Skip to content

Commit 404af18

Browse files
StevenTCramerclaude
andcommitted
Standardize backlog task formatting
- Fix B002 title to include "B002:" prefix - Fix B003 title to use correct task number (was B044) - Standardize section structure to use Requirements, Checklist, and Notes - Convert Acceptance Criteria to Requirements format - Add comprehensive Checklist with Design/Implementation/Documentation breakdown - Consolidate Priority and Labels into Notes section 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.ai/code) Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
1 parent e75adb1 commit 404af18

2 files changed

Lines changed: 44 additions & 32 deletions

File tree

TimeWarp.Architecture/Kanban/Backlog/B002_Research-And-Plan-I18n-Implementation.md

Lines changed: 1 addition & 1 deletion
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
1-
# Research and Plan i18n Implementation
1+
# B002: Research and Plan i18n Implementation
22

33
## Description
44

Lines changed: 43 additions & 31 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -1,31 +1,43 @@
1-
# B044: Build Flow to Check @key on Blazor Loops
2-
3-
## Description
4-
Create a Flow (validation/analysis tool) to automatically detect Blazor loops that are missing the `@key` directive and ensure proper key usage for performance and correctness.
5-
6-
## Background
7-
Blazor loops without proper `@key` directives can cause rendering issues, performance problems, and incorrect component state management when the collection changes.
8-
9-
## Acceptance Criteria
10-
- [ ] Detect `@for`, `@foreach` loops in Blazor components
11-
- [ ] Identify loops missing `@key` directive
12-
- [ ] Validate that `@key` values are unique and stable
13-
- [ ] Report locations of violations with line numbers
14-
- [ ] Integrate with existing build/validation pipeline
15-
- [ ] Provide clear error messages with remediation guidance
16-
17-
## Technical Notes
18-
- Should analyze `.razor` files
19-
- Consider both server-side and WebAssembly scenarios
20-
- May leverage Roslyn analyzers or custom parsing
21-
- Should handle nested loops appropriately
22-
23-
## Priority
24-
Medium - Code quality and performance improvement
25-
26-
## Labels
27-
- flow
28-
- blazor
29-
- validation
30-
- performance
31-
- code-quality
1+
# B044: Build Flow to Check @key on Blazor Loops
2+
3+
## Description
4+
Create a Flow (validation/analysis tool) to automatically detect Blazor loops that are missing the `@key` directive and ensure proper key usage for performance and correctness.
5+
6+
## Background
7+
Blazor loops without proper `@key` directives can cause rendering issues, performance problems, and incorrect component state management when the collection changes.
8+
9+
## Requirements
10+
- Detect `@for`, `@foreach` loops in Blazor components
11+
- Identify loops missing `@key` directive
12+
- Validate that `@key` values are unique and stable
13+
- Report locations of violations with line numbers
14+
- Integrate with existing build/validation pipeline
15+
- Provide clear error messages with remediation guidance
16+
17+
## Checklist
18+
19+
### Design
20+
- [ ] Design loop detection algorithm for .razor files
21+
- [ ] Define validation rules for @key usage
22+
- [ ] Plan integration with build pipeline
23+
- [ ] Design error reporting format
24+
25+
### Implementation
26+
- [ ] Create Roslyn analyzer or custom parser
27+
- [ ] Implement loop detection logic
28+
- [ ] Add @key validation rules
29+
- [ ] Build error reporting system
30+
- [ ] Add build pipeline integration
31+
32+
### Documentation
33+
- [ ] Create usage documentation
34+
- [ ] Document configuration options
35+
- [ ] Add troubleshooting guide
36+
37+
## Notes
38+
39+
Should analyze `.razor` files and consider both server-side and WebAssembly scenarios. May leverage Roslyn analyzers or custom parsing. Should handle nested loops appropriately.
40+
41+
Priority: Medium - Code quality and performance improvement
42+
43+
Labels: flow, blazor, validation, performance, code-quality

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)