Summary for Non-Technical Readers

Week nine mattered mainly because it exposed the harder part of the migration: converting the user interface. As long as the team worked on analysis, plans, shared services, and non-visual code, the AI agent's work could be managed relatively well. Once concrete RZP forms became the focus, it became clear that creating a vaguely similar window is not enough.

The newly prepared VB6 -> .NET WinForms migration skill has already brought a visible improvement. Newly converted forms are now more faithful to the original system, especially in appearance and control layout, than the first attempts were. At the same time, visual fidelity alone is not enough: the functionality of these generated elements, their connection to application behavior, and the actual usability of the workflows still need more work.

Fenix users do not work with abstract architecture. They work with concrete screens, menus, buttons, dialogs, and habits. If a form is merged with another one, controls are rearranged, or a field type changes, it is not just an appearance issue. The workflow changes. Week nine therefore brought stricter rules: more precise tasks, a status audit, validation notes, a dedicated VB6 -> .NET WinForms migration skill, and more tests focused on parity.

At the same time, practical RZP integration continued. The team worked on the GDPR/OOU menu in standalone startup, launcher lifecycle wiring, search, accounts, definition sentences, codelists, help, the About dialog, licensing, and the shared reporting wrapper in SPOL. The project has reached the phase where technical architecture meets user reality.

What Happened

The week's history covers May 4, 2026 to May 10, 2026; the available history contains 63 commits, concentrated mainly between May 4 and May 7. The main line is clear: RZP-S01 could no longer be treated as one broad "master data and navigation" block. The team split it into smaller branches for owner, search, account, definition, settings, and codelists, and then rechecked the real status against the repository.

This split matters more than it may seem at first glance. The original broad step could no longer say precisely what was done and what was only partially present in the code. Some parts had a form but not complete behavior. Others had backend code but not full UI parity. The new status audit therefore distinguished between "the code exists" and "the task contract is actually fulfilled." That is a healthy move toward verifiable migration, not just fast file production.

The largest focus was the RZP user interface. Work continued on owner, search, account, and definition forms. Parity tests were added for dimensions, layout, active components, and form behavior. For definition sentences, the team worked on dynamic dimensions, filtering, search, event handling, and legacy compatibility. For accounts, newly generated forms appeared and were then extended with legacy logic. Owner maintenance gained search and help.

A dedicated skill for migrating VB6 forms to .NET WinForms was also added. Its purpose is to constrain exactly the mistakes the team has run into: merging forms, inventing controls, replacing field types, drifting layout, or lacking visual proof. The skill introduces a more deterministic process: parse the original .frm first, generate the target form, verify structural parity, and only then wire behavior. It is a practical response to the finding that ordinary AI-generated UI is not reliable enough for this kind of migration.

The second major line was RZP runtime integration. In standalone mode, the team investigated why the root GDPR menu was not shown after login for users with the relevant legacy permissions. The fix moved through login plumbing, permission loading, DSN-only connection strings, and OleDb parameter handling in the SPOL permission cache. In the end, the GDPR menu was confirmed as working, and OOU actions were aligned to launch the installed OOU.exe in the Fenix environment rather than through a locally invented shortcut.

Shared services continued as well. SPOL-S06 added a reporting wrapper for legacy frmsp_cr: clearer separation of report request from output mode, support for preview/print/modal flow, and protection around the preferred print-dialog setting. In help and application information, the team added details for the About dialog, installation information, workstation data, and license records. New QA inputs, scenarios, and scripts for more uniform test execution were also added.

Week nine therefore shows a shift from "we have a working foundation" to a much stricter question: does the new RZP really match what users know from the original system? The answer is not finished yet, but the project made an important move: it stopped accepting rough rewrites and began systematically measuring parity, ownership, and real usability.

Home