[Task] Assess and plan SuperX BI capability parity #3

Closed
opened 2026-07-30 17:58:53 +02:00 by zemion · 1 comment
Owner

Context

The local SuperX PostgreSQL module distribution was inventoried as a behavior and architecture reference. Representative modules include ETL job metadata, domain data marts, XCube dimensions/measures and pivots, configurable visualizations and dashboards, report-assistant column layouts, QA/report assertions and table comparisons, external benchmark data, and numerous parameterized domain reports.

This is an assessment and roadmap exercise. Do not copy third-party source code, templates, or assets into GovOPlaN.

Related production-flow contract: Dataflow #17.
Related reporting dataset work: #2.

Deliverables

  • Record a capability matrix across SuperX metadata/catalogue, ETL, query masks, semantic dimensions/measures, pivots/drill-down, visualization, dashboards, report layouts/export, authorization, QA, and domain packages.
  • Map each capability to the owning GovOPlaN module and classify it as available, partial, scaffold-only, or missing.
  • Define the provider-neutral Reporting contracts needed for reproducible Dataflow datasets, parameters, dimensions, measures, hierarchies, row/column policy, tables, charts, drill-down, saved views, schedules, and exports.
  • Define migration/import boundaries for SuperX metadata with loss diagnostics instead of executable SQL passthrough.
  • Split implementation into bounded follow-up issues, starting with a PostgreSQL-backed semantic dataset and parameterized table/pivot view.

Initial finding

GovOPlaN already has strong foundations in module isolation, governed Datasources, Dataflow revisions/execution, Workflow handoffs, Policy/Access, configurable Dashboard widgets, and quality/reconciliation primitives. The principal gap is the user-facing BI/reporting semantic layer: Reporting is still a scaffold, and there is no complete dimension/measure model, pivot/drill-down renderer, report parameter surface, chart provider contract, scheduled publication, or report-specific authorization explanation yet.

## Context The local SuperX PostgreSQL module distribution was inventoried as a behavior and architecture reference. Representative modules include ETL job metadata, domain data marts, XCube dimensions/measures and pivots, configurable visualizations and dashboards, report-assistant column layouts, QA/report assertions and table comparisons, external benchmark data, and numerous parameterized domain reports. This is an assessment and roadmap exercise. Do not copy third-party source code, templates, or assets into GovOPlaN. Related production-flow contract: [Dataflow #17](https://git.add-ideas.de/GovOPlaN/govoplan-dataflow/issues/17). Related reporting dataset work: #2. ## Deliverables - [ ] Record a capability matrix across SuperX metadata/catalogue, ETL, query masks, semantic dimensions/measures, pivots/drill-down, visualization, dashboards, report layouts/export, authorization, QA, and domain packages. - [ ] Map each capability to the owning GovOPlaN module and classify it as available, partial, scaffold-only, or missing. - [ ] Define the provider-neutral Reporting contracts needed for reproducible Dataflow datasets, parameters, dimensions, measures, hierarchies, row/column policy, tables, charts, drill-down, saved views, schedules, and exports. - [ ] Define migration/import boundaries for SuperX metadata with loss diagnostics instead of executable SQL passthrough. - [ ] Split implementation into bounded follow-up issues, starting with a PostgreSQL-backed semantic dataset and parameterized table/pivot view. ## Initial finding GovOPlaN already has strong foundations in module isolation, governed Datasources, Dataflow revisions/execution, Workflow handoffs, Policy/Access, configurable Dashboard widgets, and quality/reconciliation primitives. The principal gap is the user-facing BI/reporting semantic layer: Reporting is still a scaffold, and there is no complete dimension/measure model, pivot/drill-down renderer, report parameter surface, chart provider contract, scheduled publication, or report-specific authorization explanation yet.
Author
Owner

Codex State: done

Summary

  • Recorded the SuperX capability matrix, GovOPlaN module ownership, current coverage, provider-neutral Reporting contracts, and explicit metadata-import/loss-diagnostic boundary.
  • Confirmed that GovOPlaN has the execution/governance foundation; the principal missing layer is Reporting's dimensions, measures, hierarchies, parameterized views, pivots, charts, and publication surfaces.
  • Split implementation into #4 semantic model, #5 table/pivot/drill-down, #6 visualization/publication, and #7 import diagnostics/BI quality plans; existing #2 remains the reproducible dataset prerequisite.

Changed Files

  • README.md
  • docs/SUPERX_CAPABILITY_ASSESSMENT.md

Verification

  • git diff --check: passed

Next / Blocked

  • Implement #2 and #4 before the interactive BI surface in #5.
## Codex State: done ### Summary - Recorded the SuperX capability matrix, GovOPlaN module ownership, current coverage, provider-neutral Reporting contracts, and explicit metadata-import/loss-diagnostic boundary. - Confirmed that GovOPlaN has the execution/governance foundation; the principal missing layer is Reporting's dimensions, measures, hierarchies, parameterized views, pivots, charts, and publication surfaces. - Split implementation into #4 semantic model, #5 table/pivot/drill-down, #6 visualization/publication, and #7 import diagnostics/BI quality plans; existing #2 remains the reproducible dataset prerequisite. ### Changed Files - `README.md` - `docs/SUPERX_CAPABILITY_ASSESSMENT.md` ### Verification - `git diff --check: passed` ### Next / Blocked - Implement #2 and #4 before the interactive BI surface in #5.
Sign in to join this conversation.
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: GovOPlaN/govoplan-reporting#3