npm - @cregis-dev/cckit - Versions diffs - 0.4.1 → 0.6.1 - Mend

@cregis-dev/cckit 0.4.1 → 0.6.1

This diff represents the content of publicly available package versions that have been released to one of the supported registries. The information contained in this diff is provided for informational purposes only and reflects changes between package versions as they appear in their respective public registries.

Files changed (795) hide show

package/templates/bmad/tea/workflows/testarch/test-design/test-design-handoff-template.md DELETED Viewed

@@ -1,70 +0,0 @@
----
-title: 'TEA Test Design → BMAD Handoff Document'
-version: '1.0'
-workflowType: 'testarch-test-design-handoff'
-inputDocuments: []
-sourceWorkflow: 'testarch-test-design'
-generatedBy: 'TEA Master Test Architect'
-generatedAt: '{timestamp}'
-projectName: '{project_name}'
----
-# TEA → BMAD Integration Handoff
-## Purpose
-This document bridges TEA's test design outputs with BMAD's epic/story decomposition workflow (`create-epics-and-stories`). It provides structured integration guidance so that quality requirements, risk assessments, and test strategies flow into implementation planning.
-## TEA Artifacts Inventory
-| Artifact             | Path                      | BMAD Integration Point                               |
-| -------------------- | ------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------- |
-| Test Design Document | `{test_design_path}`      | Epic quality requirements, story acceptance criteria |
-| Risk Assessment      | (embedded in test design) | Epic risk classification, story priority             |
-| Coverage Strategy    | (embedded in test design) | Story test requirements                              |
-## Epic-Level Integration Guidance
-### Risk References
-<!-- TEA will populate: P0/P1 risks that should appear as epic-level quality gates -->
-### Quality Gates
-<!-- TEA will populate: recommended quality gates per epic based on risk assessment -->
-## Story-Level Integration Guidance
-### P0/P1 Test Scenarios → Story Acceptance Criteria
-<!-- TEA will populate: critical test scenarios that MUST be acceptance criteria -->
-### Data-TestId Requirements
-<!-- TEA will populate: recommended data-testid attributes for testability -->
-## Risk-to-Story Mapping
-| Risk ID | Category | P×I | Recommended Story/Epic | Test Level |
-| ------- | -------- | --- | ---------------------- | ---------- |
-<!-- TEA will populate from risk assessment -->
-## Recommended BMAD → TEA Workflow Sequence
-1. **TEA Test Design** (`TD`) → produces this handoff document
-2. **BMAD Create Epics & Stories** → consumes this handoff, embeds quality requirements
-3. **TEA ATDD** (`AT`) → generates acceptance tests per story
-4. **BMAD Implementation** → developers implement with test-first guidance
-5. **TEA Automate** (`TA`) → generates full test suite
-6. **TEA Trace** (`TR`) → validates coverage completeness
-## Phase Transition Quality Gates
-| From Phase          | To Phase            | Gate Criteria                                          |
-| ------------------- | ------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------ |
-| Test Design         | Epic/Story Creation | All P0 risks have mitigation strategy                  |
-| Epic/Story Creation | ATDD                | Stories have acceptance criteria from test design      |
-| ATDD                | Implementation      | Failing acceptance tests exist for all P0/P1 scenarios |
-| Implementation      | Test Automation     | All acceptance tests pass                              |
-| Test Automation     | Release             | Trace matrix shows ≥80% coverage of P0/P1 requirements |

package/templates/bmad/tea/workflows/testarch/test-design/test-design-qa-template.md DELETED Viewed

@@ -1,396 +0,0 @@
----
-stepsCompleted: []
-lastStep: ''
-lastSaved: ''
-workflowType: 'testarch-test-design'
-inputDocuments: []
----
-# Test Design for QA: {Feature Name}
-**Purpose:** Test execution recipe for QA team. Defines what to test, how to test it, and what QA needs from other teams.
-**Date:** {date}
-**Author:** {author}
-**Status:** Draft
-**Project:** {project_name}
-**Related:** See Architecture doc (test-design-architecture.md) for testability concerns and architectural blockers.
----
-## Executive Summary
-**Scope:** {Brief description of testing scope}
-**Risk Summary:**
-- Total Risks: {N} ({X} high-priority score ≥6, {Y} medium, {Z} low)
-- Critical Categories: {Categories with most high-priority risks}
-**Coverage Summary:**
-- P0 tests: ~{N} (critical paths, security)
-- P1 tests: ~{N} (important features, integration)
-- P2 tests: ~{N} (edge cases, regression)
-- P3 tests: ~{N} (exploratory, benchmarks)
-- **Total**: ~{N} tests (~{X}-{Y} weeks with 1 QA)
----
-## Not in Scope
-**Components or systems explicitly excluded from this test plan:**
-| Item       | Reasoning                   | Mitigation                                                                      |
-| ---------- | --------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
-| **{Item}** | {Why excluded from testing} | {How risk is mitigated, e.g., "validated manually", "covered by upstream team"} |
-**Note:** Items listed here have been reviewed and accepted as out-of-scope by QA, Dev, and PM.
----
-## Dependencies & Test Blockers
-**CRITICAL:** QA cannot proceed without these items from other teams.
-### Backend/Architecture Dependencies (Pre-Implementation)
-**Source:** See Architecture doc "Quick Guide" for detailed mitigation plans
-1. **{Dependency 1}** - {Team} - {Timeline}
-   - {What QA needs}
-   - {Why it blocks testing}
-2. **{Dependency 2}** - {Team} - {Timeline}
-   - {What QA needs}
-   - {Why it blocks testing}
-### QA Infrastructure Setup (Pre-Implementation)
-1. **Test Data Factories** - QA
-   - {Entity} factory with faker-based randomization
-   - Auto-cleanup fixtures for parallel safety
-2. **Test Environments** - QA
-   - Local: {Setup details}
-   - CI/CD: {Setup details}
-   - Staging: {Setup details}
-**Example factory pattern:**
-```typescript
-import { test } from '@seontechnologies/playwright-utils/api-request/fixtures';
-import { expect } from '@playwright/test';
-import { faker } from '@faker-js/faker';
-test('example test @p0', async ({ apiRequest }) => {
-  const testData = {
-    id: `test-${faker.string.uuid()}`,
-    email: faker.internet.email(),
-  };
-  const { status } = await apiRequest({
-    method: 'POST',
-    path: '/api/resource',
-    body: testData,
-  });
-  expect(status).toBe(201);
-});
-```
----
-## Risk Assessment
-**Note:** Full risk details in Architecture doc. This section summarizes risks relevant to QA test planning.
-### High-Priority Risks (Score ≥6)
-| Risk ID    | Category | Description         | Score       | QA Test Coverage             |
-| ---------- | -------- | ------------------- | ----------- | ---------------------------- |
-| **{R-ID}** | {CAT}    | {Brief description} | **{Score}** | {How QA validates this risk} |
-### Medium/Low-Priority Risks
-| Risk ID | Category | Description         | Score   | QA Test Coverage             |
-| ------- | -------- | ------------------- | ------- | ---------------------------- |
-| {R-ID}  | {CAT}    | {Brief description} | {Score} | {How QA validates this risk} |
----
-## Entry Criteria
-**QA testing cannot begin until ALL of the following are met:**
-- [ ] All requirements and assumptions agreed upon by QA, Dev, PM
-- [ ] Test environments provisioned and accessible
-- [ ] Test data factories ready or seed data available
-- [ ] Pre-implementation blockers resolved (see Dependencies section)
-- [ ] Feature deployed to test environment
-- [ ] {Additional project-specific entry criteria}
-## Exit Criteria
-**Testing phase is complete when ALL of the following are met:**
-- [ ] All P0 tests passing
-- [ ] All P1 tests passing (or failures triaged and accepted)
-- [ ] No open high-priority / high-severity bugs
-- [ ] Test coverage agreed as sufficient by QA Lead and Dev Lead
-- [ ] Performance baselines met (if applicable)
-- [ ] {Additional project-specific exit criteria}
----
-## Project Team (Optional)
-**Include only if roles/names are known or responsibility mapping is needed; otherwise omit.**
-| Name   | Role      | Testing Responsibilities                                      |
-| ------ | --------- | ------------------------------------------------------------- |
-| {Name} | QA Lead   | Test strategy, E2E/API test implementation, test review       |
-| {Name} | Dev Lead  | Unit tests, integration test support, testability hooks       |
-| {Name} | PM        | Requirements clarification, acceptance criteria, UAT sign-off |
-| {Name} | Architect | Testability review, NFR guidance, environment provisioning    |
----
-## Test Coverage Plan
-**IMPORTANT:** P0/P1/P2/P3 = **priority and risk level** (what to focus on if time-constrained), NOT execution timing. See "Execution Strategy" for when tests run.
-### P0 (Critical)
-**Criteria:** Blocks core functionality + High risk (≥6) + No workaround + Affects majority of users
-| Test ID    | Requirement   | Test Level | Risk Link | Notes   |
-| ---------- | ------------- | ---------- | --------- | ------- |
-| **P0-001** | {Requirement} | {Level}    | {R-ID}    | {Notes} |
-| **P0-002** | {Requirement} | {Level}    | {R-ID}    | {Notes} |
-**Total P0:** ~{N} tests
----
-### P1 (High)
-**Criteria:** Important features + Medium risk (3-4) + Common workflows + Workaround exists but difficult
-| Test ID    | Requirement   | Test Level | Risk Link | Notes   |
-| ---------- | ------------- | ---------- | --------- | ------- |
-| **P1-001** | {Requirement} | {Level}    | {R-ID}    | {Notes} |
-| **P1-002** | {Requirement} | {Level}    | {R-ID}    | {Notes} |
-**Total P1:** ~{N} tests
----
-### P2 (Medium)
-**Criteria:** Secondary features + Low risk (1-2) + Edge cases + Regression prevention
-| Test ID    | Requirement   | Test Level | Risk Link | Notes   |
-| ---------- | ------------- | ---------- | --------- | ------- |
-| **P2-001** | {Requirement} | {Level}    | {R-ID}    | {Notes} |
-**Total P2:** ~{N} tests
----
-### P3 (Low)
-**Criteria:** Nice-to-have + Exploratory + Performance benchmarks + Documentation validation
-| Test ID    | Requirement   | Test Level | Notes   |
-| ---------- | ------------- | ---------- | ------- |
-| **P3-001** | {Requirement} | {Level}    | {Notes} |
-**Total P3:** ~{N} tests
----
-## Execution Strategy
-**Philosophy:** Run everything in PRs unless there's significant infrastructure overhead. Playwright with parallelization is extremely fast (100s of tests in ~10-15 min).
-**Organized by TOOL TYPE:**
-### Every PR: Playwright Tests (~10-15 min)
-**All functional tests** (from any priority level):
-- All E2E, API, integration, unit tests using Playwright
-- Parallelized across {N} shards
-- Total: ~{N} Playwright tests (includes P0, P1, P2, P3)
-**Why run in PRs:** Fast feedback, no expensive infrastructure
-### Nightly: k6 Performance Tests (~30-60 min)
-**All performance tests** (from any priority level):
-- Load, stress, spike, endurance tests
-- Total: ~{N} k6 tests (may include P0, P1, P2)
-**Why defer to nightly:** Expensive infrastructure (k6 Cloud), long-running (10-40 min per test)
-### Weekly: Chaos & Long-Running (~hours)
-**Special infrastructure tests** (from any priority level):
-- Multi-region failover (requires AWS Fault Injection Simulator)
-- Disaster recovery (backup restore, 4+ hours)
-- Endurance tests (4+ hours runtime)
-**Why defer to weekly:** Very expensive infrastructure, very long-running, infrequent validation sufficient
-**Manual tests** (excluded from automation):
-- DevOps validation (deployment, monitoring)
-- Finance validation (cost alerts)
-- Documentation validation
----
-## QA Effort Estimate
-**QA test development effort only** (excludes DevOps, Backend, Data Eng, Finance work):
-| Priority  | Count | Effort Range       | Notes                                             |
-| --------- | ----- | ------------------ | ------------------------------------------------- |
-| P0        | ~{N}  | ~{X}-{Y} weeks     | Complex setup (security, performance, multi-step) |
-| P1        | ~{N}  | ~{X}-{Y} weeks     | Standard coverage (integration, API tests)        |
-| P2        | ~{N}  | ~{X}-{Y} days      | Edge cases, simple validation                     |
-| P3        | ~{N}  | ~{X}-{Y} days      | Exploratory, benchmarks                           |
-| **Total** | ~{N}  | **~{X}-{Y} weeks** | **1 QA engineer, full-time**                      |
-**Assumptions:**
-- Includes test design, implementation, debugging, CI integration
-- Excludes ongoing maintenance (~10% effort)
-- Assumes test infrastructure (factories, fixtures) ready
-**Dependencies from other teams:**
-- See "Dependencies & Test Blockers" section for what QA needs from Backend, DevOps, Data Eng
----
-## Implementation Planning Handoff (Optional)
-**Include only if this test design produces implementation tasks that must be scheduled.**
-**Use this to inform implementation planning; if no dedicated QA, assign to Dev owners.**
-| Work Item   | Owner        | Target Milestone (Optional) | Dependencies/Notes |
-| ----------- | ------------ | --------------------------- | ------------------ |
-| {Work item} | {QA/Dev/etc} | {Milestone or date}         | {Notes}            |
-| {Work item} | {QA/Dev/etc} | {Milestone or date}         | {Notes}            |
----
-## Tooling & Access
-**Include only if non-standard tools or access requests are required.**
-| Tool or Service   | Purpose   | Access Required | Status            |
-| ----------------- | --------- | --------------- | ----------------- |
-| {Tool or Service} | {Purpose} | {Access needed} | {Ready / Pending} |
-| {Tool or Service} | {Purpose} | {Access needed} | {Ready / Pending} |
-**Access requests needed (if any):**
-- [ ] {Access to request}
----
-## Interworking & Regression
-**Services and components impacted by this feature:**
-| Service/Component | Impact              | Regression Scope                | Validation Steps              |
-| ----------------- | ------------------- | ------------------------------- | ----------------------------- |
-| **{Service}**     | {How it's affected} | {What existing tests must pass} | {How to verify no regression} |
-**Regression test strategy:**
-- {Describe which existing test suites must pass before release}
-- {Note any cross-team coordination needed for regression validation}
----
-## Appendix A: Code Examples & Tagging
-**Playwright Tags for Selective Execution:**
-```typescript
-import { test } from '@seontechnologies/playwright-utils/api-request/fixtures';
-import { expect } from '@playwright/test';
-// P0 critical test
-test('@P0 @API @Security unauthenticated request returns 401', async ({ apiRequest }) => {
-  const { status, body } = await apiRequest({
-    method: 'POST',
-    path: '/api/endpoint',
-    body: { data: 'test' },
-    skipAuth: true,
-  });
-  expect(status).toBe(401);
-  expect(body.error).toContain('unauthorized');
-});
-// P1 integration test
-test('@P1 @Integration data syncs correctly', async ({ apiRequest }) => {
-  // Seed data
-  await apiRequest({
-    method: 'POST',
-    path: '/api/seed',
-    body: {
-      /* test data */
-    },
-  });
-  // Validate
-  const { status, body } = await apiRequest({
-    method: 'GET',
-    path: '/api/resource',
-  });
-  expect(status).toBe(200);
-  expect(body).toHaveProperty('data');
-});
-```
-**Run specific tags:**
-```bash
-# Run only P0 tests
-npx playwright test --grep @P0
-# Run P0 + P1 tests
-npx playwright test --grep "@P0|@P1"
-# Run only security tests
-npx playwright test --grep @Security
-# Run all Playwright tests in PR (default)
-npx playwright test
-```
----
-## Appendix B: Knowledge Base References
-- **Risk Governance**: `risk-governance.md` - Risk scoring methodology
-- **Test Priorities Matrix**: `test-priorities-matrix.md` - P0-P3 criteria
-- **Test Levels Framework**: `test-levels-framework.md` - E2E vs API vs Unit selection
-- **Test Quality**: `test-quality.md` - Definition of Done (no hard waits, <300 lines, <1.5 min)
----
-**Generated by:** BMad TEA Agent
-**Workflow:** `_bmad/tea/testarch/test-design`
-**Version:** 4.0 (BMad v6)