becomes `message` (stringify safely if non-string). |
|||
|
|||
- Remaining args map 1:1 to `...args`: |
|||
|
|||
`console.info(msg, a, b)` → `logger.info(String(msg), a, b)` |
|||
|
|||
### Sole `Error` |
|||
|
|||
- `console.error(err)` → `logger.error(err.message, err)` |
|||
|
|||
### Object-wrapping Cleanup |
|||
|
|||
Replace `{{ userId, meta }}` wrappers with separate args: |
|||
`logger.info('User signed in', userId, meta)` |
|||
|
|||
## Level Guidelines with Examples |
|||
|
|||
### DEBUG Examples |
|||
|
|||
```typescript |
|||
|
|||
logger.debug('[HomeView] reloadFeedOnChange() called'); |
|||
logger.debug('[HomeView] Current filter settings', |
|||
settings.filterFeedByVisible, |
|||
settings.filterFeedByNearby, |
|||
settings.searchBoxes?.length ?? 0); |
|||
logger.debug('[FeedFilters] Toggling nearby filter', |
|||
this.isNearby, this.settingChanged, this.activeDid); |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
**Avoid**: Vague messages (`'Processing data'`). |
|||
|
|||
### INFO Examples |
|||
|
|||
```typescript |
|||
|
|||
logger.info('[StartView] Component mounted', process.env.VITE_PLATFORM); |
|||
logger.info('[StartView] User selected new seed generation'); |
|||
logger.info('[SearchAreaView] Search box stored', |
|||
searchBox.name, searchBox.bbox); |
|||
logger.info('[ContactQRScanShowView] Contact registration OK', |
|||
contact.did); |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
**Avoid**: Diagnostic details that belong in `debug`. |
|||
|
|||
### WARN Examples |
|||
|
|||
```typescript |
|||
|
|||
logger.warn('[ContactQRScanShowView] Invalid scan result – no value', |
|||
resultType); |
|||
logger.warn('[ContactQRScanShowView] Invalid QR format – no JWT in URL'); |
|||
logger.warn('[ContactQRScanShowView] JWT missing "own" field'); |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
**Avoid**: Hard failures (those are `error`). |
|||
|
|||
### ERROR Examples |
|||
|
|||
```typescript |
|||
|
|||
logger.error('[HomeView Settings] initializeIdentity() failed', err); |
|||
logger.error('[StartView] Failed to load initialization data', error); |
|||
logger.error('[ContactQRScanShowView] Error processing contact QR', |
|||
error, rawValue); |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
**Avoid**: Expected user cancels (use `info`/`debug`). |
|||
|
|||
## Context Hygiene Examples |
|||
|
|||
### Component Context |
|||
|
|||
```typescript |
|||
|
|||
const log = logger.withContext('UserService'); |
|||
log.info('User created', userId); |
|||
log.error('Failed to create user', error); |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
If not using `withContext`, prefix message with `[ComponentName]`. |
|||
|
|||
### Emoji Guidelines |
|||
|
|||
Recommended set for visual scanning: |
|||
|
|||
- Start/finish: 🚀 / ✅ |
|||
|
|||
- Retry/loop: 🔄 |
|||
|
|||
- External call: 📡 |
|||
|
|||
- Data/metrics: 📊 |
|||
|
|||
- Inspection: 🔍 |
|||
|
|||
## Quick Before/After |
|||
|
|||
### **Before** |
|||
|
|||
```typescript |
|||
|
|||
console.log('User signed in', user.id, meta); |
|||
console.error('Failed to update profile', err); |
|||
console.info('Filter toggled', this.hasVisibleDid); |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### **After** |
|||
|
|||
```typescript |
|||
|
|||
import { logger } from '@/utils/logger'; |
|||
|
|||
logger.info('User signed in', user.id, meta); |
|||
logger.error('Failed to update profile', err); |
|||
logger.debug('[FeedFilters] Filter toggled', this.hasVisibleDid); |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
## Checklist (for every PR) |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] No `console.*` (or properly pragma'd in the allowed locations) |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] Correct import path for `logger` |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] Rest-parameter call shape (`message, ...args`) |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] Right level chosen (debug/info/warn/error) |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] No secrets / oversized payloads / throwaway context objects |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] Component context provided (scoped logger or `[Component]` prefix) |
|||
|
|||
**See also**: |
|||
`.cursor/rules/development/logging_standards.mdc` for the core standards and rules. |
|||
|
|||
## Model Implementation Checklist |
|||
|
|||
### Before Logging Migration |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Code Review**: Identify all `console.*` calls in the codebase |
|||
- [ ] **Logger Import**: Verify logger utility is available and accessible |
|||
- [ ] **Context Planning**: Plan component context for each logging call |
|||
- [ ] **Level Assessment**: Determine appropriate log levels for each call |
|||
|
|||
### During Logging Migration |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Import Replacement**: Replace `console.*` with `logger.*` calls |
|||
- [ ] **Context Addition**: Add component context using scoped logger or prefix |
|||
- [ ] **Level Selection**: Choose appropriate log level (debug/info/warn/error) |
|||
- [ ] **Parameter Format**: Use rest-parameter call shape (`message, ...args`) |
|||
|
|||
### After Logging Migration |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Console Check**: Ensure no `console.*` methods remain (unless pragma'd) |
|||
- [ ] **Context Validation**: Verify all logging calls have proper context |
|||
- [ ] **Level Review**: Confirm log levels are appropriate for each situation |
|||
- [ ] **Testing**: Test logging functionality across all platforms |
|||
@ -0,0 +1,176 @@ |
|||
# Agent Contract — TimeSafari Logging (Unified, MANDATORY) |
|||
|
|||
**Author**: Matthew Raymer |
|||
**Date**: 2025-08-19 |
|||
**Status**: 🎯 **ACTIVE** - Mandatory logging standards |
|||
|
|||
## Overview |
|||
|
|||
This document defines unified logging standards for the TimeSafari project, |
|||
ensuring consistent, rest-parameter logging style using the project logger. |
|||
No `console.*` methods are allowed in production code. |
|||
|
|||
## Scope and Goals |
|||
|
|||
**Scope**: Applies to all diffs and generated code in this workspace unless |
|||
explicitly exempted below. |
|||
|
|||
**Goal**: One consistent, rest-parameter logging style using the project |
|||
logger; no `console.*` in production code. |
|||
|
|||
## Non‑Negotiables (DO THIS) |
|||
|
|||
- You **MUST** use the project logger; **DO NOT** use any `console.*` |
|||
|
|||
methods. |
|||
|
|||
- Import exactly as: |
|||
|
|||
- `import { logger } from '@/utils/logger'` |
|||
|
|||
- If `@` alias is unavailable, compute the correct relative path (do not |
|||
|
|||
fail). |
|||
|
|||
- Call signatures use **rest parameters**: `logger.info(message, ...args)` |
|||
|
|||
- Prefer primitives/IDs and small objects in `...args`; **never build a |
|||
|
|||
throwaway object** just to "wrap context". |
|||
|
|||
- Production defaults: Web = `warn+`, Electron = `error`, Dev/Capacitor = |
|||
|
|||
`info+` (override via `VITE_LOG_LEVEL`). |
|||
|
|||
- **Database persistence**: `info|warn|error` are persisted; `debug` is not. |
|||
|
|||
Use `logger.toDb(msg, level?)` for DB-only. |
|||
|
|||
## Available Logger API (Authoritative) |
|||
|
|||
- `logger.debug(message, ...args)` — verbose internals, timings, input/output |
|||
|
|||
shapes |
|||
|
|||
- `logger.log(message, ...args)` — synonym of `info` for general info |
|||
|
|||
- `logger.info(message, ...args)` — lifecycle, state changes, success paths |
|||
|
|||
- `logger.warn(message, ...args)` — recoverable issues, retries, degraded mode |
|||
|
|||
- `logger.error(message, ...args)` — failures, thrown exceptions, aborts |
|||
|
|||
- `logger.toDb(message, level?)` — DB-only entry (default level = `info`) |
|||
|
|||
- `logger.toConsoleAndDb(message, isError)` — console + DB (use sparingly) |
|||
|
|||
- `logger.withContext(componentName)` — returns a scoped logger |
|||
|
|||
## Level Guidelines (Use These Heuristics) |
|||
|
|||
### DEBUG |
|||
|
|||
Use for method entry/exit, computed values, filters, loops, retries, and |
|||
external call payload sizes. |
|||
|
|||
### INFO |
|||
|
|||
Use for user-visible lifecycle and completed operations. |
|||
|
|||
### WARN |
|||
|
|||
Use for recoverable issues, fallbacks, unexpected-but-handled conditions. |
|||
|
|||
### ERROR |
|||
|
|||
Use for unrecoverable failures, data integrity issues, and thrown |
|||
exceptions. |
|||
|
|||
## Context Hygiene (Consistent, Minimal, Helpful) |
|||
|
|||
- **Component context**: Prefer scoped logger. |
|||
|
|||
- **Emojis**: Optional and minimal for visual scanning. |
|||
|
|||
- **Sensitive data**: Never log secrets (tokens, keys, passwords) or |
|||
payloads >10KB. Prefer IDs over objects; redact/hash when needed. |
|||
|
|||
## DB Logging Rules |
|||
|
|||
- `debug` **never** persists automatically. |
|||
|
|||
- `info|warn|error` persist automatically. |
|||
|
|||
- For DB-only events (no console), call `logger.toDb('Message', |
|||
'info'|'warn'|'error')`. |
|||
|
|||
## Exceptions (Tightly Scoped) |
|||
|
|||
Allowed paths (still prefer logger): |
|||
|
|||
- `**/*.test.*`, `**/*.spec.*` |
|||
|
|||
- `scripts/dev/**`, `scripts/migrate/**` |
|||
|
|||
To intentionally keep `console.*`, add a pragma on the previous line: |
|||
|
|||
```typescript |
|||
|
|||
// cursor:allow-console reason="short justification" |
|||
console.log('temporary output'); |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
## CI & Diff Enforcement |
|||
|
|||
- Do not introduce `console.*` anywhere outside allowed, pragma'd spots. |
|||
|
|||
- If an import is missing, insert it and resolve alias/relative path |
|||
correctly. |
|||
|
|||
- Enforce rest-parameter call shape in reviews; replace object-wrapped |
|||
context. |
|||
|
|||
- Ensure environment log level rules remain intact (`VITE_LOG_LEVEL` |
|||
respected). |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
**See also**: |
|||
`.cursor/rules/development/logging_migration.mdc` for migration patterns and examples. |
|||
|
|||
**Status**: Active and enforced |
|||
**Priority**: Critical |
|||
**Estimated Effort**: Ongoing reference |
|||
**Dependencies**: TimeSafari logger utility |
|||
**Stakeholders**: Development team, Code review team |
|||
|
|||
## Model Implementation Checklist |
|||
|
|||
### Before Adding Logging |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Logger Import**: Import logger as `import { logger } from |
|||
'@/utils/logger'` |
|||
- [ ] **Log Level Selection**: Determine appropriate log level |
|||
(debug/info/warn/error) |
|||
- [ ] **Context Planning**: Plan what context information to include |
|||
- [ ] **Sensitive Data Review**: Identify any sensitive data that needs redaction |
|||
|
|||
### During Logging Implementation |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Rest Parameters**: Use `logger.info(message, ...args)` format, not object |
|||
wrapping |
|||
- [ ] **Context Addition**: Include relevant IDs, primitives, or small objects in |
|||
args |
|||
- [ ] **Level Appropriateness**: Use correct log level for the situation |
|||
- [ ] **Scoped Logger**: Use `logger.withContext(componentName)` for |
|||
component-specific logging |
|||
|
|||
### After Logging Implementation |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Console Check**: Ensure no `console.*` methods are used (unless in |
|||
allowed paths) |
|||
- [ ] **Performance Review**: Verify logging doesn't impact performance |
|||
- [ ] **DB Persistence**: Use `logger.toDb()` for database-only logging if needed |
|||
- [ ] **Environment Compliance**: Respect `VITE_LOG_LEVEL` environment |
|||
variable |
|||
@ -0,0 +1,160 @@ |
|||
# Planning Examples — No Time Estimates |
|||
|
|||
> **Agent role**: Reference this file for detailed planning examples and |
|||
anti-patterns when creating project plans. |
|||
|
|||
## 🎯 Example Planning (No Time Estimates) |
|||
|
|||
### **Example 1: Simple Feature** |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
Phase 1: Core implementation |
|||
|
|||
- Basic functionality |
|||
|
|||
- Single platform support |
|||
|
|||
- Unit tests |
|||
|
|||
Phase 2: Platform expansion |
|||
|
|||
- Multi-platform support |
|||
|
|||
- Integration tests |
|||
|
|||
Phase 3: Polish |
|||
|
|||
- User testing |
|||
|
|||
- Edge case handling |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### **Example 2: Complex Cross-Platform Feature** |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
Phase 1: Foundation |
|||
|
|||
- Architecture design |
|||
|
|||
- Core service implementation |
|||
|
|||
- Basic web platform support |
|||
|
|||
Phase 2: Platform Integration |
|||
|
|||
- Mobile platform support |
|||
|
|||
- Desktop platform support |
|||
|
|||
- Cross-platform consistency |
|||
|
|||
Phase 3: Testing & Polish |
|||
|
|||
- Comprehensive testing |
|||
|
|||
- Error handling |
|||
|
|||
- User experience refinement |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
## 🚫 Anti-Patterns to Avoid |
|||
|
|||
- **"This should take X days"** - Red flag for time estimation |
|||
|
|||
- **"Just a few hours"** - Ignores complexity and testing |
|||
|
|||
- **"Similar to X"** - Without considering differences |
|||
|
|||
- **"Quick fix"** - Nothing is ever quick in software |
|||
|
|||
- **"No testing needed"** - Testing always takes effort |
|||
|
|||
## ✅ Best Practices |
|||
|
|||
### **When Planning:** |
|||
|
|||
1. **Break down everything** - no work is too small to plan |
|||
|
|||
2. **Consider all platforms** - web, mobile, desktop differences |
|||
|
|||
3. **Include testing strategy** - unit, integration, and user testing |
|||
|
|||
4. **Account for unknowns** - there are always surprises |
|||
|
|||
5. **Focus on dependencies** - what blocks what |
|||
|
|||
### **When Presenting Plans:** |
|||
|
|||
1. **Show the phases** - explain the logical progression |
|||
|
|||
2. **Highlight dependencies** - what could block progress |
|||
|
|||
3. **Define milestones** - clear success criteria |
|||
|
|||
4. **Identify risks** - what could go wrong |
|||
|
|||
5. **Suggest alternatives** - ways to reduce scope or complexity |
|||
|
|||
## 🔄 Continuous Improvement |
|||
|
|||
### **Track Progress** |
|||
|
|||
- Record planned vs. actual phases completed |
|||
|
|||
- Identify what took longer than expected |
|||
|
|||
- Learn from complexity misjudgments |
|||
|
|||
- Adjust planning process based on experience |
|||
|
|||
### **Learn from Experience** |
|||
|
|||
- **Underestimated complexity**: Increase complexity categories |
|||
|
|||
- **Missed dependencies**: Improve dependency mapping |
|||
|
|||
- **Platform surprises**: Better platform research upfront |
|||
|
|||
## 🎯 Integration with Harbor Pilot |
|||
|
|||
This rule works in conjunction with: |
|||
|
|||
- **Project Planning**: Focuses on phases and milestones |
|||
|
|||
- **Resource Allocation**: Based on complexity, not time |
|||
|
|||
- **Risk Management**: Identifies blockers and dependencies |
|||
|
|||
- **Stakeholder Communication**: Sets progress-based expectations |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
**See also**: `.cursor/rules/development/realistic_time_estimation.mdc` for |
|||
the core principles and framework. |
|||
|
|||
## Model Implementation Checklist |
|||
|
|||
### Before Planning |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Requirements Review**: Understand all requirements completely |
|||
- [ ] **Stakeholder Input**: Gather input from all stakeholders |
|||
- [ ] **Complexity Assessment**: Evaluate technical and business complexity |
|||
- [ ] **Platform Analysis**: Consider requirements across all target platforms |
|||
|
|||
### During Planning |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Phase Definition**: Define clear phases and milestones |
|||
- [ ] **Dependency Mapping**: Map dependencies between tasks |
|||
- [ ] **Risk Identification**: Identify potential risks and challenges |
|||
- [ ] **Testing Strategy**: Plan comprehensive testing approach |
|||
|
|||
### After Planning |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Stakeholder Review**: Review plan with stakeholders |
|||
- [ ] **Documentation**: Document plan clearly with phases and milestones |
|||
- [ ] **Team Communication**: Communicate plan to team |
|||
- [ ] **Progress Tracking**: Set up monitoring and tracking mechanisms |
|||
@ -0,0 +1,128 @@ |
|||
# Realistic Time Estimation — Development Guidelines |
|||
|
|||
> **Agent role**: **DO NOT MAKE TIME ESTIMATES**. Instead, use phases, |
|||
> milestones, and complexity levels. Time estimates are consistently wrong |
|||
> and create unrealistic expectations. |
|||
|
|||
## Purpose |
|||
|
|||
Development time estimates are consistently wrong and create unrealistic |
|||
expectations. This rule ensures we focus on phases, milestones, and |
|||
complexity rather than trying to predict specific timeframes. |
|||
|
|||
## Critical Rule |
|||
|
|||
**NEVER provide specific time estimates** (hours, days, weeks) for |
|||
development tasks. Instead, use: |
|||
|
|||
- **Complexity levels** (Low, Medium, High, Critical) |
|||
|
|||
- **Phases and milestones** with clear acceptance criteria |
|||
|
|||
- **Platform-specific considerations** (Web, Mobile, Desktop) |
|||
|
|||
- **Testing requirements** and validation steps |
|||
|
|||
## Planning Framework |
|||
|
|||
### Complexity Assessment |
|||
|
|||
- **Low**: Simple changes, existing patterns, minimal testing |
|||
|
|||
- **Medium**: New features, moderate testing, some integration |
|||
|
|||
- **High**: Complex features, extensive testing, multiple platforms |
|||
|
|||
- **Critical**: Core architecture changes, full regression testing |
|||
|
|||
### Platform Categories |
|||
|
|||
- **Web**: Browser compatibility, responsive design, accessibility |
|||
|
|||
- **Mobile**: Native APIs, platform-specific testing, deployment |
|||
|
|||
- **Desktop**: Electron integration, system APIs, distribution |
|||
|
|||
### Testing Strategy |
|||
|
|||
- **Unit tests**: Core functionality validation |
|||
|
|||
- **Integration tests**: Component interaction testing |
|||
|
|||
- **E2E tests**: User workflow validation |
|||
|
|||
- **Platform tests**: Cross-platform compatibility |
|||
|
|||
## Process Guidelines |
|||
|
|||
### Planning Phase |
|||
|
|||
1. **Scope Definition**: Clear requirements and acceptance criteria |
|||
|
|||
2. **Complexity Assessment**: Evaluate technical and business complexity |
|||
|
|||
3. **Phase Breakdown**: Divide into logical, testable phases |
|||
|
|||
4. **Milestone Definition**: Define success criteria for each phase |
|||
|
|||
### Execution Phase |
|||
|
|||
1. **Phase 1**: Foundation and core implementation |
|||
|
|||
2. **Phase 2**: Feature completion and integration |
|||
|
|||
3. **Phase 3**: Testing, refinement, and documentation |
|||
|
|||
4. **Phase 4**: Deployment and validation |
|||
|
|||
### Validation Phase |
|||
|
|||
1. **Acceptance Testing**: Verify against defined criteria |
|||
|
|||
2. **Platform Testing**: Validate across target platforms |
|||
|
|||
3. **Performance Testing**: Ensure performance requirements met |
|||
|
|||
4. **Documentation**: Update relevant documentation |
|||
|
|||
## Remember |
|||
|
|||
**Your first estimate is wrong. Your second estimate is probably still |
|||
wrong. Focus on progress, not deadlines.** |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
**See also**: |
|||
|
|||
- `.cursor/rules/development/planning_examples.mdc` for detailed planning examples |
|||
|
|||
- `.cursor/rules/development/complexity_assessment.mdc` for complexity evaluation |
|||
|
|||
**Status**: Active development guidelines |
|||
**Priority**: High |
|||
**Estimated Effort**: Ongoing reference |
|||
**Dependencies**: None |
|||
**Stakeholders**: Development team, Project managers |
|||
|
|||
## Model Implementation Checklist |
|||
|
|||
### Before Time Estimation |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Requirements Analysis**: Understand all requirements and acceptance criteria |
|||
- [ ] **Complexity Assessment**: Evaluate technical and business complexity |
|||
- [ ] **Platform Review**: Identify requirements across all target platforms |
|||
- [ ] **Stakeholder Input**: Gather input from all affected parties |
|||
|
|||
### During Time Estimation |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Phase Breakdown**: Divide work into logical, testable phases |
|||
- [ ] **Complexity Classification**: Assign complexity levels (Low/Medium/High/Critical) |
|||
- [ ] **Platform Considerations**: Account for platform-specific requirements |
|||
- [ ] **Testing Strategy**: Plan comprehensive testing approach |
|||
|
|||
### After Time Estimation |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Milestone Definition**: Define success criteria for each phase |
|||
- [ ] **Progress Tracking**: Set up monitoring and tracking mechanisms |
|||
- [ ] **Documentation**: Document estimation process and assumptions |
|||
- [ ] **Stakeholder Communication**: Share estimation approach and progress focus |
|||
@ -1,178 +1,227 @@ |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
alwaysApply: true |
|||
|
|||
alwaysApply: false |
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
# Software Development Ruleset |
|||
|
|||
**Author**: Matthew Raymer |
|||
**Date**: 2025-08-19 |
|||
**Status**: 🎯 **ACTIVE** - Core development guidelines |
|||
|
|||
## Purpose |
|||
Specialized guidelines for software development tasks including code review, debugging, architecture decisions, and testing. |
|||
|
|||
Specialized guidelines for software development tasks including code review, |
|||
debugging, architecture decisions, and testing. |
|||
|
|||
## Core Principles |
|||
|
|||
### 1. Evidence-First Development |
|||
- **Code Citations Required**: Always cite specific file:line references when making claims |
|||
- **Execution Path Tracing**: Trace actual code execution before proposing architectural changes |
|||
|
|||
- **Code Citations Required**: Always cite specific file:line references when |
|||
|
|||
making claims |
|||
|
|||
- **Execution Path Tracing**: Trace actual code execution before proposing |
|||
|
|||
architectural changes |
|||
|
|||
- **Assumption Validation**: Flag assumptions as "assumed" vs "evidence-based" |
|||
|
|||
### 2. Code Review Standards |
|||
- **Trace Before Proposing**: Always trace execution paths before suggesting changes |
|||
|
|||
- **Trace Before Proposing**: Always trace execution paths before suggesting |
|||
|
|||
changes |
|||
|
|||
- **Evidence Over Inference**: Prefer code citations over logical deductions |
|||
- **Scope Validation**: Confirm the actual scope of problems before proposing solutions |
|||
|
|||
- **Scope Validation**: Confirm the actual scope of problems before proposing |
|||
|
|||
solutions |
|||
|
|||
### 3. Problem-Solution Validation |
|||
|
|||
- **Problem Scope**: Does the solution address the actual problem? |
|||
|
|||
- **Evidence Alignment**: Does the solution match the evidence? |
|||
|
|||
- **Complexity Justification**: Is added complexity justified by real needs? |
|||
|
|||
- **Alternative Analysis**: What simpler solutions were considered? |
|||
|
|||
### 4. Dependency Management & Environment Validation |
|||
|
|||
- **Pre-build Validation**: |
|||
|
|||
Always validate critical dependencies before executing |
|||
build scripts |
|||
|
|||
- **Environment Consistency**: Ensure team members have identical development |
|||
|
|||
environments |
|||
|
|||
- **Dependency Verification**: Check that required packages are installed and |
|||
|
|||
accessible |
|||
|
|||
- **Path Resolution**: Use `npx` for local dependencies to avoid PATH issues |
|||
|
|||
## Required Workflows |
|||
|
|||
### Before Proposing Changes |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Code Path Tracing**: Map execution flow from entry to exit |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Evidence Collection**: Gather specific code citations and logs |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Assumption Surfacing**: Identify what's proven vs. inferred |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Scope Validation**: Confirm the actual extent of the problem |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Dependency Validation**: Verify all required dependencies are available |
|||
|
|||
and accessible |
|||
|
|||
### During Solution Design |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Evidence Alignment**: Ensure solution addresses proven problems |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Complexity Assessment**: Justify any added complexity |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Alternative Evaluation**: Consider simpler approaches first |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Impact Analysis**: Assess effects on existing systems |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Environment Impact**: Assess how changes affect team member setups |
|||
|
|||
## Software-Specific Competence Hooks |
|||
|
|||
### Evidence Validation |
|||
|
|||
- **"What code path proves this claim?"** |
|||
|
|||
- **"How does data actually flow through the system?"** |
|||
|
|||
- **"What am I assuming vs. what can I prove?"** |
|||
|
|||
### Code Tracing |
|||
|
|||
- **"What's the execution path from user action to system response?"** |
|||
|
|||
- **"Which components actually interact in this scenario?"** |
|||
|
|||
- **"Where does the data originate and where does it end up?"** |
|||
|
|||
### Architecture Decisions |
|||
|
|||
- **"What evidence shows this change is necessary?"** |
|||
|
|||
- **"What simpler solution could achieve the same goal?"** |
|||
|
|||
- **"How does this change affect the existing system architecture?"** |
|||
|
|||
### Dependency & Environment Management |
|||
|
|||
- **"What dependencies does this feature require and are they properly |
|||
|
|||
declared?"** |
|||
|
|||
- **"How will this change affect team member development environments?"** |
|||
|
|||
- **"What validation can we add to catch dependency issues early?"** |
|||
|
|||
## Integration with Other Rulesets |
|||
|
|||
### With base_context.mdc |
|||
|
|||
- Inherits generic competence principles |
|||
|
|||
- Adds software-specific evidence requirements |
|||
|
|||
- Maintains collaboration and learning focus |
|||
|
|||
### With research_diagnostic.mdc |
|||
|
|||
- Enhances investigation with code path tracing |
|||
|
|||
- Adds evidence validation to diagnostic workflow |
|||
|
|||
- Strengthens problem identification accuracy |
|||
|
|||
## Usage Guidelines |
|||
|
|||
### When to Use This Ruleset |
|||
|
|||
- Code reviews and architectural decisions |
|||
|
|||
- Bug investigation and debugging |
|||
|
|||
- Performance optimization |
|||
|
|||
- Feature implementation planning |
|||
|
|||
- Testing strategy development |
|||
|
|||
### When to Combine with Others |
|||
|
|||
- **base_context + software_development**: General development tasks |
|||
|
|||
- **research_diagnostic + software_development**: Technical investigations |
|||
|
|||
- **All three**: Complex architectural decisions or major refactoring |
|||
|
|||
## Self-Check (model, before responding) |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] Code path traced and documented |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] Evidence cited with specific file:line references |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] Assumptions clearly flagged as proven vs. inferred |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] Solution complexity justified by evidence |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] Simpler alternatives considered and documented |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] Impact on existing systems assessed |
|||
# Software Development Ruleset |
|||
|
|||
## Purpose |
|||
Specialized guidelines for software development tasks including code review, debugging, architecture decisions, and testing. |
|||
- [ ] Dependencies validated and accessible |
|||
|
|||
## Core Principles |
|||
- [ ] Environment impact assessed for team members |
|||
|
|||
### 1. Evidence-First Development |
|||
- **Code Citations Required**: Always cite specific file:line references when making claims |
|||
- **Execution Path Tracing**: Trace actual code execution before proposing architectural changes |
|||
- **Assumption Validation**: Flag assumptions as "assumed" vs "evidence-based" |
|||
- [ ] Pre-build validation implemented where appropriate |
|||
|
|||
### 2. Code Review Standards |
|||
- **Trace Before Proposing**: Always trace execution paths before suggesting changes |
|||
- **Evidence Over Inference**: Prefer code citations over logical deductions |
|||
- **Scope Validation**: Confirm the actual scope of problems before proposing solutions |
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
### 3. Problem-Solution Validation |
|||
- **Problem Scope**: Does the solution address the actual problem? |
|||
- **Evidence Alignment**: Does the solution match the evidence? |
|||
- **Complexity Justification**: Is added complexity justified by real needs? |
|||
- **Alternative Analysis**: What simpler solutions were considered? |
|||
**See also**: `.cursor/rules/development/dependency_management.mdc` for |
|||
detailed dependency management practices. |
|||
|
|||
## Required Workflows |
|||
**Status**: Active development guidelines |
|||
**Priority**: High |
|||
**Estimated Effort**: Ongoing reference |
|||
**Dependencies**: base_context.mdc, research_diagnostic.mdc |
|||
**Stakeholders**: Development team, Code review team |
|||
|
|||
## Model Implementation Checklist |
|||
|
|||
### Before Development Work |
|||
|
|||
### Before Proposing Changes |
|||
- [ ] **Code Path Tracing**: Map execution flow from entry to exit |
|||
- [ ] **Evidence Collection**: Gather specific code citations and logs |
|||
- [ ] **Assumption Surfacing**: Identify what's proven vs. inferred |
|||
- [ ] **Scope Validation**: Confirm the actual extent of the problem |
|||
|
|||
### During Solution Design |
|||
### During Development |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Evidence Alignment**: Ensure solution addresses proven problems |
|||
- [ ] **Complexity Assessment**: Justify any added complexity |
|||
- [ ] **Alternative Evaluation**: Consider simpler approaches first |
|||
- [ ] **Impact Analysis**: Assess effects on existing systems |
|||
|
|||
## Software-Specific Competence Hooks |
|||
### After Development |
|||
|
|||
### Evidence Validation |
|||
- **"What code path proves this claim?"** |
|||
- **"How does data actually flow through the system?"** |
|||
- **"What am I assuming vs. what can I prove?"** |
|||
|
|||
### Code Tracing |
|||
- **"What's the execution path from user action to system response?"** |
|||
- **"Which components actually interact in this scenario?"** |
|||
- **"Where does the data originate and where does it end up?"** |
|||
|
|||
### Architecture Decisions |
|||
- **"What evidence shows this change is necessary?"** |
|||
- **"What simpler solution could achieve the same goal?"** |
|||
- **"How does this change affect the existing system architecture?"** |
|||
|
|||
## Integration with Other Rulesets |
|||
|
|||
### With base_context.mdc |
|||
- Inherits generic competence principles |
|||
- Adds software-specific evidence requirements |
|||
- Maintains collaboration and learning focus |
|||
|
|||
### With research_diagnostic.mdc |
|||
- Enhances investigation with code path tracing |
|||
- Adds evidence validation to diagnostic workflow |
|||
- Strengthens problem identification accuracy |
|||
|
|||
## Usage Guidelines |
|||
|
|||
### When to Use This Ruleset |
|||
- Code reviews and architectural decisions |
|||
- Bug investigation and debugging |
|||
- Performance optimization |
|||
- Feature implementation planning |
|||
- Testing strategy development |
|||
|
|||
### When to Combine with Others |
|||
- **base_context + software_development**: General development tasks |
|||
- **research_diagnostic + software_development**: Technical investigations |
|||
- **All three**: Complex architectural decisions or major refactoring |
|||
|
|||
## Self-Check (model, before responding) |
|||
- [ ] Code path traced and documented |
|||
- [ ] Evidence cited with specific file:line references |
|||
- [ ] Assumptions clearly flagged as proven vs. inferred |
|||
- [ ] Solution complexity justified by evidence |
|||
- [ ] Simpler alternatives considered and documented |
|||
- [ ] Impact on existing systems assessed |
|||
- [ ] **Code Path Validation**: Verify execution paths are correct |
|||
- [ ] **Evidence Documentation**: Document all code citations and evidence |
|||
- [ ] **Assumption Review**: Confirm all assumptions are documented |
|||
- [ ] **Environment Impact**: Assess how changes affect team member setups |
|||
@ -0,0 +1,146 @@ |
|||
# Time Handling in Development Workflow |
|||
|
|||
**Author**: Matthew Raymer |
|||
**Date**: 2025-08-17 |
|||
**Status**: 🎯 **ACTIVE** - Production Ready |
|||
|
|||
## Overview |
|||
|
|||
This guide establishes **how time should be referenced and used** across the |
|||
development workflow. It is not tied to any one project, but applies to **all |
|||
feature development, issue investigations, ADRs, and documentation**. |
|||
|
|||
## General Principles |
|||
|
|||
- **Explicit over relative**: Always prefer absolute dates (`2025-08-17`) over |
|||
|
|||
relative references like "last week." |
|||
|
|||
- **ISO 8601 Standard**: Use `YYYY-MM-DD` format for all date references in |
|||
|
|||
docs, issues, ADRs, and commits. |
|||
|
|||
- **Time zones**: Default to **UTC** unless explicitly tied to user-facing |
|||
|
|||
behavior. |
|||
|
|||
- **Precision**: Only specify as much precision as needed (date vs. datetime vs. |
|||
|
|||
timestamp). |
|||
|
|||
- **Consistency**: Align time references across ADRs, commits, and investigation |
|||
|
|||
reports. |
|||
|
|||
## In Documentation & ADRs |
|||
|
|||
- Record decision dates using **absolute ISO dates**. |
|||
|
|||
- For ongoing timelines, state start and end explicitly (e.g., `2025-08-01` → |
|||
|
|||
`2025-08-17`). |
|||
|
|||
- Avoid ambiguous terms like *recently*, *last month*, or *soon*. |
|||
|
|||
- For time-based experiments (e.g., A/B tests), always include: |
|||
|
|||
- Start date |
|||
|
|||
- Expected duration |
|||
|
|||
- Review date checkpoint |
|||
|
|||
## In Code & Commits |
|||
|
|||
- Use **UTC timestamps** in logs, DB migrations, and serialized formats. |
|||
|
|||
- In commits, link changes to **date-bound ADRs or investigation docs**. |
|||
|
|||
- For migrations, include both **applied date** and **intended version window**. |
|||
|
|||
- Use constants for known fixed dates; avoid hardcoding arbitrary strings. |
|||
|
|||
## In Investigations & Research |
|||
|
|||
- Capture **when** an issue occurred (absolute time or version tag). |
|||
|
|||
- When describing failures: note whether they are **time-sensitive** (e.g., |
|||
|
|||
after |
|||
migrations, cache expirations). |
|||
|
|||
- Record diagnostic timelines in ISO format (not relative). |
|||
|
|||
- For performance regressions, annotate both **baseline timeframe** and |
|||
|
|||
**measurement timeframe**. |
|||
|
|||
## Collaboration Hooks |
|||
|
|||
- During reviews, verify **time references are clear, absolute, and |
|||
|
|||
standardized**. |
|||
|
|||
- In syncs, reframe relative terms ("this week") into shared absolute |
|||
|
|||
references. |
|||
|
|||
- Tag ADRs with both **date created** and **review by** checkpoints. |
|||
|
|||
## Self-Check Before Submitting |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] Did I check the time using the **developer's actual system time and |
|||
|
|||
timezone**? |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] Am I using absolute ISO dates? |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] Is UTC assumed unless specified otherwise? |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] Did I avoid ambiguous relative terms? |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] If duration matters, did I specify both start and end? |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] For future work, did I include a review/revisit date? |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
**See also**: |
|||
|
|||
- `.cursor/rules/development/time_implementation.mdc` for |
|||
|
|||
detailed implementation instructions |
|||
|
|||
- `.cursor/rules/development/time_examples.mdc` for practical examples and patterns |
|||
|
|||
**Status**: Active time handling guidelines |
|||
**Priority**: High |
|||
**Estimated Effort**: Ongoing reference |
|||
**Dependencies**: None |
|||
**Stakeholders**: Development team, Documentation team |
|||
|
|||
**Maintainer**: Matthew Raymer |
|||
**Next Review**: 2025-09-17 |
|||
|
|||
## Model Implementation Checklist |
|||
|
|||
### Before Time-Related Work |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Time Context**: Understand what time information is needed |
|||
- [ ] **Format Review**: Review time formatting standards (UTC, ISO 8601) |
|||
- [ ] **Platform Check**: Identify platform-specific time requirements |
|||
- [ ] **User Context**: Consider user's timezone and preferences |
|||
|
|||
### During Time Implementation |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **UTC Usage**: Use UTC for all system and log timestamps |
|||
- [ ] **Format Consistency**: Apply consistent time formatting patterns |
|||
- [ ] **Timezone Handling**: Properly handle timezone conversions |
|||
- [ ] **User Display**: Format times appropriately for user display |
|||
|
|||
### After Time Implementation |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Validation**: Verify time formats are correct and consistent |
|||
- [ ] **Testing**: Test time handling across different scenarios |
|||
- [ ] **Documentation**: Update relevant documentation with time patterns |
|||
- [ ] **Review**: Confirm implementation follows time standards |
|||
@ -0,0 +1,243 @@ |
|||
# Time Examples — Practical Patterns |
|||
|
|||
> **Agent role**: Reference this file for practical examples and |
|||
patterns when working with time handling in development. |
|||
|
|||
## Examples |
|||
|
|||
### Good |
|||
|
|||
- "Feature flag rollout started on `2025-08-01` and will be reviewed on |
|||
|
|||
`2025-08-21`." |
|||
|
|||
- "Migration applied on `2025-07-15T14:00Z`." |
|||
|
|||
- "Issue reproduced on `2025-08-17T09:00-05:00 (local)` / |
|||
|
|||
`2025-08-17T14:00Z (UTC)`." |
|||
|
|||
### Bad |
|||
|
|||
- "Feature flag rolled out last week." |
|||
|
|||
- "Migration applied recently." |
|||
|
|||
- "Now is August, so we assume this was last month." |
|||
|
|||
### More Examples |
|||
|
|||
#### Issue Reports |
|||
|
|||
- ✅ **Good**: "User reported login failure at `2025-08-17T14:30:00Z`. Issue |
|||
|
|||
persisted until `2025-08-17T15:45:00Z`." |
|||
|
|||
- ❌ **Bad**: "User reported login failure earlier today. Issue lasted for a |
|||
|
|||
while." |
|||
|
|||
#### Release Planning |
|||
|
|||
- ✅ **Good**: "Feature X scheduled for release on `2025-08-25`. Testing |
|||
|
|||
window: `2025-08-20` to `2025-08-24`." |
|||
|
|||
- ❌ **Bad**: "Feature X will be released next week after testing." |
|||
|
|||
#### Performance Monitoring |
|||
|
|||
- ✅ **Good**: "Baseline performance measured on `2025-08-10T09:00:00Z`. |
|||
|
|||
Regression detected on `2025-08-15T14:00:00Z`." |
|||
|
|||
- ❌ **Bad**: "Performance was good last week but got worse this week." |
|||
|
|||
## Technical Implementation Examples |
|||
|
|||
### Database Storage |
|||
|
|||
```sql |
|||
|
|||
-- ✅ Good: Store in UTC |
|||
created_at TIMESTAMP DEFAULT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP, |
|||
updated_at TIMESTAMP DEFAULT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP ON UPDATE CURRENT_TIMESTAMP |
|||
|
|||
-- ❌ Bad: Store in local time |
|||
created_at TIMESTAMP DEFAULT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP, |
|||
updated_at TIMESTAMP DEFAULT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP ON UPDATE CURRENT_TIMESTAMP |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### API Responses |
|||
|
|||
```json |
|||
|
|||
// ✅ Good: Include both UTC and local time |
|||
{ |
|||
"eventTime": "2025-08-17T14:00:00Z", |
|||
"localTime": "2025-08-17T10:00:00-04:00", |
|||
"timezone": "America/New_York" |
|||
} |
|||
|
|||
// ❌ Bad: Only local time |
|||
{ |
|||
"eventTime": "2025-08-17T10:00:00-04:00" |
|||
} |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### Logging |
|||
|
|||
```python |
|||
|
|||
# ✅ Good: Log in UTC with timezone info |
|||
|
|||
logger.info(f"User action at {datetime.utcnow().isoformat()}Z (UTC)") |
|||
|
|||
# ❌ Bad: Log in local time |
|||
|
|||
logger.info(f"User action at {datetime.now()}") |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
## Timezone Handling Examples |
|||
|
|||
### Good Timezone Usage |
|||
|
|||
```typescript |
|||
|
|||
// ✅ Good: Store UTC, convert for display |
|||
const eventTime = new Date().toISOString(); // Store in UTC |
|||
const localTime = new Date().toLocaleString('en-US', { |
|||
timeZone: 'America/New_York' |
|||
}); // Convert for display |
|||
|
|||
// ✅ Good: Include timezone context |
|||
const timestamp = { |
|||
utc: "2025-08-17T14:00:00Z", |
|||
local: "2025-08-17T10:00:00-04:00", |
|||
timezone: "America/New_York" |
|||
}; |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### Bad Timezone Usage |
|||
|
|||
```typescript |
|||
|
|||
// ❌ Bad: Assume timezone |
|||
const now = new Date(); // Assumes system timezone |
|||
|
|||
// ❌ Bad: Mix formats |
|||
const timestamp = "2025-08-17 10:00 AM"; // Ambiguous format |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
## Common Patterns |
|||
|
|||
### Date Range References |
|||
|
|||
```typescript |
|||
|
|||
// ✅ Good: Explicit date ranges |
|||
const dateRange = { |
|||
start: "2025-08-01T00:00:00Z", |
|||
end: "2025-08-31T23:59:59Z" |
|||
}; |
|||
|
|||
// ❌ Bad: Relative ranges |
|||
const dateRange = { |
|||
start: "beginning of month", |
|||
end: "end of month" |
|||
}; |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### Duration References |
|||
|
|||
```typescript |
|||
|
|||
// ✅ Good: Specific durations |
|||
const duration = { |
|||
value: 30, |
|||
unit: "days", |
|||
startDate: "2025-08-01T00:00:00Z" |
|||
}; |
|||
|
|||
// ❌ Bad: Vague durations |
|||
const duration = "about a month"; |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### Version References |
|||
|
|||
```typescript |
|||
|
|||
// ✅ Good: Version with date |
|||
const version = { |
|||
number: "1.2.3", |
|||
releaseDate: "2025-08-17T10:00:00Z", |
|||
buildDate: "2025-08-17T09:30:00Z" |
|||
}; |
|||
|
|||
// ❌ Bad: Version without context |
|||
const version = "latest"; |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
## References |
|||
|
|||
- [ISO 8601 Date and Time Standard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601) |
|||
|
|||
- [IANA Timezone Database](https://www.iana.org/time-zones) |
|||
|
|||
- [ADR Template](./adr_template.md) |
|||
|
|||
- [Research & Diagnostic Workflow](./research_diagnostic.mdc) |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
**Rule of Thumb**: Every time reference in development artifacts should be |
|||
**clear in 6 months without context**, and aligned to the **developer's actual |
|||
current time**. |
|||
|
|||
**Technical Rule of Thumb**: **Store in UTC, display in local time, always |
|||
include timezone context.** |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
**See also**: |
|||
|
|||
- `.cursor/rules/development/time.mdc` for core principles |
|||
|
|||
- `.cursor/rules/development/time_implementation.mdc` for implementation instructions |
|||
|
|||
**Status**: Active examples and patterns |
|||
**Priority**: Medium |
|||
**Estimated Effort**: Ongoing reference |
|||
**Dependencies**: time.mdc, time_implementation.mdc |
|||
**Stakeholders**: Development team, Documentation team |
|||
|
|||
## Model Implementation Checklist |
|||
|
|||
### Before Time Implementation |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Time Context**: Understand what time information needs to be implemented |
|||
- [ ] **Format Review**: Review time formatting standards (UTC, ISO 8601) |
|||
- [ ] **Platform Check**: Identify platform-specific time requirements |
|||
- [ ] **User Context**: Consider user's timezone and display preferences |
|||
|
|||
### During Time Implementation |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **UTC Storage**: Use UTC for all system and log timestamps |
|||
- [ ] **Format Consistency**: Apply consistent time formatting patterns |
|||
- [ ] **Timezone Handling**: Properly handle timezone conversions |
|||
- [ ] **User Display**: Format times appropriately for user display |
|||
|
|||
### After Time Implementation |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Format Validation**: Verify time formats are correct and consistent |
|||
- [ ] **Cross-Platform Testing**: Test time handling across different platforms |
|||
- [ ] **Documentation**: Update relevant documentation with time patterns |
|||
- [ ] **User Experience**: Confirm time display is clear and user-friendly |
|||
@ -0,0 +1,285 @@ |
|||
# Time Implementation — Technical Instructions |
|||
|
|||
> **Agent role**: Reference this file for detailed implementation instructions |
|||
when working with time handling in development. |
|||
|
|||
## Real-Time Context in Developer Interactions |
|||
|
|||
- The model must always resolve **"current time"** using the **developer's |
|||
|
|||
actual system time and timezone**. |
|||
|
|||
- When generating timestamps (e.g., in investigation logs, ADRs, or examples), |
|||
|
|||
the model should: |
|||
|
|||
- Use the **developer's current local time** by default. |
|||
|
|||
- Indicate the timezone explicitly (e.g., `2025-08-17T10:32-05:00`). |
|||
|
|||
- Optionally provide UTC alongside if context requires cross-team clarity. |
|||
|
|||
- When interpreting relative terms like *now*, *today*, *last week*: |
|||
|
|||
- Resolve them against the **developer's current time**. |
|||
|
|||
- Convert them into **absolute ISO-8601 values** in the output. |
|||
|
|||
## LLM Time Checking Instructions |
|||
|
|||
**CRITICAL**: The LLM must actively query the system for current time rather |
|||
than assuming or inventing times. |
|||
|
|||
### How to Check Current Time |
|||
|
|||
#### 1. **Query System Time (Required)** |
|||
|
|||
- **Always start** by querying the current system time using available tools |
|||
|
|||
- **Never assume** what the current time is |
|||
|
|||
- **Never use** placeholder values like "current time" or "now" |
|||
|
|||
#### 2. **Available Time Query Methods** |
|||
|
|||
- **System Clock**: Use `date` command or equivalent system time function |
|||
|
|||
- **Programming Language**: Use language-specific time functions (e.g., |
|||
|
|||
`Date.now()`, `datetime.now()`) |
|||
|
|||
- **Environment Variables**: Check for time-related environment variables |
|||
|
|||
- **API Calls**: Use time service APIs if available |
|||
|
|||
#### 3. **Required Time Information** |
|||
|
|||
When querying time, always obtain: |
|||
|
|||
- **Current Date**: YYYY-MM-DD format |
|||
|
|||
- **Current Time**: HH:MM:SS format (24-hour) |
|||
|
|||
- **Timezone**: Current system timezone or UTC offset |
|||
|
|||
- **UTC Equivalent**: Convert local time to UTC for cross-team clarity |
|||
|
|||
#### 4. **Time Query Examples** |
|||
|
|||
```bash |
|||
|
|||
# Example: Query system time |
|||
|
|||
$ date |
|||
|
|||
# Expected output: Mon Aug 17 10:32:45 EDT 2025 |
|||
|
|||
# Example: Query UTC time |
|||
|
|||
$ date -u |
|||
|
|||
# Expected output: Mon Aug 17 14:32:45 UTC 2025 |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
```python |
|||
|
|||
# Example: Python time query |
|||
|
|||
import datetime |
|||
current_time = datetime.datetime.now() |
|||
utc_time = datetime.datetime.utcnow() |
|||
print(f"Local: {current_time}") |
|||
print(f"UTC: {utc_time}") |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
```javascript |
|||
|
|||
// Example: JavaScript time query |
|||
const now = new Date(); |
|||
const utc = new Date().toISOString(); |
|||
console.log(`Local: ${now}`); |
|||
console.log(`UTC: ${utc}`); |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
#### 5. **LLM Time Checking Workflow** |
|||
|
|||
1. **Query**: Actively query system for current time |
|||
|
|||
2. **Validate**: Confirm time data is reasonable and current |
|||
|
|||
3. **Format**: Convert to ISO 8601 format |
|||
|
|||
4. **Context**: Provide both local and UTC times when helpful |
|||
|
|||
5. **Document**: Show the source of time information |
|||
|
|||
#### 6. **Error Handling for Time Queries** |
|||
|
|||
- **If time query fails**: Ask user for current time or use "unknown time" |
|||
|
|||
with explanation |
|||
|
|||
- **If timezone unclear**: Default to UTC and ask for clarification |
|||
|
|||
- **If time seems wrong**: Verify with user before proceeding |
|||
|
|||
- **Always log**: Record when and how time was obtained |
|||
|
|||
#### 7. **Time Query Verification** |
|||
|
|||
Before using queried time, verify: |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] Time is recent (within last few minutes) |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] Timezone information is available |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] UTC conversion is accurate |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] Format follows ISO 8601 standard |
|||
|
|||
## Model Behavior Rules |
|||
|
|||
- **Never invent a "fake now"**: All "current time" references must come from |
|||
|
|||
the real system clock available at runtime. |
|||
|
|||
- **Check developer time zone**: If ambiguous, ask for clarification (e.g., |
|||
|
|||
"Should I use UTC or your local timezone?"). |
|||
|
|||
- **Format for clarity**: |
|||
|
|||
- Local time: `YYYY-MM-DDTHH:mm±hh:mm` |
|||
|
|||
- UTC equivalent (if needed): `YYYY-MM-DDTHH:mmZ` |
|||
|
|||
## Technical Implementation Notes |
|||
|
|||
### UTC Storage Principle |
|||
|
|||
- **Store all timestamps in UTC** in databases, logs, and serialized formats |
|||
|
|||
- **Convert to local time only for user display** |
|||
|
|||
- **Use ISO 8601 format** for all storage: `YYYY-MM-DDTHH:mm:ss.sssZ` |
|||
|
|||
### Common Implementation Patterns |
|||
|
|||
#### Database Storage |
|||
|
|||
```sql |
|||
|
|||
-- ✅ Good: Store in UTC |
|||
created_at TIMESTAMP DEFAULT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP, |
|||
updated_at TIMESTAMP DEFAULT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP ON UPDATE CURRENT_TIMESTAMP |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
#### API Responses |
|||
|
|||
```json |
|||
|
|||
// ✅ Good: Include both UTC and local time |
|||
{ |
|||
"eventTime": "2025-08-17T14:00:00Z", |
|||
"localTime": "2025-08-17T10:00:00-04:00", |
|||
"timezone": "America/New_York" |
|||
} |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
#### Logging |
|||
|
|||
```python |
|||
|
|||
# ✅ Good: Log in UTC with timezone info |
|||
|
|||
logger.info(f"User action at {datetime.utcnow().isoformat()}Z (UTC)") |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### Timezone Handling Best Practices |
|||
|
|||
#### 1. Always Store Timezone Information |
|||
|
|||
- Include IANA timezone identifier (e.g., `America/New_York`) |
|||
|
|||
- Store UTC offset at time of creation |
|||
|
|||
- Handle daylight saving time transitions automatically |
|||
|
|||
#### 2. User Display Considerations |
|||
|
|||
- Convert UTC to user's preferred timezone |
|||
|
|||
- Show timezone abbreviation when helpful |
|||
|
|||
- Use relative time for recent events ("2 hours ago") |
|||
|
|||
#### 3. Edge Case Handling |
|||
|
|||
- **Daylight Saving Time**: Use timezone-aware libraries |
|||
|
|||
- **Leap Seconds**: Handle gracefully (rare but important) |
|||
|
|||
- **Invalid Times**: Validate before processing |
|||
|
|||
### Common Mistakes to Avoid |
|||
|
|||
#### 1. Timezone Confusion |
|||
|
|||
- ❌ **Don't**: Assume server timezone is user timezone |
|||
|
|||
- ✅ **Do**: Always convert UTC to user's local time for display |
|||
|
|||
#### 2. Format Inconsistency |
|||
|
|||
- ❌ **Don't**: Mix different time formats in the same system |
|||
|
|||
- ✅ **Do**: Standardize on ISO 8601 for all storage |
|||
|
|||
#### 3. Relative Time References |
|||
|
|||
- ❌ **Don't**: Use relative terms in persistent storage |
|||
|
|||
- ✅ **Do**: Convert relative terms to absolute timestamps immediately |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
**See also**: |
|||
|
|||
- `.cursor/rules/development/time.mdc` for core principles |
|||
|
|||
- `.cursor/rules/development/time_examples.mdc` for practical examples |
|||
|
|||
**Status**: Active implementation guidelines |
|||
**Priority**: Medium |
|||
**Estimated Effort**: Ongoing reference |
|||
**Dependencies**: time.mdc |
|||
**Stakeholders**: Development team, DevOps team |
|||
|
|||
## Model Implementation Checklist |
|||
|
|||
### Before Time Implementation |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Time Context**: Understand what time information needs to be implemented |
|||
- [ ] **Format Review**: Review time formatting standards (UTC, ISO 8601) |
|||
- [ ] **Platform Check**: Identify platform-specific time requirements |
|||
- [ ] **User Context**: Consider user's timezone and display preferences |
|||
|
|||
### During Time Implementation |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **UTC Storage**: Use UTC for all system and log timestamps |
|||
- [ ] **Format Consistency**: Apply consistent time formatting patterns |
|||
- [ ] **Timezone Handling**: Properly handle timezone conversions |
|||
- [ ] **User Display**: Format times appropriately for user display |
|||
|
|||
### After Time Implementation |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Format Validation**: Verify time formats are correct and consistent |
|||
- [ ] **Cross-Platform Testing**: Test time handling across different platforms |
|||
- [ ] **Documentation**: Update relevant documentation with time patterns |
|||
- [ ] **User Experience**: Confirm time display is clear and user-friendly |
|||
@ -1,332 +0,0 @@ |
|||
--- |
|||
globs: *.md |
|||
alwaysApply: false |
|||
--- |
|||
# Cursor Markdown Ruleset for TimeSafari Documentation |
|||
|
|||
## Overview |
|||
|
|||
This ruleset enforces consistent markdown formatting standards across all project |
|||
documentation, ensuring readability, maintainability, and compliance with |
|||
markdownlint best practices. |
|||
|
|||
## General Formatting Standards |
|||
|
|||
### Line Length |
|||
|
|||
- **Maximum line length**: 80 characters |
|||
- **Exception**: Code blocks (JSON, shell, TypeScript, etc.) - no line length |
|||
enforcement |
|||
- **Rationale**: Ensures readability across different screen sizes and terminal |
|||
widths |
|||
|
|||
### Blank Lines |
|||
|
|||
- **Headings**: Must be surrounded by blank lines above and below |
|||
- **Lists**: Must be surrounded by blank lines above and below |
|||
- **Code blocks**: Must be surrounded by blank lines above and below |
|||
- **Maximum consecutive blank lines**: 1 (no multiple blank lines) |
|||
- **File start**: No blank lines at the beginning of the file |
|||
- **File end**: Single newline character at the end |
|||
|
|||
### Whitespace |
|||
|
|||
- **No trailing spaces**: Remove all trailing whitespace from lines |
|||
- **No tabs**: Use spaces for indentation |
|||
- **Consistent indentation**: 2 spaces for list items and nested content |
|||
|
|||
## Heading Standards |
|||
|
|||
### Format |
|||
|
|||
- **Style**: ATX-style headings (`#`, `##`, `###`, etc.) |
|||
- **Case**: Title case for general headings |
|||
- **Code references**: Use backticks for file names and technical terms |
|||
- ✅ `### Current package.json Scripts` |
|||
- ❌ `### Current Package.json Scripts` |
|||
|
|||
### Hierarchy |
|||
|
|||
- **H1 (#)**: Document title only |
|||
- **H2 (##)**: Major sections |
|||
- **H3 (###)**: Subsections |
|||
- **H4 (####)**: Sub-subsections |
|||
- **H5+**: Avoid deeper nesting |
|||
|
|||
## List Standards |
|||
|
|||
### Unordered Lists |
|||
|
|||
- **Marker**: Use `-` (hyphen) consistently |
|||
- **Indentation**: 2 spaces for nested items |
|||
- **Blank lines**: Surround lists with blank lines |
|||
|
|||
### Ordered Lists |
|||
|
|||
- **Format**: `1.`, `2.`, `3.` (sequential numbering) |
|||
- **Indentation**: 2 spaces for nested items |
|||
- **Blank lines**: Surround lists with blank lines |
|||
|
|||
### Task Lists |
|||
|
|||
- **Format**: `- [ ]` for incomplete, `- [x]` for complete |
|||
- **Use case**: Project planning, checklists, implementation tracking |
|||
|
|||
## Code Block Standards |
|||
|
|||
### Fenced Code Blocks |
|||
|
|||
- **Syntax**: Triple backticks with language specification |
|||
- **Languages**: `json`, `bash`, `typescript`, `javascript`, `yaml`, `markdown` |
|||
- **Blank lines**: Must be surrounded by blank lines above and below |
|||
- **Line length**: No enforcement within code blocks |
|||
|
|||
### Inline Code |
|||
|
|||
- **Format**: Single backticks for inline code references |
|||
- **Use case**: File names, commands, variables, properties |
|||
|
|||
## Special Content Standards |
|||
|
|||
### JSON Examples |
|||
|
|||
```json |
|||
{ |
|||
"property": "value", |
|||
"nested": { |
|||
"property": "value" |
|||
} |
|||
} |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### Shell Commands |
|||
|
|||
```bash |
|||
# Command with comment |
|||
npm run build:web |
|||
|
|||
# Multi-line command |
|||
VITE_GIT_HASH=`git log -1 --pretty=format:%h` \ |
|||
vite build --config vite.config.web.mts |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### TypeScript Examples |
|||
|
|||
```typescript |
|||
// Function with JSDoc |
|||
/** |
|||
* Get environment configuration |
|||
* @param env - Environment name |
|||
* @returns Environment config object |
|||
*/ |
|||
const getEnvironmentConfig = (env: string) => { |
|||
switch (env) { |
|||
case 'prod': |
|||
return { /* production settings */ }; |
|||
default: |
|||
return { /* development settings */ }; |
|||
} |
|||
}; |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
## File Structure Standards |
|||
|
|||
### Document Header |
|||
|
|||
```markdown |
|||
# Document Title |
|||
|
|||
**Author**: Matthew Raymer |
|||
**Date**: YYYY-MM-DD |
|||
**Status**: 🎯 **STATUS** - Brief description |
|||
|
|||
## Overview |
|||
|
|||
Brief description of the document's purpose and scope. |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### Section Organization |
|||
|
|||
1. **Overview/Introduction** |
|||
2. **Current State Analysis** |
|||
3. **Implementation Plan** |
|||
4. **Technical Details** |
|||
5. **Testing & Validation** |
|||
6. **Next Steps** |
|||
|
|||
## Markdownlint Configuration |
|||
|
|||
### Required Rules |
|||
|
|||
```json |
|||
{ |
|||
"MD013": { "code_blocks": false }, |
|||
"MD012": true, |
|||
"MD022": true, |
|||
"MD031": true, |
|||
"MD032": true, |
|||
"MD047": true, |
|||
"MD009": true |
|||
} |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### Rule Explanations |
|||
|
|||
- **MD013**: Line length (disabled for code blocks) |
|||
- **MD012**: No multiple consecutive blank lines |
|||
- **MD022**: Headings should be surrounded by blank lines |
|||
- **MD031**: Fenced code blocks should be surrounded by blank lines |
|||
- **MD032**: Lists should be surrounded by blank lines |
|||
- **MD047**: Files should end with a single newline |
|||
- **MD009**: No trailing spaces |
|||
|
|||
## Validation Commands |
|||
|
|||
### Check Single File |
|||
|
|||
```bash |
|||
npx markdownlint docs/filename.md |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### Check All Documentation |
|||
|
|||
```bash |
|||
npx markdownlint docs/ |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### Auto-fix Common Issues |
|||
|
|||
```bash |
|||
# Remove trailing spaces |
|||
sed -i 's/[[:space:]]*$//' docs/filename.md |
|||
|
|||
# Remove multiple blank lines |
|||
sed -i '/^$/N;/^\n$/D' docs/filename.md |
|||
|
|||
# Add newline at end if missing |
|||
echo "" >> docs/filename.md |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
## Common Patterns |
|||
|
|||
### Implementation Plans |
|||
|
|||
```markdown |
|||
## Implementation Plan |
|||
|
|||
### Phase 1: Foundation (Day 1) |
|||
|
|||
#### 1.1 Component Setup |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] Create new component file |
|||
- [ ] Add basic structure |
|||
- [ ] Implement core functionality |
|||
|
|||
#### 1.2 Configuration |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] Update configuration files |
|||
- [ ] Add environment variables |
|||
- [ ] Test configuration loading |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### Status Tracking |
|||
|
|||
```markdown |
|||
**Status**: ✅ **COMPLETE** - All phases finished |
|||
**Progress**: 75% (15/20 components) |
|||
**Next**: Ready for testing phase |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### Performance Metrics |
|||
|
|||
```markdown |
|||
#### 📊 Performance Metrics |
|||
- **Build Time**: 2.3 seconds (50% faster than baseline) |
|||
- **Bundle Size**: 1.2MB (30% reduction) |
|||
- **Success Rate**: 100% (no failures in 50 builds) |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
## Enforcement |
|||
|
|||
### Pre-commit Hooks |
|||
|
|||
- Run markdownlint on all changed markdown files |
|||
- Block commits with linting violations |
|||
- Auto-fix common issues when possible |
|||
|
|||
### CI/CD Integration |
|||
|
|||
- Include markdownlint in build pipeline |
|||
- Generate reports for documentation quality |
|||
- Fail builds with critical violations |
|||
|
|||
### Team Guidelines |
|||
|
|||
- All documentation PRs must pass markdownlint |
|||
- Use provided templates for new documents |
|||
- Follow established patterns for consistency |
|||
|
|||
## Templates |
|||
|
|||
### New Document Template |
|||
|
|||
```markdown |
|||
# Document Title |
|||
|
|||
**Author**: Matthew Raymer |
|||
**Date**: YYYY-MM-DD |
|||
**Status**: 🎯 **PLANNING** - Ready for Implementation |
|||
|
|||
## Overview |
|||
|
|||
Brief description of the document's purpose and scope. |
|||
|
|||
## Current State |
|||
|
|||
Description of current situation or problem. |
|||
|
|||
## Implementation Plan |
|||
|
|||
### Phase 1: Foundation |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] Task 1 |
|||
- [ ] Task 2 |
|||
|
|||
## Next Steps |
|||
|
|||
1. **Review and approve plan** |
|||
2. **Begin implementation** |
|||
3. **Test and validate** |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
**Status**: Ready for implementation |
|||
**Priority**: Medium |
|||
**Estimated Effort**: X days |
|||
**Dependencies**: None |
|||
**Stakeholders**: Development team |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
**Last Updated**: 2025-07-09 |
|||
**Version**: 1.0 |
|||
**Maintainer**: Matthew Raymer |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
### Heading Uniqueness |
|||
|
|||
- **Rule**: No duplicate heading content at the same level |
|||
- **Scope**: Within a single document |
|||
- **Rationale**: Maintains clear document structure and navigation |
|||
- **Example**: |
|||
|
|||
```markdown |
|||
## Features ✅ |
|||
### Authentication |
|||
### Authorization |
|||
|
|||
## Features ❌ (Duplicate heading) |
|||
### Security |
|||
### Performance |
|||
``` |
|||
@ -0,0 +1,210 @@ |
|||
# Markdown Core Standards & Automation |
|||
|
|||
**Author**: Matthew Raymer |
|||
**Date**: 2025-08-21 |
|||
**Status**: 🎯 **ACTIVE** - Core markdown standards and automation |
|||
|
|||
## Overview |
|||
|
|||
This file combines core markdown formatting standards with automation |
|||
guidelines. AI agents must follow these rules DURING content generation, |
|||
not apply them after the fact. |
|||
|
|||
**Primary Focus**: Create educational content that increases human |
|||
competence, not just technical descriptions. |
|||
|
|||
## AI Generation Guidelines |
|||
|
|||
### **MANDATORY**: Follow These Rules While Writing |
|||
|
|||
When generating markdown content, you MUST: |
|||
|
|||
1. **Line Length**: Never exceed 80 characters per line |
|||
2. **Blank Lines**: Always add blank lines around headings, lists, and |
|||
code blocks |
|||
3. **Structure**: Use proper heading hierarchy and document templates |
|||
4. **Formatting**: Apply consistent formatting patterns immediately |
|||
5. **Educational Value**: Focus on increasing reader competence and |
|||
understanding |
|||
|
|||
### **DO NOT**: Generate content that violates these rules |
|||
|
|||
- ❌ Generate long lines that need breaking |
|||
- ❌ Create content without proper blank line spacing |
|||
- ❌ Use inconsistent formatting patterns |
|||
- ❌ Assume post-processing will fix violations |
|||
- ❌ Focus only on technical details without educational context |
|||
- ❌ Assume reader has extensive prior knowledge |
|||
|
|||
### **DO**: Generate compliant content from the start |
|||
|
|||
- ✅ Write within 80-character limits |
|||
- ✅ Add blank lines around all structural elements |
|||
- ✅ Use established templates and patterns |
|||
- ✅ Apply formatting standards immediately |
|||
- ✅ Explain concepts before implementation details |
|||
- ✅ Provide context and motivation for technical choices |
|||
- ✅ Include examples that illustrate key concepts |
|||
|
|||
## Core Formatting Standards |
|||
|
|||
### Line Length |
|||
|
|||
- **Maximum line length**: 80 characters |
|||
- **Exception**: Code blocks (JSON, shell, TypeScript, etc.) - no line |
|||
length enforcement |
|||
- **Rationale**: Ensures readability across different screen sizes and |
|||
terminal widths |
|||
|
|||
### Blank Lines |
|||
|
|||
- **Headings**: Must be surrounded by blank lines above and below |
|||
- **Lists**: Must be surrounded by blank lines above and below |
|||
- **Code blocks**: Must be surrounded by blank lines above and below |
|||
- **Maximum consecutive blank lines**: 1 (no multiple blank lines) |
|||
- **File start**: No blank lines at the beginning of the file |
|||
- **File end**: Single newline character at the end |
|||
|
|||
### Whitespace |
|||
|
|||
- **No trailing spaces**: Remove all trailing whitespace from lines |
|||
- **No tabs**: Use spaces for indentation |
|||
- **Consistent indentation**: 2 spaces for list items and nested content |
|||
|
|||
## Heading Standards |
|||
|
|||
### Format |
|||
|
|||
- **Style**: ATX-style headings (`#`, `##`, `###`, etc.) |
|||
- **Case**: Title case for general headings |
|||
- **Code references**: Use backticks for file names and technical terms |
|||
- ✅ `### Current package.json Scripts` |
|||
- ❌ `### Current Package.json Scripts` |
|||
|
|||
### Hierarchy |
|||
|
|||
- **H1 (#)**: Document title only |
|||
- **H2 (##)**: Major sections |
|||
- **H3 (###)**: Subsections |
|||
- **H4 (####)**: Sub-subsections |
|||
- **H5+**: Avoid deeper nesting |
|||
|
|||
## List Standards |
|||
|
|||
### Unordered Lists |
|||
|
|||
- **Marker**: Use `-` (hyphen) consistently |
|||
- **Indentation**: 2 spaces for nested items |
|||
- **Blank lines**: Surround lists with blank lines |
|||
|
|||
### Ordered Lists |
|||
|
|||
- **Format**: `1.`, `2.`, `3.` (sequential numbering) |
|||
- **Indentation**: 2 spaces for nested items |
|||
- **Blank lines**: Surround lists with blank lines |
|||
|
|||
### Task Lists |
|||
|
|||
- **Format**: `- [ ]` for incomplete, `- [x]` for complete |
|||
- **Indentation**: 2 spaces for nested items |
|||
- **Blank lines**: Surround lists with blank lines |
|||
|
|||
## Educational Content Standards |
|||
|
|||
### **Content Structure for Learning** |
|||
|
|||
- **Concept First**: Explain what something is before how to use it |
|||
- **Context Matters**: Explain why and when to use a feature |
|||
- **Progressive Disclosure**: Start simple, add complexity gradually |
|||
- **Real Examples**: Use concrete, relatable scenarios |
|||
- **Common Questions**: Anticipate and answer reader questions |
|||
|
|||
### **Writing for Understanding** |
|||
|
|||
- **Conversational Tone**: Write as if explaining to a colleague |
|||
- **Active Voice**: "You can do this" not "This can be done" |
|||
- **Question Format**: "What happens when..." to engage thinking |
|||
- **Analogies**: Use familiar concepts to explain complex ideas |
|||
- **Limitations**: Clearly state what solutions don't do |
|||
|
|||
## Code Block Standards |
|||
|
|||
### Inline Code |
|||
|
|||
- **Format**: Single backticks for inline code |
|||
- **Use cases**: File names, commands, variables, technical terms |
|||
- **Examples**: `package.json`, `npm run build`, `VITE_PLATFORM` |
|||
|
|||
### Code Blocks |
|||
|
|||
- **Format**: Triple backticks with language specification |
|||
- **Language**: Always specify the language for syntax highlighting |
|||
- **Blank lines**: Surround with blank lines above and below |
|||
|
|||
## Automation System |
|||
|
|||
### Available Commands |
|||
|
|||
- **`npm run markdown:fix`** - Fix formatting in all markdown files |
|||
using markdownlint-cli2 --fix |
|||
- **`npm run markdown:check`** - Validate formatting without fixing |
|||
using markdownlint-cli2 |
|||
|
|||
### How It Works |
|||
|
|||
1. **AI Agent Compliance** (Primary): AI follows markdown rules during |
|||
generation |
|||
2. **Pre-commit Hooks** (Backup): Catches any remaining formatting |
|||
issues |
|||
3. **GitHub Actions** (Pre-merge): Validates formatting before merge |
|||
|
|||
### Benefits |
|||
|
|||
- **No more manual fixes** - AI generates compliant content from start |
|||
- **Consistent style** - All files follow same standards |
|||
- **Faster development** - No need to fix formatting manually |
|||
|
|||
## Model Implementation Checklist |
|||
|
|||
### Before Generating Markdown Content |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Line Length**: Ensure no line exceeds 80 characters |
|||
- [ ] **Blank Lines**: Add blank lines around headings, lists, and code blocks |
|||
- [ ] **Whitespace**: Remove all trailing spaces, use 2-space indentation |
|||
- [ ] **Headings**: Use ATX-style with proper hierarchy (H1 for title only) |
|||
- [ ] **Lists**: Use consistent markers (- for unordered, 1. for ordered) |
|||
- [ ] **Code**: Specify language for fenced blocks, use backticks for inline |
|||
- [ ] **Educational Focus**: Plan content structure for learning progression |
|||
- [ ] **Audience Consideration**: Identify target reader knowledge level |
|||
|
|||
### After Generating Markdown Content |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Validation**: Run `npm run markdown:check` to verify compliance |
|||
- [ ] **Auto-fix**: Use `npm run markdown:fix` if any issues found |
|||
- [ ] **Review**: Confirm content follows established templates and patterns |
|||
- [ ] **Cross-reference**: Link to related documentation and templates |
|||
- [ ] **Educational Review**: Verify content increases reader competence |
|||
- [ ] **Example Validation**: Ensure examples illustrate key concepts clearly |
|||
|
|||
### Quality Assurance |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Readability**: Content is clear and follows project conventions |
|||
- [ ] **Consistency**: Formatting matches existing documentation style |
|||
- [ ] **Completeness**: All required sections and information included |
|||
- [ ] **Accuracy**: Technical details are correct and up-to-date |
|||
- [ ] **Educational Value**: Content increases reader understanding and competence |
|||
- [ ] **Context Clarity**: Reader understands when and why to use the information |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
**See also**: |
|||
|
|||
- `.cursor/rules/meta_documentation.mdc` for comprehensive documentation workflow |
|||
- `.cursor/rules/docs/markdown_templates.mdc` for document templates |
|||
- `.cursor/rules/docs/markdown_workflow.mdc` for validation workflows |
|||
|
|||
**Status**: Active core standards and automation |
|||
**Priority**: High |
|||
**Estimated Effort**: Ongoing reference |
|||
**Dependencies**: None |
|||
**Stakeholders**: Documentation team, Development team |
|||
@ -0,0 +1,314 @@ |
|||
# Markdown Templates & Examples |
|||
|
|||
> **Agent role**: Reference this file for document templates, structure, |
|||
> and examples when creating new documentation. |
|||
> |
|||
> **Focus**: Create educational content that increases human competence, |
|||
> not just technical descriptions. |
|||
|
|||
## Document Templates |
|||
|
|||
### Standard Document Template |
|||
|
|||
```markdown |
|||
# Document Title |
|||
|
|||
**Author**: Matthew Raymer |
|||
**Date**: YYYY-MM-DD |
|||
**Status**: 🎯 **STATUS** - Brief description |
|||
|
|||
## Overview |
|||
|
|||
Brief description of the document's purpose and scope. |
|||
|
|||
**Educational Goal**: What will the reader learn and how will it increase |
|||
their competence? |
|||
|
|||
## Current State |
|||
|
|||
Description of current situation or problem. |
|||
|
|||
**Why This Matters**: Explain the business value and user benefit of |
|||
addressing this situation. |
|||
|
|||
## Implementation Plan |
|||
|
|||
### Phase 1: Foundation |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] Task 1 |
|||
- [ ] Task 2 |
|||
|
|||
**Learning Context**: What concepts should the reader understand before |
|||
proceeding with implementation? |
|||
|
|||
## Next Steps |
|||
|
|||
1. **Review and approve plan** |
|||
2. **Begin implementation** |
|||
3. **Test and validate** |
|||
|
|||
**Continued Learning**: Where can the reader go next to deepen their |
|||
understanding? |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
**Status**: Ready for implementation |
|||
**Priority**: Medium |
|||
**Estimated Effort**: X days |
|||
**Dependencies**: None |
|||
**Stakeholders**: Development team |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### Technical Specification Template |
|||
|
|||
```markdown |
|||
# Technical Specification: [Feature Name] |
|||
|
|||
**Author**: Matthew Raymer |
|||
**Date**: YYYY-MM-DD |
|||
**Status**: 🎯 **DRAFT** - Under Review |
|||
|
|||
## Overview |
|||
|
|||
Brief description of the technical specification. |
|||
|
|||
**Business Context**: Why is this specification needed and what problem |
|||
does it solve for users? |
|||
|
|||
## Requirements |
|||
|
|||
### Functional Requirements |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] Requirement 1 |
|||
- [ ] Requirement 2 |
|||
|
|||
### Non-Functional Requirements |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] Performance requirement |
|||
- [ ] Security requirement |
|||
|
|||
## Technical Design |
|||
|
|||
### Architecture |
|||
|
|||
Description of the technical architecture. |
|||
|
|||
**Design Rationale**: Why was this architecture chosen over alternatives? |
|||
What are the trade-offs and benefits? |
|||
|
|||
### Data Models |
|||
|
|||
```typescript |
|||
interface ExampleModel { |
|||
id: string; |
|||
name: string; |
|||
createdAt: Date; |
|||
} |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### API Design |
|||
|
|||
```typescript |
|||
interface APIResponse<T> { |
|||
success: boolean; |
|||
data: T; |
|||
error?: string; |
|||
} |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
## Testing Strategy |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] Unit tests |
|||
|
|||
**Learning from Testing**: What insights does testing provide about the |
|||
system's behavior and design? |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
## Educational Documentation Template |
|||
|
|||
### **Concept Explanation Template** |
|||
|
|||
```markdown |
|||
## What is [Concept Name]? |
|||
|
|||
Brief, clear definition of the concept. |
|||
|
|||
## Why Does [Concept Name] Matter? |
|||
|
|||
Explain the business value and user benefit. |
|||
|
|||
## How Does [Concept Name] Work? |
|||
|
|||
High-level explanation of the mechanism. |
|||
|
|||
## When Would You Use [Concept Name]? |
|||
|
|||
Real-world scenarios and use cases. |
|||
|
|||
## Common Misconceptions |
|||
|
|||
Address typical misunderstandings. |
|||
|
|||
## Examples |
|||
|
|||
Concrete examples that illustrate the concept. |
|||
|
|||
## Next Steps |
|||
|
|||
Where to learn more about related concepts. |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### **Tutorial Template** |
|||
|
|||
```markdown |
|||
## Learning Objective |
|||
|
|||
What the reader will accomplish by the end. |
|||
|
|||
## Prerequisites |
|||
|
|||
What the reader should know before starting. |
|||
|
|||
## Step-by-Step Guide |
|||
|
|||
1. **Step 1**: What to do and why |
|||
2. **Step 2**: What to do and why |
|||
3. **Step 3**: What to do and why |
|||
|
|||
## Verification |
|||
|
|||
How to confirm the tutorial was successful. |
|||
|
|||
## Troubleshooting |
|||
|
|||
Common issues and how to resolve them. |
|||
|
|||
## What You've Learned |
|||
|
|||
Summary of key concepts and skills. |
|||
|
|||
## Next Steps |
|||
|
|||
Where to apply this knowledge next. |
|||
``` |
|||
- [ ] Integration tests |
|||
- [ ] E2E tests |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
**Status**: Draft |
|||
**Priority**: High |
|||
**Estimated Effort**: X days |
|||
**Dependencies**: None |
|||
**Stakeholders**: Development team |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
## Content Examples |
|||
|
|||
### JSON Examples |
|||
|
|||
```json |
|||
{ |
|||
"property": "value", |
|||
"nested": { |
|||
"property": "value" |
|||
} |
|||
} |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### Shell Commands |
|||
|
|||
```bash |
|||
# Command with comment |
|||
npm run build:web |
|||
|
|||
# Multi-line command |
|||
VITE_GIT_HASH=`git log -1 --pretty=format:%h` \ |
|||
vite build --config vite.config.web.mts |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### TypeScript Examples |
|||
|
|||
```typescript |
|||
// Function with JSDoc |
|||
const getEnvironmentConfig = (env: string) => { |
|||
switch (env) { |
|||
case 'prod': |
|||
return { /* production settings */ }; |
|||
default: |
|||
return { /* development settings */ }; |
|||
} |
|||
}; |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
## File Structure Standards |
|||
|
|||
### Document Header |
|||
|
|||
```markdown |
|||
# Document Title |
|||
|
|||
**Author**: Matthew Raymer |
|||
**Date**: YYYY-MM-DD |
|||
**Status**: 🎯 **STATUS** - Brief description |
|||
|
|||
## Overview |
|||
|
|||
Brief description of the document's purpose and scope. |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### Section Organization |
|||
|
|||
Standard sections: Overview, Current State, Implementation Plan, |
|||
Technical Details, Testing & Validation, Next Steps |
|||
|
|||
## Common Patterns |
|||
|
|||
Standard implementation plans follow Phase 1 (Foundation), Phase 2 |
|||
(Features), Phase 3 (Testing & Polish) structure. |
|||
|
|||
## Model Implementation Checklist |
|||
|
|||
### Before Using Templates |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Template Selection**: Choose appropriate template for document type |
|||
- [ ] **Structure Review**: Understand required sections and organization |
|||
- [ ] **Content Planning**: Plan what information goes in each section |
|||
- [ ] **Audience Analysis**: Ensure template matches target audience needs |
|||
|
|||
### During Template Usage |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Section Completion**: Fill in all required sections completely |
|||
- [ ] **Example Integration**: Include relevant code examples and patterns |
|||
- [ ] **Formatting Consistency**: Apply markdown standards from core rules |
|||
- [ ] **Cross-references**: Link to related documentation and resources |
|||
|
|||
### After Template Usage |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Content Review**: Verify all sections contain appropriate content |
|||
- [ ] **Formatting Check**: Run `npm run markdown:check` for compliance |
|||
- [ ] **Template Validation**: Confirm document follows template structure |
|||
- [ ] **Quality Assessment**: Ensure content meets project standards |
|||
|
|||
### Template-Specific Requirements |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Standard Documents**: Include all required metadata and sections |
|||
- [ ] **Technical Specs**: Complete all requirement and design sections |
|||
- [ ] **Implementation Plans**: Define clear phases and milestones |
|||
- [ ] **Examples**: Provide relevant, working code examples |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
**See also**: |
|||
|
|||
- `.cursor/rules/meta_documentation.mdc` for comprehensive documentation workflow |
|||
- `.cursor/rules/docs/markdown_core.mdc` for core formatting standards |
|||
- `.cursor/rules/docs/markdown_workflow.mdc` for validation workflows |
|||
|
|||
**Status**: Active templates and examples |
|||
**Priority**: Medium |
|||
**Estimated Effort**: Ongoing reference |
|||
**Dependencies**: markdown_core.mdc |
|||
**Stakeholders**: Documentation team, Development team |
|||
@ -0,0 +1,168 @@ |
|||
# Markdown Workflow & Validation |
|||
|
|||
> **Agent role**: Reference this file for markdown validation rules, |
|||
> enforcement procedures, and workflow management. |
|||
|
|||
## Markdownlint Configuration |
|||
|
|||
### Core Rules |
|||
|
|||
```json |
|||
{ |
|||
"MD013": { "line_length": 80, "code_blocks": false }, |
|||
"MD012": true, |
|||
"MD022": true, |
|||
"MD031": true, |
|||
"MD032": true, |
|||
"MD047": true, |
|||
"MD009": true, |
|||
"MD004": { "style": "dash" } |
|||
} |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### Rule Explanations |
|||
|
|||
- **MD013**: Line length (80 chars, disabled for code blocks) |
|||
- **MD012**: No multiple consecutive blank lines |
|||
- **MD022**: Headings should be surrounded by blank lines |
|||
- **MD031**: Fenced code blocks should be surrounded by blank lines |
|||
- **MD032**: Lists should be surrounded by blank lines |
|||
- **MD047**: Files should end with a single newline |
|||
- **MD009**: No trailing spaces |
|||
- **MD004**: Consistent list markers (dash style) |
|||
|
|||
## Validation Commands |
|||
|
|||
### Check All MDC Files |
|||
|
|||
```bash |
|||
npm run markdown:check |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### Auto-fix Formatting Issues |
|||
|
|||
```bash |
|||
npm run markdown:fix |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### Check Single File |
|||
|
|||
```bash |
|||
npx markdownlint-cli2 .cursor/rules/filename.mdc |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
## Enforcement Workflow |
|||
|
|||
### Pre-commit Hooks |
|||
|
|||
- **Automatic**: `lint-staged` runs `markdownlint-cli2 --fix` on all |
|||
staged `.mdc` files |
|||
- **Result**: Files are automatically formatted before commit |
|||
- **Blocking**: Commits with unfixable violations are blocked |
|||
|
|||
### CI/CD Integration |
|||
|
|||
- **Build Pipeline**: Include markdownlint in automated builds |
|||
- **Quality Reports**: Generate documentation quality metrics |
|||
- **Build Failure**: Fail builds with critical violations |
|||
|
|||
### Team Guidelines |
|||
|
|||
- **PR Requirements**: All documentation PRs must pass markdownlint |
|||
- **Templates**: Use provided templates for new documents |
|||
- **Patterns**: Follow established patterns for consistency |
|||
- **Auto-fixing**: Let automation handle formatting, focus on content |
|||
|
|||
## Quality Assurance |
|||
|
|||
### Validation Checklist |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] All files pass `npm run markdown:check` |
|||
- [ ] Line length under 80 characters |
|||
- [ ] Proper blank line spacing around elements |
|||
- [ ] No trailing spaces |
|||
- [ ] Consistent list markers |
|||
- [ ] Proper heading hierarchy |
|||
- [ ] Code blocks have language specification |
|||
|
|||
### Common Issues & Fixes |
|||
|
|||
#### Trailing Spaces |
|||
|
|||
```bash |
|||
# Remove trailing spaces |
|||
sed -i 's/[[:space:]]*$//' .cursor/rules/**/*.mdc |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
#### Multiple Blank Lines |
|||
|
|||
```bash |
|||
# Remove multiple blank lines |
|||
sed -i '/^$/N;/^\n$/D' .cursor/rules/**/*.mdc |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
#### Missing Newlines |
|||
|
|||
```bash |
|||
# Add newline at end if missing |
|||
find .cursor/rules -name "*.mdc" -exec sed -i -e '$a\' {} \; |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
## Integration Points |
|||
|
|||
### Git Workflow |
|||
|
|||
1. **Edit**: Make changes to MDC files |
|||
2. **Stage**: `git add .cursor/rules/filename.mdc` |
|||
3. **Auto-fix**: `lint-staged` runs `markdownlint-cli2 --fix` |
|||
4. **Commit**: Changes are committed with perfect formatting |
|||
|
|||
### Development Workflow |
|||
|
|||
1. **Create/Edit**: Use templates from `markdown_templates.mdc` |
|||
2. **Validate**: Run `npm run markdown:check` before committing |
|||
3. **Auto-fix**: Use `npm run markdown:fix` for bulk fixes |
|||
4. **Review**: Ensure content quality, not just formatting |
|||
|
|||
## Model Implementation Checklist |
|||
|
|||
### Before Starting Workflow |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Configuration Review**: Understand markdownlint rules and settings |
|||
- [ ] **Tool Availability**: Ensure markdownlint-cli2 is installed and working |
|||
- [ ] **File Scope**: Identify which files need validation or fixing |
|||
- [ ] **Backup Strategy**: Consider backing up files before bulk operations |
|||
|
|||
### During Workflow Execution |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Validation First**: Run `npm run markdown:check` to identify issues |
|||
- [ ] **Issue Analysis**: Review and understand each validation error |
|||
- [ ] **Auto-fix Application**: Use `npm run markdown:fix` for automatic fixes |
|||
- [ ] **Manual Review**: Check files that couldn't be auto-fixed |
|||
|
|||
### After Workflow Completion |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Final Validation**: Confirm all files pass `npm run markdown:check` |
|||
- [ ] **Quality Review**: Verify formatting meets project standards |
|||
- [ ] **Documentation Update**: Update any related documentation or guides |
|||
- [ ] **Team Communication**: Share workflow results and any manual fixes needed |
|||
|
|||
### Workflow-Specific Requirements |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Pre-commit Hooks**: Ensure lint-staged configuration is working |
|||
- [ ] **CI/CD Integration**: Verify build pipeline includes markdown validation |
|||
- [ ] **Team Guidelines**: Confirm all team members understand the workflow |
|||
- [ ] **Error Resolution**: Document common issues and their solutions |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
**See also**: |
|||
|
|||
- `.cursor/rules/docs/markdown_core.mdc` for core formatting standards |
|||
- `.cursor/rules/docs/markdown_templates.mdc` for document templates |
|||
|
|||
**Status**: Active workflow and validation |
|||
**Priority**: Medium |
|||
**Estimated Effort**: Ongoing reference |
|||
**Dependencies**: markdown_core.mdc, markdown_templates.mdc |
|||
**Stakeholders**: Development team, Documentation team |
|||
@ -0,0 +1,225 @@ |
|||
# Camera Platform-Specific Implementation |
|||
|
|||
> **Agent role**: |
|||
Reference this file for platform-specific camera implementation details. |
|||
|
|||
## Web Platform |
|||
|
|||
### Implementation Details |
|||
|
|||
- Uses `getUserMedia` API for camera access |
|||
|
|||
- Implements fallback to file input if camera unavailable |
|||
|
|||
- Handles browser compatibility issues |
|||
|
|||
- Requires HTTPS for camera access |
|||
|
|||
### Browser Support |
|||
|
|||
- Chrome: Full support |
|||
|
|||
- Firefox: Full support |
|||
|
|||
- Safari: Limited support |
|||
|
|||
- Edge: Full support |
|||
|
|||
### Fallback Mechanisms |
|||
|
|||
1. Camera access via getUserMedia |
|||
|
|||
2. File input for image upload |
|||
|
|||
3. Drag and drop support |
|||
|
|||
4. Clipboard paste support |
|||
|
|||
## Mobile Platform (Capacitor) |
|||
|
|||
### iOS Implementation |
|||
|
|||
- Uses `@capacitor-mlkit/barcode-scanning` |
|||
|
|||
- Implements proper permission handling |
|||
|
|||
- Supports both front and back cameras |
|||
|
|||
- Handles camera switching |
|||
|
|||
### Android Implementation |
|||
|
|||
- Uses `@capacitor-mlkit/barcode-scanning` |
|||
|
|||
- Implements proper permission handling |
|||
|
|||
- Supports both front and back cameras |
|||
|
|||
- Handles camera switching |
|||
|
|||
### Permission Handling |
|||
|
|||
- Camera permissions requested at runtime |
|||
|
|||
- Permission state tracked and cached |
|||
|
|||
- Graceful handling of denied permissions |
|||
|
|||
- Clear user guidance for enabling permissions |
|||
|
|||
## Desktop Platform (Electron) |
|||
|
|||
### Current Status |
|||
|
|||
- Camera implementation pending |
|||
|
|||
- Will use platform-specific APIs |
|||
|
|||
- Requires proper permission handling |
|||
|
|||
- Will support both built-in and external cameras |
|||
|
|||
### Planned Implementation |
|||
|
|||
- Native camera access via Electron |
|||
|
|||
- Platform-specific camera APIs |
|||
|
|||
- Proper permission handling |
|||
|
|||
- Camera switching support |
|||
|
|||
## Platform Detection |
|||
|
|||
### Implementation |
|||
|
|||
- Uses `PlatformServiceFactory` for platform detection |
|||
|
|||
- Implements platform-specific camera services |
|||
|
|||
- Handles platform-specific error conditions |
|||
|
|||
- Provides platform-specific user guidance |
|||
|
|||
### Service Selection |
|||
|
|||
- Web: `WebPlatformService` |
|||
|
|||
- Mobile: `CapacitorPlatformService` |
|||
|
|||
- Desktop: `ElectronPlatformService` |
|||
|
|||
## Cross-Platform Compatibility |
|||
|
|||
### Common Interface |
|||
|
|||
- Unified camera service interface |
|||
|
|||
- Platform-specific implementations |
|||
|
|||
- Consistent error handling |
|||
|
|||
- Unified user experience |
|||
|
|||
### Feature Parity |
|||
|
|||
- Core camera functionality across platforms |
|||
|
|||
- Platform-specific optimizations |
|||
|
|||
- Consistent user interface |
|||
|
|||
- Unified error messages |
|||
|
|||
## Platform-Specific Features |
|||
|
|||
### Web |
|||
|
|||
- Browser-based camera access |
|||
|
|||
- File upload fallback |
|||
|
|||
- Drag and drop support |
|||
|
|||
- Clipboard paste support |
|||
|
|||
### Mobile |
|||
|
|||
- Native camera access |
|||
|
|||
- Barcode scanning |
|||
|
|||
- Photo capture |
|||
|
|||
- Camera switching |
|||
|
|||
### Desktop |
|||
|
|||
- Native camera access (planned) |
|||
|
|||
- External camera support (planned) |
|||
|
|||
- Advanced camera controls (planned) |
|||
|
|||
## Testing Strategy |
|||
|
|||
### Platform Coverage |
|||
|
|||
- Web: Multiple browsers |
|||
|
|||
- Mobile: iOS and Android devices |
|||
|
|||
- Desktop: Windows, macOS, Linux |
|||
|
|||
### Test Scenarios |
|||
|
|||
- Permission handling |
|||
|
|||
- Camera access |
|||
|
|||
- Error conditions |
|||
|
|||
- Platform compatibility |
|||
|
|||
- Performance metrics |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
**See also**: |
|||
|
|||
- `.cursor/rules/features/camera-implementation.mdc` for |
|||
|
|||
core implementation overview |
|||
|
|||
- `.cursor/rules/features/camera_technical.mdc` for |
|||
|
|||
technical implementation details |
|||
|
|||
**Status**: Active platform-specific implementation guide |
|||
**Priority**: Medium |
|||
**Estimated Effort**: Ongoing reference |
|||
**Dependencies**: camera-implementation.mdc |
|||
**Stakeholders**: Development team, Platform team |
|||
|
|||
## Model Implementation Checklist |
|||
|
|||
### Before Camera Platform Implementation |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Platform Analysis**: Identify target platforms and their camera capabilities |
|||
- [ ] **Feature Planning**: Plan platform-specific camera features |
|||
- [ ] **Integration Planning**: Plan integration with existing camera systems |
|||
- [ ] **Testing Strategy**: Plan testing across all target platforms |
|||
|
|||
### During Camera Platform Implementation |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Platform Services**: Implement platform-specific camera functionality |
|||
- [ ] **Feature Development**: Implement planned camera features for each platform |
|||
- [ ] **Integration**: Integrate with existing camera infrastructure |
|||
- [ ] **Performance Optimization**: Optimize camera performance for each platform |
|||
|
|||
### After Camera Platform Implementation |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Cross-Platform Testing**: Test camera functionality across all platforms |
|||
- [ ] **Feature Validation**: Verify all planned features work correctly |
|||
- [ ] **Performance Testing**: Ensure camera performance meets requirements |
|||
- [ ] **Documentation Update**: Update platform-specific camera documentation |
|||
@ -0,0 +1,203 @@ |
|||
# Camera Technical Implementation — Details and Best Practices |
|||
|
|||
> **Agent role**: Reference this file for |
|||
detailed technical implementation when working with camera features. |
|||
|
|||
## Platform-Specific Considerations |
|||
|
|||
### iOS |
|||
|
|||
- Requires `NSCameraUsageDescription` in Info.plist |
|||
|
|||
- Supports both front and back cameras |
|||
|
|||
- Implements proper permission handling |
|||
|
|||
### Android |
|||
|
|||
- Requires camera permissions in manifest |
|||
|
|||
- Supports both front and back cameras |
|||
|
|||
- Handles permission requests through Capacitor |
|||
|
|||
### Web |
|||
|
|||
- Requires HTTPS for camera access |
|||
|
|||
- Implements fallback mechanisms |
|||
|
|||
- Handles browser compatibility issues |
|||
|
|||
## Error Handling |
|||
|
|||
### Common Error Scenarios |
|||
|
|||
1. No camera found |
|||
|
|||
2. Permission denied |
|||
|
|||
3. Camera in use by another application |
|||
|
|||
4. HTTPS required |
|||
|
|||
5. Browser compatibility issues |
|||
|
|||
### Error Response |
|||
|
|||
- User-friendly error messages |
|||
|
|||
- Troubleshooting tips |
|||
|
|||
- Clear instructions for resolution |
|||
|
|||
- Platform-specific guidance |
|||
|
|||
## Security Considerations |
|||
|
|||
### Permission Management |
|||
|
|||
- Explicit permission requests |
|||
|
|||
- Permission state tracking |
|||
|
|||
- Graceful handling of denied permissions |
|||
|
|||
### Data Handling |
|||
|
|||
- Secure image processing |
|||
|
|||
- Proper cleanup of camera resources |
|||
|
|||
- No persistent storage of camera data |
|||
|
|||
## Best Practices |
|||
|
|||
### Camera Access |
|||
|
|||
1. Always check for camera availability |
|||
|
|||
2. Request permissions explicitly |
|||
|
|||
3. Handle all error conditions |
|||
|
|||
4. Provide clear user feedback |
|||
|
|||
5. Implement proper cleanup |
|||
|
|||
### Performance |
|||
|
|||
1. Optimize camera resolution |
|||
|
|||
2. Implement proper resource cleanup |
|||
|
|||
3. Handle camera switching efficiently |
|||
|
|||
4. Manage memory usage |
|||
|
|||
### User Experience |
|||
|
|||
1. Clear status indicators |
|||
|
|||
2. Intuitive camera controls |
|||
|
|||
3. Helpful error messages |
|||
|
|||
4. Smooth camera switching |
|||
|
|||
5. Responsive UI feedback |
|||
|
|||
## Future Improvements |
|||
|
|||
### Planned Enhancements |
|||
|
|||
1. Implement Electron camera support |
|||
|
|||
2. Add advanced camera features |
|||
|
|||
3. Improve error handling |
|||
|
|||
4. Enhance user feedback |
|||
|
|||
5. Optimize performance |
|||
|
|||
### Known Issues |
|||
|
|||
1. Electron camera implementation pending |
|||
|
|||
2. Some browser compatibility limitations |
|||
|
|||
3. Platform-specific quirks to address |
|||
|
|||
## Dependencies |
|||
|
|||
### Key Packages |
|||
|
|||
- `@capacitor-mlkit/barcode-scanning` |
|||
|
|||
- `qrcode-stream` |
|||
|
|||
- `vue-picture-cropper` |
|||
|
|||
- Platform-specific camera APIs |
|||
|
|||
## Testing |
|||
|
|||
### Test Scenarios |
|||
|
|||
1. Permission handling |
|||
|
|||
2. Camera switching |
|||
|
|||
3. Error conditions |
|||
|
|||
4. Platform compatibility |
|||
|
|||
5. Performance metrics |
|||
|
|||
### Test Environment |
|||
|
|||
- Multiple browsers |
|||
|
|||
- iOS and Android devices |
|||
|
|||
- Desktop platforms |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
**See also**: |
|||
|
|||
- `.cursor/rules/features/camera-implementation.mdc` for |
|||
|
|||
core implementation overview |
|||
|
|||
- `.cursor/rules/features/camera_platforms.mdc` for platform-specific details |
|||
|
|||
**Status**: Active technical implementation guide |
|||
**Priority**: Medium |
|||
**Estimated Effort**: Ongoing reference |
|||
**Dependencies**: camera-implementation.mdc |
|||
**Stakeholders**: Development team, Camera feature team |
|||
|
|||
## Model Implementation Checklist |
|||
|
|||
### Before Camera Implementation |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Platform Analysis**: Identify target platforms and camera capabilities |
|||
- [ ] **Permission Planning**: Plan permission handling for camera access |
|||
- [ ] **Dependency Review**: Review required camera packages and APIs |
|||
- [ ] **Testing Strategy**: Plan testing across multiple platforms |
|||
|
|||
### During Camera Implementation |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Platform Services**: Implement platform-specific camera services |
|||
- [ ] **Permission Handling**: Implement proper camera permission handling |
|||
- [ ] **Error Handling**: Implement graceful error handling for camera failures |
|||
- [ ] **Performance Optimization**: Optimize camera performance and responsiveness |
|||
|
|||
### After Camera Implementation |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Cross-Platform Testing**: Test camera functionality across all platforms |
|||
- [ ] **Permission Testing**: Test permission handling and user feedback |
|||
- [ ] **Performance Validation**: Verify camera performance meets requirements |
|||
- [ ] **Documentation Update**: Update camera technical documentation |
|||
@ -0,0 +1,172 @@ |
|||
# Meta-Rule: Bug Diagnosis |
|||
|
|||
**Author**: Matthew Raymer |
|||
**Date**: 2025-08-21 |
|||
**Status**: 🎯 **ACTIVE** - Bug investigation workflow bundling |
|||
|
|||
## Purpose |
|||
|
|||
This meta-rule bundles all the rules needed for systematic bug investigation |
|||
and root cause analysis. Use this when bugs are reported, performance |
|||
issues occur, or unexpected behavior happens. |
|||
|
|||
## When to Use |
|||
|
|||
- **Bug Reports**: Investigating reported bugs or issues |
|||
- **Performance Issues**: Diagnosing slow performance or bottlenecks |
|||
- **Unexpected Behavior**: Understanding why code behaves unexpectedly |
|||
- **Production Issues**: Investigating issues in live environments |
|||
- **Test Failures**: Understanding why tests are failing |
|||
- **Integration Problems**: Diagnosing issues between components |
|||
|
|||
## Bundled Rules |
|||
|
|||
### **Investigation Process** |
|||
|
|||
- **`development/research_diagnostic.mdc`** - Systematic investigation |
|||
workflow with evidence collection and analysis |
|||
- **`development/investigation_report_example.mdc`** - Investigation |
|||
documentation templates and examples |
|||
- **`core/harbor_pilot_universal.mdc`** - Technical guide creation |
|||
for complex investigations |
|||
|
|||
### **Evidence Collection** |
|||
|
|||
- **`development/logging_standards.mdc`** - Logging implementation |
|||
standards for debugging and evidence collection |
|||
- **`development/time.mdc`** - Timestamp requirements and time |
|||
handling standards for evidence |
|||
- **`development/time_examples.mdc`** - Practical examples of |
|||
proper time handling in investigations |
|||
|
|||
### **Technical Context** |
|||
|
|||
- **`app/timesafari.mdc`** - Core application context and |
|||
architecture for understanding the system |
|||
- **`app/timesafari_platforms.mdc`** - Platform-specific |
|||
considerations and constraints |
|||
|
|||
## Workflow Sequence |
|||
|
|||
### **Phase 1: Initial Investigation (Start Here)** |
|||
|
|||
1. **Research Diagnostic** - Use `research_diagnostic.mdc` for |
|||
systematic investigation approach |
|||
2. **Evidence Collection** - Apply `logging_standards.mdc` and |
|||
`time.mdc` for proper evidence gathering |
|||
3. **Context Understanding** - Review `timesafari.mdc` for |
|||
application context |
|||
|
|||
### **Phase 2: Deep Investigation** |
|||
|
|||
1. **Platform Analysis** - Check `timesafari_platforms.mdc` for |
|||
platform-specific issues |
|||
2. **Technical Guide Creation** - Use `harbor_pilot_universal.mdc` |
|||
for complex investigation documentation |
|||
3. **Evidence Analysis** - Apply `time_examples.mdc` for proper |
|||
timestamp handling |
|||
|
|||
### **Phase 3: Documentation & Reporting** |
|||
|
|||
1. **Investigation Report** - Use `investigation_report_example.mdc` |
|||
for comprehensive documentation |
|||
2. **Root Cause Analysis** - Synthesize findings into actionable |
|||
insights |
|||
|
|||
## Success Criteria |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Root cause identified** with supporting evidence |
|||
- [ ] **Evidence properly collected** with timestamps and context |
|||
- [ ] **Investigation documented** using appropriate templates |
|||
- [ ] **Platform factors considered** in diagnosis |
|||
- [ ] **Reproduction steps documented** for verification |
|||
- [ ] **Impact assessment completed** with scope defined |
|||
- [ ] **Next steps identified** for resolution |
|||
|
|||
## Common Pitfalls |
|||
|
|||
- **Don't skip evidence collection** - leads to speculation |
|||
- **Don't ignore platform differences** - misses platform-specific issues |
|||
- **Don't skip documentation** - loses investigation insights |
|||
- **Don't assume root cause** - verify with evidence |
|||
- **Don't ignore time context** - misses temporal factors |
|||
- **Don't skip reproduction steps** - makes verification impossible |
|||
|
|||
## Integration Points |
|||
|
|||
### **With Other Meta-Rules** |
|||
|
|||
- **Feature Planning**: Use complexity assessment for investigation planning |
|||
- **Bug Fixing**: Investigation results feed directly into fix implementation |
|||
- **Feature Implementation**: Investigation insights inform future development |
|||
|
|||
### **With Development Workflow** |
|||
|
|||
- Investigation findings inform testing strategy |
|||
- Root cause analysis drives preventive measures |
|||
- Evidence collection improves logging standards |
|||
|
|||
## Feedback & Improvement |
|||
|
|||
### **Sub-Rule Ratings (1-5 scale)** |
|||
|
|||
- **Research Diagnostic**: ___/5 - Comments: _______________ |
|||
- **Investigation Report**: ___/5 - Comments: _______________ |
|||
- **Technical Guide Creation**: ___/5 - Comments: _______________ |
|||
- **Logging Standards**: ___/5 - Comments: _______________ |
|||
- **Time Standards**: ___/5 - Comments: _______________ |
|||
|
|||
### **Workflow Feedback** |
|||
|
|||
- **Investigation Effectiveness**: How well did the process help find root cause? |
|||
- **Missing Steps**: What investigation steps should be added? |
|||
- **Process Gaps**: Where did the workflow break down? |
|||
|
|||
### **Sub-Rule Improvements** |
|||
|
|||
- **Clarity Issues**: Which rules were unclear or confusing? |
|||
- **Missing Examples**: What examples would make rules more useful? |
|||
- **Template Improvements**: How could investigation templates be better? |
|||
|
|||
### **Overall Experience** |
|||
|
|||
- **Time Saved**: How much time did this meta-rule save you? |
|||
- **Quality Improvement**: Did following these rules improve your investigation? |
|||
- **Recommendation**: Would you recommend this meta-rule to others? |
|||
|
|||
## Model Implementation Checklist |
|||
|
|||
### Before Bug Investigation |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Problem Definition**: Clearly define what needs to be investigated |
|||
- [ ] **Scope Definition**: Determine investigation scope and boundaries |
|||
- [ ] **Evidence Planning**: Plan evidence collection strategy |
|||
- [ ] **Stakeholder Identification**: Identify who needs to be involved |
|||
|
|||
### During Bug Investigation |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Rule Application**: Apply bundled rules in recommended sequence |
|||
- [ ] **Evidence Collection**: Collect evidence systematically with timestamps |
|||
- [ ] **Documentation**: Document investigation process and findings |
|||
- [ ] **Validation**: Verify findings with reproduction steps |
|||
|
|||
### After Bug Investigation |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Report Creation**: Create comprehensive investigation report |
|||
- [ ] **Root Cause Analysis**: Document root cause with evidence |
|||
- [ ] **Feedback Collection**: Collect feedback on meta-rule effectiveness |
|||
- [ ] **Process Improvement**: Identify improvements for future investigations |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
**See also**: |
|||
|
|||
- `.cursor/rules/meta_feature_planning.mdc` for planning investigation work |
|||
- `.cursor/rules/meta_bug_fixing.mdc` for implementing fixes |
|||
- `.cursor/rules/meta_feature_implementation.mdc` for preventive measures |
|||
|
|||
**Status**: Active meta-rule for bug diagnosis |
|||
**Priority**: High |
|||
**Estimated Effort**: Ongoing reference |
|||
**Dependencies**: All bundled sub-rules |
|||
**Stakeholders**: Development team, QA team, DevOps team |
|||
@ -0,0 +1,175 @@ |
|||
# Meta-Rule: Bug Fixing |
|||
|
|||
**Author**: Matthew Raymer |
|||
**Date**: 2025-08-21 |
|||
**Status**: 🎯 **ACTIVE** - Bug fix implementation workflow bundling |
|||
|
|||
## Purpose |
|||
|
|||
This meta-rule bundles all the rules needed for implementing bug fixes |
|||
with proper testing and validation. Use this after diagnosis when |
|||
implementing the actual fix. |
|||
|
|||
## When to Use |
|||
|
|||
- **Post-Diagnosis**: After root cause is identified and fix is planned |
|||
- **Fix Implementation**: When coding the actual bug fix |
|||
- **Testing & Validation**: When testing the fix works correctly |
|||
- **Code Review**: When reviewing the fix implementation |
|||
- **Deployment**: When preparing the fix for deployment |
|||
- **Documentation**: When documenting the fix and lessons learned |
|||
|
|||
## Bundled Rules |
|||
|
|||
### **Implementation Standards** |
|||
|
|||
- **`development/software_development.mdc`** - Core development |
|||
principles, evidence requirements, and testing strategy |
|||
- **`development/type_safety_guide.mdc`** - Type-safe implementation |
|||
with proper error handling and type guards |
|||
- **`development/logging_migration.mdc`** - Proper logging |
|||
implementation and migration from console.* calls |
|||
|
|||
### **Code Quality & Review** |
|||
|
|||
- **`development/historical_comment_management.mdc`** - Code quality |
|||
standards and comment transformation rules |
|||
- **`development/historical_comment_patterns.mdc`** - Specific |
|||
patterns for transforming historical comments |
|||
- **`development/complexity_assessment.mdc`** - Complexity evaluation |
|||
for fix implementation |
|||
|
|||
### **Platform & Testing** |
|||
|
|||
- **`app/timesafari_development.mdc`** - TimeSafari-specific |
|||
development workflow and testing requirements |
|||
- **`app/timesafari_platforms.mdc`** - Platform-specific testing |
|||
and validation requirements |
|||
- **`architecture/build_validation.mdc`** - Build system validation |
|||
and testing procedures |
|||
|
|||
## Workflow Sequence |
|||
|
|||
### **Phase 1: Fix Implementation (Start Here)** |
|||
|
|||
1. **Development Standards** - Apply `software_development.mdc` for |
|||
core implementation principles |
|||
2. **Type Safety** - Use `type_safety_guide.mdc` for type-safe |
|||
implementation |
|||
3. **Logging Implementation** - Apply `logging_migration.mdc` for |
|||
proper logging |
|||
|
|||
### **Phase 2: Quality & Review** |
|||
|
|||
1. **Code Quality** - Use `historical_comment_management.mdc` for |
|||
code quality standards |
|||
2. **Complexity Assessment** - Apply `complexity_assessment.mdc` to |
|||
evaluate fix complexity |
|||
3. **Code Review** - Follow review standards from bundled rules |
|||
|
|||
### **Phase 3: Testing & Validation** |
|||
|
|||
1. **Platform Testing** - Use `timesafari_platforms.mdc` for |
|||
platform-specific testing |
|||
2. **Build Validation** - Apply `build_validation.mdc` for build |
|||
system compliance |
|||
3. **Final Validation** - Verify fix works across all platforms |
|||
|
|||
## Success Criteria |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Fix implemented** following development standards |
|||
- [ ] **Type safety maintained** with proper error handling |
|||
- [ ] **Logging properly implemented** with component context |
|||
- [ ] **Code quality standards met** with clean, maintainable code |
|||
- [ ] **Testing completed** across all target platforms |
|||
- [ ] **Build validation passed** with no build system issues |
|||
- [ ] **Code review completed** with all feedback addressed |
|||
- [ ] **Documentation updated** with fix details and lessons learned |
|||
|
|||
## Common Pitfalls |
|||
|
|||
- **Don't skip type safety** - leads to runtime errors |
|||
- **Don't ignore logging** - makes future debugging harder |
|||
- **Don't skip platform testing** - misses platform-specific issues |
|||
- **Don't ignore code quality** - creates technical debt |
|||
- **Don't skip build validation** - can break build system |
|||
- **Don't forget documentation** - loses fix context for future |
|||
|
|||
## Integration Points |
|||
|
|||
### **With Other Meta-Rules** |
|||
|
|||
- **Bug Diagnosis**: Investigation results drive fix implementation |
|||
- **Feature Implementation**: Fix patterns inform future development |
|||
- **Feature Planning**: Fix complexity informs future planning |
|||
|
|||
### **With Development Workflow** |
|||
|
|||
- Fix implementation follows development standards |
|||
- Testing strategy ensures fix quality |
|||
- Code review maintains code quality |
|||
|
|||
## Feedback & Improvement |
|||
|
|||
### **Sub-Rule Ratings (1-5 scale)** |
|||
|
|||
- **Development Standards**: ___/5 - Comments: _______________ |
|||
- **Type Safety**: ___/5 - Comments: _______________ |
|||
- **Logging Migration**: ___/5 - Comments: _______________ |
|||
- **Code Quality**: ___/5 - Comments: _______________ |
|||
- **Platform Testing**: ___/5 - Comments: _______________ |
|||
|
|||
### **Workflow Feedback** |
|||
|
|||
- **Implementation Clarity**: How clear was the implementation guidance? |
|||
- **Testing Coverage**: Were testing requirements sufficient or excessive? |
|||
- **Process Effectiveness**: How well did the workflow work for you? |
|||
|
|||
### **Sub-Rule Improvements** |
|||
|
|||
- **Clarity Issues**: Which rules were unclear or confusing? |
|||
- **Missing Examples**: What examples would make rules more useful? |
|||
- **Integration Problems**: Do any rules conflict or overlap? |
|||
|
|||
### **Overall Experience** |
|||
|
|||
- **Time Saved**: How much time did this meta-rule save you? |
|||
- **Quality Improvement**: Did following these rules improve your fix? |
|||
- **Recommendation**: Would you recommend this meta-rule to others? |
|||
|
|||
## Model Implementation Checklist |
|||
|
|||
### Before Bug Fixing |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Root Cause Understood**: Confirm root cause is clearly identified |
|||
- [ ] **Fix Strategy Planned**: Plan implementation approach and testing |
|||
- [ ] **Platform Impact Assessed**: Understand impact across all platforms |
|||
- [ ] **Testing Strategy Planned**: Plan testing approach for the fix |
|||
|
|||
### During Bug Fixing |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Rule Application**: Apply bundled rules in recommended sequence |
|||
- [ ] **Implementation**: Implement fix following development standards |
|||
- [ ] **Testing**: Test fix across all target platforms |
|||
- [ ] **Documentation**: Document implementation details and decisions |
|||
|
|||
### After Bug Fixing |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Validation**: Verify fix meets all success criteria |
|||
- [ ] **Code Review**: Complete code review with team |
|||
- [ ] **Deployment**: Deploy fix following deployment procedures |
|||
- [ ] **Feedback Collection**: Collect feedback on meta-rule effectiveness |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
**See also**: |
|||
|
|||
- `.cursor/rules/meta_bug_diagnosis.mdc` for investigation workflow |
|||
- `.cursor/rules/meta_feature_implementation.mdc` for implementation patterns |
|||
- `.cursor/rules/meta_feature_planning.mdc` for planning future work |
|||
|
|||
**Status**: Active meta-rule for bug fixing |
|||
**Priority**: High |
|||
**Estimated Effort**: Ongoing reference |
|||
**Dependencies**: All bundled sub-rules |
|||
**Stakeholders**: Development team, QA team, DevOps team |
|||
@ -0,0 +1,196 @@ |
|||
--- |
|||
alwaysApply: true |
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
# Meta-Rule: Core Always-On Rules |
|||
|
|||
**Author**: Matthew Raymer |
|||
**Date**: 2025-08-21 |
|||
**Status**: 🎯 **ACTIVE** - Core rules for every prompt |
|||
|
|||
## Purpose |
|||
|
|||
This meta-rule bundles the core rules that should be applied to **every single |
|||
prompt** because they define fundamental behaviors, principles, and context |
|||
that are essential for all AI interactions. |
|||
|
|||
## When to Use |
|||
|
|||
**ALWAYS** - These rules apply to every single prompt, regardless of the task |
|||
or context. They form the foundation for all AI assistant behavior. |
|||
|
|||
## Bundled Rules |
|||
|
|||
### **Core Human Competence Principles** |
|||
|
|||
- **`core/base_context.mdc`** - Human competence first principles, interaction |
|||
guidelines, and output contract requirements |
|||
- **`core/less_complex.mdc`** - Minimalist solution principle and complexity |
|||
guidelines |
|||
|
|||
### **Time & Context Standards** |
|||
|
|||
- **`development/time.mdc`** - Time handling principles and UTC standards |
|||
- **`development/time_examples.mdc`** - Practical time implementation examples |
|||
- **`development/time_implementation.mdc`** - Detailed time implementation |
|||
guidelines |
|||
|
|||
### **Version Control & Process** |
|||
|
|||
- **`workflow/version_control.mdc`** - Version control principles and commit |
|||
guidelines |
|||
- **`workflow/commit_messages.mdc`** - Commit message format and conventions |
|||
|
|||
### **Application Context** |
|||
|
|||
- **`app/timesafari.mdc`** - Core TimeSafari application context and |
|||
development principles |
|||
- **`app/timesafari_development.mdc`** - TimeSafari-specific development |
|||
workflow and quality standards |
|||
|
|||
## Why These Rules Are Always-On |
|||
|
|||
### **Base Context** |
|||
|
|||
- **Human Competence First**: Every interaction must increase human competence |
|||
- **Output Contract**: All responses must follow the required structure |
|||
- **Competence Hooks**: Learning and collaboration must be built into every response |
|||
|
|||
### **Time Standards** |
|||
|
|||
- **UTC Consistency**: All timestamps must use UTC for system operations |
|||
- **Evidence Collection**: Time context is essential for debugging and investigation |
|||
- **Cross-Platform**: Time handling affects all platforms and features |
|||
|
|||
### **Version Control** |
|||
|
|||
- **Commit Standards**: Every code change must follow commit message conventions |
|||
- **Process Consistency**: Version control affects all development work |
|||
- **Team Collaboration**: Commit standards enable effective team communication |
|||
|
|||
### **Application Context** |
|||
|
|||
- **Platform Awareness**: Every task must consider web/mobile/desktop platforms |
|||
- **Architecture Principles**: All work must follow TimeSafari patterns |
|||
- **Development Standards**: Quality and testing requirements apply to all work |
|||
|
|||
## Application Priority |
|||
|
|||
### **Primary (Apply First)** |
|||
|
|||
1. **Base Context** - Human competence and output contract |
|||
2. **Time Standards** - UTC and timestamp requirements |
|||
3. **Application Context** - TimeSafari principles and platforms |
|||
|
|||
### **Secondary (Apply as Needed)** |
|||
|
|||
1. **Version Control** - When making code changes |
|||
2. **Complexity Guidelines** - When evaluating solution approaches |
|||
|
|||
## Integration with Other Meta-Rules |
|||
|
|||
### **Feature Planning** |
|||
|
|||
- Base context ensures human competence focus |
|||
- Time standards inform planning and estimation |
|||
- Application context drives platform considerations |
|||
|
|||
### **Bug Diagnosis** |
|||
|
|||
- Base context ensures systematic investigation |
|||
- Time standards enable proper evidence collection |
|||
- Application context provides system understanding |
|||
|
|||
### **Bug Fixing** |
|||
|
|||
- Base context ensures quality implementation |
|||
- Time standards maintain logging consistency |
|||
- Application context guides testing strategy |
|||
|
|||
### **Feature Implementation** |
|||
|
|||
- Base context ensures proper development approach |
|||
- Time standards maintain system consistency |
|||
- Application context drives architecture decisions |
|||
|
|||
## Success Criteria |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Base context applied** to every single prompt |
|||
- [ ] **Time standards followed** for all timestamps and logging |
|||
- [ ] **Version control standards** applied to all code changes |
|||
- [ ] **Application context considered** for all platform work |
|||
- [ ] **Human competence focus** maintained in all interactions |
|||
- [ ] **Output contract structure** followed in all responses |
|||
|
|||
## Common Pitfalls |
|||
|
|||
- **Don't skip base context** - loses human competence focus |
|||
- **Don't ignore time standards** - creates inconsistent timestamps |
|||
- **Don't forget application context** - misses platform considerations |
|||
- **Don't skip version control** - creates inconsistent commit history |
|||
- **Don't lose competence focus** - reduces learning value |
|||
|
|||
## Feedback & Improvement |
|||
|
|||
### **Rule Effectiveness Ratings (1-5 scale)** |
|||
|
|||
- **Base Context**: ___/5 - Comments: _______________ |
|||
- **Time Standards**: ___/5 - Comments: _______________ |
|||
- **Version Control**: ___/5 - Comments: _______________ |
|||
- **Application Context**: ___/5 - Comments: _______________ |
|||
|
|||
### **Always-On Effectiveness** |
|||
|
|||
- **Consistency**: Are these rules applied consistently across all prompts? |
|||
- **Value**: Do these rules add value to every interaction? |
|||
- **Overhead**: Are these rules too burdensome for simple tasks? |
|||
|
|||
### **Integration Feedback** |
|||
|
|||
- **With Other Meta-Rules**: How well do these integrate with workflow rules? |
|||
- **Context Switching**: Do these rules help or hinder context switching? |
|||
- **Learning Curve**: Are these rules easy for new users to understand? |
|||
|
|||
### **Overall Experience** |
|||
|
|||
- **Quality Improvement**: Do these rules improve response quality? |
|||
- **Efficiency**: Do these rules make interactions more efficient? |
|||
- **Recommendation**: Would you recommend keeping these always-on? |
|||
|
|||
## Model Implementation Checklist |
|||
|
|||
### Before Every Prompt |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Base Context**: Ensure human competence principles are active |
|||
- [ ] **Time Standards**: Verify UTC and timestamp requirements are clear |
|||
- [ ] **Application Context**: Confirm TimeSafari context is loaded |
|||
- [ ] **Version Control**: Prepare commit standards if code changes are needed |
|||
|
|||
### During Response Creation |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Output Contract**: Follow required response structure |
|||
- [ ] **Competence Hooks**: Include learning and collaboration elements |
|||
- [ ] **Time Consistency**: Apply UTC standards for all time references |
|||
- [ ] **Platform Awareness**: Consider all target platforms |
|||
|
|||
### After Response Creation |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Validation**: Verify all always-on rules were applied |
|||
- [ ] **Quality Check**: Ensure response meets competence standards |
|||
- [ ] **Context Review**: Confirm application context was properly considered |
|||
- [ ] **Feedback Collection**: Note any issues with always-on application |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
**See also**: |
|||
|
|||
- `.cursor/rules/meta_feature_planning.mdc` for workflow-specific rules |
|||
- `.cursor/rules/meta_bug_diagnosis.mdc` for investigation workflows |
|||
- `.cursor/rules/meta_bug_fixing.mdc` for fix implementation |
|||
- `.cursor/rules/meta_feature_implementation.mdc` for feature development |
|||
|
|||
**Status**: Active core always-on meta-rule |
|||
**Priority**: Critical (applies to every prompt) |
|||
**Estimated Effort**: Ongoing reference |
|||
**Dependencies**: All bundled sub-rules |
|||
**Stakeholders**: All AI interactions, Development team |
|||
@ -0,0 +1,237 @@ |
|||
# Meta-Rule: Documentation Writing & Education |
|||
|
|||
**Author**: Matthew Raymer |
|||
**Date**: 2025-08-21 |
|||
**Status**: 🎯 **ACTIVE** - Documentation writing and education workflow |
|||
|
|||
## Purpose |
|||
|
|||
This meta-rule bundles documentation-related rules to create comprehensive, |
|||
educational documentation that increases human competence rather than just |
|||
providing technical descriptions. |
|||
|
|||
## When to Use |
|||
|
|||
**Use this meta-rule when**: |
|||
- Writing new documentation |
|||
- Updating existing documentation |
|||
- Creating technical guides |
|||
- Writing migration documentation |
|||
- Creating architectural documentation |
|||
- Writing user guides or tutorials |
|||
|
|||
## Bundled Rules |
|||
|
|||
### **Core Documentation Standards** |
|||
|
|||
- **`docs/markdown_core.mdc`** - Core markdown formatting and automation |
|||
- **`docs/markdown_templates.mdc`** - Document templates and structure |
|||
- **`docs/markdown_workflow.mdc`** - Documentation validation workflows |
|||
|
|||
### **Documentation Principles** |
|||
|
|||
- **`core/base_context.mdc`** - Human competence first principles |
|||
- **`core/less_complex.mdc`** - Minimalist solution guidelines |
|||
- **`development/software_development.mdc`** - Development documentation standards |
|||
|
|||
### **Context-Specific Rules** |
|||
|
|||
- **`app/timesafari.mdc`** - TimeSafari application context |
|||
- **`app/timesafari_development.mdc`** - Development documentation patterns |
|||
- **`architecture/architectural_patterns.mdc`** - Architecture documentation |
|||
|
|||
## Core Documentation Philosophy |
|||
|
|||
### **Education Over Technical Description** |
|||
|
|||
**Primary Goal**: Increase human competence and understanding |
|||
**Secondary Goal**: Provide accurate technical information |
|||
**Approach**: Explain the "why" before the "how" |
|||
|
|||
### **Human Competence Principles** |
|||
|
|||
1. **Context First**: Explain the problem before the solution |
|||
2. **Learning Path**: Structure content for progressive understanding |
|||
3. **Real Examples**: Use concrete, relatable examples |
|||
4. **Common Pitfalls**: Warn about typical mistakes and misconceptions |
|||
5. **Decision Context**: Explain why certain choices were made |
|||
|
|||
### **Documentation Hierarchy** |
|||
|
|||
1. **Conceptual Understanding** - What is this and why does it matter? |
|||
2. **Context and Motivation** - When and why would you use this? |
|||
3. **Technical Implementation** - How do you implement it? |
|||
4. **Examples and Patterns** - What does it look like in practice? |
|||
5. **Troubleshooting** - What can go wrong and how to fix it? |
|||
|
|||
## Implementation Guidelines |
|||
|
|||
### **Document Structure** |
|||
|
|||
**Mandatory Sections**: |
|||
- **Overview**: Clear purpose and scope with educational context |
|||
- **Why This Matters**: Business value and user benefit explanation |
|||
- **Core Concepts**: Fundamental understanding before implementation |
|||
- **Implementation**: Step-by-step technical guidance |
|||
- **Examples**: Real-world usage patterns |
|||
- **Common Issues**: Troubleshooting and prevention |
|||
- **Next Steps**: Where to go from here |
|||
|
|||
**Optional Sections**: |
|||
- **Background**: Historical context and evolution |
|||
- **Alternatives**: Other approaches and trade-offs |
|||
- **Advanced Topics**: Deep dive into complex scenarios |
|||
- **References**: Additional learning resources |
|||
|
|||
### **Writing Style** |
|||
|
|||
**Educational Approach**: |
|||
- **Conversational tone**: Write as if explaining to a colleague |
|||
- **Progressive disclosure**: Start simple, add complexity gradually |
|||
- **Active voice**: "You can do this" not "This can be done" |
|||
- **Question format**: "What happens when..." to engage thinking |
|||
- **Analogies**: Use familiar concepts to explain complex ideas |
|||
|
|||
**Technical Accuracy**: |
|||
- **Precise language**: Use exact technical terms consistently |
|||
- **Code examples**: Working, tested code snippets |
|||
- **Version information**: Specify applicable versions and platforms |
|||
- **Limitations**: Clearly state what the solution doesn't do |
|||
|
|||
### **Content Quality Standards** |
|||
|
|||
**Educational Value**: |
|||
- [ ] **Concept clarity**: Reader understands the fundamental idea |
|||
- [ ] **Context relevance**: Reader knows when to apply the knowledge |
|||
- [ ] **Practical application**: Reader can implement the solution |
|||
- [ ] **Problem prevention**: Reader avoids common mistakes |
|||
- [ ] **Next steps**: Reader knows where to continue learning |
|||
|
|||
**Technical Accuracy**: |
|||
- [ ] **Fact verification**: All technical details are correct |
|||
- [ ] **Code validation**: Examples compile and run correctly |
|||
- [ ] **Version compatibility**: Platform and version requirements clear |
|||
- [ ] **Security consideration**: Security implications addressed |
|||
- [ ] **Performance notes**: Performance characteristics documented |
|||
|
|||
## Document Types and Templates |
|||
|
|||
### **Technical Guides** |
|||
|
|||
**Focus**: Implementation and technical details |
|||
**Structure**: Problem → Solution → Implementation → Examples |
|||
**Education**: Explain the "why" behind technical choices |
|||
|
|||
### **Migration Documentation** |
|||
|
|||
**Focus**: Process and workflow guidance |
|||
**Structure**: Context → Preparation → Steps → Validation → Troubleshooting |
|||
**Education**: Help users understand migration benefits and risks |
|||
|
|||
### **Architecture Documentation** |
|||
|
|||
**Focus**: System design and decision rationale |
|||
**Structure**: Problem → Constraints → Alternatives → Decision → Implementation |
|||
**Education**: Explain design trade-offs and decision factors |
|||
|
|||
### **User Guides** |
|||
|
|||
**Focus**: Task completion and user empowerment |
|||
**Structure**: Goal → Prerequisites → Steps → Verification → Next Steps |
|||
**Education**: Help users understand the system's capabilities |
|||
|
|||
## Quality Assurance |
|||
|
|||
### **Review Checklist** |
|||
|
|||
**Educational Quality**: |
|||
- [ ] **Clear learning objective**: What will the reader learn? |
|||
- [ ] **Appropriate complexity**: Matches target audience knowledge |
|||
- [ ] **Progressive disclosure**: Information builds logically |
|||
- [ ] **Practical examples**: Real-world scenarios and use cases |
|||
- [ ] **Common questions**: Anticipates and answers reader questions |
|||
|
|||
**Technical Quality**: |
|||
- [ ] **Accuracy**: All technical details verified |
|||
- [ ] **Completeness**: Covers all necessary information |
|||
- [ ] **Consistency**: Terminology and formatting consistent |
|||
- [ ] **Currency**: Information is up-to-date |
|||
- [ ] **Accessibility**: Clear for target audience |
|||
|
|||
### **Validation Workflows** |
|||
|
|||
1. **Content Review**: Subject matter expert review |
|||
2. **Educational Review**: Learning effectiveness assessment |
|||
3. **Technical Review**: Accuracy and completeness validation |
|||
4. **User Testing**: Real user comprehension testing |
|||
5. **Continuous Improvement**: Regular updates based on feedback |
|||
|
|||
## Success Metrics |
|||
|
|||
### **Educational Effectiveness** |
|||
|
|||
- **Comprehension**: Users understand the concepts |
|||
- **Application**: Users can implement the solutions |
|||
- **Confidence**: Users feel capable and empowered |
|||
- **Efficiency**: Users complete tasks faster |
|||
- **Satisfaction**: Users find documentation helpful |
|||
|
|||
### **Technical Quality** |
|||
|
|||
- **Accuracy**: Zero technical errors |
|||
- **Completeness**: All necessary information included |
|||
- **Consistency**: Uniform style and format |
|||
- **Maintainability**: Easy to update and extend |
|||
- **Accessibility**: Clear for target audience |
|||
|
|||
## Common Pitfalls |
|||
|
|||
### **Educational Mistakes** |
|||
|
|||
- **Assumption overload**: Assuming too much prior knowledge |
|||
- **Information dump**: Overwhelming with details |
|||
- **Context missing**: Not explaining why something matters |
|||
- **Example poverty**: Insufficient practical examples |
|||
- **Feedback missing**: No way to verify understanding |
|||
|
|||
### **Technical Mistakes** |
|||
|
|||
- **Outdated information**: Not keeping content current |
|||
- **Incomplete coverage**: Missing important details |
|||
- **Inconsistent terminology**: Using different terms for same concepts |
|||
- **Poor examples**: Non-working or confusing code |
|||
- **Missing validation**: No way to verify correctness |
|||
|
|||
## Feedback and Improvement |
|||
|
|||
### **Continuous Learning** |
|||
|
|||
- **User feedback**: Collect and analyze user comments |
|||
- **Usage metrics**: Track document usage and effectiveness |
|||
- **Review cycles**: Regular content review and updates |
|||
- **Community input**: Engage users in documentation improvement |
|||
- **Best practices**: Stay current with documentation standards |
|||
|
|||
### **Quality Metrics** |
|||
|
|||
- **Readability scores**: Measure content clarity |
|||
- **User satisfaction**: Survey-based quality assessment |
|||
- **Task completion**: Success rate of documented procedures |
|||
- **Support reduction**: Decrease in help requests |
|||
- **Knowledge retention**: Long-term user understanding |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
**See also**: |
|||
|
|||
- `.cursor/rules/docs/markdown_core.mdc` for core formatting standards |
|||
- `.cursor/rules/docs/markdown_templates.mdc` for document templates |
|||
- `.cursor/rules/docs/markdown_workflow.mdc` for validation workflows |
|||
- `.cursor/rules/docs/meta_rule_usage_guide.md` for how to use meta-rules |
|||
- `.cursor/rules/core/base_context.mdc` for human competence principles |
|||
|
|||
**Status**: Active documentation meta-rule |
|||
**Priority**: High |
|||
**Estimated Effort**: Ongoing reference |
|||
**Dependencies**: All bundled sub-rules |
|||
**Stakeholders**: Documentation team, Development team, Users |
|||
@ -0,0 +1,187 @@ |
|||
# Meta-Rule: Feature Implementation |
|||
|
|||
**Author**: Matthew Raymer |
|||
**Date**: 2025-08-21 |
|||
**Status**: 🎯 **ACTIVE** - Feature implementation workflow bundling |
|||
|
|||
## Purpose |
|||
|
|||
This meta-rule bundles all the rules needed for building features with |
|||
proper architecture and cross-platform support. Use this when implementing |
|||
planned features or refactoring existing code. |
|||
|
|||
## When to Use |
|||
|
|||
- **Feature Development**: Building new features from planning |
|||
- **Code Refactoring**: Restructuring existing code for better architecture |
|||
- **Platform Expansion**: Adding features to new platforms |
|||
- **Service Implementation**: Building new services or components |
|||
- **Integration Work**: Connecting features with existing systems |
|||
- **Performance Optimization**: Improving feature performance |
|||
|
|||
## Bundled Rules |
|||
|
|||
### **Development Foundation** |
|||
|
|||
- **`app/timesafari_development.mdc`** - TimeSafari-specific |
|||
development workflow and quality standards |
|||
- **`development/software_development.mdc`** - Core development |
|||
principles and evidence requirements |
|||
- **`development/type_safety_guide.mdc`** - Type-safe implementation |
|||
with proper error handling |
|||
|
|||
### **Architecture & Patterns** |
|||
|
|||
- **`app/architectural_patterns.mdc`** - Design patterns and |
|||
architectural examples for features |
|||
- **`app/architectural_examples.mdc`** - Implementation examples |
|||
and testing strategies |
|||
- **`app/architectural_implementation.mdc`** - Implementation |
|||
guidelines and best practices |
|||
|
|||
### **Platform & Services** |
|||
|
|||
- **`app/timesafari_platforms.mdc`** - Platform abstraction |
|||
patterns and platform-specific requirements |
|||
- **`development/asset_configuration.mdc`** - Asset management |
|||
and build integration |
|||
- **`development/logging_standards.mdc`** - Proper logging |
|||
implementation standards |
|||
|
|||
### **Quality & Validation** |
|||
|
|||
- **`architecture/build_validation.mdc`** - Build system |
|||
validation and testing procedures |
|||
- **`architecture/build_testing.mdc`** - Testing requirements |
|||
and feedback collection |
|||
- **`development/complexity_assessment.mdc`** - Complexity |
|||
evaluation for implementation |
|||
|
|||
## Workflow Sequence |
|||
|
|||
### **Phase 1: Implementation Foundation (Start Here)** |
|||
|
|||
1. **Development Workflow** - Use `timesafari_development.mdc` for |
|||
development standards and workflow |
|||
2. **Type Safety** - Apply `type_safety_guide.mdc` for type-safe |
|||
implementation |
|||
3. **Architecture Patterns** - Use `architectural_patterns.mdc` for |
|||
design patterns |
|||
|
|||
### **Phase 2: Feature Development** |
|||
|
|||
1. **Platform Services** - Apply `timesafari_platforms.mdc` for |
|||
platform abstraction |
|||
2. **Implementation Examples** - Use `architectural_examples.mdc` |
|||
for implementation guidance |
|||
3. **Asset Configuration** - Apply `asset_configuration.mdc` for |
|||
asset management |
|||
|
|||
### **Phase 3: Quality & Testing** |
|||
|
|||
1. **Logging Implementation** - Use `logging_standards.mdc` for |
|||
proper logging |
|||
2. **Build Validation** - Apply `build_validation.mdc` for build |
|||
system compliance |
|||
3. **Testing & Feedback** - Use `build_testing.mdc` for testing |
|||
requirements |
|||
|
|||
## Success Criteria |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Feature implemented** following development standards |
|||
- [ ] **Type safety maintained** with proper error handling |
|||
- [ ] **Architecture patterns applied** consistently |
|||
- [ ] **Platform abstraction implemented** correctly |
|||
- [ ] **Logging properly implemented** with component context |
|||
- [ ] **Assets configured** and integrated with build system |
|||
- [ ] **Build validation passed** with no build system issues |
|||
- [ ] **Testing completed** across all target platforms |
|||
- [ ] **Code review completed** with all feedback addressed |
|||
|
|||
## Common Pitfalls |
|||
|
|||
- **Don't skip architecture patterns** - leads to inconsistent design |
|||
- **Don't ignore platform abstraction** - creates platform-specific code |
|||
- **Don't skip type safety** - leads to runtime errors |
|||
- **Don't ignore logging** - makes future debugging harder |
|||
- **Don't skip build validation** - can break build system |
|||
- **Don't forget asset configuration** - leads to missing assets |
|||
|
|||
## Integration Points |
|||
|
|||
### **With Other Meta-Rules** |
|||
|
|||
- **Feature Planning**: Planning outputs drive implementation approach |
|||
- **Bug Fixing**: Implementation patterns inform fix strategies |
|||
- **Bug Diagnosis**: Implementation insights help with investigation |
|||
|
|||
### **With Development Workflow** |
|||
|
|||
- Implementation follows development standards |
|||
- Architecture decisions drive implementation approach |
|||
- Platform requirements inform testing strategy |
|||
|
|||
## Feedback & Improvement |
|||
|
|||
### **Sub-Rule Ratings (1-5 scale)** |
|||
|
|||
- **Development Workflow**: ___/5 - Comments: _______________ |
|||
- **Type Safety**: ___/5 - Comments: _______________ |
|||
- **Architecture Patterns**: ___/5 - Comments: _______________ |
|||
- **Platform Services**: ___/5 - Comments: _______________ |
|||
- **Build Validation**: ___/5 - Comments: _______________ |
|||
|
|||
### **Workflow Feedback** |
|||
|
|||
- **Implementation Clarity**: How clear was the implementation guidance? |
|||
- **Pattern Effectiveness**: How well did architecture patterns work? |
|||
- **Platform Coverage**: How well did platform guidance cover your needs? |
|||
|
|||
### **Sub-Rule Improvements** |
|||
|
|||
- **Clarity Issues**: Which rules were unclear or confusing? |
|||
- **Missing Examples**: What examples would make rules more useful? |
|||
- **Integration Problems**: Do any rules conflict or overlap? |
|||
|
|||
### **Overall Experience** |
|||
|
|||
- **Time Saved**: How much time did this meta-rule save you? |
|||
- **Quality Improvement**: Did following these rules improve your implementation? |
|||
- **Recommendation**: Would you recommend this meta-rule to others? |
|||
|
|||
## Model Implementation Checklist |
|||
|
|||
### Before Feature Implementation |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Planning Review**: Review feature planning and requirements |
|||
- [ ] **Architecture Planning**: Plan architecture and design patterns |
|||
- [ ] **Platform Analysis**: Understand platform-specific requirements |
|||
- [ ] **Testing Strategy**: Plan testing approach for the feature |
|||
|
|||
### During Feature Implementation |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Rule Application**: Apply bundled rules in recommended sequence |
|||
- [ ] **Implementation**: Implement feature following development standards |
|||
- [ ] **Testing**: Test feature across all target platforms |
|||
- [ ] **Documentation**: Document implementation details and decisions |
|||
|
|||
### After Feature Implementation |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Validation**: Verify feature meets all success criteria |
|||
- [ ] **Code Review**: Complete code review with team |
|||
- [ ] **Testing**: Complete comprehensive testing across platforms |
|||
- [ ] **Feedback Collection**: Collect feedback on meta-rule effectiveness |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
**See also**: |
|||
|
|||
- `.cursor/rules/meta_feature_planning.mdc` for planning workflow |
|||
- `.cursor/rules/meta_bug_fixing.mdc` for fix implementation patterns |
|||
- `.cursor/rules/meta_bug_diagnosis.mdc` for investigation insights |
|||
|
|||
**Status**: Active meta-rule for feature implementation |
|||
**Priority**: High |
|||
**Estimated Effort**: Ongoing reference |
|||
**Dependencies**: All bundled sub-rules |
|||
**Stakeholders**: Development team, Architecture team, QA team |
|||
@ -0,0 +1,165 @@ |
|||
# Meta-Rule: Feature Planning |
|||
|
|||
**Author**: Matthew Raymer |
|||
**Date**: 2025-08-21 |
|||
**Status**: 🎯 **ACTIVE** - Feature planning workflow bundling |
|||
|
|||
## Purpose |
|||
|
|||
This meta-rule bundles all the rules needed for comprehensive feature planning |
|||
across all platforms. Use this when starting any new feature development, |
|||
planning sprints, or estimating work effort. |
|||
|
|||
## When to Use |
|||
|
|||
- **New Feature Development**: Planning features from concept to implementation |
|||
- **Sprint Planning**: Estimating effort and breaking down work |
|||
- **Architecture Decisions**: Planning major architectural changes |
|||
- **Platform Expansion**: Adding features to new platforms |
|||
- **Refactoring Planning**: Planning significant code restructuring |
|||
|
|||
## Bundled Rules |
|||
|
|||
### **Core Planning Foundation** |
|||
|
|||
- **`development/planning_examples.mdc`** - Planning templates, examples, and |
|||
best practices for structured planning |
|||
- **`development/realistic_time_estimation.mdc`** - Time estimation framework |
|||
with complexity-based phases and milestones |
|||
- **`development/complexity_assessment.mdc`** - Technical and business |
|||
complexity evaluation with risk assessment |
|||
|
|||
### **Platform & Architecture** |
|||
|
|||
- **`app/timesafari_platforms.mdc`** - Platform-specific requirements, |
|||
constraints, and capabilities across web/mobile/desktop |
|||
- **`app/architectural_decision_record.mdc`** - ADR process for documenting |
|||
major architectural decisions and trade-offs |
|||
|
|||
### **Development Context** |
|||
|
|||
- **`app/timesafari.mdc`** - Core application context, principles, and |
|||
development focus areas |
|||
- **`app/timesafari_development.mdc`** - TimeSafari-specific development |
|||
workflow and quality standards |
|||
|
|||
## Workflow Sequence |
|||
|
|||
### **Phase 1: Foundation (Start Here)** |
|||
|
|||
1. **Complexity Assessment** - Use `complexity_assessment.mdc` to evaluate |
|||
technical and business complexity |
|||
2. **Time Estimation** - Apply `realistic_time_estimation.mdc` framework |
|||
based on complexity results |
|||
3. **Core Planning** - Use `planning_examples.mdc` for structured planning |
|||
approach |
|||
|
|||
### **Phase 2: Platform & Architecture** |
|||
|
|||
1. **Platform Analysis** - Review `timesafari_platforms.mdc` for |
|||
platform-specific requirements |
|||
2. **Architecture Planning** - Use `architectural_decision_record.mdc` if |
|||
major architectural changes are needed |
|||
|
|||
### **Phase 3: Implementation Planning** |
|||
|
|||
1. **Development Workflow** - Reference `timesafari_development.mdc` for |
|||
development standards and testing strategy |
|||
2. **Final Planning** - Consolidate all inputs into comprehensive plan |
|||
|
|||
## Success Criteria |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Complexity assessed** and documented with risk factors |
|||
- [ ] **Time estimate created** with clear phases and milestones |
|||
- [ ] **Platform requirements identified** for all target platforms |
|||
- [ ] **Architecture decisions documented** (if major changes needed) |
|||
- [ ] **Testing strategy planned** with platform-specific considerations |
|||
- [ ] **Dependencies mapped** between tasks and phases |
|||
- [ ] **Stakeholder input gathered** and incorporated |
|||
|
|||
## Common Pitfalls |
|||
|
|||
- **Don't skip complexity assessment** - leads to unrealistic estimates |
|||
- **Don't estimate without platform analysis** - misses platform-specific work |
|||
- **Don't plan without stakeholder input** - creates misaligned expectations |
|||
- **Don't ignore testing strategy** - leads to incomplete planning |
|||
- **Don't skip architecture decisions** - creates technical debt |
|||
|
|||
## Integration Points |
|||
|
|||
### **With Other Meta-Rules** |
|||
|
|||
- **Bug Diagnosis**: Use complexity assessment for bug investigation planning |
|||
- **Feature Implementation**: This planning feeds directly into implementation |
|||
- **Code Review**: Planning standards inform review requirements |
|||
|
|||
### **With Development Workflow** |
|||
|
|||
- Planning outputs become inputs for sprint planning |
|||
- Complexity assessment informs testing strategy |
|||
- Platform requirements drive architecture decisions |
|||
|
|||
## Feedback & Improvement |
|||
|
|||
### **Sub-Rule Ratings (1-5 scale)** |
|||
|
|||
- **Complexity Assessment**: ___/5 - Comments: _______________ |
|||
- **Time Estimation**: ___/5 - Comments: _______________ |
|||
- **Planning Examples**: ___/5 - Comments: _______________ |
|||
- **Platform Analysis**: ___/5 - Comments: _______________ |
|||
- **Architecture Decisions**: ___/5 - Comments: _______________ |
|||
|
|||
### **Workflow Feedback** |
|||
|
|||
- **Sequence Effectiveness**: Did the recommended order work for you? |
|||
- **Missing Guidance**: What additional information would have helped? |
|||
- **Process Gaps**: Where did the workflow break down? |
|||
|
|||
### **Sub-Rule Improvements** |
|||
|
|||
- **Clarity Issues**: Which rules were unclear or confusing? |
|||
- **Missing Examples**: What examples would make rules more useful? |
|||
- **Integration Problems**: Do any rules conflict or overlap? |
|||
|
|||
### **Overall Experience** |
|||
|
|||
- **Time Saved**: How much time did this meta-rule save you? |
|||
- **Quality Improvement**: Did following these rules improve your planning? |
|||
- **Recommendation**: Would you recommend this meta-rule to others? |
|||
|
|||
## Model Implementation Checklist |
|||
|
|||
### Before Feature Planning |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Scope Definition**: Clearly define the feature scope and boundaries |
|||
- [ ] **Stakeholder Identification**: Identify all stakeholders and decision makers |
|||
- [ ] **Platform Requirements**: Understand target platforms and constraints |
|||
- [ ] **Complexity Assessment**: Plan complexity evaluation approach |
|||
|
|||
### During Feature Planning |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Rule Application**: Apply bundled rules in recommended sequence |
|||
- [ ] **Documentation**: Document all planning decisions and rationale |
|||
- [ ] **Stakeholder Input**: Gather and incorporate stakeholder feedback |
|||
- [ ] **Validation**: Validate planning against success criteria |
|||
|
|||
### After Feature Planning |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Plan Review**: Review plan with stakeholders and team |
|||
- [ ] **Feedback Collection**: Collect feedback on meta-rule effectiveness |
|||
- [ ] **Documentation Update**: Update relevant documentation |
|||
- [ ] **Process Improvement**: Identify improvements for future planning |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
**See also**: |
|||
|
|||
- `.cursor/rules/meta_bug_diagnosis.mdc` for investigation planning |
|||
- `.cursor/rules/meta_feature_implementation.mdc` for implementation workflow |
|||
- `.cursor/rules/meta_bug_fixing.mdc` for fix implementation |
|||
|
|||
**Status**: Active meta-rule for feature planning |
|||
**Priority**: High |
|||
**Estimated Effort**: Ongoing reference |
|||
**Dependencies**: All bundled sub-rules |
|||
**Stakeholders**: Development team, Product team, Architecture team |
|||
@ -0,0 +1,247 @@ |
|||
# Meta-Rule: Enhanced Research Workflows |
|||
|
|||
**Author**: Matthew Raymer |
|||
**Date**: 2025-01-27 |
|||
**Status**: 🎯 **ACTIVE** - Research and investigation workflows |
|||
|
|||
## Purpose |
|||
|
|||
This meta-rule bundles research-specific rules that should be applied when conducting |
|||
systematic investigation, analysis, evidence collection, or research tasks. It provides |
|||
a comprehensive framework for thorough, methodical research workflows that produce |
|||
actionable insights and evidence-based conclusions. |
|||
|
|||
## When to Use |
|||
|
|||
**RESEARCH TASKS** - Apply this meta-rule when: |
|||
|
|||
- Investigating bugs, defects, or system issues |
|||
- Conducting technical research or feasibility analysis |
|||
- Analyzing codebases, architectures, or dependencies |
|||
- Researching solutions, alternatives, or best practices |
|||
- Collecting evidence for decision-making or documentation |
|||
- Performing root cause analysis or impact assessment |
|||
|
|||
## Bundled Rules |
|||
|
|||
### **Core Research Principles** |
|||
|
|||
- **`development/research_diagnostic.mdc`** - Systematic investigation workflow |
|||
and evidence collection methodology |
|||
- **`development/type_safety_guide.mdc`** - Type analysis and safety research |
|||
for TypeScript/JavaScript codebases |
|||
|
|||
### **Investigation & Analysis** |
|||
|
|||
- **`workflow/version_control.mdc`** - Git history analysis and commit research |
|||
- **`workflow/commit_messages.mdc`** - Commit pattern analysis and history |
|||
investigation |
|||
|
|||
### **Platform & Context Research** |
|||
|
|||
- **`app/timesafari.mdc`** - Application context research and platform |
|||
understanding |
|||
- **`app/timesafari_platforms.mdc`** - Platform-specific research and |
|||
capability analysis |
|||
|
|||
## Why These Rules Are Research-Focused |
|||
|
|||
### **Research Diagnostic** |
|||
|
|||
- **Systematic Approach**: Provides structured investigation methodology |
|||
- **Evidence Collection**: Ensures thorough data gathering and documentation |
|||
- **Root Cause Analysis**: Guides systematic problem investigation |
|||
- **Impact Assessment**: Helps evaluate scope and consequences |
|||
|
|||
### **Type Safety Research** |
|||
|
|||
- **Code Analysis**: Enables systematic type system investigation |
|||
- **Safety Assessment**: Guides research into type-related issues |
|||
- **Migration Planning**: Supports research for architectural changes |
|||
|
|||
### **Version Control Research** |
|||
|
|||
- **History Analysis**: Enables investigation of code evolution |
|||
- **Pattern Recognition**: Helps identify commit and change patterns |
|||
- **Timeline Research**: Supports chronological investigation |
|||
|
|||
### **Platform Research** |
|||
|
|||
- **Capability Analysis**: Guides research into platform-specific features |
|||
- **Context Understanding**: Ensures research considers application context |
|||
- **Cross-Platform Research**: Supports multi-platform investigation |
|||
|
|||
## Application Priority |
|||
|
|||
### **Primary (Apply First)** |
|||
|
|||
1. **Research Diagnostic** - Systematic investigation methodology |
|||
2. **Type Safety Guide** - Code analysis and type research |
|||
3. **Application Context** - Platform and context understanding |
|||
|
|||
### **Secondary (Apply as Needed)** |
|||
|
|||
1. **Version Control** - When investigating code history |
|||
2. **Platform Details** - When researching platform-specific capabilities |
|||
|
|||
## Integration with Other Meta-Rules |
|||
|
|||
### **Bug Diagnosis** |
|||
|
|||
- Research meta-rule provides investigation methodology |
|||
- Core always-on ensures systematic approach |
|||
- Application context provides system understanding |
|||
|
|||
### **Feature Planning** |
|||
|
|||
- Research meta-rule guides feasibility research |
|||
- Core always-on ensures competence focus |
|||
- Application context drives platform considerations |
|||
|
|||
### **Architecture Analysis** |
|||
|
|||
- Research meta-rule provides systematic analysis framework |
|||
- Core always-on ensures quality standards |
|||
- Application context informs architectural decisions |
|||
|
|||
### **Performance Investigation** |
|||
|
|||
- Research meta-rule guides systematic performance research |
|||
- Core always-on ensures thorough investigation |
|||
- Application context provides performance context |
|||
|
|||
## Research Workflow Phases |
|||
|
|||
### **Phase 1: Investigation Setup** |
|||
|
|||
1. **Scope Definition** - Define research boundaries and objectives |
|||
2. **Context Gathering** - Collect relevant application and platform context |
|||
3. **Methodology Selection** - Choose appropriate research approaches |
|||
|
|||
### **Phase 2: Evidence Collection** |
|||
|
|||
1. **Systematic Data Gathering** - Collect evidence using structured methods |
|||
2. **Documentation** - Record all findings and observations |
|||
3. **Validation** - Verify evidence accuracy and relevance |
|||
|
|||
### **Phase 3: Analysis & Synthesis** |
|||
|
|||
1. **Pattern Recognition** - Identify trends and patterns in evidence |
|||
2. **Root Cause Analysis** - Determine underlying causes and factors |
|||
3. **Impact Assessment** - Evaluate scope and consequences |
|||
|
|||
### **Phase 4: Conclusion & Action** |
|||
|
|||
1. **Evidence-Based Conclusions** - Draw conclusions from collected evidence |
|||
2. **Actionable Recommendations** - Provide specific, implementable guidance |
|||
3. **Documentation** - Create comprehensive research documentation |
|||
|
|||
## Success Criteria |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Research diagnostic applied** to all investigation tasks |
|||
- [ ] **Type safety research** conducted for code analysis |
|||
- [ ] **Evidence collection** systematic and comprehensive |
|||
- [ ] **Root cause analysis** thorough and accurate |
|||
- [ ] **Conclusions actionable** and evidence-based |
|||
- [ ] **Documentation complete** and searchable |
|||
|
|||
## Common Research Pitfalls |
|||
|
|||
- **Don't skip systematic approach** - leads to incomplete investigation |
|||
- **Don't ignore evidence validation** - creates unreliable conclusions |
|||
- **Don't forget context** - misses important factors |
|||
- **Don't skip documentation** - loses research value |
|||
- **Don't rush conclusions** - produces poor recommendations |
|||
|
|||
## Research Quality Standards |
|||
|
|||
### **Evidence Quality** |
|||
|
|||
- **Completeness**: All relevant evidence collected |
|||
- **Accuracy**: Evidence verified and validated |
|||
- **Relevance**: Evidence directly addresses research questions |
|||
- **Timeliness**: Evidence current and up-to-date |
|||
|
|||
### **Analysis Quality** |
|||
|
|||
- **Systematic**: Analysis follows structured methodology |
|||
- **Objective**: Analysis free from bias and assumptions |
|||
- **Thorough**: All evidence considered and evaluated |
|||
- **Logical**: Conclusions follow from evidence |
|||
|
|||
### **Documentation Quality** |
|||
|
|||
- **Comprehensive**: All findings and methods documented |
|||
- **Searchable**: Documentation easily findable and navigable |
|||
- **Actionable**: Recommendations specific and implementable |
|||
- **Maintainable**: Documentation structure supports updates |
|||
|
|||
## Feedback & Improvement |
|||
|
|||
### **Rule Effectiveness Ratings (1-5 scale)** |
|||
|
|||
- **Research Diagnostic**: ___/5 - Comments: _______________ |
|||
- **Type Safety Guide**: ___/5 - Comments: _______________ |
|||
- **Version Control**: ___/5 - Comments: _______________ |
|||
- **Platform Context**: ___/5 - Comments: _______________ |
|||
|
|||
### **Research Workflow Effectiveness** |
|||
|
|||
- **Investigation Quality**: Are research tasks producing thorough results? |
|||
- **Evidence Collection**: Is evidence gathering systematic and complete? |
|||
- **Conclusion Quality**: Are conclusions actionable and evidence-based? |
|||
- **Documentation Value**: Is research documentation useful and maintainable? |
|||
|
|||
### **Integration Feedback** |
|||
|
|||
- **With Other Meta-Rules**: How well does this integrate with workflow rules? |
|||
- **Context Switching**: Do these rules help or hinder research context? |
|||
- **Learning Curve**: Are these rules easy for new researchers to understand? |
|||
|
|||
### **Overall Research Experience** |
|||
|
|||
- **Quality Improvement**: Do these rules improve research outcomes? |
|||
- **Efficiency**: Do these rules make research more efficient? |
|||
- **Recommendation**: Would you recommend keeping this research meta-rule? |
|||
|
|||
## Model Implementation Checklist |
|||
|
|||
### Before Research Tasks |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Research Diagnostic**: Ensure systematic investigation methodology |
|||
- [ ] **Type Safety Guide**: Prepare for code analysis if needed |
|||
- [ ] **Application Context**: Load relevant platform and context information |
|||
- [ ] **Version Control**: Prepare for history analysis if needed |
|||
|
|||
### During Research Execution |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Systematic Approach**: Follow structured investigation methodology |
|||
- [ ] **Evidence Collection**: Gather comprehensive and validated evidence |
|||
- [ ] **Documentation**: Record all findings and observations |
|||
- [ ] **Context Awareness**: Consider application and platform context |
|||
|
|||
### After Research Completion |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Validation**: Verify all research phases completed |
|||
- [ ] **Quality Check**: Ensure research meets quality standards |
|||
- [ ] **Documentation Review**: Confirm research properly documented |
|||
- [ ] **Feedback Collection**: Note any issues with research process |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
**See also**: |
|||
|
|||
- `.cursor/rules/meta_core_always_on.mdc` for core always-on rules |
|||
- `.cursor/rules/meta_feature_planning.mdc` for feature development workflows |
|||
- `.cursor/rules/meta_bug_diagnosis.mdc` for bug investigation workflows |
|||
- `.cursor/rules/meta_bug_fixing.mdc` for fix implementation workflows |
|||
|
|||
**Status**: Active research meta-rule |
|||
**Priority**: High (applies to all research tasks) |
|||
**Estimated Effort**: Ongoing reference |
|||
**Dependencies**: All bundled sub-rules |
|||
**Stakeholders**: Development team, Research team, Quality Assurance team |
|||
description: |
|||
globs: |
|||
alwaysApply: false |
|||
--- |
|||
@ -0,0 +1,103 @@ |
|||
# Meta-Rule Architecture Overview |
|||
|
|||
**Author**: Matthew Raymer |
|||
**Date**: 2025-01-27 |
|||
**Status**: 📋 **ACTIVE** - Meta-rule organization and relationships |
|||
|
|||
## Meta-Rule Structure |
|||
|
|||
### **Core Always-On Rules** (`meta_core_always_on.mdc`) |
|||
- **Purpose**: Applied to every single prompt |
|||
- **Scope**: Human competence, time standards, version control, application context |
|||
- **Priority**: Critical - foundation for all interactions |
|||
|
|||
### **Enhanced Research Workflows** (`meta_research.mdc`) ⭐ **NEW** |
|||
- **Purpose**: Applied to research, investigation, and analysis tasks |
|||
- **Scope**: Systematic investigation, evidence collection, root cause analysis |
|||
- **Priority**: High - applies to all research tasks |
|||
- **Bundles**: Research diagnostic, type safety, version control research, platform context |
|||
|
|||
### **Feature Development Workflows** (`meta_feature_planning.mdc`) |
|||
- **Purpose**: Applied to feature planning and development tasks |
|||
- **Scope**: Requirements analysis, architecture planning, implementation strategy |
|||
- **Priority**: High - applies to feature development |
|||
|
|||
### **Bug Investigation Workflows** (`meta_bug_diagnosis.mdc`) |
|||
- **Purpose**: Applied to bug investigation and diagnosis tasks |
|||
- **Scope**: Defect analysis, evidence collection, root cause identification |
|||
- **Priority**: High - applies to bug investigation |
|||
|
|||
### **Bug Fixing Workflows** (`meta_bug_fixing.mdc`) |
|||
- **Purpose**: Applied to bug fixing and resolution tasks |
|||
- **Scope**: Fix implementation, testing, validation |
|||
- **Priority**: High - applies to bug resolution |
|||
|
|||
## Research Meta-Rule Integration |
|||
|
|||
### **When to Use Research Meta-Rule** |
|||
|
|||
The research meta-rule should be applied when: |
|||
- **Investigating bugs** - systematic defect analysis |
|||
- **Researching solutions** - feasibility and alternative analysis |
|||
- **Analyzing codebases** - architecture and dependency research |
|||
- **Collecting evidence** - systematic data gathering |
|||
- **Root cause analysis** - systematic problem investigation |
|||
- **Impact assessment** - scope and consequence evaluation |
|||
|
|||
### **How It Complements Other Meta-Rules** |
|||
|
|||
- **Core Always-On**: Provides foundation (competence, time, context) |
|||
- **Research**: Adds systematic investigation methodology |
|||
- **Feature Planning**: Guides feasibility research and analysis |
|||
- **Bug Diagnosis**: Provides investigation framework |
|||
- **Bug Fixing**: Informs fix strategy through research |
|||
|
|||
### **Research Workflow Phases** |
|||
|
|||
1. **Investigation Setup** - Scope, context, methodology |
|||
2. **Evidence Collection** - Systematic data gathering |
|||
3. **Analysis & Synthesis** - Pattern recognition, root cause |
|||
4. **Conclusion & Action** - Evidence-based recommendations |
|||
|
|||
## Usage Examples |
|||
|
|||
### **Bug Investigation** |
|||
``` |
|||
Apply: meta_core_always_on + meta_research + meta_bug_diagnosis |
|||
Result: Systematic investigation with evidence collection and root cause analysis |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### **Feature Research** |
|||
``` |
|||
Apply: meta_core_always_on + meta_research + meta_feature_planning |
|||
Result: Comprehensive feasibility research with platform context |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### **Architecture Analysis** |
|||
``` |
|||
Apply: meta_core_always_on + meta_research |
|||
Result: Systematic architecture investigation with evidence-based conclusions |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
## Benefits of Enhanced Research Meta-Rule |
|||
|
|||
- **Systematic Approach**: Structured investigation methodology |
|||
- **Evidence-Based**: Comprehensive data collection and validation |
|||
- **Quality Standards**: Defined research quality criteria |
|||
- **Integration**: Seamless integration with existing workflows |
|||
- **Documentation**: Comprehensive research documentation standards |
|||
|
|||
## Next Steps |
|||
|
|||
1. **Test Research Meta-Rule** - Apply to next research task |
|||
2. **Validate Integration** - Ensure smooth workflow integration |
|||
3. **Collect Feedback** - Gather effectiveness ratings |
|||
4. **Iterate** - Refine based on usage experience |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
**Status**: Active documentation |
|||
**Priority**: Medium |
|||
**Estimated Effort**: Ongoing reference |
|||
**Dependencies**: All meta-rules |
|||
**Stakeholders**: Development team, Research team |
|||
@ -0,0 +1,196 @@ |
|||
# Commit Message Format and Templates |
|||
|
|||
> **Agent role**: |
|||
Reference this file for commit message formatting and templates. |
|||
|
|||
## Commit Message Format (Normative) |
|||
|
|||
### A. Subject Line (required) |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
<type>(<scope>)<!>: <summary> |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
- **type** (lowercase, Conventional Commits): |
|||
|
|||
`feat|fix|refactor|perf|docs|test|build|chore|ci|revert` |
|||
|
|||
- **scope**: optional module/package/area (e.g., `api`, `ui/login`, `db`) |
|||
|
|||
- **!**: include when a breaking change is introduced |
|||
|
|||
- **summary**: imperative mood, ≤ 72 chars, no trailing period |
|||
|
|||
**Examples** |
|||
|
|||
- `fix(api): handle null token in refresh path` |
|||
|
|||
- `feat(ui/login)!: require OTP after 3 failed attempts` |
|||
|
|||
### B. Body (optional, when it adds non-obvious value) |
|||
|
|||
- One blank line after subject. |
|||
|
|||
- Wrap at ~72 chars. |
|||
|
|||
- Explain **what** and **why**, not line-by-line "how". |
|||
|
|||
- Include brief notes like tests passing or TS/lint issues resolved |
|||
|
|||
**only if material**. |
|||
|
|||
**Body checklist** |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] Problem/symptom being addressed |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] High-level approach or rationale |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] Risks, tradeoffs, or follow-ups (if any) |
|||
|
|||
### C. Footer (optional) |
|||
|
|||
- Issue refs: `Closes #123`, `Refs #456` |
|||
|
|||
- Breaking change (alternative to `!`): |
|||
|
|||
`BREAKING CHANGE: <impact + migration note>` |
|||
|
|||
- Authors: `Co-authored-by: Name <email>` |
|||
|
|||
- Security: `CVE-XXXX-YYYY: <short note>` (if applicable) |
|||
|
|||
## Content Guidance |
|||
|
|||
### Include (when relevant) |
|||
|
|||
- Specific fixes/features delivered |
|||
|
|||
- Symptoms/problems fixed |
|||
|
|||
- Brief note that tests passed or TS/lint errors resolved |
|||
|
|||
### Avoid |
|||
|
|||
- Vague: *improved, enhanced, better* |
|||
|
|||
- Trivialities: tiny docs, one-liners, pure lint cleanups (separate, |
|||
|
|||
focused commits if needed) |
|||
|
|||
- Redundancy: generic blurbs repeated across files |
|||
|
|||
- Multi-purpose dumps: keep commits **narrow and focused** |
|||
|
|||
- Long explanations that good inline code comments already cover |
|||
|
|||
**Guiding Principle:** Let code and inline docs speak. Use commits to |
|||
highlight what isn't obvious. |
|||
|
|||
## Copy-Paste Templates |
|||
|
|||
### Minimal (no body) |
|||
|
|||
```text |
|||
|
|||
<type>(<scope>): <summary> |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### Standard (with body & footer) |
|||
|
|||
```text |
|||
|
|||
<type>(<scope>)<!>: <summary> |
|||
|
|||
<why-this-change?> |
|||
<what-it-does?> |
|||
<risks-or-follow-ups?> |
|||
|
|||
Closes #<id> |
|||
BREAKING CHANGE: <impact + migration> |
|||
Co-authored-by: <Name> <email> |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
## Type Descriptions |
|||
|
|||
### feat |
|||
|
|||
New feature for the user |
|||
|
|||
### fix |
|||
|
|||
Bug fix for the user |
|||
|
|||
### docs |
|||
|
|||
Documentation only changes |
|||
|
|||
### style |
|||
|
|||
Changes that do not affect the meaning of the code |
|||
|
|||
### refactor |
|||
|
|||
Code change that neither fixes a bug nor adds a feature |
|||
|
|||
### perf |
|||
|
|||
Code change that improves performance |
|||
|
|||
### test |
|||
|
|||
Adding missing tests or correcting existing tests |
|||
|
|||
### build |
|||
|
|||
Changes that affect the build system or external dependencies |
|||
|
|||
### ci |
|||
|
|||
Changes to CI configuration files and scripts |
|||
|
|||
### chore |
|||
|
|||
Other changes that don't modify src or test files |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
**See also**: |
|||
|
|||
- `.cursor/rules/workflow/version_control.mdc` for |
|||
|
|||
core version control principles |
|||
|
|||
- `.cursor/rules/workflow/version_sync.mdc` for version synchronization details |
|||
|
|||
**Status**: Active commit message guidelines |
|||
**Priority**: High |
|||
**Estimated Effort**: Ongoing reference |
|||
**Dependencies**: version_control.mdc |
|||
**Stakeholders**: Development team, AI assistants |
|||
|
|||
## Model Implementation Checklist |
|||
|
|||
### Before Creating Commits |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Change Review**: Review all changes to be committed |
|||
- [ ] **Scope Assessment**: Determine if changes belong in single or multiple commits |
|||
- [ ] **Message Planning**: Plan clear, descriptive commit message |
|||
- [ ] **Convention Check**: Review commit message format requirements |
|||
|
|||
### During Commit Creation |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Type Selection**: Choose appropriate commit type (feat, fix, docs, etc.) |
|||
- [ ] **Message Writing**: Write clear, concise commit message |
|||
- [ ] **Body Content**: Add detailed description if needed |
|||
- [ ] **Breaking Changes**: Document breaking changes with `!` and migration notes |
|||
|
|||
### After Commit Creation |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Message Review**: Verify commit message follows conventions |
|||
- [ ] **Change Validation**: Confirm all intended changes are included |
|||
- [ ] **Documentation**: Update any related documentation |
|||
- [ ] **Team Communication**: Communicate significant changes to team |
|||
@ -1,122 +1,86 @@ |
|||
--- |
|||
alwaysApply: true |
|||
--- |
|||
# Directive: Peaceful Co-Existence with Developers |
|||
|
|||
## 1) Version-Control Ownership |
|||
|
|||
* **MUST NOT** run `git add`, `git commit`, or any write action. |
|||
* **MUST** leave staging/committing to the developer. |
|||
|
|||
## 2) Source of Truth for Commit Text |
|||
|
|||
* **MUST** derive messages **only** from: |
|||
|
|||
* files **staged** for commit (primary), and |
|||
* files **awaiting staging** (context). |
|||
* **MUST** use the **diffs** to inform content. |
|||
* **MUST NOT** invent changes or imply work not present in diffs. |
|||
|
|||
## 3) Mandatory Preview Flow |
|||
|
|||
* **ALWAYS** present, before any real commit: |
|||
|
|||
* file list + brief per-file notes, |
|||
* a **draft commit message** (copy-paste ready), |
|||
* nothing auto-applied. |
|||
**Author**: Matthew Raymer |
|||
**Date**: 2025-08-19 |
|||
**Status**: 🎯 **ACTIVE** - Version control guidelines |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
# Commit Message Format (Normative) |
|||
|
|||
## A. Subject Line (required) |
|||
## Core Principles |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
<type>(<scope>)<!>: <summary> |
|||
``` |
|||
### 1) Version-Control Ownership |
|||
|
|||
* **type** (lowercase, Conventional Commits): `feat|fix|refactor|perf|docs|test|build|chore|ci|revert` |
|||
* **scope**: optional module/package/area (e.g., `api`, `ui/login`, `db`) |
|||
* **!**: include when a breaking change is introduced |
|||
* **summary**: imperative mood, ≤ 72 chars, no trailing period |
|||
- **MUST NOT** run `git add`, `git commit`, or any write action. |
|||
- **MUST** leave staging/committing to the developer. |
|||
|
|||
**Examples** |
|||
### 2) Source of Truth for Commit Text |
|||
|
|||
* `fix(api): handle null token in refresh path` |
|||
* `feat(ui/login)!: require OTP after 3 failed attempts` |
|||
- **MUST** derive messages **only** from: |
|||
|
|||
## B. Body (optional, when it adds non-obvious value) |
|||
- files **staged** for commit (primary), and |
|||
- files **awaiting staging** (context). |
|||
|
|||
* One blank line after subject. |
|||
* Wrap at \~72 chars. |
|||
* Explain **what** and **why**, not line-by-line “how”. |
|||
* Include brief notes like tests passing or TS/lint issues resolved **only if material**. |
|||
- **MUST** use the **diffs** to inform content. |
|||
- **MUST NOT** invent changes or imply work not present in diffs. |
|||
|
|||
**Body checklist** |
|||
### 3) Mandatory Preview Flow |
|||
|
|||
* [ ] Problem/symptom being addressed |
|||
* [ ] High-level approach or rationale |
|||
* [ ] Risks, tradeoffs, or follow-ups (if any) |
|||
- **ALWAYS** present, before any real commit: |
|||
|
|||
## C. Footer (optional) |
|||
- file list + brief per-file notes, |
|||
- a **draft commit message** (copy-paste ready), |
|||
- nothing auto-applied. |
|||
|
|||
* Issue refs: `Closes #123`, `Refs #456` |
|||
* Breaking change (alternative to `!`): |
|||
`BREAKING CHANGE: <impact + migration note>` |
|||
* Authors: `Co-authored-by: Name <email>` |
|||
* Security: `CVE-XXXX-YYYY: <short note>` (if applicable) |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
### 4) Version Synchronization Requirements |
|||
|
|||
## Content Guidance |
|||
- **MUST** check for version changes in `package.json` before committing |
|||
- **MUST** ensure `CHANGELOG.md` is updated when `package.json` version changes |
|||
- **MUST** validate version format consistency between both files |
|||
- **MUST** include version bump commits in changelog with |
|||
proper semantic versioning |
|||
|
|||
### Include (when relevant) |
|||
## Assistant Output Checklist (before showing the draft) |
|||
|
|||
* Specific fixes/features delivered |
|||
* Symptoms/problems fixed |
|||
* Brief note that tests passed or TS/lint errors resolved |
|||
|
|||
### Avoid |
|||
|
|||
* Vague: *improved, enhanced, better* |
|||
* Trivialities: tiny docs, one-liners, pure lint cleanups (separate, focused commits if needed) |
|||
* Redundancy: generic blurbs repeated across files |
|||
* Multi-purpose dumps: keep commits **narrow and focused** |
|||
* Long explanations that good inline code comments already cover |
|||
|
|||
**Guiding Principle:** Let code and inline docs speak. Use commits to highlight what isn’t obvious. |
|||
- [ ] List changed files + 1–2 line notes per file |
|||
- [ ] Provide **one** focused draft message (subject/body/footer) |
|||
- [ ] Subject ≤ 72 chars, imperative mood, correct `type(scope)!` syntax |
|||
- [ ] Body only if it adds non-obvious value |
|||
- [ ] No invented changes; aligns strictly with diffs |
|||
- [ ] Render as a single copy-paste block for the developer |
|||
- [ ] No invented changes; aligns strictly with diffs |
|||
- [ ] Render as a single copy-paste block for the developer |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
# Copy-Paste Templates |
|||
**See also**: |
|||
|
|||
## Minimal (no body) |
|||
- `.cursor/rules/workflow/commit_messages.mdc` for commit message format and |
|||
templates |
|||
- `.cursor/rules/workflow/version_sync.mdc` for version synchronization details |
|||
|
|||
```text |
|||
<type>(<scope>): <summary> |
|||
``` |
|||
**Status**: Active version control guidelines |
|||
**Priority**: High |
|||
**Estimated Effort**: Ongoing reference |
|||
**Dependencies**: git, package.json, CHANGELOG.md |
|||
**Stakeholders**: Development team, AI assistants |
|||
|
|||
## Standard (with body & footer) |
|||
## Model Implementation Checklist |
|||
|
|||
```text |
|||
<type>(<scope>)<!>: <summary> |
|||
### Before Version Control Work |
|||
|
|||
<why-this-change?> |
|||
<what-it-does?> |
|||
<risks-or-follow-ups?> |
|||
- [ ] **File Analysis**: Review files staged and awaiting staging |
|||
- [ ] **Version Check**: Check for version changes in package.json |
|||
- [ ] **Changelog Review**: Verify CHANGELOG.md is updated if version changed |
|||
- [ ] **Diff Analysis**: Analyze actual changes from git diffs |
|||
|
|||
Closes #<id> |
|||
BREAKING CHANGE: <impact + migration> |
|||
Co-authored-by: <Name> <email> |
|||
``` |
|||
### During Version Control Work |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
- [ ] **Commit Preview**: Present file list with brief notes per file |
|||
- [ ] **Message Draft**: Provide focused draft commit message |
|||
- [ ] **Format Validation**: Ensure message follows type(scope)! syntax |
|||
- [ ] **Version Sync**: Validate version consistency between files |
|||
|
|||
# Assistant Output Checklist (before showing the draft) |
|||
### After Version Control Work |
|||
|
|||
* [ ] List changed files + 1–2 line notes per file |
|||
* [ ] Provide **one** focused draft message (subject/body/footer) |
|||
* [ ] Subject ≤ 72 chars, imperative mood, correct `type(scope)!` syntax |
|||
* [ ] Body only if it adds non-obvious value |
|||
* [ ] No invented changes; aligns strictly with diffs |
|||
* [ ] Render as a single copy-paste block for the developer |
|||
- [ ] **Developer Control**: Leave staging/committing to developer |
|||
- [ ] **Message Validation**: Verify message aligns strictly with diffs |
|||
- [ ] **Version Validation**: Confirm version format consistency |
|||
- [ ] **Documentation**: Update relevant version control documentation |
|||
|
|||
@ -0,0 +1,176 @@ |
|||
# Version Synchronization and Changelog Management |
|||
|
|||
> **Agent role**: Reference this file for version synchronization |
|||
> requirements and changelog management. |
|||
|
|||
## Version Sync Checklist (Before Commit) |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] `package.json` version matches latest `CHANGELOG.md` entry |
|||
- [ ] New version follows semantic versioning |
|||
(MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH[-PRERELEASE]) |
|||
- [ ] Changelog entry includes all significant changes since last version |
|||
- [ ] Version bump commit message follows `build(version): bump to X.Y.Z` |
|||
format |
|||
- [ ] Breaking changes properly documented with migration notes |
|||
- [ ] Alert developer in chat message that version has been updated |
|||
|
|||
## Version Change Detection |
|||
|
|||
- **Check for version changes** in staged/unstaged `package.json` |
|||
- **Alert developer** if version changed but changelog not updated |
|||
- **Suggest changelog update** with proper format and content |
|||
- **Validate semantic versioning** compliance |
|||
|
|||
## Implementation Notes |
|||
|
|||
### Version Detection |
|||
|
|||
- Compare `package.json` version field with latest changelog entry |
|||
- Use semantic versioning validation |
|||
- Check for pre-release version consistency |
|||
|
|||
### Semantic Validation |
|||
|
|||
- Ensure version follows `X.Y.Z[-PRERELEASE]` format |
|||
- Validate major.minor.patch components |
|||
- Handle pre-release suffixes (beta, alpha, rc) |
|||
|
|||
### Changelog Format |
|||
|
|||
- Follow [Keep a Changelog](https://keepachangelog.com/) standards |
|||
- Use consistent section headers |
|||
- Include breaking change notes |
|||
- Maintain chronological order |
|||
|
|||
### Breaking Changes |
|||
|
|||
- Use `!` in commit message |
|||
- Include `BREAKING CHANGE:` in changelog |
|||
- Provide migration notes |
|||
- Document impact clearly |
|||
|
|||
### Pre-release Versions |
|||
|
|||
- Include beta/alpha/rc suffixes consistently |
|||
- Update both `package.json` and changelog |
|||
- Maintain version number alignment |
|||
- Document pre-release status |
|||
|
|||
## Changelog Sections |
|||
|
|||
### Added |
|||
|
|||
- New features |
|||
- New capabilities |
|||
- New dependencies |
|||
|
|||
### Changed |
|||
|
|||
- Changes in existing functionality |
|||
- API changes |
|||
- Performance improvements |
|||
|
|||
### Deprecated |
|||
|
|||
- Soon-to-be removed features |
|||
- Migration paths |
|||
- Sunset timelines |
|||
|
|||
### Removed |
|||
|
|||
- Removed features |
|||
- Breaking changes |
|||
- Deprecated items |
|||
|
|||
### Fixed |
|||
|
|||
- Bug fixes |
|||
- Security patches |
|||
- Performance fixes |
|||
|
|||
### Security |
|||
|
|||
- Security vulnerabilities |
|||
- CVE references |
|||
- Mitigation steps |
|||
|
|||
## Version Bump Guidelines |
|||
|
|||
### Patch (X.Y.Z+1) |
|||
|
|||
- Bug fixes |
|||
- Documentation updates |
|||
- Minor improvements |
|||
|
|||
### Minor (X.Y+1.Z) |
|||
|
|||
- New features |
|||
- Backward-compatible changes |
|||
- Significant improvements |
|||
|
|||
### Major (X+1.Y.Z) |
|||
|
|||
- Breaking changes |
|||
- Major API changes |
|||
- Incompatible changes |
|||
|
|||
## Pre-release Guidelines |
|||
|
|||
### Beta Versions |
|||
|
|||
- Feature complete |
|||
- Testing phase |
|||
- API stable |
|||
|
|||
### Alpha Versions |
|||
|
|||
- Early development |
|||
- API may change |
|||
- Limited testing |
|||
|
|||
### Release Candidates |
|||
|
|||
- Final testing |
|||
- API frozen |
|||
- Production ready |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
**See also**: |
|||
|
|||
- `.cursor/rules/workflow/version_control.mdc` for core version |
|||
control principles |
|||
- `.cursor/rules/workflow/commit_messages.mdc` for commit message |
|||
format |
|||
|
|||
**Status**: Active version synchronization guide |
|||
**Priority**: High |
|||
**Estimated Effort**: Ongoing reference |
|||
**Dependencies**: version_control.mdc |
|||
**Stakeholders**: Development team, Release team |
|||
|
|||
## Model Implementation Checklist |
|||
|
|||
### Before Version Changes |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Version Review**: Check current version in `package.json` and `CHANGELOG.md` |
|||
- [ ] **Change Assessment**: Identify what type of version bump is needed (patch/minor/major) |
|||
- [ ] **Breaking Changes**: Review if any changes are breaking and require |
|||
major version |
|||
- [ ] **Pre-release Status**: Determine if this should be a pre-release version |
|||
|
|||
### During Version Synchronization |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Semantic Validation**: Ensure version follows `X.Y.Z[-PRERELEASE]` format |
|||
- [ ] **Package Update**: Update `package.json` version field |
|||
- [ ] **Changelog Entry**: Add entry to `CHANGELOG.md` following Keep a Changelog |
|||
format |
|||
- [ ] **Breaking Changes**: Document breaking changes with migration notes |
|||
if applicable |
|||
|
|||
### After Version Changes |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Commit Format**: Use `build(version): bump to X.Y.Z` commit message format |
|||
- [ ] **Developer Alert**: Alert developer that version has been updated |
|||
- [ ] **Validation**: Verify `package.json` and `CHANGELOG.md` are in sync |
|||
- [ ] **Pre-release Handling**: Ensure pre-release versions are consistently formatted |
|||
@ -1,142 +0,0 @@ |
|||
name: Asset Validation & CI Safeguards |
|||
|
|||
on: |
|||
pull_request: |
|||
paths: |
|||
- 'resources/**' |
|||
- 'config/assets/**' |
|||
- 'capacitor-assets.config.json' |
|||
- 'capacitor.config.ts' |
|||
- 'capacitor.config.json' |
|||
push: |
|||
branches: [main, develop] |
|||
paths: |
|||
- 'resources/**' |
|||
- 'config/assets/**' |
|||
- 'capacitor-assets.config.json' |
|||
- 'capacitor.config.ts' |
|||
- 'capacitor.config.json' |
|||
|
|||
jobs: |
|||
asset-validation: |
|||
runs-on: ubuntu-latest |
|||
steps: |
|||
- name: Checkout code |
|||
uses: actions/checkout@v4 |
|||
|
|||
- name: Setup Node.js |
|||
uses: actions/setup-node@v4 |
|||
with: |
|||
node-version-file: '.nvmrc' |
|||
cache: 'npm' |
|||
|
|||
- name: Install dependencies |
|||
run: npm ci |
|||
|
|||
- name: Validate asset configuration |
|||
run: npm run assets:validate |
|||
|
|||
- name: Check for committed platform assets (Android) |
|||
run: | |
|||
if git ls-files -z android/app/src/main/res | grep -E '(AppIcon.*\.png|Splash.*\.png|mipmap-.*/ic_launcher.*\.png)' > /dev/null; then |
|||
echo "❌ Android platform assets found in VCS - these should be generated at build-time" |
|||
git ls-files -z android/app/src/main/res | grep -E '(AppIcon.*\.png|Splash.*\.png|mipmap-.*/ic_launcher.*\.png)' |
|||
exit 1 |
|||
fi |
|||
echo "✅ No Android platform assets committed" |
|||
|
|||
- name: Check for committed platform assets (iOS) |
|||
run: | |
|||
if git ls-files -z ios/App/App/Assets.xcassets | grep -E '(AppIcon.*\.png|Splash.*\.png)' > /dev/null; then |
|||
echo "❌ iOS platform assets found in VCS - these should be generated at build-time" |
|||
git ls-files -z ios/App/App/Assets.xcassets | grep -E '(AppIcon.*\.png|Splash.*\.png)' |
|||
exit 1 |
|||
fi |
|||
echo "✅ No iOS platform assets committed" |
|||
|
|||
- name: Test asset generation |
|||
run: | |
|||
echo "🧪 Testing asset generation workflow..." |
|||
npm run build:capacitor |
|||
npx cap sync |
|||
npx capacitor-assets generate --dry-run || npx capacitor-assets generate |
|||
echo "✅ Asset generation test completed" |
|||
|
|||
- name: Verify clean tree after build |
|||
run: | |
|||
if [ -n "$(git status --porcelain)" ]; then |
|||
echo "❌ Dirty tree after build - asset configs were modified" |
|||
git status |
|||
git diff |
|||
exit 1 |
|||
fi |
|||
echo "✅ Build completed with clean tree" |
|||
|
|||
schema-validation: |
|||
runs-on: ubuntu-latest |
|||
steps: |
|||
- name: Checkout code |
|||
uses: actions/checkout@v4 |
|||
|
|||
- name: Setup Node.js |
|||
uses: actions/setup-node@v4 |
|||
with: |
|||
node-version-file: '.nvmrc' |
|||
cache: 'npm' |
|||
|
|||
- name: Install dependencies |
|||
run: npm ci |
|||
|
|||
- name: Validate schema compliance |
|||
run: | |
|||
echo "🔍 Validating schema compliance..." |
|||
node -e " |
|||
const fs = require('fs'); |
|||
const config = JSON.parse(fs.readFileSync('capacitor-assets.config.json', 'utf8')); |
|||
const schema = JSON.parse(fs.readFileSync('config/assets/schema.json', 'utf8')); |
|||
|
|||
// Basic schema validation |
|||
if (!config.icon || !config.splash) { |
|||
throw new Error('Missing required sections: icon and splash'); |
|||
} |
|||
|
|||
if (!config.icon.source || !config.splash.source) { |
|||
throw new Error('Missing required source fields'); |
|||
} |
|||
|
|||
if (!/^resources\/.*\.(png|svg)$/.test(config.icon.source)) { |
|||
throw new Error('Icon source must be in resources/ directory'); |
|||
} |
|||
|
|||
if (!/^resources\/.*\.(png|svg)$/.test(config.splash.source)) { |
|||
throw new Error('Splash source must be in resources/ directory'); |
|||
} |
|||
|
|||
console.log('✅ Schema validation passed'); |
|||
" |
|||
|
|||
- name: Check source file existence |
|||
run: | |
|||
echo "📁 Checking source file existence..." |
|||
node -e " |
|||
const fs = require('fs'); |
|||
const config = JSON.parse(fs.readFileSync('capacitor-assets.config.json', 'utf8')); |
|||
|
|||
const requiredFiles = [ |
|||
config.icon.source, |
|||
config.splash.source |
|||
]; |
|||
|
|||
if (config.splash.darkSource) { |
|||
requiredFiles.push(config.splash.darkSource); |
|||
} |
|||
|
|||
const missingFiles = requiredFiles.filter(file => !fs.existsSync(file)); |
|||
|
|||
if (missingFiles.length > 0) { |
|||
console.error('❌ Missing source files:', missingFiles); |
|||
process.exit(1); |
|||
} |
|||
|
|||
console.log('✅ All source files exist'); |
|||
" |
|||
@ -1,27 +0,0 @@ |
|||
name: Playwright Tests |
|||
on: |
|||
push: |
|||
branches: [ main, master ] |
|||
pull_request: |
|||
branches: [ main, master ] |
|||
jobs: |
|||
test: |
|||
timeout-minutes: 60 |
|||
runs-on: ubuntu-latest |
|||
steps: |
|||
- uses: actions/checkout@v4 |
|||
- uses: actions/setup-node@v4 |
|||
with: |
|||
node-version: lts/* |
|||
- name: Install dependencies |
|||
run: npm ci |
|||
- name: Install Playwright Browsers |
|||
run: npx playwright install --with-deps |
|||
- name: Run Playwright tests |
|||
run: npx playwright test |
|||
- uses: actions/upload-artifact@v4 |
|||
if: always() |
|||
with: |
|||
name: playwright-report |
|||
path: playwright-report/ |
|||
retention-days: 30 |
|||
@ -0,0 +1,40 @@ |
|||
#!/usr/bin/env sh |
|||
# |
|||
# Husky Helper Script |
|||
# This file is sourced by all Husky hooks |
|||
# |
|||
if [ -z "$husky_skip_init" ]; then |
|||
debug () { |
|||
if [ "$HUSKY_DEBUG" = "1" ]; then |
|||
echo "husky (debug) - $1" |
|||
fi |
|||
} |
|||
|
|||
readonly hook_name="$(basename -- "$0")" |
|||
debug "starting $hook_name..." |
|||
|
|||
if [ "$HUSKY" = "0" ]; then |
|||
debug "HUSKY env variable is set to 0, skipping hook" |
|||
exit 0 |
|||
fi |
|||
|
|||
if [ -f ~/.huskyrc ]; then |
|||
debug "sourcing ~/.huskyrc" |
|||
. ~/.huskyrc |
|||
fi |
|||
|
|||
readonly husky_skip_init=1 |
|||
export husky_skip_init |
|||
sh -e "$0" "$@" |
|||
exitCode="$?" |
|||
|
|||
if [ $exitCode != 0 ]; then |
|||
echo "husky - $hook_name hook exited with code $exitCode (error)" |
|||
fi |
|||
|
|||
if [ $exitCode = 127 ]; then |
|||
echo "husky - command not found in PATH=$PATH" |
|||
fi |
|||
|
|||
exit $exitCode |
|||
fi |
|||
@ -0,0 +1,10 @@ |
|||
#!/usr/bin/env bash |
|||
# |
|||
# Husky Commit Message Hook |
|||
# Validates commit message format using commitlint |
|||
# |
|||
. "$(dirname -- "$0")/_/husky.sh" |
|||
|
|||
# Run commitlint but don't fail the commit (|| true) |
|||
# This provides helpful feedback without blocking commits |
|||
npx commitlint --edit "$1" || true |
|||
@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ |
|||
#!/usr/bin/env bash |
|||
# |
|||
# Husky Pre-commit Hook |
|||
# Runs lint-fix and Build Architecture Guard on staged files |
|||
# |
|||
. "$(dirname -- "$0")/_/husky.sh" |
|||
|
|||
echo "🔍 Running pre-commit hooks..." |
|||
|
|||
# Run lint-fix first |
|||
echo "📝 Running lint-fix..." |
|||
npm run lint-fix || { |
|||
echo |
|||
echo "❌ Linting failed. Please fix the issues and try again." |
|||
echo "💡 To bypass this check for emergency commits, use:" |
|||
echo " git commit --no-verify" |
|||
echo |
|||
exit 1 |
|||
} |
|||
|
|||
# Then run Build Architecture Guard |
|||
echo "🏗️ Running Build Architecture Guard..." |
|||
bash ./scripts/build-arch-guard.sh --staged || { |
|||
echo |
|||
echo "❌ Build Architecture Guard failed. Please fix the issues and try again." |
|||
echo "💡 To bypass this check for emergency commits, use:" |
|||
echo " git commit --no-verify" |
|||
echo |
|||
exit 1 |
|||
} |
|||
|
|||
echo "✅ All pre-commit checks passed!" |
|||
|
|||
@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ |
|||
#!/usr/bin/env bash |
|||
# |
|||
# Husky Pre-push Hook |
|||
# Runs Build Architecture Guard to check commits being pushed |
|||
# |
|||
. "$(dirname -- "$0")/_/husky.sh" |
|||
|
|||
echo "🔍 Running Build Architecture Guard (pre-push)..." |
|||
|
|||
# Get the remote branch we're pushing to |
|||
REMOTE_BRANCH="origin/$(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD)" |
|||
|
|||
# Check if remote branch exists |
|||
if git show-ref --verify --quiet "refs/remotes/$REMOTE_BRANCH"; then |
|||
RANGE="$REMOTE_BRANCH...HEAD" |
|||
else |
|||
# If remote branch doesn't exist, check last commit |
|||
RANGE="HEAD~1..HEAD" |
|||
fi |
|||
|
|||
bash ./scripts/build-arch-guard.sh --range "$RANGE" || { |
|||
echo |
|||
echo "💡 To bypass this check for emergency pushes, use:" |
|||
echo " git push --no-verify" |
|||
echo |
|||
exit 1 |
|||
} |
|||
@ -0,0 +1,53 @@ |
|||
{ |
|||
// Markdownlint configuration for TimeSafari .cursor/rules |
|||
"config": { |
|||
// Core formatting rules that can be auto-fixed |
|||
"MD013": { |
|||
"line_length": 80, |
|||
"code_blocks": false, |
|||
"tables": false, |
|||
"headings": false |
|||
}, |
|||
"MD012": true, // No multiple consecutive blank lines |
|||
"MD022": true, // Headings should be surrounded by blank lines |
|||
"MD031": true, // Fenced code blocks should be surrounded by blank lines |
|||
"MD032": true, // Lists should be surrounded by blank lines |
|||
"MD047": true, // Files should end with a single newline |
|||
"MD009": true, // No trailing spaces |
|||
"MD010": true, // No hard tabs |
|||
"MD004": { "style": "dash" }, // Consistent list markers |
|||
"MD029": { "style": "ordered" }, // Ordered list item prefix |
|||
|
|||
// Disable rules that conflict with existing content structure |
|||
"MD041": false, // First line heading requirement |
|||
"MD025": false, // Multiple top-level headings |
|||
"MD024": false, // Duplicate headings |
|||
"MD036": false, // Emphasis as headings |
|||
"MD003": false, // Heading style consistency |
|||
"MD040": false, // Fenced code language |
|||
"MD055": false, // Table pipe style |
|||
"MD056": false, // Table column count |
|||
"MD034": false, // Bare URLs |
|||
"MD023": false // Heading indentation |
|||
}, |
|||
|
|||
"globs": [ |
|||
".cursor/rules/**/*.mdc", |
|||
"*.md", |
|||
"*.markdown", |
|||
"scripts/**/*.md", |
|||
"src/**/*.md", |
|||
"test-playwright/**/*.md", |
|||
"resources/**/*.md", |
|||
"doc/**/*.md", |
|||
"ios/**/*.md", |
|||
"electron/**/*.md" |
|||
], |
|||
"ignores": [ |
|||
"node_modules/**", |
|||
".git/**", |
|||
"**/node_modules/**", |
|||
"**/dist/**", |
|||
"**/build/**" |
|||
] |
|||
} |
|||
@ -1 +1,27 @@ |
|||
{"MD013": {"code_blocks": false}} |
|||
{ |
|||
"MD013": { |
|||
"line_length": 80, |
|||
"code_blocks": false, |
|||
"tables": false, |
|||
"headings": false |
|||
}, |
|||
"MD012": true, |
|||
"MD022": true, |
|||
"MD031": true, |
|||
"MD032": true, |
|||
"MD047": true, |
|||
"MD009": true, |
|||
"MD010": true, |
|||
"MD004": { "style": "dash" }, |
|||
"MD029": { "style": "ordered" }, |
|||
"MD041": false, |
|||
"MD025": false, |
|||
"MD024": false, |
|||
"MD036": false, |
|||
"MD003": false, |
|||
"MD040": false, |
|||
"MD055": false, |
|||
"MD056": false, |
|||
"MD034": false, |
|||
"MD023": false |
|||
} |
|||
File diff suppressed because it is too large
@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ |
|||
# Pull Request Template |
|||
|
|||
## Location |
|||
|
|||
The Build Architecture Guard PR template is located at: |
|||
|
|||
- **`pull_request_template.md`** (root directory) |
|||
|
|||
## Usage |
|||
|
|||
When creating a pull request in Gitea, this template will automatically populate the PR description with the required checklist. |
|||
|
|||
## Template Features |
|||
|
|||
### Change Level Classification |
|||
|
|||
- **L1**: Minor changes, documentation updates |
|||
- **L2**: Moderate changes, new features, environment changes |
|||
- **L3**: Major changes, architecture changes, new platforms |
|||
|
|||
### Required Fields for All Levels |
|||
|
|||
- Change level selection |
|||
- Scope and impact description |
|||
- Commands executed and their output |
|||
- Documentation updates (BUILDING.md) |
|||
- Rollback verification steps |
|||
|
|||
### Additional Requirements for L3 |
|||
|
|||
- **ADR link**: Must provide URL to Architectural Decision Record |
|||
- **Artifacts with SHA256**: Must list artifacts with cryptographic hashes |
|||
|
|||
## Integration |
|||
|
|||
This template works with: |
|||
|
|||
- **Gitea Actions**: `.gitea/workflows/build-guard.yml` |
|||
- **Client-side hooks**: `.husky/` pre-commit and pre-push hooks |
|||
- **Guard script**: `scripts/build-arch-guard.sh` |
|||
|
|||
## Example Usage |
|||
|
|||
```markdown |
|||
### Change Level |
|||
- [x] Level: **L2** |
|||
|
|||
**Why:** Adding new build script for Docker deployment |
|||
|
|||
### Scope & Impact |
|||
- [x] Files & platforms touched: scripts/build-docker.sh, |
|||
BUILDING.md |
|||
- [x] Risk triggers: Docker build process changes |
|||
- [x] Mitigations/validation done: Tested on local Docker environment |
|||
|
|||
### Commands Run |
|||
- [x] Web: `npm run build:web:docker` ✅ |
|||
- [x] Docker: `docker build -t test-image .` ✅ |
|||
|
|||
### Artifacts |
|||
- [x] Names + **sha256** of artifacts/installers: |
|||
|
|||
Artifacts: |
|||
```text |
|||
test-image.tar a1b2c3d4e5f6... |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### Docs |
|||
- [x] **BUILDING.md** updated (sections): Docker deployment |
|||
- [x] Troubleshooting updated: Added Docker troubleshooting section |
|||
|
|||
### Rollback |
|||
- [x] Verified steps to restore previous behavior: |
|||
1. `git revert HEAD` |
|||
2. `docker rmi test-image` |
|||
3. Restore previous BUILDING.md |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
**Note**: This template is enforced by the Build Architecture Guard |
|||
system. Complete all required fields to ensure your PR can be merged. |
|||
@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ |
|||
module.exports = { |
|||
extends: ['@commitlint/config-conventional'], |
|||
rules: { |
|||
// Downgrade strict case rules to warnings (level 1) instead of errors (level 2)
|
|||
// This eliminates red error messages while maintaining helpful guidance
|
|||
'subject-case': [1, 'never', ['sentence-case', 'start-case', 'pascal-case', 'upper-case']], |
|||
'subject-full-stop': [1, 'never', '.'], |
|||
} |
|||
}; |
|||
@ -0,0 +1,336 @@ |
|||
# Build Architecture Guard - Husky Implementation |
|||
|
|||
## Overview |
|||
|
|||
The Build Architecture Guard protects your build system by enforcing |
|||
documentation requirements through **Git hooks**. When you modify |
|||
build-critical files, the system automatically blocks commits/pushes |
|||
until you update `BUILDING.md`. |
|||
|
|||
## 🎯 **Why Husky-Only?** |
|||
|
|||
**Advantages:** |
|||
|
|||
- ✅ **Immediate feedback** - Hooks run before commit/push |
|||
- ✅ **Works everywhere** - No server-side CI/CD required |
|||
- ✅ **Simple setup** - One tool, one configuration |
|||
- ✅ **Fast execution** - No network delays or server queues |
|||
- ✅ **Offline support** - Works without internet connection |
|||
|
|||
**Trade-offs:** |
|||
|
|||
- ⚠️ **Can be bypassed** - `git commit --no-verify` or `git push --no-verify` |
|||
- ⚠️ **Developer discipline** - Relies on team following the rules |
|||
|
|||
## 🏗️ **Architecture** |
|||
|
|||
```bash |
|||
Developer Workflow: |
|||
1. Modify build files (scripts/, vite.config.*, etc.) |
|||
2. Try to commit → Husky pre-commit hook runs |
|||
3. Guard script checks if BUILDING.md was updated |
|||
4. ✅ Commit succeeds if docs updated |
|||
5. ❌ Commit blocked if docs missing |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
## 🚀 **Quick Start** |
|||
|
|||
### 1. Install Dependencies |
|||
|
|||
```bash |
|||
npm install |
|||
npm run prepare # Sets up Husky hooks |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### 2. Test the System |
|||
|
|||
```bash |
|||
# Modify a build file without updating BUILDING.md |
|||
echo "# test" >> scripts/test.sh |
|||
|
|||
# Try to commit (should be blocked) |
|||
git add scripts/test.sh |
|||
git commit -m "test: add build script" |
|||
# ❌ Hook blocks commit with helpful message |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### 3. Fix and Retry |
|||
|
|||
```bash |
|||
# Update BUILDING.md with your changes |
|||
echo "## New Build Script" >> BUILDING.md |
|||
echo "Added test.sh for testing purposes" >> BUILDING.md |
|||
|
|||
# Now commit should succeed |
|||
git add BUILDING.md |
|||
git commit -m "feat: add test build script with docs" |
|||
# ✅ Commit succeeds |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
## 🔧 **How It Works** |
|||
|
|||
### Pre-commit Hook (`.husky/pre-commit`) |
|||
|
|||
- **When**: Every `git commit` |
|||
- **What**: Runs `./scripts/build-arch-guard.sh --staged` |
|||
- **Result**: Blocks commit if build files changed without BUILDING.md update |
|||
|
|||
### Pre-push Hook (`.husky/pre-push`) |
|||
|
|||
- **When**: Every `git push` |
|||
- **What**: Runs `./scripts/build-arch-guard.sh --range` |
|||
- **Result**: Blocks push if commits contain undocumented build changes |
|||
|
|||
### Guard Script (`scripts/build-arch-guard.sh`) |
|||
|
|||
- **Detects**: Changes to build-sensitive file patterns |
|||
- **Validates**: BUILDING.md was updated alongside changes |
|||
- **Reports**: Clear error messages with guidance |
|||
|
|||
## 📁 **Protected File Patterns** |
|||
|
|||
The guard script monitors these paths for changes: |
|||
|
|||
```text |
|||
Build Configuration: |
|||
├── vite.config.* # Vite configuration |
|||
├── capacitor.config.ts # Capacitor configuration |
|||
├── package.json # Package configuration |
|||
├── package-lock.json # Lock files |
|||
├── yarn.lock |
|||
└── pnpm-lock.yaml |
|||
|
|||
Build Scripts: |
|||
├── scripts/** # All build and automation scripts |
|||
├── electron/** # Electron build files |
|||
├── android/** # Android build configuration |
|||
├── ios/** # iOS build configuration |
|||
├── sw_scripts/** # Service worker scripts |
|||
└── sw_combine.js # Service worker combination |
|||
|
|||
Deployment: |
|||
├── Dockerfile # Docker configuration |
|||
└── docker/** # Docker services |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
## 🎭 **Usage Scenarios** |
|||
|
|||
### Scenario 1: Adding a New Build Script |
|||
|
|||
```bash |
|||
# ❌ This will be blocked |
|||
echo '#!/bin/bash' > scripts/new-build.sh |
|||
git add scripts/new-build.sh |
|||
git commit -m "feat: add new build script" |
|||
# Hook blocks: "Build-sensitive files changed but BUILDING.md not updated" |
|||
|
|||
# ✅ This will succeed |
|||
echo '#!/bin/bash' > scripts/new-build.sh |
|||
echo '## New Build Script' >> BUILDING.md |
|||
echo 'Added new-build.sh for feature X' >> BUILDING.md |
|||
git add scripts/new-build.sh BUILDING.md |
|||
git commit -m "feat: add new build script with docs" |
|||
# ✅ Commit succeeds |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### Scenario 2: Updating Vite Configuration |
|||
|
|||
```bash |
|||
# ❌ This will be blocked |
|||
echo 'export default { newOption: true }' >> vite.config.ts |
|||
git add vite.config.ts |
|||
git commit -m "config: add new vite option" |
|||
# Hook blocks: "Build-sensitive files changed but BUILDING.md not updated" |
|||
|
|||
# ✅ This will succeed |
|||
echo 'export default { newOption: true }' >> vite.config.ts |
|||
echo '### New Vite Option' >> BUILDING.md |
|||
echo 'Added newOption for improved performance' >> BUILDING.md |
|||
git add vite.config.ts BUILDING.md |
|||
git commit -m "config: add new vite option with docs" |
|||
# ✅ Commit succeeds |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
## 🚨 **Emergency Bypass** |
|||
|
|||
**⚠️ Use sparingly and only for emergencies:** |
|||
|
|||
```bash |
|||
# Skip pre-commit hook |
|||
git commit -m "emergency: critical fix" --no-verify |
|||
|
|||
# Skip pre-push hook |
|||
git push --no-verify |
|||
|
|||
# Remember to update BUILDING.md later! |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
## 🔍 **Troubleshooting** |
|||
|
|||
### Hooks Not Running |
|||
|
|||
```bash |
|||
# Reinstall hooks |
|||
npm run prepare |
|||
|
|||
# Check hook files exist and are executable |
|||
ls -la .husky/ |
|||
chmod +x .husky/* |
|||
|
|||
# Verify Git hooks path |
|||
git config core.hooksPath |
|||
# Should show: .husky |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### Guard Script Issues |
|||
|
|||
```bash |
|||
# Test guard script manually |
|||
./scripts/build-arch-guard.sh --help |
|||
|
|||
# Check script permissions |
|||
chmod +x scripts/build-arch-guard.sh |
|||
|
|||
# Test with specific files |
|||
./scripts/build-arch-guard.sh --staged |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### False Positives |
|||
|
|||
```bash |
|||
# If guard blocks legitimate changes, check: |
|||
# 1. Are you modifying a protected file pattern? |
|||
# 2. Did you update BUILDING.md? |
|||
# 3. Is BUILDING.md staged for commit? |
|||
|
|||
# View what the guard sees |
|||
git diff --name-only --cached |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
## 📋 **Best Practices** |
|||
|
|||
### For Developers |
|||
|
|||
1. **Update BUILDING.md first** - Document changes before implementing |
|||
2. **Test locally** - Run `./scripts/build-arch-guard.sh --staged` before committing |
|||
3. **Use descriptive commits** - Include context about build changes |
|||
4. **Don't bypass lightly** - Only use `--no-verify` for true emergencies |
|||
|
|||
### For Teams |
|||
|
|||
1. **Document the system** - Ensure everyone understands the guard |
|||
2. **Review BUILDING.md updates** - Verify documentation quality |
|||
3. **Monitor bypass usage** - Track when hooks are skipped |
|||
4. **Regular audits** - Check that BUILDING.md stays current |
|||
|
|||
### For Maintainers |
|||
|
|||
1. **Update protected patterns** - Modify `scripts/build-arch-guard.sh` as needed |
|||
2. **Monitor effectiveness** - Track how often the guard catches issues |
|||
3. **Team training** - Help developers understand the system |
|||
4. **Continuous improvement** - Refine patterns and error messages |
|||
|
|||
## 🚨 **Troubleshooting** |
|||
|
|||
### Common Issues |
|||
|
|||
#### mapfile Command Not Found |
|||
|
|||
**Problem**: Pre-commit hook fails with `mapfile: command not found` |
|||
|
|||
**Cause**: The `mapfile` command is bash-specific and not available in all shell environments |
|||
|
|||
**Solution**: The script has been updated to use portable alternatives. If you encounter this issue: |
|||
|
|||
```bash |
|||
# Verify the script is executable |
|||
chmod +x scripts/build-arch-guard.sh |
|||
|
|||
# Test the script directly |
|||
./scripts/build-arch-guard.sh --help |
|||
|
|||
# Check your shell environment |
|||
echo $SHELL |
|||
bash --version |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
**Prevention**: Ensure your development environment uses bash and the script has proper permissions |
|||
|
|||
### False Positives |
|||
|
|||
```bash |
|||
# If guard blocks legitimate changes, check: |
|||
# 1. Are you modifying a protected file pattern? |
|||
# 2. Did you update BUILDING.md? |
|||
# 3. Is BUILDING.md staged for commit? |
|||
|
|||
# View what the guard sees |
|||
git diff --name-only --cached |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
## 🔄 **Customization** |
|||
|
|||
### Adding New Protected Paths |
|||
|
|||
Edit `scripts/build-arch-guard.sh`: |
|||
|
|||
```bash |
|||
SENSITIVE=( |
|||
# ... existing patterns ... |
|||
"new-pattern/**" # Add your new pattern |
|||
"*.config.js" # Add file extensions |
|||
) |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### Modifying Error Messages |
|||
|
|||
Edit the guard script to customize: |
|||
|
|||
- Error message content |
|||
- File pattern matching |
|||
- Documentation requirements |
|||
- Bypass instructions |
|||
|
|||
### Adding New Validation Rules |
|||
|
|||
Extend the guard script to check for: |
|||
|
|||
- Specific file content patterns |
|||
- Required documentation sections |
|||
- Commit message formats |
|||
- Branch naming conventions |
|||
|
|||
## 📚 **Integration with PR Template** |
|||
|
|||
The `pull_request_template.md` works with this system by: |
|||
|
|||
- **Guiding developers** through required documentation |
|||
- **Ensuring consistency** across all build changes |
|||
- **Providing checklist** for comprehensive updates |
|||
- **Supporting L1/L2/L3** change classification |
|||
|
|||
## 🎯 **Success Metrics** |
|||
|
|||
Track the effectiveness of your Build Architecture Guard: |
|||
|
|||
- **Hook execution rate** - How often hooks run successfully |
|||
- **Bypass frequency** - How often `--no-verify` is used |
|||
- **Documentation quality** - BUILDING.md stays current |
|||
- **Build failures** - Fewer issues from undocumented changes |
|||
- **Team adoption** - Developers follow the process |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
**Status**: Active protection system |
|||
**Architecture**: Client-side Git hooks only |
|||
**Dependencies**: Husky, Git, Bash |
|||
**Maintainer**: Development team |
|||
**Related**: `pull_request_template.md`, `scripts/build-arch-guard.sh` |
|||
|
|||
## 📝 **Changelog** |
|||
|
|||
### 2025-08-22 - Shell Compatibility Fix |
|||
- **Fixed**: Replaced `mapfile` command with portable alternative for cross-shell compatibility |
|||
- **Impact**: Resolves "mapfile: command not found" errors in pre-commit hooks |
|||
- **Files**: `scripts/build-arch-guard.sh` |
|||
- **Testing**: Script now works across different shell environments |
|||
@ -0,0 +1,238 @@ |
|||
# Android Asset Validation System |
|||
|
|||
**Author**: Matthew Raymer |
|||
**Date**: 2025-08-22 |
|||
**Status**: 🎯 **ACTIVE** - Production Ready |
|||
|
|||
## Overview |
|||
|
|||
The Android Asset Validation System automatically detects and fixes missing Android resources before building, preventing common build failures related to missing splash screens and app icons. |
|||
|
|||
## Problem Solved |
|||
|
|||
Previously, Android builds would fail with errors like: |
|||
``` |
|||
error: resource drawable/splash (aka app.timesafari.app:drawable/splash) not found. |
|||
error: resource mipmap/ic_launcher (aka app.timesafari.app:mipmap/ic_launcher) not found. |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
This happened when: |
|||
- Source assets existed but weren't generated into Android resources |
|||
- Android resource directories were missing |
|||
- Asset generation tools weren't run before building |
|||
|
|||
## Solution |
|||
|
|||
### Enhanced Build Script Validation |
|||
|
|||
The `scripts/build-android.sh` script now includes comprehensive asset validation that: |
|||
|
|||
1. **Checks Source Assets**: Validates that required source files exist in `resources/` |
|||
2. **Checks Android Resources**: Verifies that generated Android resources exist |
|||
3. **Auto-Regenerates**: Automatically regenerates missing resources when detected |
|||
4. **Verifies Results**: Confirms that regeneration was successful |
|||
|
|||
### Validation Process |
|||
|
|||
```bash |
|||
# Validates and regenerates if needed |
|||
npm run assets:validate:android |
|||
|
|||
# Full build with validation |
|||
npm run build:android:studio |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### What Gets Validated |
|||
|
|||
#### Source Assets (Required) |
|||
- `resources/icon.png` - App icon source |
|||
- `resources/splash.png` - Splash screen source |
|||
- `resources/splash_dark.png` - Dark mode splash source |
|||
|
|||
#### Android Resources (Generated) |
|||
- `android/app/src/main/res/drawable/splash.png` - Splash screen drawable |
|||
- `android/app/src/main/res/mipmap-*/ic_launcher.png` - App icons for all densities |
|||
- `android/app/src/main/res/mipmap-*/ic_launcher_round.png` - Round app icons for all densities |
|||
|
|||
### Density Levels Checked |
|||
- `mipmap-mdpi` (1x) |
|||
- `mipmap-hdpi` (1.5x) |
|||
- `mipmap-xhdpi` (2x) |
|||
- `mipmap-xxhdpi` (3x) |
|||
- `mipmap-xxxhdpi` (4x) |
|||
|
|||
## Usage |
|||
|
|||
### Automatic Validation (Recommended) |
|||
The validation runs automatically during all Android builds: |
|||
|
|||
```bash |
|||
# Development build with validation |
|||
npm run build:android:studio |
|||
|
|||
# Production build with validation |
|||
npm run build:android:prod |
|||
|
|||
# Debug build with validation |
|||
npm run build:android:debug |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### Manual Validation |
|||
Run validation only to check/fix assets: |
|||
|
|||
```bash |
|||
# Validate and regenerate if needed |
|||
npm run assets:validate:android |
|||
|
|||
# Alternative command |
|||
./scripts/build-android.sh --assets-only |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### Validation Only (No Regeneration) |
|||
Check configuration without fixing: |
|||
|
|||
```bash |
|||
npm run assets:validate |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
## Error Handling |
|||
|
|||
### Missing Source Assets |
|||
If source assets are missing, the build fails with clear error messages: |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
[ERROR] Missing source assets: |
|||
[ERROR] - resources/icon.png |
|||
[ERROR] - resources/splash.png |
|||
[ERROR] Please ensure all required assets are present in the resources/ directory. |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### Missing Generated Resources |
|||
If generated resources are missing, they're automatically regenerated: |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
[WARN] Missing Android resources detected: |
|||
[WARN] - drawable/splash.png |
|||
[WARN] - mipmap-mdpi/ic_launcher.png |
|||
[INFO] Regenerating Android assets... |
|||
[SUCCESS] Android assets regenerated successfully |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### Generation Failure |
|||
If regeneration fails, helpful guidance is provided: |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
[ERROR] Failed to generate Android assets |
|||
[INFO] You may need to manually create the missing resources: |
|||
[INFO] - android/app/src/main/res/drawable/splash.png |
|||
[INFO] - android/app/src/main/res/mipmap-mdpi/ic_launcher.png |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
## Integration Points |
|||
|
|||
### Build Script Integration |
|||
The validation is integrated into the main build process: |
|||
|
|||
```bash |
|||
# In scripts/build-android.sh |
|||
validate_dependencies |
|||
validate_android_assets || { |
|||
log_error "Android asset validation failed. Please fix the issues above and try again." |
|||
exit 9 |
|||
} |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### NPM Scripts |
|||
New npm scripts for asset management: |
|||
|
|||
```json |
|||
{ |
|||
"assets:validate": "npx tsx scripts/assets-validator.ts", |
|||
"assets:validate:android": "./scripts/build-android.sh --assets-only", |
|||
"assets:clean": "rimraf android/app/src/main/res/mipmap-* ios/App/App/Assets.xcassets/**/AppIcon*.png ios/App/App/Assets.xcassets/**/Splash*.png || true" |
|||
} |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
## Benefits |
|||
|
|||
### For Developers |
|||
- **No More Build Failures**: Automatic detection and fixing of missing resources |
|||
- **Faster Development**: No need to manually run asset generation tools |
|||
- **Clear Error Messages**: Helpful guidance when issues occur |
|||
- **Consistent Results**: Same validation on all development machines |
|||
|
|||
### For CI/CD |
|||
- **Reliable Builds**: Consistent asset validation across environments |
|||
- **Early Detection**: Catches issues before they reach production |
|||
- **Automated Fixes**: Self-healing builds when possible |
|||
|
|||
### For Project Maintenance |
|||
- **Reduced Support**: Fewer "build doesn't work" issues |
|||
- **Documentation**: Clear requirements for required assets |
|||
- **Standardization**: Consistent asset structure across the project |
|||
|
|||
## Troubleshooting |
|||
|
|||
### Common Issues |
|||
|
|||
#### "No assets found in the asset path" |
|||
This occurs when the `assets/` directory is empty. The validation system automatically copies source assets and regenerates them. |
|||
|
|||
#### "Failed to generate Android assets" |
|||
Check that: |
|||
- Source assets exist in `resources/` |
|||
- `@capacitor/assets` is installed |
|||
- You have write permissions to the Android directories |
|||
|
|||
#### "Asset generation completed but some resources are still missing" |
|||
This indicates a problem with the asset generation tool. Try: |
|||
1. Running `npm install` to ensure dependencies are up to date |
|||
2. Manually running `npx @capacitor/assets generate` |
|||
3. Checking the asset generation logs for specific errors |
|||
|
|||
### Manual Recovery |
|||
If automatic regeneration fails, you can manually create the missing resources: |
|||
|
|||
```bash |
|||
# Create missing directories |
|||
mkdir -p android/app/src/main/res/drawable |
|||
mkdir -p android/app/src/main/res/mipmap-{mdpi,hdpi,xhdpi,xxhdpi,xxxhdpi} |
|||
|
|||
# Copy source assets to assets directory |
|||
cp resources/icon.png assets/ |
|||
cp resources/splash.png assets/ |
|||
cp resources/splash_dark.png assets/ |
|||
|
|||
# Generate assets manually |
|||
npx @capacitor/assets generate |
|||
|
|||
# Clean up |
|||
rm assets/icon.png assets/splash.png assets/splash_dark.png |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
## Future Enhancements |
|||
|
|||
### Planned Improvements |
|||
- **iOS Asset Validation**: Extend validation to iOS assets |
|||
- **Asset Quality Checks**: Validate image dimensions and formats |
|||
- **Performance Optimization**: Cache validation results |
|||
- **CI/CD Integration**: Add validation to GitHub Actions |
|||
|
|||
### Configuration Options |
|||
- **Custom Asset Paths**: Support for different asset directory structures |
|||
- **Validation Rules**: Configurable validation requirements |
|||
- **Skip Options**: Ability to skip validation for specific scenarios |
|||
|
|||
## References |
|||
|
|||
- [Capacitor Assets Documentation](https://github.com/ionic-team/capacitor-assets) |
|||
- [Android Resource System](https://developer.android.com/guide/topics/resources/providing-resources) |
|||
- [Build Script Documentation](./build-android.sh) |
|||
- [Asset Configuration](./capacitor-assets.config.json) |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
**Status**: Active validation system |
|||
**Priority**: High |
|||
**Maintainer**: Development team |
|||
**Next Review**: 2025-09-22 |
|||
@ -0,0 +1,187 @@ |
|||
# TimeSafari Debug Hook Guide |
|||
|
|||
**Complete Guide for Team Members** |
|||
|
|||
**Date**: 2025-01-27 |
|||
**Author**: Matthew Raymer |
|||
**Status**: ✅ **ACTIVE** - Ready for production use |
|||
|
|||
## 🎯 Overview |
|||
|
|||
A pre-commit hook that automatically detects and prevents debug code from reaching protected branches (master, main, production, release, stable). This ensures production code remains clean while allowing free development on feature branches. |
|||
|
|||
## 🚀 Quick Installation |
|||
|
|||
**From within the TimeSafari repository:** |
|||
|
|||
```bash |
|||
./scripts/install-debug-hook.sh |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
This automatically installs, updates, and verifies the hook in your current |
|||
repository. **Note**: Hooks are not automatically installed - you must run this |
|||
script deliberately to enable debug code checking. |
|||
|
|||
## 🔧 Manual Installation |
|||
|
|||
**Copy files manually:** |
|||
|
|||
```bash |
|||
cp scripts/git-hooks/pre-commit /path/to/your/repo/.git/hooks/ |
|||
cp scripts/git-hooks/debug-checker.config /path/to/your/repo/.git/hooks/ |
|||
chmod +x /path/to/your/repo/.git/hooks/pre-commit |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
## 📋 What Gets Installed |
|||
|
|||
- **`pre-commit`** - Main hook script (executable) |
|||
- **`debug-checker.config`** - Configuration file |
|||
- **`README.md`** - Documentation and troubleshooting |
|||
|
|||
**Note**: Hooks are stored in `scripts/git-hooks/` and must be deliberately |
|||
installed by each developer. They are not automatically active. |
|||
|
|||
## 🎯 How It Works |
|||
|
|||
1. **Deliberate Installation**: Hooks must be explicitly installed by each |
|||
developer |
|||
2. **Branch Detection**: Only runs on protected branches |
|||
3. **File Filtering**: Automatically skips tests, scripts, and documentation |
|||
4. **Pattern Matching**: Detects debug code using regex patterns |
|||
5. **Commit Prevention**: Blocks commits containing debug code |
|||
|
|||
## 🔒 Installation Philosophy |
|||
|
|||
**Why deliberate installation?** |
|||
|
|||
- **Developer choice**: Each developer decides whether to use the hook |
|||
- **No forced behavior**: Hooks don't interfere with existing workflows |
|||
- **Local control**: Hooks are installed locally, not globally |
|||
- **Easy removal**: Can be uninstalled at any time |
|||
- **Team flexibility**: Some developers may prefer different tools |
|||
|
|||
## 🌿 Branch Behavior |
|||
|
|||
- **Protected branches** (master, main, production, release, stable): Hook runs automatically |
|||
- **Feature branches**: Hook is skipped, allowing free development with debug code |
|||
|
|||
## 🔍 Debug Patterns Detected |
|||
|
|||
- **Console statements**: `console.log`, `console.debug`, `console.error` |
|||
- **Template debug**: `Debug:`, `debug:` in Vue templates |
|||
- **Debug constants**: `DEBUG_`, `debug_` variables |
|||
- **HTML debug**: `<!-- debug` comments |
|||
- **Debug attributes**: `debug="true"` attributes |
|||
- **Vue debug**: `v-if="debug"`, `v-show="debug"` |
|||
- **Debug TODOs**: `TODO debug`, `FIXME debug` |
|||
|
|||
## 📁 Files Automatically Skipped |
|||
|
|||
- Test files: `*.test.js`, `*.spec.ts`, `*.test.vue` |
|||
- Scripts: `scripts/` directory |
|||
- Test directories: `test-*` directories |
|||
- Documentation: `docs/`, `*.md`, `*.txt` |
|||
- Config files: `*.json`, `*.yml`, `*.yaml` |
|||
- IDE files: `.cursor/` directory |
|||
|
|||
## ✅ Verification |
|||
|
|||
**After installation, verify it's working:** |
|||
|
|||
```bash |
|||
# Check if files exist |
|||
ls -la .git/hooks/pre-commit |
|||
ls -la .git/hooks/debug-checker.config |
|||
|
|||
# Test the hook manually |
|||
.git/hooks/pre-commit |
|||
|
|||
# Test with actual commit |
|||
echo "console.log('test')" > test.vue |
|||
git add test.vue |
|||
git commit -m "test" # Should be blocked |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
## 📊 Example Output |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
❌ Debug code detected in staged files! |
|||
Branch: master |
|||
Files checked: 1 |
|||
Errors found: 3 |
|||
|
|||
🚨 AccountViewView.vue: Found debug pattern 'console\.' |
|||
🚨 AccountViewView.vue: Found debug pattern 'Debug:' |
|||
🚨 AccountViewView.vue: Found debug pattern 'DEBUG_' |
|||
|
|||
💡 Please remove debug code before committing to master |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
## ⚙️ Configuration |
|||
|
|||
Edit `.git/hooks/debug-checker.config` to customize: |
|||
|
|||
- **Protected branches**: Add/remove branches as needed |
|||
- **Debug patterns**: Customize what gets detected |
|||
- **Skip patterns**: Adjust file filtering rules |
|||
|
|||
## 🚨 Emergency Bypass |
|||
|
|||
If you absolutely need to commit debug code to a protected branch: |
|||
|
|||
```bash |
|||
git commit --no-verify -m "emergency: debug code needed" |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
⚠️ **Warning**: This bypasses all pre-commit hooks. Use sparingly. |
|||
|
|||
## 🔄 Updates |
|||
|
|||
When the hook is updated in the main repository: |
|||
|
|||
```bash |
|||
./scripts/install-debug-hook.sh |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
## 🚨 Troubleshooting |
|||
|
|||
| Issue | Solution | |
|||
|-------|----------| |
|||
| Hook not running | Check if on protected branch, verify permissions | |
|||
| Permission denied | Run `chmod +x .git/hooks/pre-commit` | |
|||
| Files not found | Ensure you're copying from TimeSafari repo | |
|||
| False positives | Edit `debug-checker.config` to customize patterns | |
|||
|
|||
## 🧪 Testing |
|||
|
|||
A test script is available at `scripts/test-debug-hook.sh` to verify the hook works correctly. |
|||
|
|||
## 💡 Best Practices |
|||
|
|||
1. **Use feature branches** for development with debug code |
|||
2. **Use proper logging** instead of console statements (`logger.info`, `logger.debug`) |
|||
3. **Test thoroughly** before merging to protected branches |
|||
4. **Review commits** to ensure no debug code slips through |
|||
5. **Keep hooks updated** across all repositories |
|||
|
|||
## 📚 Additional Resources |
|||
|
|||
- **Hook documentation**: `scripts/git-hooks/README.md` |
|||
- **Configuration**: `scripts/git-hooks/debug-checker.config` |
|||
- **Test script**: `scripts/test-debug-hook.sh` |
|||
- **Installation script**: `scripts/install-debug-hook.sh` |
|||
|
|||
## 🎯 Team Workflow |
|||
|
|||
**Recommended setup:** |
|||
|
|||
1. **Repository setup**: Include hook files in `.githooks/` directory |
|||
2. **Team onboarding**: Run installation script in each repo |
|||
3. **Updates**: Re-run installation script when hooks are updated |
|||
4. **Documentation**: Keep this guide updated |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
**Status**: Active and enforced |
|||
**Last Updated**: 2025-01-27 |
|||
**Maintainer**: Matthew Raymer |
|||
@ -0,0 +1,272 @@ |
|||
# Meta-Rule Usage Guide: How to Use Meta-Rules in Practice |
|||
|
|||
**Author**: Matthew Raymer |
|||
**Date**: 2025-08-21 |
|||
**Status**: 🎯 **ACTIVE** - Comprehensive meta-rule usage guide |
|||
|
|||
## Overview |
|||
|
|||
This guide explains how to use the TimeSafari meta-rule system in practice. |
|||
Meta-rules are high-level rule bundles that provide workflow-specific guidance |
|||
for different types of tasks. |
|||
|
|||
**Educational Goal**: Help developers understand when and how to apply |
|||
meta-rules to maximize their effectiveness and avoid common mistakes. |
|||
|
|||
## Why Meta-Rules Matter |
|||
|
|||
**Meta-rules solve the problem of rule overload** by bundling related rules |
|||
into logical workflows. Instead of manually selecting 10+ individual rules, |
|||
you apply 1-3 meta-rules that automatically include everything you need. |
|||
|
|||
### **Benefits of Using Meta-Rules** |
|||
|
|||
- **Faster Setup**: No need to manually select individual rules |
|||
- **Better Coverage**: Ensures you don't miss important rules |
|||
- **Workflow Consistency**: Standardized approaches across the team |
|||
- **Learning Efficiency**: Learn workflows, not individual rules |
|||
- **Quality Assurance**: Built-in validation and feedback mechanisms |
|||
|
|||
## Meta-Rule Selection Strategy |
|||
|
|||
### **Step 1: Always Start with Core Always-On** |
|||
|
|||
**Every single interaction** starts with: |
|||
``` |
|||
meta_core_always_on.mdc |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
This provides the foundation: human competence principles, time standards, |
|||
version control, and application context. |
|||
|
|||
### **Step 2: Identify Your Primary Task Type** |
|||
|
|||
Choose the meta-rule that matches your main objective: |
|||
|
|||
| **Task Type** | **Primary Meta-Rule** | **When to Use** | |
|||
|---------------|------------------------|------------------| |
|||
| **Research/Investigation** | `meta_research.mdc` | Bug diagnosis, feasibility research, code analysis | |
|||
| **Feature Planning** | `meta_feature_planning.mdc` | New feature design, requirements analysis | |
|||
| **Feature Implementation** | `meta_feature_implementation.mdc` | Building features, coding, testing | |
|||
| **Bug Diagnosis** | `meta_bug_diagnosis.mdc` | Investigating issues, root cause analysis | |
|||
| **Bug Fixing** | `meta_bug_fixing.mdc` | Implementing fixes, validation | |
|||
| **Documentation** | `meta_documentation.mdc` | Writing docs, creating guides, tutorials | |
|||
|
|||
### **Step 3: Add Context-Specific Meta-Rules (Optional)** |
|||
|
|||
For complex tasks, you might combine multiple meta-rules: |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
meta_core_always_on + meta_research + meta_bug_diagnosis |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
## Practical Usage Examples |
|||
|
|||
### **Example 1: Bug Investigation** |
|||
|
|||
**Scenario**: User reports that the contact list isn't loading properly |
|||
|
|||
**Meta-Rule Selection**: |
|||
``` |
|||
meta_core_always_on + meta_research + meta_bug_diagnosis |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
**What This Gives You**: |
|||
- **Core Always-On**: Human competence focus, time standards, context |
|||
- **Research**: Systematic investigation methodology, evidence collection |
|||
- **Bug Diagnosis**: Defect analysis framework, root cause identification |
|||
|
|||
**Workflow**: |
|||
1. Apply core always-on for foundation |
|||
2. Use research meta-rule for systematic investigation |
|||
3. Apply bug diagnosis for defect analysis |
|||
4. Follow the bundled workflow automatically |
|||
|
|||
### **Example 2: Feature Development** |
|||
|
|||
**Scenario**: Building a new contact search feature |
|||
|
|||
**Meta-Rule Selection**: |
|||
``` |
|||
meta_core_always_on + meta_feature_planning + meta_feature_implementation |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
**What This Gives You**: |
|||
- **Core Always-On**: Foundation principles and context |
|||
- **Feature Planning**: Requirements analysis, architecture planning |
|||
- **Feature Implementation**: Development workflow, testing strategy |
|||
|
|||
**Workflow**: |
|||
1. Start with core always-on |
|||
2. Use feature planning for design and requirements |
|||
3. Switch to feature implementation for coding and testing |
|||
|
|||
### **Example 3: Documentation Creation** |
|||
|
|||
**Scenario**: Writing a migration guide for the new database system |
|||
|
|||
**Meta-Rule Selection**: |
|||
``` |
|||
meta_core_always_on + meta_documentation |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
**What This Gives You**: |
|||
- **Core Always-On**: Foundation and context |
|||
- **Documentation**: Educational focus, templates, quality standards |
|||
|
|||
**Workflow**: |
|||
1. Apply core always-on for foundation |
|||
2. Use documentation meta-rule for educational content creation |
|||
3. Follow educational templates and quality standards |
|||
|
|||
## Meta-Rule Application Process |
|||
|
|||
### **1. Load the Meta-Rule** |
|||
|
|||
When you start a task, explicitly state which meta-rules you're applying: |
|||
|
|||
``` |
|||
"I'm applying meta_core_always_on + meta_research for this bug investigation." |
|||
``` |
|||
|
|||
### **2. Follow the Bundled Workflow** |
|||
|
|||
Each meta-rule provides a complete workflow. Follow it step-by-step: |
|||
|
|||
- **Research Meta-Rule**: Investigation → Evidence → Analysis → Conclusion |
|||
- **Feature Planning**: Requirements → Architecture → Strategy → Validation |
|||
- **Bug Diagnosis**: Problem → Evidence → Root Cause → Solution |
|||
|
|||
### **3. Use the Bundled Rules** |
|||
|
|||
Meta-rules automatically include all necessary sub-rules. You don't need to |
|||
manually select individual rules - they're already bundled. |
|||
|
|||
### **4. Validate Against Success Criteria** |
|||
|
|||
Each meta-rule includes success criteria. Use these to validate your work: |
|||
|
|||
- [ ] **Educational Quality**: Content increases human competence |
|||
- [ ] **Technical Quality**: All technical details are accurate |
|||
- [ ] **Workflow Completion**: All required steps completed |
|||
- [ ] **Quality Standards**: Meets defined quality criteria |
|||
|
|||
## Common Meta-Rule Combinations |
|||
|
|||
### **Research + Diagnosis** |
|||
``` |
|||
meta_core_always_on + meta_research + meta_bug_diagnosis |
|||
``` |
|||
**Use for**: Complex bug investigations requiring systematic analysis |
|||
|
|||
### **Planning + Implementation** |
|||
``` |
|||
meta_core_always_on + meta_feature_planning + meta_feature_implementation |
|||
``` |
|||
**Use for**: End-to-end feature development from concept to deployment |
|||
|
|||
### **Research + Planning** |
|||
``` |
|||
meta_core_always_on + meta_research + meta_feature_planning |
|||
``` |
|||
**Use for**: Feasibility research and solution design |
|||
|
|||
### **Documentation + Context** |
|||
``` |
|||
meta_core_always_on + meta_documentation + [context-specific] |
|||
``` |
|||
**Use for**: Creating comprehensive, educational documentation |
|||
|
|||
## Best Practices |
|||
|
|||
### **✅ Do These Things** |
|||
|
|||
- **Always start with core always-on** - it's the foundation |
|||
- **Choose the primary meta-rule** that matches your main task |
|||
- **Follow the bundled workflow** step-by-step |
|||
- **Use success criteria** to validate your work |
|||
- **Collect feedback** on meta-rule effectiveness |
|||
|
|||
### **❌ Avoid These Mistakes** |
|||
|
|||
- **Don't skip core always-on** - you'll lose the foundation |
|||
- **Don't apply too many meta-rules** - stick to 2-3 maximum |
|||
- **Don't ignore the bundled workflow** - follow it systematically |
|||
- **Don't forget validation** - use the success criteria |
|||
- **Don't skip feedback collection** - it improves the system |
|||
|
|||
## Troubleshooting Common Issues |
|||
|
|||
### **Problem**: Meta-rules seem to conflict |
|||
|
|||
**Solution**: Meta-rules are designed to work together. If you see conflicts, |
|||
you're probably applying too many. Stick to 2-3 meta-rules maximum. |
|||
|
|||
### **Problem**: I don't know which meta-rule to use |
|||
|
|||
**Solution**: Start with your primary task type. If you're investigating a bug, |
|||
use research + bug diagnosis. If you're building a feature, use feature |
|||
planning + implementation. |
|||
|
|||
### **Problem**: The meta-rule workflow seems too complex |
|||
|
|||
**Solution**: Meta-rules bundle complexity into manageable workflows. Follow |
|||
the steps one at a time. The complexity is already organized for you. |
|||
|
|||
### **Problem**: I'm not seeing the expected behavior |
|||
|
|||
**Solution**: Ensure you're following the meta-rule workflow step-by-step. |
|||
Meta-rules provide guidance, but you still need to execute the workflow. |
|||
|
|||
## Feedback and Improvement |
|||
|
|||
### **Rate Your Experience** |
|||
|
|||
After using a meta-rule, provide feedback: |
|||
|
|||
- **Effectiveness**: How well did the meta-rule work? (1-5 scale) |
|||
- **Time Saved**: How much time did it save you? |
|||
- **Quality Improvement**: Did it improve your work quality? |
|||
- **Recommendation**: Would you recommend it to others? |
|||
|
|||
### **Continuous Improvement** |
|||
|
|||
Meta-rules evolve based on feedback: |
|||
|
|||
- **Usage patterns** - How teams use the rules |
|||
- **Effectiveness ratings** - What works and what doesn't |
|||
- **Integration feedback** - How well rules work together |
|||
- **Quality metrics** - Impact on work quality |
|||
|
|||
## Quick Reference |
|||
|
|||
### **Meta-Rule Selection Matrix** |
|||
|
|||
| **Task** | **Primary** | **Secondary** | **Tertiary** | |
|||
|----------|-------------|---------------|---------------| |
|||
| **Bug Investigation** | `meta_research` | `meta_bug_diagnosis` | - | |
|||
| **Feature Development** | `meta_feature_planning` | `meta_feature_implementation` | - | |
|||
| **Documentation** | `meta_documentation` | - | - | |
|||
| **Complex Research** | `meta_research` | `meta_bug_diagnosis` | `meta_feature_planning` | |
|||
|
|||
### **Always Remember** |
|||
|
|||
1. **Start with core always-on** - foundation for everything |
|||
2. **Choose your primary meta-rule** - matches your main task |
|||
3. **Follow the bundled workflow** - step-by-step execution |
|||
4. **Validate against success criteria** - ensure quality |
|||
5. **Provide feedback** - help improve the system |
|||
|
|||
--- |
|||
|
|||
**See also**: |
|||
|
|||
- `.cursor/rules/meta_rule_architecture.md` for meta-rule structure overview |
|||
- `.cursor/rules/meta_core_always_on.mdc` for foundation rules |
|||
- `.cursor/rules/README.md` for complete rule organization |
|||
|
|||
**Status**: Active usage guide |
|||
**Priority**: High |
|||
**Estimated Effort**: Ongoing reference |
|||
**Dependencies**: All meta-rules |
|||
**Stakeholders**: Development team, Documentation team |
|||
Some files were not shown because too many files changed in this diff
Loading…
Reference in new issue