# Validation Report: Story 3.7 Context

**Document:** docs-bmad/sprint-artifacts/stories/3-7-delete-exchange-operation-with-protection.context.xml
**Checklist:** .bmad/bmm/workflows/4-implementation/story-context/checklist.md
**Date:** 2026-02-11_22-34-23
**Validated by:** Bob (SM Agent) in YOLO mode

---

## Summary

- **Overall:** 10/10 checklist items passed (100%)
- **Critical Issues:** 0
- **Recommendations:** 1 improvement opportunity identified

---

## Section Results

### ✓ PASS - All Checklist Items Validated

**Pass Rate:** 10/10 (100%)

#### [✓] Item 1: Story fields (asA/iWant/soThat) captured
**Evidence:** Lines 13-15 contain all three story fields
```xml
<asA>DevOps engineer</asA>
<iWant>to delete exchanges with safety checks that prevent breaking active message routing</iWant>
<soThat>I don't accidentally disrupt message flow in production</soThat>
```
**Match:** Exact match with story draft lines 7-9

---

#### [✓] Item 2: Acceptance criteria list matches story draft exactly (no invention)
**Evidence:** Lines 30-38 contain all 8 acceptance criteria
```xml
AC #1: Exchange with 5 active bindings blocked with error message showing binding count (unless force=true)
AC #2: Deletion proceeds successfully when force=true is provided
AC #3: Exchange with no bindings deletes without requiring force flag
AC #4: System exchange (e.g., "amq.topic") deletion returns error: "Cannot delete system exchange"
AC #5: Default exchange ("") deletion returns error: "Cannot delete default exchange"
AC #6: Successful deletion returns: status="success", message="Exchange 'events' deleted"
AC #7: Deletion operation completes in less than 100ms
AC #8: Deletion is logged in audit trail with correlation_id
```
**Match:** Exact correspondence with story draft lines 11-20, no invented criteria

---

#### [✓] Item 3: Tasks/subtasks captured as task list
**Evidence:** Lines 16-26 contain 9 comprehensive tasks
```xml
- Task 1: Create Delete Exchange Request Schema (AC: #1, #4, #5)
- Task 2: Create Delete Exchange Response Model (AC: #6)
- Task 3: Implement Safety Validator for Binding Checks (AC: #1, #2, #3)
- Task 4: Implement DeleteExchangeOperation Class (AC: #1, #2, #3, #6, #7)
- Task 5: Implement Protected Exchange Validation (AC: #4, #5)
- Task 6: Add Structured Logging and Audit Trail (AC: #8, All)
- Task 7: Add Performance Monitoring (AC: #7)
- Task 8: Register exchanges.delete MCP Tool (AC: All)
- Task 9: Integration Testing with Real RabbitMQ (AC: All)
```
**Match:** All tasks from story draft lines 23-101, properly mapped to ACs

---

#### [✓] Item 4: Relevant docs (5-15) included with path and snippets
**Evidence:** Lines 42-81 contain 6 documentation references
- Tech Spec Epic 3: Overview, Design Constraints, Non-Functional Constraints (3 docs)
- Architecture: consistency-rules.md (Async/Await, Type Hints) (2 docs)
- Architecture: api-contracts.md (MCP Tool Response Format) (1 doc)

**Count:** 6 docs (within 5-15 range)
**Quality:** All snippets are relevant and actionable, include proper paths and section references

---

#### [✓] Item 5: Relevant code references included with reason and line hints
**Evidence:** Lines 84-138 contain 8 code artifact references

**Operations patterns:**
- ListQueuesOperation (lines 46-250) - Pattern reference for HTTPClientManager and correlation_id
- CreateExchangeOperation (lines 550-750) - Direct pattern for exchange operations
- DeleteQueueOperation (lines 300-450) - Safety validation pattern for deletion

**Schema patterns:**
- CreateExchangeRequest (lines 200-280) - Exchange schema pattern with validators
- ExchangeInfo (lines 180-200) - Exchange model definitions
- DeleteQueueRequest (lines 150-180) - Delete request schema pattern

**Infrastructure:**
- HTTPClientManager (lines 1-200) - HTTP client for Management API

**Quality:** All artifacts include:
- ✓ Full path
- ✓ Symbol/class name
- ✓ Line range hints
- ✓ Clear reason for inclusion

---

#### [✓] Item 6: Interfaces/API contracts extracted if applicable
**Evidence:** Lines 164-209 contain 7 interface definitions

**REST endpoints (2):**
- DELETE /api/exchanges/{vhost}/{name}
- GET /api/exchanges/{vhost}/{name}/bindings/source

**Internal operations (2):**
- DeleteExchangeOperation.execute
- SafetyValidator.check_exchange_bindings

**Pydantic schemas (2):**
- DeleteExchangeRequest
- DeleteExchangeResponse

**Quality:** All interfaces include:
- ✓ Signature/method definition
- ✓ Expected return types
- ✓ Path/location reference
- ✓ Validators where applicable

---

#### [✓] Item 7: Constraints include applicable dev rules and patterns
**Evidence:** Lines 151-161 contain 10 comprehensive constraints

**Coverage includes:**
- ✓ Protected resources (system exchanges, default exchange)
- ✓ Safety validation rules (binding checks, force flag)
- ✓ Performance targets (<100ms)
- ✓ HTTP API patterns (DELETE endpoint, query parameters)
- ✓ Error handling (ADR-009 correlation_id, structured logging)
- ✓ Type hints (consistency-rules.md)
- ✓ Idempotency (404 handling)
- ✓ Module organization (no new files)

**Quality:** Constraints are actionable and specific, reference architectural decisions

---

#### [✓] Item 8: Dependencies detected from manifests and frameworks
**Evidence:** Lines 140-148 contain Python package dependencies

**Packages listed:**
```xml
<package name="httpx" version=">=0.27" />
<package name="pydantic" version=">=2.0" />
<package name="structlog" version=">=24.1" />
<package name="pytest" version=">=8.0" />
<package name="pytest-asyncio" version=">=0.23" />
```

**Coverage:** Runtime (httpx, pydantic, structlog) and testing frameworks (pytest, pytest-asyncio)
**Quality:** Version constraints included for compatibility

---

#### [✓] Item 9: Testing standards and locations populated
**Evidence:** Lines 212-241 contain comprehensive testing guidance

**Testing standards paragraph (lines 212-214):**
- Framework: pytest with pytest-asyncio
- Strategy: Unit tests with mocks, integration tests with testcontainers
- Coverage target: 80%+
- Special requirements: correlation_id tracking, <100ms performance validation

**Test locations (lines 217-221):**
- tests/unit/test_operations_exchanges.py
- tests/integration/test_topology_operations.py
- tests/performance/

**Test ideas (lines 223-241):**
- 15 specific test scenarios covering all 8 acceptance criteria
- Mix of unit tests (mocked) and integration tests (real RabbitMQ)
- Each test mapped to specific AC (AC1-unit, AC1-integration, etc.)

**Quality:** Exceeds checklist expectation - provides actionable test scenarios, not just locations

---

#### [✓] Item 10: XML structure follows story-context template format
**Evidence:** Root element and structure validation

**Structure validation:**
```xml
<story-context id=".bmad/bmm/workflows/4-implementation/story-context/template" v="1.0">
  <metadata>...</metadata>
  <story>...</story>
  <acceptanceCriteria>...</acceptanceCriteria>
  <artifacts>
    <docs>...</docs>
    <code>...</code>
    <dependencies>...</dependencies>
  </artifacts>
  <constraints>...</constraints>
  <interfaces>...</interfaces>
  <tests>...</tests>
</story-context>
```

**Quality:** All required sections present, proper XML hierarchy, template ID and version included

---

## Failed Items

**None** - All checklist items passed validation.

---

## Partial Items

**None** - All items fully satisfied.

---

## Recommendations

### 1. Enhancement: Add Missing Epic Document Reference

**Severity:** Low (Enhancement, not failure)

**Current state:**
- Context includes tech-spec-epic-3.md (Epic Technical Specification)
- Missing: docs-bmad/epics/epic-3-topology-operations.md (parent Epic file)

**Why it matters:**
- Epic file provides high-level context, story dependencies, and business value
- Story draft references epic file in multiple places (lines 118, 190)
- Consistency with other story contexts that include both epic and tech-spec

**Recommended addition to `<docs>` section:**
```xml
<doc>
  <path>docs-bmad/epics/epic-3-topology-operations.md</path>
  <title>Epic 3: Topology Operations</title>
  <section>Story 3.7 - Delete Exchange Operation with Protection</section>
  <snippet>As a DevOps engineer, I want to delete exchanges with safety checks that prevent breaking active message routing. Prerequisites: Story 2.3 (HTTP client), Story 3.5 (list exchanges), Story 3.8 (list bindings for validation).</snippet>
</doc>
```

**Impact:** Low - Story context is already complete and actionable without this. Adding it improves traceability and context completeness.

---

### 2. Enhancement: Add PRD Functional Requirements References

**Severity:** Low (Enhancement, not failure)

**Current state:**
- Story draft references FR-009 and FR-023 (lines 194-196)
- Context includes architecture docs but not explicit PRD FR sections

**Why it matters:**
- PRD provides authoritative business requirements and constraints
- FR-009 defines exchange protection rules (system exchanges, default exchange)
- FR-023 defines safety validation requirements

**Recommended additions to `<docs>` section:**
```xml
<doc>
  <path>docs-bmad/prd/functional-requirements.md</path>
  <title>Functional Requirements</title>
  <section>FR-009: Exchange Operations</section>
  <snippet>System MUST support list, create, delete operations for exchanges. System exchanges (amq.* prefix) and default exchange ("") MUST be protected from deletion. Exchange deletion MUST block if active bindings exist.</snippet>
</doc>
<doc>
  <path>docs-bmad/prd/functional-requirements.md</path>
  <title>Functional Requirements</title>
  <section>FR-023: Safety Validations</section>
  <snippet>Exchange deletion MUST block if active bindings exist. All validation failures MUST return structured errors with corrective actions.</snippet>
</doc>
```

**Impact:** Low - Improves traceability from requirements through to implementation. Helps future maintainers understand business rationale.

---

## Summary Assessment

**Status:** ✅ **READY FOR DEVELOPMENT**

The story context is **production-quality** and passes all mandatory checklist items at 100%. The context provides:
- ✓ Complete story definition with all ACs
- ✓ Comprehensive task breakdown (9 tasks)
- ✓ Rich documentation references (6 docs)
- ✓ Detailed code patterns (8 artifacts)
- ✓ Clear interfaces and constraints
- ✓ Actionable testing guidance (15 test scenarios)

**Recommendations are optional enhancements** that would improve traceability and completeness but are not blockers for development.

---

## Validation Criteria Applied

This validation followed the Story Context Assembly Checklist requirements:
1. ✓ Every checklist item validated without skipping
2. ✓ Evidence provided with line numbers and quotes
3. ✓ Deep analysis of explicit AND implied coverage
4. ✓ Marks assigned with clear reasoning
5. ✓ Recommendations prioritized by impact

**Validation Methodology:** Line-by-line comparison against story draft, cross-reference verification with referenced documents, structural XML validation, and content completeness assessment.
