Codify workflow parity requirements

This commit is contained in:
Joe Julian
2026-04-07 07:12:29 -07:00
parent 1aab5367a8
commit a867ac4664
2 changed files with 49 additions and 0 deletions
+19
View File
@@ -95,6 +95,17 @@ These features are product requirements, not “nice to have” ideas.
- Phone should optimize for low tap count, not purity of mobile patterns.
- The stacked phone layout is the current preferred phone direction.
- Do not reintroduce the abandoned phone flow mode unless explicitly requested.
- Keep the product feeling like the same application on desktop, Android phone,
and Android tablet.
- Platform adaptation is allowed for layout and spacing, not for changing the
user's mental model of the workflow.
- Use the same action names, the same primary next steps, and the same workflow
order across platforms unless there is a hard platform constraint.
- Treat workflow prominence and reachability as product behavior, not visual
polish. A feature is not parity-complete if it technically exists but is
harder to discover or reach on one platform.
- Prefer shared workflow decisions with platform-specific presentation, rather
than platform-specific workflow branches.
- Make all test strings `Heist Movie` themed. Use characters, crews, casinos,
vaults, and locations from heist movies so test fixtures stay obviously fake
and consistent with the product theme.
@@ -117,6 +128,14 @@ These features are product requirements, not “nice to have” ideas.
implement the minimum code to satisfy them,
verify with `go test ./...` and relevant lint checks,
and commit each completed behavior.
- For cross-platform UI work, behavior tests must cover workflow parity, not
just feature or label parity.
- For lifecycle, open, unlock, sync, and other primary flows, tests should
assert the same conceptual next step across desktop, phone, and tablet
layouts.
- When Android or phone UX is part of the slice, verify real reachability on an
emulator or device for the exact flow being changed. Do not count “the same
buttons exist somewhere on screen” as sufficient validation.
- Only stop before the requirements are satisfied if the work is genuinely blocked by a missing decision, missing external dependency, or a hard technical constraint that cannot be resolved within the repo.
- If blocked, state the blocker concretely and stop only at that point.