atomctl/specs/002-refactor-ast-gen/plan.md

Implementation Plan: Refactor AST Generation Routes Workflow

Branch: 002-refactor-ast-gen | Date: 2025-09-22 | Spec: /specs/002-refactor-ast-gen/spec.md Input: Feature specification from /specs/002-refactor-ast-gen/spec.md User Requirements: 1. 重构 @pkg/ast/route/ 的实现流程，使更易读，逻辑更清晰，2.保证 @cmd/gen_route.go 对重构后方法调用的生效，3. 一切功能重构保证测试优先。

Execution Flow (/plan command scope)

1. Load feature spec from Input path
   → If not found: ERROR "No feature spec at {path}"
2. Fill Technical Context (scan for NEEDS CLARIFICATION)
   → Detect Project Type from context (web=frontend+backend, mobile=app+api)
   → Set Structure Decision based on project type
3. Fill the Constitution Check section based on the content of the constitution document.
4. Evaluate Constitution Check section below
   → If violations exist: Document in Complexity Tracking
   → If no justification possible: ERROR "Simplify approach first"
   → Update Progress Tracking: Initial Constitution Check
5. Execute Phase 0 → research.md
   → If NEEDS CLARIFICATION remain: ERROR "Resolve unknowns"
6. Execute Phase 1 → contracts, data-model.md, quickstart.md, agent-specific template file (e.g., `CLAUDE.md` for Claude Code, `.github/copilot-instructions.md` for GitHub Copilot, `GEMINI.md` for Gemini CLI, `QWEN.md` for Qwen Code or `AGENTS.md` for opencode).
7. Re-evaluate Constitution Check section
   → If new violations: Refactor design, return to Phase 1
   → Update Progress Tracking: Post-Design Constitution Check
8. Plan Phase 2 → Describe task generation approach (DO NOT create tasks.md)
9. STOP - Ready for /tasks command

IMPORTANT: The /plan command STOPS at step 7. Phases 2-4 are executed by other commands:

• Phase 2: /tasks command creates tasks.md
• Phase 3-4: Implementation execution (manual or via tools)

Summary

重构AST生成路由工作流程，提高代码可读性和逻辑清晰度，确保与现有gen_route.go命令的兼容性，并采用测试驱动开发方法。

Technical Context

Language/Version: Go 1.21+ Primary Dependencies: go standard library (ast, parser, token), cobra CLI, logrus Storage: File-based route definitions and generated Go code Testing: Go testing with TDD approach (testing/fstest for filesystem tests) Target Platform: CLI tool for Go projects Project Type: Single project with existing pkg/ast/provider refactoring patterns Performance Goals: Fast parsing (< 2s for typical project), minimal memory overhead Constraints: Must maintain backward compatibility with existing @Router and @Bind annotations Scale/Scope: Support medium to large Go projects with extensive route definitions

Constitution Check

GATE: Must pass before Phase 0 research. Re-check after Phase 1 design.

SOLID Principles Compliance

• Single Responsibility: Route parsing, generation, and rendering will have separate, focused components
• Open/Closed: Design will follow existing provider patterns with extensible interfaces
• Liskov Substitution: New route components will implement consistent interfaces
• Interface Segregation: Specific interfaces for parsing, generation, and validation
• Dependency Inversion: Core functionality will depend on interfaces, not concrete implementations

KISS Principle Compliance

• Design avoids unnecessary complexity - will follow existing refactored provider patterns
• CLI interface maintains consistency - existing gen_route.go interface preserved
• Code generation logic is simple and direct - clear separation of concerns
• Solutions are intuitive and easy to understand - follows established patterns

YAGNI Principle Compliance

• Only implementing clearly needed functionality - focus on readability and clarity improvements
• No over-engineering or future-proofing without requirements - minimal changes to achieve goals
• Each feature has explicit user requirements - based on gen_route.go compatibility needs
• No "might be useful" features without justification - scope limited to refactoring

DRY Principle Compliance

• No code duplication across components - will share patterns with pkg/ast/provider
• Common functionality is abstracted and reused - leverage existing interfaces and utilities
• Template system avoids repetitive implementations - consistent with provider generation
• Shared utilities are properly abstracted - reuse existing AST parsing infrastructure

Code Quality Standards

• Testing Discipline: TDD approach with Red-Green-Refactor cycle - testing first requirement
• CLI Consistency: Unified parameter formats and output standards - existing interface maintained
• Error Handling: Complete error information and recovery mechanisms - consistent with provider patterns
• Performance: Generation speed and memory usage requirements met - <2s parsing goal

Complexity Tracking

Violation	Why Needed	Simpler Alternative Rejected Because
[Document any deviations from constitutional principles]	[Justification for complexity]	[Why simpler approach insufficient]

Project Structure

Documentation (this feature)

specs/[###-feature]/
├── plan.md              # This file (/plan command output)
├── research.md          # Phase 0 output (/plan command)
├── data-model.md        # Phase 1 output (/plan command)
├── quickstart.md        # Phase 1 output (/plan command)
├── contracts/           # Phase 1 output (/plan command)
└── tasks.md             # Phase 2 output (/tasks command - NOT created by /plan)

Source Code (repository root)

# Option 1: Single project (DEFAULT)
src/
├── models/
├── services/
├── cli/
└── lib/

tests/
├── contract/
├── integration/
└── unit/

# Option 2: Web application (when "frontend" + "backend" detected)
backend/
├── src/
│   ├── models/
│   ├── services/
│   └── api/
└── tests/

frontend/
├── src/
│   ├── components/
│   ├── pages/
│   └── services/
└── tests/

# Option 3: Mobile + API (when "iOS/Android" detected)
api/
└── [same as backend above]

ios/ or android/
└── [platform-specific structure]

Structure Decision: Option 1 - Single project with pkg/ast/route refactoring following pkg/ast/provider patterns

Phase 0: Outline & Research

1. Extract unknowns from Technical Context above:

   • For each NEEDS CLARIFICATION → research task
   • For each dependency → best practices task
   • For each integration → patterns task

2. Generate and dispatch research agents:

   For each unknown in Technical Context:
     Task: "Research {unknown} for {feature context}"
   For each technology choice:
     Task: "Find best practices for {tech} in {domain}"
   

3. Consolidate findings in research.md using format:

   • Decision: [what was chosen]
   • Rationale: [why chosen]
   • Alternatives considered: [what else evaluated]

Output: research.md with all NEEDS CLARIFICATION resolved

Phase 1: Design & Contracts

Prerequisites: research.md complete

1. Extract entities from feature spec → data-model.md:

   • Entity name, fields, relationships
   • Validation rules from requirements
   • State transitions if applicable

2. Generate API contracts from functional requirements:

   • For each user action → endpoint
   • Use standard REST/GraphQL patterns
   • Output OpenAPI/GraphQL schema to /contracts/

3. Generate contract tests from contracts:

   • One test file per endpoint
   • Assert request/response schemas
   • Tests must fail (no implementation yet)

4. Extract test scenarios from user stories:

   • Each story → integration test scenario
   • Quickstart test = story validation steps

5. Update agent file incrementally (O(1) operation):

   • Run .specify/scripts/bash/update-agent-context.sh claude for your AI assistant
   • If exists: Add only NEW tech from current plan
   • Preserve manual additions between markers
   • Update recent changes (keep last 3)
   • Keep under 150 lines for token efficiency
   • Output to repository root

Output: data-model.md, /contracts/*, failing tests, quickstart.md, agent-specific file

Phase 2: Task Planning Approach

This section describes what the /tasks command will do - DO NOT execute during /plan

Task Generation Strategy:

• Load .specify/templates/tasks-template.md as base
• Generate tasks from Phase 1 design docs (contracts, data model, quickstart)
• Each contract → contract test implementation task [P]
• Each data model entity → implementation task [P]
• Each interface → component implementation task
• Integration tasks to ensure compatibility with gen_route.go
• Test-driven implementation following TDD principles

Ordering Strategy:

• TDD order: Write failing tests first, then implement to make tests pass
• Component dependency order: Core interfaces → Parsers → Builders → Validators → Renderers
• Backward compatibility: Ensure gen_route.go works throughout implementation
• Mark [P] for parallel execution (independent components)

Estimated Output: 25-30 numbered, ordered tasks in tasks.md covering:

• Core interface implementations
• Data model and error handling
• Route parsing and validation
• Template rendering and code generation
• Integration and compatibility testing
• Performance and validation testing

IMPORTANT: This phase is executed by the /tasks command, NOT by /plan

Phase 3+: Future Implementation

These phases are beyond the scope of the /plan command

Phase 3: Task execution (/tasks command creates tasks.md)
Phase 4: Implementation (execute tasks.md following constitutional principles)
Phase 5: Validation (run tests, execute quickstart.md, performance validation)

Complexity Tracking

Fill ONLY if Constitution Check has violations that must be justified

Violation	Why Needed	Simpler Alternative Rejected Because
[e.g., 4th project]	[current need]	[why 3 projects insufficient]
[e.g., Repository pattern]	[specific problem]	[why direct DB access insufficient]

Progress Tracking

This checklist is updated during execution flow

Phase Status:

• Phase 0: Research complete (/plan command)
• Phase 1: Design complete (/plan command)
• Phase 2: Task planning complete (/plan command - describe approach only)
• Phase 3: Tasks generated (/tasks command)
• Phase 4: Implementation complete
• Phase 5: Validation passed

Gate Status:

• Initial Constitution Check: PASS
• Post-Design Constitution Check: PASS
• All NEEDS CLARIFICATION resolved
• Complexity deviations documented

---

Based on Constitution v1.0.0 - See /memory/constitution.md