Start Docker with the result that must remain trustworthy. That means the work has to build one inspectable image and a small runtime definition. Without that boundary, unversioned images, hidden state, and broad privileges make rollback uncertain.
Turn "done" into observable behavior: Docker
Acceptance criteria for Docker should identify the actor, starting state, action, durable result, denied path, repeated action, and recovery evidence. The interface may report success while unversioned images, hidden state, and broad privileges make rollback uncertain. The criterion therefore has to compare visible feedback with the versioned artifact and durable production state.
Cover the states that change the decision: Docker
Test ready, empty, invalid, denied, delayed, duplicate, partial, successful, and recovered states where they apply. Add a case in which a rollout stops after state changes but before verification completes. Each case should say whether input is preserved, whether retry is safe, and which record a reviewer inspects. Avoid criteria such as "works" or "implemented" because two reviewers can interpret them differently.
Test authority, not visibility: Docker
The expected behavior must hold for an allowed actor, a denied actor, a revoked role, and a direct request that bypasses the normal interface. A denial should leave protected state unchanged and produce a useful audit record without exposing secrets. For Docker, the accountable actor is the release owner.
Attach evidence to every important claim: Docker
Use release identity, migration output, health checks, traces, and a timed recovery rehearsal. Record the environment, configuration, and time range so another reviewer can reproduce the result. A passing test supports only the behavior it exercised; it does not prove every security, accessibility, performance, or operational claim. Monitor verification coverage as a release signal.
Decision map: Docker
- Inspectable image. Name the owner, authoritative record, expected state, and denial behavior for this part of Docker.
- Runtime definition. Document the normal transition, one interrupted transition, and the smallest safe recovery.
- Configuration. Attach a reproducible test, dated result, and reviewer who accepts the remaining risk.
- Volumes. State the input, output, permission boundary, and removal condition before adding automation.
- Health check. Record how repeated action behaves and which evidence distinguishes retry from duplication.
Boundary cases: Docker
- When the recorded value for inspectable image changes after runtime definition is stored, name which value wins and how the losing state is reconciled.
- If evidence for configuration becomes unavailable while the Docker request is in progress, preserve enough context to distinguish rejection from partial completion.
- A repeated action involving volumes should return the existing result or expose the possible duplicate effect before retry.
- A denied change to health check must leave authoritative state untouched and create an audit record that reveals no secret.
- Recovery should restore the smallest trustworthy state first, then verify the visible Docker outcome against the maintained record.
Measure the decision, not activity: Docker
Track verification coverage and failed-change rate. Before collecting results for Docker, define each measure's population, environment, time window, and owner. Activity is useful only when it clarifies whether the protected Docker outcome became safer or easier to recover.
Set the investigation threshold for Docker in advance. The acceptance review should also name the permitted response, the evidence required to close the issue, and the next review date. Stop collecting Docker data when it no longer distinguishes success, denial, delay, duplication, or recovery, or when it no longer changes a decision.
Sources and local proof: Docker
These primary references document platform behavior relevant to Docker. For Docker, those references establish terminology and constraints; they do not verify the local implementation.
- Docker Engine Security
- Use Compose in Production
- Trust Model for Compose Files
- Define and Manage Volumes in Docker Compose
Any publishable Docker claim still needs dated local evidence: configuration, test output, screenshots, logs, queries, or recovery results from the named product. The acceptance review should say exactly which artifact supports each important claim.
A related InMyDraft example: Docker
InMyCompany provides a local example of an inspectable product boundary relevant to Docker. Its project catalog records this implementation detail: Tax estimates are computed from the company's own configurable rates, clearly labelled as planning estimates rather than official filings, and surfaced on the dashboard and in reports.
The comparison between InMyCompany and Docker is deliberately narrow. It shows how one product makes state and evidence visible; it does not prove that every Docker recommendation has been implemented. Use the InMyCompany example to review Docker, not as a substitute for testing the product in scope.
Review checklist: Docker
- Given a valid starting state, the release owner can complete the intended Docker outcome.
- Invalid and unauthorized requests leave the versioned artifact and durable production state unchanged.
- A repeated action does not duplicate a protected side effect.
- The team can demonstrate that it can rebuild the image, start it without cached state, inspect its health, and restore its declared volumes.
- Failure and recovery produce evidence another reviewer can reproduce.
A Docker decision is ready for the next stage when another accountable person can reproduce the evidence, explain the failure boundary, and perform the recovery without relying on the original author's memory.
