--- id: PLN-0066 ticket: prometeu-hub-ui-direction title: Hub UI Slice Validation and Lesson status: open created: 2026-05-15 ref_decisions: [DEC-0028] tags: [hub, ui, shell, system-apps, lifecycle, design-system] --- ## Briefing Validate the completed `DEC-0028` implementation family, collect evidence, and prepare the post-execution lesson required by the repository workflow. Source decision: `DEC-0028`. ## Objective Prove that the initial Hub retro Shell UI slice satisfies the accepted decision and leave the discussion workflow ready for housekeeping after implementation. ## Dependencies - `PLN-0062` must be implemented. - `PLN-0063` must be implemented or explicitly documented as unnecessary because mouse/click was already available. - `PLN-0064` must be implemented. - `PLN-0065` must be implemented or explicitly deferred with evidence. ## Scope - Run relevant crate tests. - Perform manual desktop verification of the end-to-end flow. - Check that no forbidden scope leaked into implementation. - Record evidence in plan execution notes or final implementation summary. - Draft an English lesson after execution is complete. ## Non-Goals - No new UI implementation work except small fixes required to satisfy acceptance criteria. - No new architecture decisions. - No lesson before code/spec state is published. - No housekeeping until plans are done. ## Execution Method 1. Run automated tests. - What changes: execute the crates affected by plans `PLN-0062` through `PLN-0065`. - How: run targeted cargo tests for firmware/system/host crates. - Files: test output only; no source changes unless failures expose implementation bugs. 2. Verify end-to-end desktop behavior. - What changes: manually exercise Hub -> ShellA -> close -> Hub -> ShellB -> close -> Hub. - How: run the desktop host or project runner used for Hub boot, click the buttons, and observe lifecycle return. - Files: none, unless bugs are found. 3. Check decision compliance. - What changes: inspect implementation against `DEC-0028` invariants. - How: verify no toolkit, no catalog, no Tabs/List/Footer, no direct task/process manager mutation from visual components, and task-owned Shell windows. - Files: implementation files from the prior plans. 4. Record validation evidence. - What changes: update the relevant plans or implementation summary with commands run, manual checks, failures, and fixes. - How: keep evidence concise and tied to acceptance criteria. - Files: plan artifacts if the workflow records execution notes there. 5. Prepare post-execution lesson. - What changes: create an English lesson only after implementation is complete and published. - How: use `discussion-housekeep` when all plans are done; lesson should explain how to think about Hub visual slices without making lessons normative. - Files: `discussion/lessons/DSC-0036-prometeu-hub-ui-direction/...`. ## Acceptance Criteria - [ ] Automated tests for affected crates pass or failures are documented as unrelated. - [ ] Manual flow passes: Hub -> ShellA -> close -> Hub. - [ ] Manual flow passes: Hub -> ShellB -> close -> Hub. - [ ] Shell windows are task-owned. - [ ] App close uses lifecycle close. - [ ] No complete UI toolkit or catalog was introduced. - [ ] Pixel font integration outcome is recorded. - [ ] A post-execution lesson is ready for housekeeping after plans are marked done. ## Tests - `cargo test -p prometeu-system` - `cargo test -p prometeu-firmware` - `cargo test -p prometeu-host-desktop-winit` if host/input code changed - Manual desktop host verification - `discussion validate` after marking plans and housekeeping artifacts ## Affected Artifacts - Implementation files touched by `PLN-0062` through `PLN-0065` - `discussion/workflow/plans/PLN-0062-native-shell-launch-and-lifecycle-wiring.md` - `discussion/workflow/plans/PLN-0063-hub-mouse-input-and-click-routing.md` - `discussion/workflow/plans/PLN-0064-retro-hub-home-and-fake-shell-ui.md` - `discussion/workflow/plans/PLN-0065-pixel-operator-font-integration.md` - Future lesson under `discussion/lessons/DSC-0036-prometeu-hub-ui-direction/`