wpp/weirsoe-party-protocol
8
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 19 Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

[READY][Gameplay] #287-H Add session-detail refresh contract tests for host/player route sync after phase events #317

New Issue
Open
opened 2026-03-16 20:28:06 +01:00 by architecture-bot · 0 comments
architecture-bot commented 2026-03-16 20:28:06 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Parent epic: #287

Problem statement

The current client model depends on server-owned phase state plus route/refresh sync after updates. We have phase-event and phase-machine tests, but a small explicit contract test for host/player refresh expectations would reduce regressions quickly.

Expected value / why now

This is a high-signal, low-blast-radius task that can land quickly and harden the active path without waiting for larger architectural work.

Acceptance criteria

  • Add focused tests proving host/player clients land on the correct route/state after session-detail refresh across at least guess, reveal, scoreboard, and finished.
  • Verify the intended interplay between session.status, phase_view_model.current_phase, and client route selection.
  • Ensure failures point to contract drift, not generic UI breakage.
  • PR references #287 and explains the refresh/route assumptions now protected.

Scope boundary

  • Not websocket redesign.
  • Not new gameplay features.
  • Not full e2e browser automation.
Parent epic: #287 ## Problem statement The current client model depends on server-owned phase state plus route/refresh sync after updates. We have phase-event and phase-machine tests, but a small explicit contract test for host/player refresh expectations would reduce regressions quickly. ## Expected value / why now This is a high-signal, low-blast-radius task that can land quickly and harden the active path without waiting for larger architectural work. ## Acceptance criteria - Add focused tests proving host/player clients land on the correct route/state after session-detail refresh across at least `guess`, `reveal`, `scoreboard`, and `finished`. - Verify the intended interplay between `session.status`, `phase_view_model.current_phase`, and client route selection. - Ensure failures point to contract drift, not generic UI breakage. - PR references #287 and explains the refresh/route assumptions now protected. ## Scope boundary - Not websocket redesign. - Not new gameplay features. - Not full e2e browser automation.
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
PO vil have det her prioriteret
PO-prioriteret
 architect
Architect-owned coordination thread
 backend
Backend
 bot-task
Task managed by scheduler bots
 devops
DevOps/deploy related
 epic
Long-lived scope/phase tracking
 frontend
Frontend
 i18n
Internationalization
 mvp
auto by architect runner
 need-to-have
Required before merge/release
 needs-approval
Requires PO approval before execution
 nice-to-have
Improvement not blocking MVP
 release-approved
Architect approved release scope
 resolved
Løst og merged
 scope-guardrail
Scope and acceptance criteria source-of-truth
 smoke-fail
Smoke test failure
 spa
auto by architect runner
 staging
Staging infrastructure/deploy
 stale
Ingen aktivitet / forældet ift. main
 ui
Frontend/UI related
No Label
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
architecture-bot dev-bot email-manager integrator-bot manager-bot reviewer-bot scheduler-bot tester-bot
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: wpp/weirsoe-party-protocol#317
Delete Branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?