# Validation Report: Story 2-5 Context

**Document:** docs-bmad/sprint-artifacts/stories/2-5-automatic-reconnection-with-exponential-backoff.context.xml  
**Checklist:** .bmad/bmm/workflows/4-implementation/story-context/checklist.md  
**Date:** 2025-12-29_17-16-39  
**Validator:** SM Agent (Bob)

## Summary
- Overall: 7/10 passed (70%)
- Critical Issues: 3

## Section Results

### Checklist Item 1: Story fields (asA/iWant/soThat) captured
**Status:** ✓ PASS

**Evidence:** Lines 13-15
```xml
<asA>developer</asA>
<iWant>automatic reconnection when RabbitMQ connection is lost</iWant>
<soThat>the MCP server recovers gracefully from network disruptions without manual intervention</soThat>
```

All three story fields are properly captured and align with user story format.

---

### Checklist Item 2: Acceptance criteria list matches story draft exactly (no invention)
**Status:** ✓ PASS

**Evidence:** Lines 140-149
```xml
<acceptanceCriteria>
1. Reconnection attempts follow exponential backoff: 1s, 2s, 4s, 8s, 16s, 32s, then 60s max
2. Reconnection attempts continue indefinitely until successful
3. Each attempt logs: "Reconnection attempt {n} in {delay}s..."
4. Successful reconnection completes in less than 10 seconds after RabbitMQ becomes available
5. Reconnection re-establishes both AMQP and HTTP connections
6. In-flight operations receive error: "Connection lost, please retry after reconnection"
7. After reconnection, server logs: "Reconnected to RabbitMQ successfully"
8. Reconnection state is exposed: {state: "reconnecting", attempt: 5, next_attempt_in: "32s"}
9. Backoff reset to 1s after successful connection lasting more than 5 minutes
```

All 9 acceptance criteria are properly captured and match the expected format from Epic 2 documentation.

---

### Checklist Item 3: Tasks/subtasks captured as task list
**Status:** ✓ PASS

**Evidence:** Lines 16-137

Tasks are comprehensively captured with 15 main tasks covering:
- Task 1: ReconnectionState Data Model (lines 17-21)
- Task 2: ReconnectionManager Module (lines 23-33)
- Task 3: Reconnection State Machine (lines 35-42)
- Task 4: HealthCheckService Integration (lines 44-49)
- Tasks 5-15: Complete implementation coverage

Each task includes:
- Clear title and AC references
- Detailed subtasks with file paths
- Test requirements
- Implementation guidance

---

### Checklist Item 4: Relevant docs (5-15) included with path and snippets
**Status:** ✓ PASS

**Evidence:** Lines 153-201

8 documentation artifacts are included with:
- Correct file paths (docs-bmad/sprint-artifacts/tech-spec-epic-2.md, docs-bmad/epics/epic-2-rabbitmq-connection-management.md, etc.)
- Section titles (Overview and Objectives, System Architecture Alignment, etc.)
- Relevant snippets describing reconnection behavior, backoff schedules, and architecture

This meets the 5-15 range requirement and provides focused context.

---

### Checklist Item 5: Relevant code references included with reason and line hints
**Status:** ✗ FAIL

**Evidence:** Lines 204-260

**Issue:** Code artifacts are listed but **line hints are incorrect or outdated**.

Examples:
- Line 208: `<lines>63-80</lines>` for ConnectionManager - this is vague
- Line 214: `<lines>40-50</lines>` for HealthChecker - verified actual file shows HealthChecker class starts at line 40 but extends to line 280
- Line 220: `<lines>31-42</lines>` for ConnectionState - verified actual file shows ConnectionState at lines 31-37
- Line 237: `<lines>1-50</lines>` for HTTPClientManager - too vague, actual file is much longer

**Impact:** Developer must manually search for exact class definitions, reducing story readiness. Line hints should point to specific class/method definitions, not arbitrary ranges.

**Recommendation:** Update all code artifact line hints to point to actual class definition start lines and method signatures. Use precise ranges like "40-280" for HealthChecker instead of "40-50".

---

### Checklist Item 6: Interfaces/API contracts extracted if applicable
**Status:** ✓ PASS

**Evidence:** Lines 299-355

8 interfaces are well-documented:
- ReconnectionManager.handle_connection_loss() (lines 300-305)
- ReconnectionManager.get_state() (lines 306-312)
- HealthChecker integration point (lines 313-319)
- ConnectionManager.connect() (lines 320-326)
- HTTPClientManager integration (lines 327-335)
- MCP Tool: connection.reconnection_state (lines 336-341)
- Settings.RECONNECT_MAX_DELAY (lines 342-347)
- Settings.RECONNECT_RESET_AFTER (lines 348-355)

Each interface includes:
- Name, kind, signature
- Path
- Clear description

---

### Checklist Item 7: Constraints include applicable dev rules and patterns
**Status:** ⚠ PARTIAL

**Evidence:** Lines 276-296

**Strengths:**
- Comprehensive async/await requirements (line 277-278)
- Structured logging with structlog (line 279)
- Pydantic validation (line 280)
- File naming conventions (lines 288-291)
- Type hints mandatory (line 292)
- Testing coverage requirements (line 294)

**Gaps:**
1. **Missing Error Handling Patterns:** No specific guidance on exception types to raise or catch during reconnection failures
2. **Missing Observability Requirements:** No mention of metrics collection strategy (Prometheus, OpenTelemetry, etc.) despite Epic 7 compatibility mention in tasks
3. **Missing Concurrency Constraints:** No guidance on thread safety or asyncio task management for reconnection loops
4. **Missing Configuration Validation:** No constraints on validating RECONNECT_MAX_DELAY and RECONNECT_RESET_AFTER at runtime

**Recommendation:** Add constraints for:
- Exception handling: "Use ConnectionError for reconnection failures, AuthenticationError for auth issues"
- Concurrency: "Only one reconnection loop allowed per ConnectionManager instance, use asyncio.Lock"
- Metrics: "Track reconnection_attempts_total, reconnection_success_total, reconnection_duration_seconds"

---

### Checklist Item 8: Dependencies detected from manifests and frameworks
**Status:** ✓ PASS

**Evidence:** Lines 261-274

9 Python packages are documented with:
- Package names and version constraints
- Clear purpose descriptions:
  - pydantic >=2.0 for data validation
  - aio-pika >=9.5,<11 for AMQP
  - httpx >=0.27 for HTTP client
  - structlog >=24.1 for logging
  - pytest ecosystem for testing

Versions align with project requirements and are specific enough for reproducibility.

---

### Checklist Item 9: Testing standards and locations populated
**Status:** ⚠ PARTIAL

**Evidence:** Lines 357-405

**Strengths:**
- Testing standards documented (lines 359-362): 80% coverage, pytest framework, testcontainers
- Test locations listed (lines 363-367): 5 test files with clear naming
- Comprehensive test ideas (lines 368-405): All 9 ACs covered with unit and integration test scenarios

**Gaps:**
1. **Missing Performance Test Specifications:** No tests for performance target "reconnection completes <10s" with specific test harness details
2. **Missing Test Data Requirements:** No mention of test fixtures, mock data, or RabbitMQ container configuration
3. **Missing Test Dependencies:** No mention of Docker Desktop requirement in testing standards section (mentioned in tasks but not test standards)
4. **Missing Edge Case Tests:** While Task 13 mentions edge cases, they're not reflected in test ideas section with specific test scenarios

**Recommendation:** Add to test standards:
- "Performance tests use time.perf_counter() with 10-second threshold assertions"
- "Testcontainers require Docker Desktop running on development machine"
- "Test fixtures defined in tests/conftest.py for RabbitMQ container configuration"

Add specific test ideas for edge cases:
- Test: Reconnection during server shutdown (graceful cancellation)
- Test: Multiple concurrent reconnection triggers (race condition)
- Test: Reconnection with invalid credentials (indefinite retry)

---

### Checklist Item 10: XML structure follows story-context template format
**Status:** ✗ FAIL

**Evidence:** Lines 1-406, cross-referenced with template at .bmad/bmm/workflows/4-implementation/story-context/context-template.xml

**Issue:** **sourceStoryPath is incorrect**

Line 9:
```xml
<sourceStoryPath>docs-bmad/sprint-artifacts/2-5-automatic-reconnection-with-exponential-backoff.md</sourceStoryPath>
```

**Problem:** The source story file path is missing the "stories" subdirectory. 

**Expected path:** `docs-bmad/sprint-artifacts/stories/2-5-automatic-reconnection-with-exponential-backoff.md`

**Verification:** Directory listing shows stories are in `docs-bmad/sprint-artifacts/stories/` directory, not directly in `docs-bmad/sprint-artifacts/`.

**Impact:** Automated tools or workflows attempting to load the source story will fail with file not found errors.

**Additional Minor Issue:** Line 16 has loose task format - tasks are in markdown list format within XML `<tasks>` tag. While readable, this is non-standard XML. Template shows `<tasks>{{story_tasks}}</tasks>` which suggests this is acceptable, but could be improved with proper XML structure like `<task id="1">...</task>`.

---

## Failed Items

### Critical: Incorrect Code Artifact Line Hints (Checklist Item 5)
**Severity:** HIGH  
**Issue:** Line hints in code artifacts section are incorrect, outdated, or too vague  
**Impact:** Developers must manually search files, reducing story readiness and increasing implementation time  
**Fix Required:**
1. Update ConnectionManager lines from "63-80" to actual class definition range
2. Update HealthChecker lines from "40-50" to "40-280" (verified from source)
3. Update ConnectionState lines from "31-42" to "31-37" (verified from source)
4. Update HTTPClientManager lines from "1-50" to actual class definition range
5. Add specific method line numbers for key methods like `connect()`, `check_health()`

**Recommended Action:**
```xml
<artifact>
  <path>src/rabbitmq_mcp_connection/connection/manager.py</path>
  <kind>service</kind>
  <symbol>ConnectionManager</symbol>
  <lines>63-150</lines>  <!-- Updated to cover full class definition -->
  <reason>Existing AMQP connection manager class. Key method: connect() at line 78.</reason>
</artifact>
```

---

### Critical: Incorrect sourceStoryPath (Checklist Item 10)
**Severity:** HIGH  
**Issue:** sourceStoryPath missing "stories/" subdirectory in path  
**Impact:** Automated tooling cannot locate source story file, breaking workflow integration  
**Fix Required:**
Change line 9 from:
```xml
<sourceStoryPath>docs-bmad/sprint-artifacts/2-5-automatic-reconnection-with-exponential-backoff.md</sourceStoryPath>
```
To:
```xml
<sourceStoryPath>docs-bmad/sprint-artifacts/stories/2-5-automatic-reconnection-with-exponential-backoff.md</sourceStoryPath>
```

---

## Partial Items

### Constraints Section Missing Key Development Rules (Checklist Item 7)
**Severity:** MEDIUM  
**Issue:** Missing error handling patterns, observability strategy, and concurrency constraints  
**Impact:** Developers lack guidance on exception handling, metrics collection, and thread safety  
**What's Missing:**
1. Exception handling patterns for reconnection scenarios
2. Metrics collection strategy (Prometheus/OpenTelemetry)
3. Concurrency constraints (single reconnection loop per manager)
4. Runtime configuration validation requirements

**Recommendation:**
Add these constraints:
```
- Exception handling: Use ConnectionError for network failures, AuthenticationError for credential issues, raise with context
- Concurrency: Only one reconnection loop allowed per ConnectionManager instance, protected by asyncio.Lock
- Metrics: Track reconnection_attempts_total, reconnection_success_total, reconnection_duration_seconds using structlog
- Configuration validation: Validate RECONNECT_MAX_DELAY (10-300) and RECONNECT_RESET_AFTER (60-3600) on Settings initialization
```

---

### Testing Section Missing Performance and Edge Case Details (Checklist Item 9)
**Severity:** MEDIUM  
**Issue:** Test standards lack performance test specifications and edge case test ideas  
**Impact:** Quality assurance gaps in performance validation and resilience testing  
**What's Missing:**
1. Performance test methodology with timing assertions
2. Docker Desktop requirement in test standards
3. Edge case test specifications (shutdown, race conditions, invalid credentials)
4. Test fixture documentation

**Recommendation:**
Add to test standards:
```
- Performance tests use time.perf_counter() with strict <10-second assertions for reconnection
- Docker Desktop required for testcontainers integration tests
- Test fixtures in tests/conftest.py define RabbitMQ container configuration
```

Add test ideas:
```xml
<test id="EDGE-1" criteria="Graceful shutdown during reconnection">
  Unit test: Cancel reconnection task, verify asyncio.CancelledError handled cleanly
  Integration test: Trigger reconnection, shutdown server, verify no hanging tasks
</test>
<test id="EDGE-2" criteria="Race condition - multiple reconnection triggers">
  Unit test: Mock 5 concurrent calls to handle_connection_loss(), verify only 1 loop runs
  Integration test: Rapid connection loss/recovery cycles, verify state consistency
</test>
<test id="EDGE-3" criteria="Invalid credentials indefinite retry">
  Integration test: Configure wrong password, verify reconnection attempts continue with clear auth error logs
</test>
```

---

## Recommendations

### Must Fix (Critical)
1. **Update Code Artifact Line Hints:** Scan all referenced source files and update line numbers to accurate ranges
2. **Fix sourceStoryPath:** Add "stories/" subdirectory to path

### Should Improve (Important)
3. **Enhance Constraints Section:** Add error handling patterns, observability strategy, concurrency constraints, and configuration validation rules
4. **Expand Testing Standards:** Add performance test methodology, Docker requirement, and edge case test specifications

### Consider (Minor)
5. **XML Task Structure:** Consider converting markdown task list to proper XML `<task>` elements for better parsing (optional, current format appears acceptable per template)
6. **Add Dependency Version Rationale:** Document why specific version constraints chosen (e.g., aio-pika <11 due to breaking changes)

---

## Conclusion

The story context for 2-5-automatic-reconnection-with-exponential-backoff is **70% compliant** with the validation checklist. The core story elements (user story, acceptance criteria, tasks) are well-captured and comprehensive. However, **3 critical issues** must be addressed before marking this story ready for development:

1. **Code artifact line hints are incorrect/outdated** - High impact on developer efficiency
2. **sourceStoryPath is wrong** - Breaks automation tooling
3. **Constraints section has gaps** - Missing key development guidance

**Status:** ⚠ **NOT READY FOR DEV** - Requires fixes before proceeding

**Next Steps:**
1. Apply all "Must Fix" items immediately
2. Apply "Should Improve" items to reach 90%+ compliance
3. Re-validate after fixes applied
4. Mark story as ready for development once validation passes at 90%+

**Estimated Fix Time:** 15-20 minutes
