# Feature Specification: 优化 pkg/ast/provider 目录的代码组织逻辑与功能实现

**Feature Branch**: `001-pkg-ast-provider`
**Created**: 2025-09-19
**Status**: Draft
**Input**: User description: "优化 @pkg/ast/provider/ 目录的代码组织逻辑与功能实现，补充完善测试用例"

## Execution Flow (main)
```
1. Parse user description from Input
   → If empty: ERROR "No feature description provided"
2. Extract key concepts from description
   → Identify: actors, actions, data, constraints
3. For each unclear aspect:
   → Mark with [NEEDS CLARIFICATION: specific question]
4. Fill User Scenarios & Testing section
   → If no clear user flow: ERROR "Cannot determine user scenarios"
5. Generate Functional Requirements
   → Each requirement must be testable
   → Mark ambiguous requirements
6. Identify Key Entities (if data involved)
7. Run Review Checklist
   → If any [NEEDS CLARIFICATION]: WARN "Spec has uncertainties"
   → If implementation details found: ERROR "Remove tech details"
8. Return: SUCCESS (spec ready for planning)
```

---

## ⚡ Quick Guidelines
- ✅ Focus on WHAT users need and WHY
- ❌ Avoid HOW to implement (no tech stack, APIs, code structure)
- 👥 Written for business stakeholders, not developers

### Section Requirements
- **Mandatory sections**: Must be completed for every feature
- **Optional sections**: Include only when relevant to the feature
- When a section doesn't apply, remove it entirely (don't leave as "N/A")

### For AI Generation
When creating this spec from a user prompt:
1. **Mark all ambiguities**: Use [NEEDS CLARIFICATION: specific question] for any assumption you'd need to make
2. **Don't guess**: If the prompt doesn't specify something (e.g., "login system" without auth method), mark it
3. **Think like a tester**: Every vague requirement should fail the "testable and unambiguous" checklist item
4. **Common underspecified areas**:
   - User types and permissions
   - Data retention/deletion policies
   - Performance targets and scale
   - Error handling behaviors
   - Integration requirements
   - Security/compliance needs

---

## User Scenarios & Testing *(mandatory)*

### Primary User Story
作为开发者，我需要使用 atomctl 工具来解析 Go 源码中的 `@provider` 注释，并生成相应的依赖注入代码。我希望代码组织逻辑清晰，功能实现可靠，并且有完整的测试用例来保证代码质量。

### Acceptance Scenarios
1. **Given** 一个包含 `@provider` 注释的 Go 源码文件，**When** 我运行解析功能，**Then** 系统能正确提取所有 provider 信息并生成相应的代码
2. **Given** 一个复杂的 Go 项目结构，**When** 我解析多个文件中的 provider，**Then** 系统能正确处理跨文件的依赖关系
3. **Given** 一个包含错误注释格式的源码文件，**When** 我运行解析功能，**Then** 系统能提供清晰的错误信息和建议
4. **Given** 生成的 provider 代码，**When** 我运行测试套件，**Then** 所有测试都能通过，覆盖率达到 90%

### Edge Cases
- 当源码文件格式不正确时，系统如何处理？
- 当注释格式不规范时，系统如何提供有用的错误信息？
- 当处理大型项目时，系统性能如何保证？
- 当并发处理多个文件时，如何保证线程安全？

## Requirements *(mandatory)*

### Functional Requirements
- **FR-001**: System MUST 能够解析 `@provider` 注释的各种格式（基本格式、带模式、带返回类型、带分组等）
- **FR-002**: System MUST 支持不同的 provider 模式（grpc、event、job、cronjob、model）
- **FR-003**: System MUST 正确处理依赖注入参数（only/except 模式、包名解析、类型识别）
- **FR-004**: System MUST 能够生成结构化的 provider 代码，包括必要的导入和函数定义
- **FR-005**: System MUST 提供完整的错误处理机制，包括语法错误、导入错误等
- **FR-006**: System MUST 包含全面的测试用例，覆盖所有主要功能和边界情况
- **FR-007**: System MUST 优化代码组织结构，提高代码的可读性和可维护性
- **FR-008**: System MUST 处理复杂的包导入和别名解析逻辑

### Key Entities *(include if feature involves data)*
- **Provider**: 代表一个依赖注入提供者的核心实体，包含结构名、返回类型、模式等属性
- **ProviderDescribe**: 描述 provider 注释解析结果的实体，包含模式、返回类型、分组等信息
- **InjectParam**: 描述注入参数的实体，包含类型、包名、别名等信息
- **SourceFile**: 代表待解析的源码文件，包含文件路径、内容、导入信息等

---

## Review & Acceptance Checklist
*GATE: Automated checks run during main() execution*

### Content Quality
- [ ] No implementation details (languages, frameworks, APIs)
- [ ] Focused on user value and business needs
- [ ] Written for non-technical stakeholders
- [ ] All mandatory sections completed

### Requirement Completeness
- [ ] No [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers remain
- [ ] Requirements are testable and unambiguous
- [ ] Success criteria are measurable
- [ ] Scope is clearly bounded
- [ ] Dependencies and assumptions identified

---

## Execution Status
*Updated by main() during processing*

- [ ] User description parsed
- [ ] Key concepts extracted
- [ ] Ambiguities marked
- [ ] User scenarios defined
- [ ] Requirements generated
- [ ] Entities identified
- [ ] Review checklist passed

---