91 lines
2.5 KiB
Markdown
91 lines
2.5 KiB
Markdown
# Open Questions
|
|
|
|
## Entry Template
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
date: YYYY-MM-DD
|
|
author: <agent|name>
|
|
scope: <files/routes/features>
|
|
type: question
|
|
rationale: <why unresolved>
|
|
impact: <user/system/security/i18n/a11y>
|
|
status: open|resolved
|
|
|
|
Question:
|
|
Needed from:
|
|
Decision deadline:
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Q-001: Auth Logging Redaction Standard
|
|
|
|
date: 2026-03-11
|
|
author: Cline
|
|
scope: auth/email APIs and actions logging
|
|
type: question
|
|
rationale: Existing logging appears verbose in sensitive flows.
|
|
impact: Potential privacy/security exposure via operational logs.
|
|
status: open
|
|
|
|
Question:
|
|
What mandatory redaction and structured logging policy should be enforced for auth/email/document flows (fields blocked, allowed metadata, and incident correlation expectations)?
|
|
|
|
Needed from:
|
|
Security lead + application owner
|
|
|
|
Decision deadline:
|
|
Before Sequence B Workstream B2 rollout
|
|
|
|
Current context:
|
|
|
|
- Relay logging policy has already been hardened in middleware, but auth/email/file routes still have uneven logging style.
|
|
- Reference planning docs:
|
|
- `context/next-work-plan-sequence-b.md`
|
|
- `context/current-state-scorecard.md`
|
|
|
|
### Q-002: Test Strategy Baseline for Sparse `tests/`
|
|
|
|
date: 2026-03-11
|
|
author: Cline
|
|
scope: testing strategy repository-wide
|
|
type: question
|
|
rationale: `tests/` currently appears minimal; validation relies heavily on manual checks.
|
|
impact: Increased regression risk and slower release confidence.
|
|
status: open
|
|
|
|
Question:
|
|
What minimum automated coverage should be required per change type (feature, bug fix, high-risk integration), and which suites become mandatory CI gates?
|
|
|
|
Needed from:
|
|
Engineering lead + QA
|
|
|
|
Decision deadline:
|
|
Before enabling Sequence C CI parity gate rollout
|
|
|
|
Current context:
|
|
|
|
- Focused high-risk automation exists in phase21/phase22 (auth redirect, i18n route parity, relay hardening, endpoint contract slices).
|
|
- A formal CI baseline decision is still needed to institutionalize these checks.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Q-003: Runtime canonical startup path selection
|
|
|
|
date: 2026-03-25
|
|
author: Cline
|
|
scope: runtime startup path and operational documentation
|
|
type: question
|
|
rationale: Dual server entrypoints (`server.js` and `server/server.js`) remain a known architecture ambiguity in review artifacts.
|
|
impact: Operational ambiguity can increase deployment and incident-response risk.
|
|
status: open
|
|
|
|
Question:
|
|
Which startup path is canonical for dev/test/prod, and what is the deprecation plan for the non-canonical entrypoint?
|
|
|
|
Needed from:
|
|
Technical lead + DevOps owner
|
|
|
|
Decision deadline:
|
|
Before runtime-affecting refactor or next deployment process update
|