arthur/xtablo-source
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests 1 Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions 5

docs(17): create phase plan

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Arthur Belleville 2026-05-17 09:36:36 +02:00
parent 664f826052
commit ba48c2c74f
No known key found for this signature in database
2 changed files with 11 additions and 15 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

16
.planning/STATE.md
View file

@ -2,15 +2,15 @@
gsd_state_version: 1.0
milestone: v3.0
milestone_name: Design System & Visual Polish
status: ready_to_plan
last_updated: "2026-05-16T21:30:58.783Z"
last_activity: 2026-05-16 -- Phase 16 execution started
status: executing
last_updated: "2026-05-17T07:36:29.889Z"
last_activity: 2026-05-17 -- Phase 17 planning complete
progress:
total_phases: 5
completed_phases: 4
total_plans: 14
completed_plans: 10
percent: 80
total_plans: 16
completed_plans: 14
percent: 88
---
# STATE
@ -30,8 +30,8 @@ See: `.planning/PROJECT.md` (updated 2026-05-16)
Phase: 17
Plan: Not started
Status: Ready to plan
Last activity: 2026-05-16
Status: Ready to execute
Last activity: 2026-05-17 -- Phase 17 planning complete
## Previous Milestone Status

10
.planning/phases/17-chat-planning/17-RESEARCH.md
View file

@ -460,17 +460,13 @@ Not applicable — this is a greenfield view addition, not a rename/refactor/mig
| A2 | The Tailwind config content glob already covers `.templ` files in `go-backend/internal/web/views/` | Common Pitfalls — Pitfall 5 | Low — Tailwind is already generating classes used in existing views; new Tailwind classes in new views will be included if the glob covers the directory |
| A3 | `router_test.go` test assertions on "Planning" and "Discussions" are sidebar-only checks that will not be broken by adding view content | Common Pitfalls — Pitfall 6 | Low — read the test: the assertions fire on the home page response which includes the sidebar nav, not the planning/chat page content |
## Open Questions
## Open Questions (RESOLVED)
1. **Should ChatMainContent and PlanningMainContent use demo/hardcoded data or empty slices?**
- What we know: The spec says "restyling only" with no new data models. The existing pattern (tasks, dashboard) uses hardcoded demo data in `.go` helper files.
- What's unclear: Whether the acceptance criterion "browser walkthrough confirming visual consistency" requires real data or if empty-state UI is sufficient.
- Recommendation: Implement both an empty-state (via `@ui.EmptyState`) and a small set of demo messages/events (3-5 items) so the visual design is demonstrable without a database. The planner should create a task for each.
RESOLVED: Use hardcoded demo data (3–4 items) matching the `home.go` pattern. Phase 17 is restyle-only; real data threading (D-D01–D-D04) is deferred to a future phase when the chat backend exists in go-backend/.
2. **Is `author + timestamp` above the bubble the right location given the planning context?**
- What we know: D-M03 says "Author email + timestamp appear ABOVE the bubble text."
- What's unclear: For a standalone chat page (not a tablo-specific discussion), the author field may always be the current user or a static demo user.
- Recommendation: Implement as specified. Use `"you"` or `"demo@xtablo.com"` as demo author strings.
RESOLVED: Implemented as specified per D-M03. Demo author strings use `"you"` / `"demo@xtablo.com"` for the static data set.
## Environment Availability