l3ocho
11b6be87c8
✅ Task 1.1 - Project Foundation Setup: - Repository structure with Python packaging (setup.py, pyproject.toml) - Development dependencies and requirements - Contributing guidelines and MIT license - GitHub workflows for CI/CD (test.yml, release.yml) - Issue and PR templates for community contributions - Comprehensive project documentation ✅ Task 1.2 - Core Client Structure: - wikijs package with proper module organization - Core client class foundation in client.py - Exception hierarchy for error handling - Base model classes and page models - Type checking support (py.typed) - Utility modules and helper functions 📊 Progress: Phase 1 MVP Development now 40% complete 🎯 Next: Task 1.3 - Authentication System implementation 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.ai/code) Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
237 lines
7.6 KiB
Markdown
237 lines
7.6 KiB
Markdown
# Wiki.js Python SDK - Risk Management
|
|
|
|
**Project**: wikijs-python-sdk
|
|
**Stage**: MVP Development
|
|
**Version**: 1.0
|
|
**Last Updated**: July 2025
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 🎯 Overview
|
|
|
|
This document identifies and addresses key risks for the MVP development phase. As an AI-assisted project in early development, we focus on the most critical risks that could impact successful delivery.
|
|
|
|
### **Risk Management Approach**
|
|
- **Proactive Identification**: Anticipate issues before they occur
|
|
- **Practical Mitigation**: Focus on actionable solutions
|
|
- **Regular Review**: Assess risks weekly during development
|
|
- **Continuous Learning**: Update strategies based on experience
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 🔴 High Priority Risks
|
|
|
|
### **R1: Development Timeline Delays**
|
|
**Risk**: MVP development takes longer than 2-week target
|
|
**Probability**: Medium | **Impact**: High | **Level**: 🔴 HIGH
|
|
|
|
**Causes:**
|
|
- Underestimated task complexity
|
|
- Scope creep during development
|
|
- Technical challenges with Wiki.js API integration
|
|
- AI session limitations affecting development flow
|
|
|
|
**Mitigation Strategies:**
|
|
- ✅ **Strict Scope Control**: No feature additions during MVP development
|
|
- ✅ **Daily Progress Tracking**: Update completion status in CLAUDE.md
|
|
- ✅ **Buffer Time**: Built-in 20% buffer for unexpected issues
|
|
- ✅ **Fallback Plan**: Reduce MVP scope if timeline at risk
|
|
|
|
**Monitoring:**
|
|
- Track actual vs. estimated time for each task
|
|
- Weekly milestone reviews
|
|
- Early warning if >20% behind schedule
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### **R2: Wiki.js API Compatibility Issues**
|
|
**Risk**: Changes in Wiki.js API break SDK functionality
|
|
**Probability**: Medium | **Impact**: High | **Level**: 🔴 HIGH
|
|
|
|
**Causes:**
|
|
- Wiki.js API changes without notice
|
|
- Undocumented API behavior
|
|
- Version compatibility issues
|
|
- Authentication method changes
|
|
|
|
**Mitigation Strategies:**
|
|
- ✅ **Version Pinning**: Test against specific Wiki.js versions
|
|
- ✅ **Graceful Degradation**: Handle API errors without complete failure
|
|
- ✅ **Documentation**: Clear supported version requirements
|
|
- ✅ **Testing**: Comprehensive integration tests with real Wiki.js instance
|
|
|
|
**Monitoring:**
|
|
- Test against latest Wiki.js releases
|
|
- Monitor Wiki.js changelog and releases
|
|
- Community feedback on compatibility issues
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### **R3: Quality Standards Not Met**
|
|
**Risk**: Code quality falls below professional standards
|
|
**Probability**: Low | **Impact**: High | **Level**: 🔴 HIGH
|
|
|
|
**Causes:**
|
|
- Rushing to meet timeline
|
|
- Skipping tests or documentation
|
|
- Inconsistent code style
|
|
- Insufficient error handling
|
|
|
|
**Mitigation Strategies:**
|
|
- ✅ **Automated Checks**: CI/CD pipeline with quality gates
|
|
- ✅ **Test Coverage**: Maintain >85% coverage requirement
|
|
- ✅ **Code Review**: All changes reviewed before merge
|
|
- ✅ **Documentation**: API docs required for all public methods
|
|
|
|
**Quality Gates:**
|
|
- [ ] Tests: 100% pass rate
|
|
- [ ] Coverage: >85% line coverage
|
|
- [ ] Types: 100% mypy compliance
|
|
- [ ] Lint: 0 flake8 errors
|
|
- [ ] Format: 100% black compliance
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 🟡 Medium Priority Risks
|
|
|
|
### **R4: Package Distribution Issues**
|
|
**Risk**: Problems publishing to PyPI or package installation
|
|
**Probability**: Medium | **Impact**: Medium | **Level**: 🟡 MEDIUM
|
|
|
|
**Mitigation:**
|
|
- Test packaging and installation locally
|
|
- Use automated publishing workflow
|
|
- Validate package metadata and dependencies
|
|
|
|
### **R5: Documentation Gaps**
|
|
**Risk**: Incomplete or unclear documentation affects adoption
|
|
**Probability**: High | **Impact**: Medium | **Level**: 🟡 MEDIUM
|
|
|
|
**Mitigation:**
|
|
- Write documentation alongside code
|
|
- Include practical examples for all features
|
|
- Test documentation with fresh install
|
|
|
|
### **R6: Community Reception Issues**
|
|
**Risk**: Negative feedback or low adoption
|
|
**Probability**: Low | **Impact**: Medium | **Level**: 🟡 MEDIUM
|
|
|
|
**Mitigation:**
|
|
- Focus on solving real developer problems
|
|
- Engage with Wiki.js community early
|
|
- Gather feedback and iterate quickly
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 🟢 Low Priority Risks
|
|
|
|
### **R7: Performance Issues**
|
|
**Risk**: SDK performance doesn't meet expectations
|
|
**Probability**: Low | **Impact**: Low | **Level**: 🟢 LOW
|
|
|
|
**Note**: Performance optimization planned for Phase 3, not critical for MVP
|
|
|
|
### **R8: Security Vulnerabilities**
|
|
**Risk**: Security issues in dependencies or code
|
|
**Probability**: Low | **Impact**: Medium | **Level**: 🟢 LOW
|
|
|
|
**Mitigation**: Automated security scanning in CI/CD pipeline
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 📊 Risk Monitoring
|
|
|
|
### **Weekly Risk Review**
|
|
Every week during MVP development:
|
|
1. **Assess Current Risks**: Review probability and impact
|
|
2. **Check Mitigation Status**: Ensure strategies are working
|
|
3. **Identify New Risks**: Add emerging risks to list
|
|
4. **Update Action Plans**: Adjust strategies as needed
|
|
|
|
### **Risk Indicators**
|
|
**Red Flags** (Immediate attention required):
|
|
- >1 day behind schedule on critical path
|
|
- Test coverage drops below 80%
|
|
- Major Wiki.js compatibility issue discovered
|
|
- Critical bug discovered in core functionality
|
|
|
|
**Yellow Flags** (Monitor closely):
|
|
- Minor delays in non-critical tasks
|
|
- Documentation feedback indicates confusion
|
|
- Community engagement lower than expected
|
|
|
|
### **Escalation Process**
|
|
1. **🟢 Low Risk**: Handle in normal development process
|
|
2. **🟡 Medium Risk**: Discuss in weekly reviews
|
|
3. **🔴 High Risk**: Immediate mitigation action required
|
|
4. **🚨 Critical Risk**: Consider scope reduction or timeline adjustment
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 🔄 Contingency Plans
|
|
|
|
### **Timeline Recovery Plan**
|
|
**If >20% behind schedule:**
|
|
1. **Assess**: Identify specific blockers and time needed
|
|
2. **Prioritize**: Focus only on core MVP features
|
|
3. **Reduce Scope**: Remove non-essential features
|
|
4. **Communicate**: Update timeline expectations
|
|
|
|
**Minimum Viable Features** (Cannot be removed):
|
|
- Basic HTTP client with Wiki.js integration
|
|
- API key authentication
|
|
- Pages CRUD operations (list, get, create)
|
|
- Basic error handling
|
|
- Package installation via pip
|
|
|
|
### **API Compatibility Failure Plan**
|
|
**If Wiki.js API breaks compatibility:**
|
|
1. **Document**: Clearly specify supported Wiki.js versions
|
|
2. **Workaround**: Implement fallback behavior where possible
|
|
3. **Communicate**: Notify users of compatibility limitations
|
|
4. **Update**: Plan fix for next release
|
|
|
|
### **Quality Failure Plan**
|
|
**If quality standards not met:**
|
|
1. **Stop**: Halt new feature development
|
|
2. **Fix**: Address quality issues first
|
|
3. **Review**: Identify process improvements
|
|
4. **Resume**: Continue with improved practices
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 📈 Risk Learning & Improvement
|
|
|
|
### **Post-MVP Risk Review**
|
|
After MVP completion, conduct comprehensive review:
|
|
- **What Risks Materialized**: Which predictions were accurate
|
|
- **What We Missed**: Risks that weren't anticipated
|
|
- **Mitigation Effectiveness**: Which strategies worked best
|
|
- **Process Improvements**: How to improve risk management
|
|
|
|
### **Future Phase Risk Planning**
|
|
Use MVP experience to improve risk management for:
|
|
- **Phase 2**: Essential features and community feedback
|
|
- **Phase 3**: Production readiness and performance
|
|
- **Phase 4**: Enterprise features and scaling
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 🎯 Success Criteria
|
|
|
|
**MVP Risk Management Success:**
|
|
- [ ] MVP delivered within 2-week timeline (±20%)
|
|
- [ ] All quality gates passed before release
|
|
- [ ] No critical bugs discovered in first week after release
|
|
- [ ] Package successfully installed by early users
|
|
- [ ] Documentation sufficient for basic usage
|
|
|
|
**Risk Management Process Success:**
|
|
- [ ] All high-priority risks actively monitored
|
|
- [ ] Mitigation strategies effectively implemented
|
|
- [ ] Early warning systems prevented major issues
|
|
- [ ] Lessons learned documented for future phases
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
*This risk management plan focuses on MVP development. A comprehensive risk framework will be developed for later phases based on lessons learned and project growth.* |