Новый экранчик для обзора дашей

specs/001-unify-frontend-style/spec.md

@@ -0,0 +1,131 @@
+# Feature Specification: Frontend Style Unification
+
+**Feature Branch**: `[001-unify-frontend-style]`  
+**Reference UX**: `[ux_reference.md]` (See specific folder)  
+**Created**: 2026-02-23  
+**Status**: Draft  
+**Input**: User description: "Даю тебе полный кардбланш на приведение фронтэнда к единому стилю. Прочитай .ai/ROOT.md, используй всю методологию workflow speckit при разработке. Вперед"
+
+## User Scenarios & Testing *(mandatory)*
+
+### User Story 1 - Consistent Visual Foundation (Priority: P1)
+
+As a product user, I want all major screens and shared UI blocks to look and behave consistently so that the interface feels coherent and predictable.
+
+**Why this priority**: This is the core business value of the request. Without a shared visual baseline, every other UX improvement remains fragmented.
+
+**Independent Test**: Can be fully tested by opening key routes (dashboards, tasks, reports, settings) and confirming that shared UI primitives (spacing, typography hierarchy, cards, buttons, states) are visually consistent and predictable.
+
+**Acceptance Scenarios**:
+
+1. **Given** a user opens two different primary routes, **When** they compare page structure and shared controls, **Then** they see the same spacing rhythm, typography hierarchy, and interaction patterns.
+2. **Given** a user interacts with common controls (buttons, tabs, cards), **When** the controls are viewed across different pages, **Then** they have consistent style variants and state behavior.
+
+---
+
+### User Story 2 - Unified Navigation and Page Shells (Priority: P2)
+
+As a user navigating between sections, I want navigation, headers, and content shells to follow one pattern so that I can orient quickly and reduce navigation errors.
+
+**Why this priority**: Once visual foundation exists, navigation consistency delivers immediate usability gains and lowers cognitive load.
+
+**Independent Test**: Can be tested independently by traversing main navigation paths and confirming shell consistency (title placement, breadcrumbs behavior, action region layout, content container behavior).
+
+**Acceptance Scenarios**:
+
+1. **Given** a user switches between at least three top-level pages, **When** each page loads, **Then** page shell structure (title, context, actions, content container) follows one standard pattern.
+2. **Given** a user relies on breadcrumbs and navigation cues, **When** they move deeper and back in the hierarchy, **Then** navigation cues remain consistent and unambiguous.
+
+---
+
+### User Story 3 - Predictable Feedback and States (Priority: P3)
+
+As a user performing actions, I want loading, empty, success, and error states to be consistent across modules so that I always understand system status and next steps.
+
+**Why this priority**: Consistent state feedback improves trust and task completion, but can be delivered after foundational visual and navigation unification.
+
+**Independent Test**: Can be tested by triggering common states (loading data, empty results, validation errors, successful actions) on selected modules and verifying consistent tone, placement, and recovery guidance.
+
+**Acceptance Scenarios**:
+
+1. **Given** a user opens a page with delayed data, **When** loading is shown, **Then** loading indicators follow one standard style and placement pattern.
+2. **Given** a user encounters an empty or error state, **When** the state appears, **Then** the message format and recovery action style are consistent with other modules.
+
+---
+
+### Edge Cases
+
+- What happens when legacy components cannot be visually aligned without breaking current behavior?  
+  The system keeps behavior intact while applying the closest approved style fallback and records the component for deferred refinement.
+- How does system handle mixed localized text lengths affecting unified layout?  
+  Layout rules must preserve readability and alignment under longer labels and translated text.
+- What happens when a page includes highly custom data widgets that do not match standard containers?  
+  The page still applies shared shell and spacing rules while allowing controlled exceptions for specialized content blocks.
+- How does system handle accessibility-related differences (focus ring, contrast expectations) during unification?  
+  Accessibility-preserving variants take precedence over purely decorative alignment.
+
+## Requirements *(mandatory)*
+
+### Functional Requirements
+
+- **FR-001**: System MUST define and apply a single frontend style baseline for typography hierarchy, spacing rhythm, color usage roles, and corner/radius behavior across primary user-facing pages.
+- **FR-002**: System MUST standardize shared component presentation patterns for page headers, cards, buttons, form sections, and content containers.
+- **FR-003**: Users MUST be able to navigate between core sections and observe consistent page shell structure, including title region, contextual navigation cues, and action placement.
+- **FR-004**: System MUST provide consistent state presentation rules for loading, empty, success, and error states in all targeted modules.
+- **FR-005**: System MUST preserve existing functional behavior while applying style unification; visual refactoring must not remove or alter core task flows.
+- **FR-006**: System MUST define explicit exception handling rules for modules/components that cannot fully conform immediately, including fallback styling and documented follow-up actions.
+- **FR-007**: System MUST align user-facing text tone and terminology in UI status messages to a unified voice and naming pattern.
+- **FR-008**: System MUST ensure unified styling remains compatible with existing localization and accessibility expectations (focus visibility, readable contrast, scalable layout for longer labels).
+
+### Key Entities *(include if feature involves data)*
+
+- **Style Token Group**: A logical definition of visual decisions (e.g., typography roles, spacing steps, semantic color roles, shape rules) used to enforce consistent appearance.
+- **UI Pattern Rule**: A reusable standard for structural or interaction patterns (e.g., page shell, action bar, card section, state message block).
+- **State Presentation Pattern**: A canonical rendering and messaging rule for loading, empty, success, and error states.
+- **Conformance Scope Item**: A mapped frontend area (route/component group) with current conformance status, expected target pattern, and exception note if needed.
+
+## Success Criteria *(mandatory)*
+
+### Measurable Outcomes
+
+- **SC-001**: At least 90% of targeted primary frontend pages conform to the approved style baseline in a structured review checklist.
+- **SC-002**: Users can identify page title, navigation cue, and primary action location on targeted pages in under 5 seconds during UX validation walkthroughs.
+- **SC-003**: In cross-page UX review, at least 95% of sampled loading/empty/error/success states follow the same message and layout conventions.
+- **SC-004**: At least 80% of internal reviewers rate the updated UI as “visually consistent” or better after unification.
+- **SC-005**: No critical user flow regressions are introduced in the set of core routes covered by the style unification scope.
+
+---
+
+## Test Data Fixtures *(recommended for CRITICAL components)*
+
+### Fixtures
+
+```yaml
+style_review_sample:
+  description: "Representative result set for style conformance review"
+  data:
+    pages_checked:
+      - dashboards
+      - tasks
+      - reports
+      - settings
+    conformance_summary:
+      fully_conformant: 3
+      partially_conformant: 1
+      deferred_exceptions: 1
+
+state_feedback_sample:
+  description: "Representative UI state messages for consistency checks"
+  data:
+    loading_state:
+      message: "Loading data…"
+      action: null
+    empty_state:
+      message: "No items found"
+      action: "Refresh or adjust filters"
+    error_state:
+      message: "Unable to load data"
+      action: "Retry"
+    success_state:
+      message: "Changes saved"
+      action: null