Mission Rebuild the capability of Phase 28 without following the exact code line-by-line. The goal is transfer: can you use the ideas when the variable names, UI, or route shape changes?
Required outcome Build a testing strategy that proves pure rules, service orchestration, repositories, HTTP contracts, frontend behavior, and critical browser flows at the right cost.
Required artifact Vitest + integration + Playwright test suite with deterministic fixtures and CI-ready commands.
Constraints • Start from the previous phase checkpoint or a fresh branch. • Use the course architecture boundaries, but do not copy the reference implementation until after your first attempt. • Keep changes scoped to the capability. • Preserve validation, authorization, error handling, and observability expectations already earned in earlier phases. • Record any design decision where more than one implementation is reasonable.
Acceptance criteria • Can choose test level by risk. • Can write deterministic tests. • Can test real persistence when needed. • Can explain what each test does not prove.
Independent build sequence 1. List the highest-risk TaskFlow behaviors before choosing test counts. 2. Write a pure unit test for one deterministic business policy. 3. Test a service with controlled dependencies and assert business outcome rather than private calls. 4. Run a repository integration test against real PostgreSQL with isolated data. 5. Run an API test through NestJS for validation/auth/error contract. 6. Write one Playwright flow for a critical user journey and make setup/cleanup reproducible.
Self-review Compare your implementation to the reference only after the acceptance criteria pass. Differences are not automatically mistakes. For each difference, ask: does it preserve the same contract, security boundary, correctness, maintainability, and operational behavior? Keep the alternative when you can justify it with evidence.
Stretch challenge Change one assumption: more users, a second tenant, a slow network, an expired session, a concurrent mutation, a deployment restart, or a failed dependency. Predict whether your design still behaves correctly. If not, document the next architectural improvement rather than adding complexity blindly.
Phase exit Run the relevant checks, inspect Git diff, and write a three-sentence summary: what the system can do now, which boundary owns the new responsibility, and which failure you now know how to diagnose. Only then mark the phase complete.
Tests are executable behavioral contracts. Good tests protect meaningful invariants and failure cases, not implementation trivia.
Restate the goal of “Phase Synthesis & Independent Challenge” as one observable behavior. Write the success signal before touching code.
Trace the boundary map: behavior contract → arrange → act → assert → regression signal. Mark the one boundary this lesson changes.
Inspect the current repository state and record the exact files, route, table, or runtime involved. Avoid creating an abstraction before you can name the existing owner.
Implement the smallest vertical slice. Add one coherent change, run the narrowest verification command, and read the output before continuing.
Connect the slice to TaskFlow’s phase artifact: Vitest + integration + Playwright test suite with deterministic fixtures and CI-ready commands.. Verify behavior from the outside as a user or API client would.
Create one controlled failure that is safe to reproduce. Predict the symptom first, capture evidence, locate the earliest broken boundary, then fix only that cause.
Close the reference and rebuild or explain the core change from memory. Record what you would monitor or test before trusting the same change in production.
it("rejects deleting another member's task", async () => {
const response = await asUser(bob).delete(`/tasks/${aliceTask.id}`);
expect(response.status).toBe(403);
expect(await taskStillExists(aliceTask.id)).toBe(true);
});Do not copy this as a finished answer. Predict what each boundary does, type the smallest useful slice, run it, then compare the result with your prediction.
Look for shared database state, timers, globals, unordered execution, or missing cleanup before adding retries.
Move the highest-risk boundary to an integration test with the real adapter/database.
Without copying the final source, create a second small scenario that applies “Phase Synthesis & Independent Challenge” to a different TaskFlow resource or input. Write the acceptance criteria first, implement it, and provide the evidence that each criterion is satisfied.
Test a service with controlled dependencies and assert business outcome rather than private calls.
Use the smallest change that demonstrates this lesson. Stop after it works and capture evidence.Shared mutable test data causing order-dependent failures
Predict the symptom before causing the failure. Then locate the earliest boundary where reality diverges from expectation.Why does this responsibility live here, what input does it trust, what output proves success, and what would go wrong if another layer owned it?
If your explanation is vague, repeat the boundary trace before moving on.Close the reference. Reproduce the core idea from memory or explain the exact request/data flow aloud. Then check your diff or notes for accidental shortcuts that bypass validation, authorization, error handling, or verification earned in earlier phases.