forked from EduCraft/curriculum-project-hub
docs: chart SaaS production readiness
This commit is contained in:
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
|
||||
# Audit the clean-host deployment and rollback contract
|
||||
|
||||
Type: research
|
||||
Status: open
|
||||
|
||||
## Question
|
||||
|
||||
What concrete defects prevent a clean, supported Linux host from installing,
|
||||
starting, health-checking, upgrading, and rolling back the current Hub without
|
||||
manual repository knowledge or unsafe partial deployment?
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
|
||||
# Audit tenant, authentication, and request security boundaries
|
||||
|
||||
Type: research
|
||||
Status: open
|
||||
|
||||
## Question
|
||||
|
||||
Can any current HTTP, Feishu, filesystem, agent, or database path cross an
|
||||
Organization boundary, bypass the intended platform/org/project authorization
|
||||
seams, expose secrets, or accept unbounded hostile input in the initial
|
||||
production topology?
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
|
||||
# Audit run lifecycle and data integrity under failure
|
||||
|
||||
Type: research
|
||||
Status: open
|
||||
|
||||
## Question
|
||||
|
||||
Under process termination, restart, timeout, duplicate Feishu delivery,
|
||||
database failure, or concurrent requests, which AgentRun, lock, session,
|
||||
workspace, audit, and outbound-message invariants can be violated or leave work
|
||||
lost, duplicated, or permanently stuck?
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
|
||||
# Define production observability and incident recovery
|
||||
|
||||
Type: research
|
||||
Status: open
|
||||
Blocked by: 01, 02, 03
|
||||
|
||||
## Question
|
||||
|
||||
Which logs, metrics, readiness signals, audit correlations, alerts, and operator
|
||||
recovery actions are missing for a production operator to detect and diagnose
|
||||
failures across HTTP, Feishu, PostgreSQL, agent execution, cph builds, and
|
||||
workspace storage?
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
|
||||
# Define initial abuse and capacity controls
|
||||
|
||||
Type: grilling
|
||||
Status: open
|
||||
Blocked by: 02, 03
|
||||
|
||||
## Question
|
||||
|
||||
Which request limits, file limits, concurrency limits, agent budgets, tenant
|
||||
quotas, and backpressure policies are mandatory for the accepted initial
|
||||
production boundary, and which values or behaviors remain product decisions?
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
|
||||
# Audit backup, migration, and disaster recovery safety
|
||||
|
||||
Type: research
|
||||
Status: open
|
||||
|
||||
## Question
|
||||
|
||||
What backup, restore, workspace/database consistency, migration compatibility,
|
||||
and disaster-recovery guarantees are needed to deploy current persistent data
|
||||
safely, and what evidence or tooling is missing to prove them?
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
|
||||
# Audit the accepted product surface for production completeness
|
||||
|
||||
Type: research
|
||||
Status: open
|
||||
|
||||
## Question
|
||||
|
||||
Against ADR-0020 and ADR-0021, which required platform-admin, org-admin,
|
||||
project-onboarding, team/access, session, usage, and Feishu flows are absent,
|
||||
unreachable, or only test-facing rather than usable in the initial production
|
||||
service?
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
|
||||
# Prove the production release gate
|
||||
|
||||
Type: task
|
||||
Status: open
|
||||
Blocked by: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07
|
||||
|
||||
## Question
|
||||
|
||||
After the readiness investigations and resulting fixes are resolved, can one
|
||||
repeatable release procedure prove build/test/spec health, deploy a clean
|
||||
production-like environment, exercise critical tenant and agent journeys,
|
||||
verify observability and recovery, and either roll forward or roll back safely?
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
|
||||
# Initial Production SaaS Readiness
|
||||
|
||||
Label: wayfinder:map
|
||||
|
||||
## Destination
|
||||
|
||||
The repository can be deployed from a clean checkout as the initial production
|
||||
multi-tenant Curriculum Project Hub, operated safely on the ADR-0018/0020/0021
|
||||
single-host Linux topology, with repeatable release evidence, rollback and
|
||||
recovery procedures, and no known critical security or data-integrity gaps.
|
||||
|
||||
## Notes
|
||||
|
||||
- `spec/` remains the semantic source of truth; implementation drift must be
|
||||
surfaced rather than silently resolved.
|
||||
- The initial product boundary follows the accepted ADRs: Organization is the
|
||||
tenant root, customer onboarding may be manual, and full billing, limits,
|
||||
tenant suspension, and self-service platform administration remain deferred
|
||||
unless a readiness investigation proves they are required for safe operation.
|
||||
- Use the `diagnosing-bugs` loop for every reproduced defect. Prefer explicit
|
||||
failures and observable critical paths over fallback behavior.
|
||||
- Work on `saas-production-readiness`; make small conventional commits after
|
||||
verified, independently reversible milestones. Do not push without explicit
|
||||
authorization.
|
||||
- Local `lake build` currently requires a configured elan toolchain; CI remains
|
||||
the authoritative configured Lean build environment until that local toolchain
|
||||
is available.
|
||||
|
||||
## Decisions so far
|
||||
|
||||
## Fog
|
||||
|
||||
- The production topology after the initial single-host pilot (HA, horizontal
|
||||
workers, multi-region, or managed container orchestration) depends on measured
|
||||
demand and failure experience.
|
||||
- Commercial self-service concerns such as billing plans and automated tenant
|
||||
provisioning remain beyond the accepted ADR boundary; revisit after the
|
||||
initial safety and operability route is clear.
|
||||
- Regulatory retention, residency, and customer-specific compliance controls
|
||||
require product/legal inputs that the repository does not currently contain.
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user