Description
The repository has many validation targets, but maintainers need one view showing whether critical journeys remain healthy across platforms, offline mode, protocol versions, security providers, and artifact formats.
Work to be done
Define a dashboard input schema, aggregate CI and validation-suite results, retain historical status, and link failures to issue numbers and artifacts.
Implementation procedure
Reuse existing CI artifacts and validation docs instead of introducing a second test runner. Add a generated report with journey name, platform, commit, duration, result, and failure link. Keep secrets and full payloads out of the dashboard.
Acceptance criteria
The dashboard covers the agreed critical journeys and can be generated offline from CI artifacts. A failed journey is traceable to logs and an issue. Historical reports are deterministic, privacy-safe, and documented for quarterly review.
Description
The repository has many validation targets, but maintainers need one view showing whether critical journeys remain healthy across platforms, offline mode, protocol versions, security providers, and artifact formats.
Work to be done
Define a dashboard input schema, aggregate CI and validation-suite results, retain historical status, and link failures to issue numbers and artifacts.
Implementation procedure
Reuse existing CI artifacts and validation docs instead of introducing a second test runner. Add a generated report with journey name, platform, commit, duration, result, and failure link. Keep secrets and full payloads out of the dashboard.
Acceptance criteria
The dashboard covers the agreed critical journeys and can be generated offline from CI artifacts. A failed journey is traceable to logs and an issue. Historical reports are deterministic, privacy-safe, and documented for quarterly review.