Tooling: Integrate Vitest test runner, structured logging, request tracing, & input validation

[khaira777]

Testing Infrastructure & Observability Request

Extracted from fork codewithsharma/FloCafe (branch: modular-verticles):

Overview

Integrates Vitest for fast, modern unit/integration testing along with HTTP observability, request tracing, and Zod input validation middleware.

Proposed Changes

1. Vitest Integration:
   • Add Vitest runner configuration (vitest.config.mts) and component/service test setup.
   • Reference: unit tests in tests/unit/, tests/flo-*.test.ts.
2. HTTP Observability & Tracing:
   • Add request correlation IDs, tracing (main/lib/tracing.ts), and structured HTTP logger middleware (main/middleware/http-observability.ts).
3. Strict Input Validation:
   • Introduce Zod request schema validation middleware (main/middleware/validate.ts, main/validation/auth.ts).

[khaira777]

Verdict: VALID BUT NEEDS RESCOPING — split into independent items; Vitest likely not a fit

Findings:

• Tests deliberately run on Node's built-in test runner via tests/run-electron-node-test.cjs (Electron-stubbed) and ts-node; ~90 suites are chained in package.json and sharded by scripts/ci/run-test-shard.cjs. Adopting Vitest means reworking that harness with unclear benefit — needs a decision, not an assumption.
• Logging is electron-log (main/index.ts:23-25); there is no request correlation ID / tracing middleware on main — this is a small, genuinely useful add.
• Input validation is manual per-route (main/routes/orders-validation.ts:24-28; main/routes/printers.ts:22 validatePrinterFields). Zod would be a new dependency and a convention change; the repo currently validates explicitly.

Suggested scope: (a) request correlation ID + structured request-log middleware; (b) decide validation convention (keep manual helpers or adopt a schema lib) — do not introduce Zod on spec; (c) evaluate Vitest separately/likely defer.