# Build and Test Summary

**Date**: 2026-07-28

## Build Status
- **Build Tool**: .NET 10 SDK (`dotnet build`), pnpm 9 / Vite (`pnpm run build`)
- **Build Status**: Success — `dotnet build SlpModularCms.sln -c Release`, 0 errors, 12 warnings
  (all pre-existing `NU1510` "will not be pruned" informational notices)
- **Build Artifacts**: standard per-project `bin/Release/net10.0/` output; `frontend/dist/`
- **Build Time**: ~15s backend, ~1s frontend (incremental)

## Test Execution Summary

### Unit Tests
- **Total Tests**: 609 (372 backend + 237 frontend)
- **Passed**: 609
- **Failed**: 0
- **Coverage**: not tracked (D-10 — deliberate, no threshold enforced)
- **Status**: Pass

### Integration Tests
- **Test Scenarios**: 4 (static content/SPA-fallback/header-scoping, master↔slave real
  communication over the persistent key ring, correlation-ID logging, startup behaviour) — see
  `integration-test-instructions.md` for the full scenario table
- **Passed**: 4/4 scenarios, all individual checks within them passed
- **Failed**: 0
- **Status**: Pass
- **Method**: both hosts (`SlpModularCms.Api`, `SlpModularCms.Api.Slave`) run live against the
  local SQL Server container, admin SPA published and served for real, verified with direct HTTP
  requests rather than simulated `HttpContext` — the specific gap unit tests structurally cannot
  close, per U1/U2/U3's own carried-forward Definition of Done items

### Performance Tests
- **Status**: N/A — no performance/throughput requirements exist for this feature (see
  `performance-test-instructions.md`)

### Additional Tests
- **Contract Tests**: N/A — no microservice boundary changed by this feature; the U5↔U6
  `workflow_call` interface is validated by YAML structure checks during Code Generation, not a
  runtime contract test
- **Security Tests**: Vulnerability scan — `dotnet list SlpModularCms.sln package --vulnerable
  --include-transitive` — **0 vulnerable packages across all 10 projects** (was 2 packages, multiple
  advisories each, closed at U5 — FR-22, OPEN-03)
- **E2E Tests**: covered by the integration scenarios above (real requests through a real host); no
  browser-driven UI E2E suite exists for the admin SPA in this repository

## Overall Status
- **Build**: Success
- **All Tests**: Pass
- **Ready for Operations**: Yes

## What This Stage Confirmed That Per-Unit Checks Could Not
- Static-file serving and SPA-fallback actually work end-to-end with real published output, not
  just against `DefaultHttpContext` (U1)
- HTTP security headers are correctly scoped by content type on **real** responses — HTML gets the
  full set, non-HTML gets only the always-on pair, confirmed on genuine static assets and the
  `/health` JSON response (U3)
- The persistent Data Protection key ring genuinely survives a process restart: a slave API key
  encrypted by an earlier process was successfully decrypted and used for authenticated master↔slave
  calls by a freshly started process (U2, closing the loop on ASM-08)
- The W3C trace id correlation mechanism is present in real console log output (U4, OPEN-01)

## What Remains Genuinely Out of Scope for This Stage
Real Sentry events, real UptimeRobot monitors, an actual Gitea pipeline run against the self-hosted
runner, and a real Raspberry Pi deploy — all explicitly deferred to the Operations phase by U5 and
U6's own Definition of Done, because they require infrastructure (a live Sentry project, a live
Gitea instance, the actual Pi with SSH access) that does not exist yet at this stage of the workflow.

## Next Steps
Ready to proceed to the Operations phase (Deployment Setup → Monitoring Setup → Production Readiness
Validation), per this feature's `## Operations Configuration: Include Operations Phase: Yes`
(decided at Requirements Analysis).