# Validation Report - Story Context XML

**Document:** docs-bmad/sprint-artifacts/stories/3-3-delete-queue-operation-with-safety-validation.context.xml
**Checklist:** .bmad/bmm/workflows/4-implementation/story-context/checklist.md
**Date:** 2025-12-30T01:59:00Z

## Summary
- Overall: 8/10 passed (80%)
- Critical Issues: 2

## Section Results

### Story Context Assembly Validation

Pass Rate: 8/10 (80%)

---

✓ **PASS** - Story fields (asA/iWant/soThat) captured
**Evidence:** Lines 12-15
```xml
<story>
  <asA>DevOps engineer</asA>
  <iWant>to delete queues with safety checks that prevent accidental data loss</iWant>
  <soThat>I don't inadvertently destroy queues containing important messages</soThat>
```
All three story fields are properly captured from the story draft.

---

✓ **PASS** - Acceptance criteria list matches story draft exactly (no invention)
**Evidence:** Lines 79-87
```xml
<acceptanceCriteria>
  1. **Given** queue "orders" with messages=100 and consumers=2 **When** "queues.delete" without --force **Then** blocked with error "Queue 'orders' has 100 messages and 2 consumers. Use --force to confirm deletion."
  2. **And** --force flag allows deletion: "queues.delete" with force=true succeeds
  3. **And** empty queue (messages=0, consumers=0) deletes without requiring --force
  4. **And** successful deletion returns: status="success", message="Queue 'orders' deleted"
  5. **And** non-existent queue returns error: "Queue 'orders' not found in vhost '/'"
  6. **And** deletion operation completes in &lt;100ms
  7. **And** deletion is logged in audit trail with correlation ID
</acceptanceCriteria>
```
Cross-referenced with story draft (lines 11-19) - all 7 acceptance criteria match exactly with proper HTML encoding for < symbol.

---

✓ **PASS** - Tasks/subtasks captured as task list
**Evidence:** Lines 16-77
Tasks section contains 8 main tasks with comprehensive subtasks:
- Task 1: Create Delete Queue Request Schema (AC: #1, #2, #5)
- Task 2: Implement Safety Validation Check (AC: #1, #2, #3)
- Task 3: Implement DeleteQueueOperation Class (AC: #2, #4, #6)
- Task 4: Handle Non-Existent Queue Error (AC: #5)
- Task 5: Add Structured Logging for Audit Trail (AC: #7)
- Task 6: Add Performance Monitoring (AC: #6)
- Task 7: Register queues.delete MCP Tool (AC: All)
- Task 8: Document Safety Validation Behavior (AC: #1, #2, #3)

All tasks are mapped to acceptance criteria and contain detailed implementation steps.

---

✓ **PASS** - Relevant docs (5-15) included with path and snippets
**Evidence:** Lines 89-127
7 documentation artifacts included with complete paths and contextual snippets:
1. tech-spec-epic-3.md (Safety Validations section)
2. tech-spec-epic-3.md (Workflows and Sequencing - Workflow 3)
3. tech-spec-epic-3.md (APIs and Interfaces)
4. epic-3-topology-operations.md (Story 3.3)
5. architecture-decision-records-adrs.md (ADR-009: Structured Logging)
6. 3-2-create-queue-operation.md (Dev Agent Record - Learnings)

All docs are relevant to delete queue operation, safety validation, and topology patterns.

---

✓ **PASS** - Relevant code references included with reason and line hints
**Evidence:** Lines 128-171
6 code artifacts with paths, symbols, line ranges, and implementation reasons:
1. ListQueuesOperation (lines 37-200) - async execution pattern
2. CreateQueueOperation (lines 368-586) - template for DeleteQueueOperation
3. QueueDetails schema (lines 29-88) - queue statistics for safety check
4. CreateQueueRequest schema (lines 111-259) - validation pattern
5. HTTPClientManager (lines 1-200) - HTTP client singleton
6. get_logger from config/logging.py (lines 1-100) - structured logging

All references are highly relevant and include specific line ranges.

---

✓ **PASS** - Interfaces/API contracts extracted if applicable
**Evidence:** Lines 203-239
5 interfaces documented with complete signatures and details:
1. DELETE /api/queues/{vhost}/{name} - REST endpoint for queue deletion
2. GET /api/queues/{vhost}/{name} - REST endpoint for queue statistics
3. DeleteQueueRequest - Pydantic model with validation rules
4. DeleteQueueOperation.execute() - async method signature
5. HTTPClientManager.request() - shared HTTP client

All interfaces include HTTP methods, parameters, response codes, and usage details.

---

✓ **PASS** - Constraints include applicable dev rules and patterns
**Evidence:** Lines 185-201
16 constraints documented covering:
- File placement rules (operations/topology.py, schemas/topology.py)
- Helper method naming (_check_queue_safety prefix)
- Correlation_id parameter requirement (ADR-009)
- URL encoding for vhost parameters
- Safety check performance (<50ms)
- Force flag semantics
- Race condition handling
- Validation error precedence
- Structured logging fields
- Test coverage targets (80%+)
- HTTP client reuse pattern

Constraints align with architectural decisions from Story 3.2 and Epic 3 tech spec.

---

✗ **FAIL** - Dependencies detected from manifests and frameworks
**Evidence:** Lines 172-182
Dependencies section includes 7 Python packages with versions:
- httpx (>=0.27)
- pydantic (>=2.0)
- pydantic-settings (>=2.0)
- structlog (>=24.1)
- pytest (latest)
- pytest-asyncio (latest)
- testcontainers (latest)

**Issue:** Dependencies are listed but NOT verified against actual project manifests (pyproject.toml, uv.lock). The context should indicate whether these dependencies already exist in the project or need to be added. For a mature story context, dependencies should be cross-referenced with:
1. Existing pyproject.toml to confirm installed versions
2. Potential version conflicts
3. Whether new dependencies need to be added

**Impact:** Developer may waste time checking if dependencies are already installed or encounter version mismatches during implementation.

**Recommendation:** Add verification note: "All dependencies verified in pyproject.toml [lines X-Y]" or "New dependencies to add: [list]"

---

✓ **PASS** - Testing standards and locations populated
**Evidence:** Lines 240-302
Comprehensive testing section includes:
- Standards: pytest, pytest-asyncio, Arrange-Act-Assert, parametrized tests, 80% coverage
- Locations: 3 test file paths with specific test types
  - tests/unit/rabbitmq_mcp_connection/schemas/test_topology.py (extend)
  - tests/unit/rabbitmq_mcp_connection/operations/test_delete_queue_operation.py (NEW)
  - tests/integration/test_topology_integration.py (extend)
- Ideas: 10 detailed test scenarios mapped to acceptance criteria:
  - AC1: Safety check blocks deletion with messages
  - AC2: Force flag bypasses safety check
  - AC3: Empty queue deletes without force
  - AC4: Successful deletion response format
  - AC5: Non-existent queue error
  - AC6: Operation performance <100ms
  - AC7: Audit trail with correlation ID
  - EDGE_RACE: Race condition handling
  - EDGE_CONSUMERS: Consumers-only safety block
  - VALIDATION_NAME: Invalid queue name

All test scenarios include expected outcomes and task mappings.

---

✗ **FAIL** - XML structure follows story-context template format
**Evidence:** Lines 1-303 (entire document)
Document uses proper XML structure with:
- Root element: `<story-context id=".bmad/bmm/workflows/4-implementation/story-context/template" v="1.0">`
- Metadata section (lines 2-10)
- Story section (lines 12-77)
- AcceptanceCriteria section (lines 79-87)
- Artifacts section with docs and code (lines 89-183)
- Constraints section (lines 185-201)
- Interfaces section (lines 203-239)
- Tests section (lines 240-302)

**Issue:** While the overall structure is present and correct, there are **MISSING CRITICAL ATTRIBUTES** in the metadata section that should be populated based on the template:
1. Missing `<dependencies>` section validation reference - context includes dependencies (lines 172-182) but doesn't reference project manifest files
2. XML encoding inconsistency: Uses `&lt;` for `<` in acceptanceCriteria (line 86) but this is correct HTML/XML encoding

**Secondary Issue:** The `<dependencies>` section (lines 172-182) is placed inside `<artifacts>` but it should be a top-level section according to best practices for story context structure. This makes dependencies harder to locate.

**Impact:** 
- Dependencies section placement may confuse automated parsers or tools that expect it at root level
- Missing manifest cross-references make dependency validation manual

**Recommendation:**
1. Move `<dependencies>` to be a sibling of `<artifacts>` at root level
2. Add cross-reference to project manifests in dependencies section

---

## Failed Items

### 1. Dependencies detected from manifests and frameworks (FAIL)
**Issue:** Dependencies listed but not verified against project manifests (pyproject.toml, uv.lock)
**Why this matters:** Developer may encounter version conflicts or waste time verifying existing packages
**Recommendation:** Add verification statement: "Dependencies cross-referenced with pyproject.toml [lines 24-42] - all packages exist with compatible versions" OR "New dependencies required: [list]"

### 2. XML structure follows story-context template format (FAIL)
**Issue:** Dependencies section incorrectly nested inside artifacts section instead of being a top-level element
**Why this matters:** 
- Makes dependencies harder to locate and parse
- Inconsistent with story context template best practices
- May break automated tooling that expects dependencies at root level
**Recommendation:** Restructure XML to move `<dependencies>` section to be a sibling of `<artifacts>`, `<constraints>`, `<interfaces>`, and `<tests>` at the root level

---

## Partial Items

None - all items are either PASS or FAIL.

---

## Recommendations

### Must Fix (Critical)

1. **Restructure Dependencies Section**
   - Move `<dependencies>` from inside `<artifacts>` to root level
   - Place it between `</artifacts>` and `<constraints>` for logical flow
   - Update any tooling that parses this XML structure

2. **Verify Dependencies Against Project Manifests**
   - Cross-reference all 7 listed dependencies with pyproject.toml
   - Document which dependencies already exist vs. need to be added
   - Verify version compatibility
   - Add explicit verification statement in context

### Should Improve (Important)

3. **Add Dependency Verification Section**
   - After dependencies list, add: `<verification source="pyproject.toml" status="confirmed|needs-addition">`
   - List any version conflicts or upgrade requirements
   - Reference specific line numbers in manifest files

4. **Enhance Metadata Completeness**
   - Consider adding `<estimatedEffort>` field for story sizing
   - Add `<relatedStories>` section linking to 3.1, 3.2 (dependency chain)
   - Include `<technicalRisks>` field for safety validation complexity

### Consider (Minor)

5. **Code References Enhancement**
   - Line range hints for HTTPClientManager (1-200) are too broad
   - Consider narrowing to specific methods: `request()` method location
   - Add specific imports needed from each code artifact

6. **Test Ideas Prioritization**
   - Mark which test scenarios are "must-have" vs. "nice-to-have"
   - Add estimated test count per scenario (e.g., "AC1: 4 parametrized tests")
   - Include test data examples for safety check combinations

7. **Documentation References**
   - Add line numbers for ADR-009 snippet (currently just says "ADR-009: Structured Logging")
   - Include specific sections/paragraphs for easier navigation
   - Add dates or versions for referenced documents to detect staleness

## Overall Assessment

**Status:** Ready for Development with Minor Fixes Required

The story context is **80% complete and well-structured** with comprehensive coverage of requirements, architecture patterns, testing standards, and code references. The two critical issues are:

1. **Dependencies not verified** against project manifests (moderate risk)
2. **XML structure issue** with dependencies nested incorrectly (low-moderate risk)

Both issues are **quick fixes** that should take <15 minutes to resolve:
- Move dependencies section to root level (5 min)
- Verify against pyproject.toml and add verification statement (10 min)

**Strengths:**
- Excellent task breakdown with AC mappings
- Comprehensive code references from Story 3.2
- Detailed testing scenarios with edge cases
- Strong constraints section with technical guidance
- Complete interface documentation

**After fixing the 2 failed items, this context will be production-ready for development.**
