eslint-plugin-traceability 1.0.3 → 1.0.4
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.
- package/.github/workflows/ci-cd.yml +26 -28
- package/.husky/pre-commit +1 -1
- package/.husky/pre-push +1 -1
- package/.prettierignore +5 -1
- package/.voder/history.md +138 -264
- package/.voder/implementation-progress.md +110 -112
- package/.voder/last-action.md +62 -204
- package/.voder/plan.md +10 -10
- package/.voder/progress-chart.png +0 -0
- package/.voder/progress-log-areas.csv +4 -0
- package/.voder/progress-log.csv +4 -0
- package/CHANGELOG.md +12 -0
- package/README.md +2 -2
- package/cli-integration.js +61 -115
- package/docs/cli-integration.md +3 -1
- package/docs/decisions/005-github-actions-validation-tooling.accepted.md +144 -0
- package/eslint.config.js +4 -4
- package/lib/tests/{basic.test.js → plugin-setup.test.js} +1 -1
- package/package.json +1 -1
- package/tests/{basic.test.ts → plugin-setup.test.ts} +1 -1
- package/user-docs/migration-guide.md +71 -0
- package/lib/index.d.ts +0 -26
- package/lib/index.js +0 -11
- package/lib/tests/integration/file-validation.test.d.ts +0 -1
- package/lib/tests/integration/file-validation.test.js +0 -71
- package/lib/tests/integration/plugin-validation.test.d.ts +0 -1
- package/lib/tests/integration/plugin-validation.test.js +0 -83
- package/tests/integration/file-validation.test.ts +0 -78
- package/tests/integration/plugin-validation.test.ts +0 -84
- /package/lib/tests/{basic.test.d.ts → plugin-default-export-and-configs.test.d.ts} +0 -0
- /package/lib/tests/{index.test.js → plugin-default-export-and-configs.test.js} +0 -0
- /package/lib/tests/{index.test.d.ts → plugin-setup.test.d.ts} +0 -0
- /package/tests/{index.test.ts → plugin-default-export-and-configs.test.ts} +0 -0
|
@@ -1,146 +1,144 @@
|
|
|
1
1
|
# Implementation Progress Assessment
|
|
2
2
|
|
|
3
|
-
**Generated:** 2025-11-
|
|
3
|
+
**Generated:** 2025-11-17T01:14:56.844Z
|
|
4
4
|
|
|
5
5
|

|
|
6
6
|
|
|
7
|
-
|
|
7
|
+
Projection: flat (no recent upward trend)
|
|
8
8
|
|
|
9
|
-
## IMPLEMENTATION STATUS: INCOMPLETE (
|
|
9
|
+
## IMPLEMENTATION STATUS: INCOMPLETE (75.25% ± 5% COMPLETE)
|
|
10
10
|
|
|
11
11
|
## OVERALL ASSESSMENT
|
|
12
|
-
Overall status is INCOMPLETE due to
|
|
12
|
+
Overall status is INCOMPLETE due to Code Quality (85%), Execution (85%), and Version Control (55%) falling below the 90% threshold required. Functionality assessment remains skipped until these foundational areas improve. Focus on remediation of these support areas before further functionality work.
|
|
13
13
|
|
|
14
14
|
## NEXT PRIORITY
|
|
15
|
-
|
|
15
|
+
Implement true automated publishing and artifact tracking in the CI/CD pipeline to satisfy continuous deployment requirements and raise the Version Control score above 90%.
|
|
16
16
|
|
|
17
17
|
|
|
18
18
|
|
|
19
|
-
## CODE_QUALITY ASSESSMENT (
|
|
20
|
-
- The codebase
|
|
21
|
-
- ESLint
|
|
22
|
-
- Prettier formatting passes
|
|
23
|
-
- TypeScript type
|
|
24
|
-
- Jest tests pass
|
|
25
|
-
- jscpd duplication
|
|
26
|
-
- No
|
|
27
|
-
- Cyclomatic complexity rule enforced
|
|
28
|
-
-
|
|
29
|
-
-
|
|
30
|
-
-
|
|
19
|
+
## CODE_QUALITY ASSESSMENT (85% ± 15% COMPLETE)
|
|
20
|
+
- The codebase has excellent tooling in place—linting, formatting, type-checking, duplication and complexity rules are all configured and passing with no violations. Tests are comprehensive (96%+ coverage), there are no disabled checks or test logic in production, and files/functions stay within the configured size/complexity limits.
|
|
21
|
+
- ESLint (`npm run lint`) passes with zero errors or warnings
|
|
22
|
+
- Prettier formatting check passes for the entire repo
|
|
23
|
+
- TypeScript type-check (`tsc --noEmit`) passes with no errors
|
|
24
|
+
- Jest tests all pass; overall coverage is 96%+ with no critical gaps
|
|
25
|
+
- jscpd duplication check reports 0% duplication (threshold 3%)
|
|
26
|
+
- No `@ts-nocheck`, `eslint-disable`, or inline suppressions found in source files
|
|
27
|
+
- Cyclomatic complexity rule is enforced (default max 20) and no functions exceed the limit
|
|
28
|
+
- Max-lines-per-function is set to 80 and all functions are under that threshold
|
|
29
|
+
- Max-lines-per-file is set to 350 and no source file exceeds this
|
|
30
|
+
- No magic numbers or hard-coded strings detected in core logic
|
|
31
|
+
- Clean project structure with no temporary or patch files in source
|
|
32
|
+
- Husky pre-commit and pre-push hooks enforce build, lint, test, duplication, and audit checks
|
|
31
33
|
|
|
32
34
|
**Next Steps:**
|
|
33
|
-
-
|
|
34
|
-
- Introduce
|
|
35
|
-
-
|
|
36
|
-
-
|
|
37
|
-
-
|
|
38
|
-
|
|
39
|
-
## TESTING ASSESSMENT (
|
|
40
|
-
- The project
|
|
41
|
-
-
|
|
42
|
-
-
|
|
43
|
-
-
|
|
44
|
-
-
|
|
45
|
-
-
|
|
46
|
-
-
|
|
47
|
-
-
|
|
48
|
-
- Minor logic appears in tests (array sorting, flatMap); could be simplified
|
|
49
|
-
- Rule tests use line comments for @story/@req instead of JSDoc block headers
|
|
50
|
-
- Tests don’t follow explicit GIVEN-WHEN-THEN separators but are structured with describe/it
|
|
35
|
+
- Consider lowering max-lines-per-function from 80 to 60 (or 50) over time via incremental ratcheting
|
|
36
|
+
- Introduce an explicit complexity-ratchet plan: gradually reduce ESLint complexity threshold and refactor failing functions
|
|
37
|
+
- Monitor file and function sizes as new features are added and enforce stricter limits when practical
|
|
38
|
+
- Periodically review jscpd threshold and re-enable duplication checks at a higher strictness as the code grows
|
|
39
|
+
- Continue to maintain 100% tooling pass rate—add new rules only after incremental, passing fixes
|
|
40
|
+
|
|
41
|
+
## TESTING ASSESSMENT (95% ± 15% COMPLETE)
|
|
42
|
+
- The project’s testing infrastructure is robust: it uses Jest (an established framework), all tests pass in non-interactive CI mode, and coverage exceeds configured thresholds. Tests are well–structured, isolated, and include complete traceability via @story and @req annotations. There are no failing tests, repository files are not modified, and temporary resources are properly managed.
|
|
43
|
+
- Test framework: Jest is used consistently across unit, integration, and maintenance tests.
|
|
44
|
+
- All tests pass (100% success) with non-interactive invocation (`jest --ci --bail --coverage`).
|
|
45
|
+
- Coverage is high (96.34% statements, 85.6% branches) and exceeds configured thresholds.
|
|
46
|
+
- Tests use os.tmpdir/mkdtempSync and clean up in afterAll/try-finally, so no repository pollution.
|
|
47
|
+
- Every test file includes a JSDoc @story annotation and describe/test names reference the corresponding stories/reqs.
|
|
48
|
+
- Tests follow ARRANGE-ACT-ASSERT structure and have clear, descriptive names.
|
|
49
|
+
- No complex logic in tests (no loops/ifs), fixtures are static, and tests are independent and deterministic.
|
|
51
50
|
|
|
52
51
|
**Next Steps:**
|
|
53
|
-
-
|
|
54
|
-
-
|
|
55
|
-
-
|
|
56
|
-
-
|
|
57
|
-
|
|
58
|
-
|
|
59
|
-
|
|
60
|
-
-
|
|
61
|
-
-
|
|
62
|
-
-
|
|
63
|
-
-
|
|
64
|
-
-
|
|
65
|
-
- No critical runtime errors, silent failures or code duplication detected
|
|
52
|
+
- Add tests for any newly implemented stories (e.g., error reporting, auto-fix, deep validation) once features are available.
|
|
53
|
+
- Consider adding smoke/end-to-end tests to cover the full CLI workflow beyond unit/integration rule tests.
|
|
54
|
+
- Periodically review branch coverage gaps (currently ~85.6%) and add targeted tests for uncovered branches in maintenance and rule modules.
|
|
55
|
+
- Ensure new tests continue to include @story/@req annotations for traceability and follow the existing naming conventions.
|
|
56
|
+
|
|
57
|
+
## EXECUTION ASSESSMENT (85% ± 9% COMPLETE)
|
|
58
|
+
- The project’s build and test pipeline is solid and reliable, but its continuous deployment is incomplete (only a dry-run) and there’s no real publishing step. Runtime behaviour for implemented functionality is validated via unit tests and a smoke test, but true end-to-end deployment to npm is not happening.
|
|
59
|
+
- Build process succeeds (`npm run build` and `npm run type-check`)
|
|
60
|
+
- Linting (with max-warnings=0) and duplication checks pass cleanly
|
|
61
|
+
- Jest tests achieve >96% line coverage and smoke test via `npm pack`+`eslint --print-config` confirms basic runtime integration
|
|
62
|
+
- CI/CD pipeline runs all quality checks on push to main and even packs the plugin for smoke testing
|
|
63
|
+
- Publish job is configured only as a dry run (`npm publish --dry-run`), so no actual deployment occurs
|
|
66
64
|
|
|
67
65
|
**Next Steps:**
|
|
68
|
-
-
|
|
69
|
-
-
|
|
70
|
-
- Consider
|
|
71
|
-
|
|
72
|
-
|
|
73
|
-
|
|
74
|
-
|
|
75
|
-
-
|
|
76
|
-
- README
|
|
77
|
-
-
|
|
78
|
-
-
|
|
79
|
-
-
|
|
80
|
-
-
|
|
66
|
+
- Configure NPM_TOKEN secret and remove `--dry-run` to enable real publishing
|
|
67
|
+
- Extend smoke test to install plugin directly from npm after publishing
|
|
68
|
+
- Consider adding integration tests that exercise specific ESLint rules at runtime
|
|
69
|
+
- Monitor and fix any publishing or install-time failures in post-deployment smoke tests
|
|
70
|
+
- If desired, add performance/resource benchmarks for rule execution on large codebases
|
|
71
|
+
|
|
72
|
+
## DOCUMENTATION ASSESSMENT (92% ± 15% COMPLETE)
|
|
73
|
+
- Comprehensive, accurate, and up-to-date user-facing documentation with full attribution and examples. All implemented rules are documented in user-docs, the README and CHANGELOG are current. Minor boundary nuance: setup guide resides outside user-docs.
|
|
74
|
+
- README.md includes required Attribution section with link to https://voder.ai
|
|
75
|
+
- user-docs/api-reference.md, examples.md, and migration-guide.md all include attribution and cover API, examples, and upgrade steps
|
|
76
|
+
- CHANGELOG.md is present and aligns with package version and dates
|
|
77
|
+
- README installation, usage, and testing instructions accurately reflect existing functionality and scripts
|
|
78
|
+
- API reference lists all public rules matching code exports, with examples
|
|
79
|
+
- Usage examples are runnable and documented in user-docs/examples.md
|
|
80
|
+
- Migration guide covers v0.x→v1.x changes, matching code and scripts
|
|
81
|
+
- README points to docs/eslint-9-setup-guide.md for detailed setup, but that file lives under docs/ rather than user-docs/, blurring user/dev docs separation
|
|
81
82
|
|
|
82
83
|
**Next Steps:**
|
|
83
|
-
-
|
|
84
|
-
-
|
|
85
|
-
-
|
|
86
|
-
-
|
|
87
|
-
|
|
88
|
-
## DEPENDENCIES ASSESSMENT (
|
|
89
|
-
-
|
|
90
|
-
-
|
|
91
|
-
- package-lock.json is present and tracked in git.
|
|
92
|
-
- `npm install`
|
|
93
|
-
- `npm audit`
|
|
94
|
-
-
|
|
84
|
+
- Consider relocating ESLint setup guide (docs/eslint-9-setup-guide.md) into user-docs/ or clearly delineating user-facing vs internal docs
|
|
85
|
+
- Add an index or Table of Contents in user-docs/ for improved discoverability
|
|
86
|
+
- Include a troubleshooting or FAQ section in user-docs for common user issues
|
|
87
|
+
- Regularly review docs/decisions and docs/stories to ensure any user-facing changes are reflected in user-docs
|
|
88
|
+
|
|
89
|
+
## DEPENDENCIES ASSESSMENT (95% ± 17% COMPLETE)
|
|
90
|
+
- Dependencies are current, secure, and properly managed with a committed lockfile. No mature-safe updates available, no deprecation warnings, and zero audit findings.
|
|
91
|
+
- npx dry-aged-deps reported “All dependencies are up to date.” – no safe upgrade candidates.
|
|
92
|
+
- package-lock.json is present and tracked in git (verified via `git ls-files`).
|
|
93
|
+
- `npm install` ran cleanly with no deprecation warnings and zero vulnerabilities.
|
|
94
|
+
- `npm audit --audit-level=low` found 0 vulnerabilities.
|
|
95
|
+
- All tests passed after installation, demonstrating compatibility and no dependency conflicts.
|
|
95
96
|
|
|
96
97
|
**Next Steps:**
|
|
97
|
-
-
|
|
98
|
-
-
|
|
99
|
-
-
|
|
100
|
-
|
|
101
|
-
|
|
102
|
-
|
|
103
|
-
-
|
|
104
|
-
-
|
|
105
|
-
-
|
|
106
|
-
-
|
|
107
|
-
- No
|
|
108
|
-
- No Dependabot, Renovate, or other automated update tools detected—manual dependency management only
|
|
109
|
-
- CI/CD workflow runs quality gates and `npm audit --audit-level=high` in one pipeline and auto-publishes on push to main without manual approval
|
|
98
|
+
- Integrate `npx dry-aged-deps` into the CI pipeline to automatically flag safe updates on merge.
|
|
99
|
+
- Schedule periodic dependency audits (e.g., monthly) to ensure ongoing currency and security.
|
|
100
|
+
- Continue to monitor for deprecation warnings and new vulnerabilities as part of routine maintenance.
|
|
101
|
+
|
|
102
|
+
## SECURITY ASSESSMENT (95% ± 18% COMPLETE)
|
|
103
|
+
- The project demonstrates a strong security posture with no active vulnerabilities, proper secret handling, integrated security audits in CI, and no conflicting automation tools.
|
|
104
|
+
- No moderate or higher vulnerabilities detected (npm audit reports zero issues)
|
|
105
|
+
- Existing js-yaml prototype pollution vulnerability was upgraded via an override and is no longer present
|
|
106
|
+
- Environment variables are managed securely: .env is untracked, listed in .gitignore, and only a safe .env.example is committed
|
|
107
|
+
- CI/CD pipeline includes `npm audit --audit-level=high` and other quality checks
|
|
108
|
+
- No Dependabot or Renovate configuration found, avoiding conflicting dependency automation
|
|
110
109
|
|
|
111
110
|
**Next Steps:**
|
|
112
|
-
-
|
|
113
|
-
- Establish a weekly
|
|
114
|
-
-
|
|
115
|
-
|
|
116
|
-
|
|
117
|
-
|
|
118
|
-
-
|
|
119
|
-
-
|
|
120
|
-
-
|
|
121
|
-
-
|
|
122
|
-
-
|
|
123
|
-
-
|
|
124
|
-
-
|
|
125
|
-
- Pipeline does not run the cli-integration.js step that pre-push hook runs (hook/pipeline parity discrepancy)
|
|
126
|
-
- No post-deployment or post-publish smoke tests or verification steps in CI/CD (medium-severity)
|
|
111
|
+
- Continue regular automated vulnerability scans and monitoring for new advisories
|
|
112
|
+
- Establish a weekly patch check and 14-day review process for any overrides (e.g., js-yaml)
|
|
113
|
+
- Consider lowering the audit threshold to include moderate vulnerabilities in CI
|
|
114
|
+
- Maintain incident documentation discipline for any future accepted residual risks
|
|
115
|
+
|
|
116
|
+
## VERSION_CONTROL ASSESSMENT (55% ± 12% COMPLETE)
|
|
117
|
+
- Strong CI/CD and local hooks setup with comprehensive quality gates, but critical gaps in automated publishing and artifact tracking undermine continuous deployment and repository health.
|
|
118
|
+
- CI/CD workflow uses npm publish --dry-run only; no actual automated publishing to npm registry
|
|
119
|
+
- Built artifacts (lib/**/*.js, lib/**/*.d.ts) are committed in version control despite .gitignore entries, violating best practices
|
|
120
|
+
- Single workflow file with up-to-date GitHub Action versions and no deprecation warnings
|
|
121
|
+
- Pre-commit and pre-push husky hooks configured correctly, running formatting, lint, type-check and full build/test pipeline locally
|
|
122
|
+
- Repository on main branch with clean working directory (excluding .voder), and .voder/ directory is not ignored
|
|
123
|
+
- Smoke-test job in pipeline verifies packaged plugin, and security audit and duplication checks are in place
|
|
127
124
|
|
|
128
125
|
**Next Steps:**
|
|
129
|
-
-
|
|
130
|
-
-
|
|
131
|
-
- Optionally
|
|
132
|
-
-
|
|
126
|
+
- Remove committed build artifacts (lib/) from repository and ensure they’re generated only in CI; update .gitignore accordingly
|
|
127
|
+
- Replace dry-run publish step with actual npm publish using a configured NPM_TOKEN secret for true continuous deployment
|
|
128
|
+
- Optionally consolidate duplicate build steps in publish and smoke-test jobs by reusing workspace artifacts produced in quality-checks job
|
|
129
|
+
- Verify that every push to main automatically publishes the package and monitor first real publish run
|
|
130
|
+
- Ensure no future deprecation warnings by periodically reviewing GitHub Actions versions and updating as needed
|
|
133
131
|
|
|
134
132
|
## FUNCTIONALITY ASSESSMENT (undefined% ± 95% COMPLETE)
|
|
135
133
|
- Functionality assessment skipped - fix 3 deficient support area(s) first
|
|
136
134
|
- Support areas must meet thresholds before assessing feature completion
|
|
137
|
-
- Deficient areas:
|
|
135
|
+
- Deficient areas: CODE_QUALITY (85%), EXECUTION (85%), VERSION_CONTROL (55%)
|
|
138
136
|
- Principle: "Improvement of daily work is higher priority than daily work" - fix foundation before building features
|
|
139
137
|
|
|
140
138
|
**Next Steps:**
|
|
141
|
-
-
|
|
142
|
-
-
|
|
143
|
-
-
|
|
144
|
-
-
|
|
145
|
-
- VERSION_CONTROL:
|
|
146
|
-
- VERSION_CONTROL:
|
|
139
|
+
- CODE_QUALITY: Consider lowering max-lines-per-function from 80 to 60 (or 50) over time via incremental ratcheting
|
|
140
|
+
- CODE_QUALITY: Introduce an explicit complexity-ratchet plan: gradually reduce ESLint complexity threshold and refactor failing functions
|
|
141
|
+
- EXECUTION: Configure NPM_TOKEN secret and remove `--dry-run` to enable real publishing
|
|
142
|
+
- EXECUTION: Extend smoke test to install plugin directly from npm after publishing
|
|
143
|
+
- VERSION_CONTROL: Remove committed build artifacts (lib/) from repository and ensure they’re generated only in CI; update .gitignore accordingly
|
|
144
|
+
- VERSION_CONTROL: Replace dry-run publish step with actual npm publish using a configured NPM_TOKEN secret for true continuous deployment
|