Codebase MCP Server

# Phase 07: Final Release Validation ## Problem Statement Before releasing v2.0 to users, we must validate that the refactored codebase is production-ready. This means verifying MCP protocol compliance, security hardening, type safety, test coverage, and completing all release artifacts (changelog, tags, release notes). Without comprehensive validation, we risk releasing software with protocol violations, security vulnerabilities, or incomplete migration support. ## User Stories ### As a Release Manager I want a complete release checklist verified before v2.0 ships, so that I can confidently approve the release knowing all quality gates passed. ### As a Security Engineer I want security audit results showing zero critical vulnerabilities and SQL injection prevention verified, so that I can approve the release from a security perspective. ### As an MCP Protocol Maintainer I want mcp-inspector validation confirming the server is protocol-compliant, so that users have a reliable MCP experience without protocol errors. ### As a Developer I want mypy --strict passing with >80% test coverage, so that I can maintain the codebase confidently knowing it has strong type safety and test coverage. ### As a User Upgrading from v1.x I want assurance that the migration guide is tested and release notes are accurate, so that my upgrade goes smoothly. ## Success Criteria ### MCP Protocol Compliance Verified - mcp-inspector passes all tests - Tool schemas valid (index_repository, search_code) - SSE transport working correctly - Error responses follow MCP specification - Tool discovery working as expected ### Security Audit Complete - 10+ SQL injection test cases pass (malicious project_ids rejected) - Input validation enforced for all parameters - No hardcoded secrets in codebase (detect-secrets scan) - Dependency vulnerabilities: 0 critical, 0 high (safety check) - Bandit security linter passes with no high severity issues ### Type Safety Validated - `mypy --strict src/` passes with 0 errors - No `type: ignore` comments without justification - All Pydantic models validated ### Test Coverage Adequate - Overall code coverage >80% - Critical paths 100% covered (index_repository, search_code) - All integration tests pass (multi-project, workflow-mcp) - All tests passing in clean environment ### Release Artifacts Complete - Version bumped to 2.0.0 in pyproject.toml and __init__.py - CHANGELOG.md updated with comprehensive v2.0 entry - Migration guide reviewed and tested end-to-end - README.md accurate and tested - Git tag `v2.0.0` created - Release notes drafted ### Validation Reports Created - MCP inspector report: `docs/validation/mcp-inspector-report.md` - Security audit report: `docs/validation/security-audit.md` - Coverage report: `docs/validation/coverage-report.html` - Release checklist: `docs/validation/release-checklist.md` ## Constraints ### All Quality Gates Must Pass (NON-NEGOTIABLE) - Cannot skip MCP protocol compliance - Cannot ignore security vulnerabilities - Cannot release with <80% coverage - Cannot release without mypy --strict passing ### Security Standards (NON-NEGOTIABLE) - Zero critical or high severity vulnerabilities - SQL injection prevention verified - Input sanitization for all user-provided parameters - No secrets in version control ### Release Checklist Must Be Complete - All pre-release tasks checked off - All documentation accurate and tested - All tests passing - Performance targets met (from Phase 06) ### Version Management - Semantic versioning followed (v2.0.0 is correct for breaking changes) - Version consistent across all files - Git tag matches version number ## Out of Scope ### Not Included in This Phase - New feature development - Performance optimization (completed in Phase 06) - User training or tutorials - Automated deployment pipelines ### Explicitly NOT Doing - Beta testing with users (assuming internal validation sufficient) - Marketing materials or announcements - Infrastructure provisioning - Cost analysis ## Business Value ### Prevents Production Issues Comprehensive validation catches bugs, protocol violations, and security issues before users encounter them, reducing emergency hotfixes and support burden. ### Builds User Trust Thorough security audit and testing demonstrate professional quality standards, building trust with users considering the v2.0 upgrade. ### Reduces Support Burden Complete release artifacts (migration guide, changelog, release notes) enable users to self-serve, reducing support questions after release. ### Enables Confident Release With all quality gates passed, stakeholders can approve the release with confidence, knowing the software meets production standards. ### Establishes Quality Baseline This validation process establishes a quality baseline and checklist that can be reused for future releases, improving consistency. ## Additional Context This phase corresponds to Phase 12 from FINAL-IMPLEMENTATION-PLAN.md. It should take 2-3 hours to complete and depends on Phase 06 (performance validated, all features complete). This is the final gate before merging to main and creating the v2.0.0 release. No code changes should occur in this phase unless validation reveals critical issues. If validation reveals issues: - Return to appropriate phase to fix (e.g., Phase 04 if connection pool issue) - Re-run full validation after fix - Update documentation if necessary The release checklist serves as a contract: if all items are checked, the release is approved. This reduces subjective decision-making and ensures consistent quality standards. MCP inspector validation is critical because protocol violations can break AI assistant integrations. The server must be fully compliant with the MCP specification. After this phase completes successfully: 1. Merge feature branch to main 2. Push v2.0.0 tag 3. Create GitHub release with notes 4. Announce release to users This phase represents the culmination of the entire refactoring project (Phases 00-07). Success here means the refactoring is complete and ready for production use.