Gabriel Radureau
95596b5e12
and preserve complete architectural context for AI/developer reference.\n\n## Changes\n\n### Documentation Consolidation 🗂️\n- Simplified README.md by ~100 lines (25% reduction)\n- Removed redundant sections (project structure, configuration, API docs)\n- Added strategic cross-references between README.md and AGENTS.md\n- README.md now focused on user onboarding and basic usage\n- AGENTS.md maintained as complete technical reference\n\n### Architecture Decision Records ✅\n- Added comprehensive ADR directory with 9 decision records:\n * 0001-go-1.26.1-standard.md\n * 0002-chi-router.md\n * 0003-zerolog-logging.md (enhanced with Zap analysis)\n * 0004-interface-based-design.md\n * 0005-graceful-shutdown.md\n * 0006-configuration-management.md\n * 0007-opentelemetry-integration.md\n * 0008-bdd-testing.md\n * 0009-hybrid-testing-approach.md\n- Added adr/README.md with guidelines and template\n- Enhanced Zerolog ADR with detailed performance benchmarking vs Zap\n\n### Content Organization 📝\n- README.md: User-focused guide with quick start and basic examples\n- AGENTS.md: Developer/AI-focused complete technical reference\n- ADR directory: Architectural decision history and rationale\n\n## Impact\n- ✅ Better user onboarding experience\n- ✅ Preserved complete technical context for AI agents\n- ✅ Reduced maintenance burden through consolidation\n- ✅ Improved discoverability of advanced documentation\n- ✅ Established ADR process for future decisions\n\n## Related\n- Resolves documentation redundancy issues\n- Prepares for BDD implementation with clear context\n- Supports future Swagger integration decisions\n- Maintains project history for new contributors\n\nGenerated by Mistral Vibe.\nCo-Authored-By: Mistral Vibe <vibe@mistral.ai>
2.6 KiB
2.6 KiB
Adopt interface-based design pattern
- Status: Accepted
- Deciders: Gabriel Radureau, AI Agent
- Date: 2026-04-02
Context and Problem Statement
We needed to choose a design pattern for DanceLessonsCoach that provides:
- Good testability and mocking capabilities
- Flexibility for future changes
- Clear separation of concerns
- Dependency injection support
- Maintainability and readability
Decision Drivers
- Need for easy testing and mocking
- Desire for flexible, maintainable architecture
- Requirement for clear component boundaries
- Need for dependency injection
- Long-term evolution of the codebase
Considered Options
- Interface-based design - Define interfaces first, implement later
- Direct implementation - Implement concrete types directly
- Functional approach - Use functions and composition
- DDD-style aggregates - Domain-driven design patterns
Decision Outcome
Chosen option: "Interface-based design" because it provides excellent testability, clear contracts, flexibility for future changes, and good support for dependency injection while maintaining good readability.
Pros and Cons of the Options
Interface-based design
- Good, because excellent for testing and mocking
- Good, because clear component contracts
- Good, because flexible for future changes
- Good, because supports dependency injection well
- Good, because encourages good separation of concerns
- Bad, because slightly more boilerplate
- Bad, because can be over-engineered if taken too far
Direct implementation
- Good, because simpler and more direct
- Good, because less boilerplate
- Bad, because harder to test and mock
- Bad, because less flexible for changes
- Bad, because tighter coupling
Functional approach
- Good, because can be very clean and simple
- Good, because good for pure functions
- Bad, because less familiar in Go ecosystem
- Bad, because harder to manage state
DDD-style aggregates
- Good, because good for complex domains
- Good, because clear boundaries
- Bad, because overkill for simple services
- Bad, because more complex to implement
Links
Implementation Examples
// Good: Interface defined first
type Greeter interface {
Greet(ctx context.Context, name string) string
}
type Service struct{}
func (s *Service) Greet(ctx context.Context, name string) string {
// implementation
}
// Bad: Direct implementation without interface
type Service struct{}
func (s *Service) Greet(name string) string {
// implementation
}