Gabriel Radureau
db09d0ace1
Audit 2026-05-02 (Tâche 6 Phase A) had identified 3 inconsistent formats across the ADR corpus : - F1 list bullets : `* Status:` / `* Date:` / `* Deciders:` (11 ADRs) - F2 bold fields : `**Status:**` / `**Date:**` / `**Authors:**` (9 ADRs) - F3 dedicated section : `## Status\n**Value** ✅` (5 ADRs) Mixed metadata names (Authors / Deciders / Decision Date / Implementation Date / Implementation Status / Last Updated) and decorative emojis on status values made the corpus hard to scan or template against. Canonical format adopted (see adr/README.md for full template) : # NN. Title **Status:** <Proposed|Accepted|Implemented|Partially Implemented| Approved|Rejected|Deferred|Deprecated|Superseded by ADR-NNNN> **Date:** YYYY-MM-DD **Authors:** Name(s) [optional **Field:** ... lines] ## Context... Transformations applied (via /tmp/homogenize-adrs.py) : - F1 list bullets → bold fields - F2 cleanup : `**Deciders:**` → `**Authors:**`, strip status emojis - F3 sections : `## Status\n**Value** ✅` → `**Status:** Value` - Strip decorative emojis from `**Status:**` and `**Implementation Status:**` - Convert any `* Implementation Status:` / `* Last Updated:` / `* Decision Drivers:` / `* Decision Date:` to bold equivalents - Date typo fix : `2024-04-XX` → `2026-04-XX` for ADRs 0018, 0019 (already noted in PR #17 but here re-applied since branch starts from origin/main pre-PR17) - Normalize multiple blank lines after header (max 1) 21 / 23 ADRs modified. 0010 and 0012 were already conform. 0011 and 0014 do not exist in the repo (cf. README index update). Body content of each ADR is preserved unchanged. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
95 lines
2.6 KiB
Markdown
95 lines
2.6 KiB
Markdown
# Adopt interface-based design pattern
|
|
|
|
**Status:** Accepted
|
|
**Authors:** Gabriel Radureau, AI Agent
|
|
**Date:** 2026-04-02
|
|
|
|
## Context and Problem Statement
|
|
|
|
We needed to choose a design pattern for dance-lessons-coach 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
|
|
|
|
* [Go Interfaces](https://go.dev/tour/methods/9)
|
|
* [Effective Go - Interfaces](https://go.dev/doc/effective_go#interfaces)
|
|
* [Dependency Injection in Go](https://go.dev/blog/wire)
|
|
|
|
## Implementation Examples
|
|
|
|
```go
|
|
// 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
|
|
}
|
|
``` |