824861c27c
- Introduced a comprehensive data model for route definitions, parameters, and validation rules. - Established component interfaces for route parsing, comment parsing, import resolution, route building, validation, and rendering. - Developed a detailed implementation plan outlining execution flow, user requirements, and compliance with design principles. - Created a quickstart guide to assist users in utilizing the refactored system effectively. - Conducted thorough research on existing architecture, identifying key improvements and establishing a refactoring strategy. - Specified functional requirements and user scenarios to ensure clarity and testability. - Generated a task list for implementation, emphasizing test-driven development and parallel execution where applicable.
137 lines
4.9 KiB
Markdown
137 lines
4.9 KiB
Markdown
# Phase 0: Research Findings
|
|
|
|
## Research Overview
|
|
Conducted comprehensive analysis of existing `/projects/atomctl/pkg/ast/route/` implementation to understand current architecture, identify improvement opportunities, and establish refactoring strategy.
|
|
|
|
## Key Findings
|
|
|
|
### 1. Current Architecture Analysis
|
|
|
|
**File Structure:**
|
|
- `route.go` (272 lines): Core parsing logic with mixed responsibilities
|
|
- `builder.go` (155 lines): Template data construction
|
|
- `render.go` (54 lines): Rendering coordination entry point
|
|
- `renderer.go` (23 lines): Template rendering wrapper
|
|
- `router.go.tpl` (47 lines): Go template for code generation
|
|
|
|
**Architecture Pattern:** Monolithic design with functional approach, lacking clear component boundaries
|
|
|
|
### 2. Comparison with Refactored Provider Module
|
|
|
|
| Aspect | Current Route Module | Refactored Provider Module |
|
|
|--------|---------------------|---------------------------|
|
|
| **Architecture** | Monolithic, flat | Component-based, layered |
|
|
| **Components** | 5 files, unclear boundaries | 15+ files, clear separation |
|
|
| **Error Handling** | Simple, uses panic | Comprehensive error collection |
|
|
| **Extensibility** | Limited | Highly extensible |
|
|
| **Test Coverage** | Minimal | Comprehensive test strategy |
|
|
| **Configuration** | Hardcoded | Configurable system |
|
|
|
|
### 3. Identified Problems
|
|
|
|
**Design Principle Violations:**
|
|
- **DRY**: Duplicate import parsing and AST traversal logic with provider module
|
|
- **SRP**: `route.go` handles parsing, validation, and construction
|
|
- **OCP**: Adding new parameter types requires core code changes
|
|
- **DIP**: Direct dependencies between components
|
|
|
|
**Code Quality Issues:**
|
|
- Use of `panic` instead of proper error handling
|
|
- Hardcoded paths and package names
|
|
- Complex type judgment logic without abstraction
|
|
- Insufficient test coverage
|
|
|
|
### 4. Refactoring Strategy
|
|
|
|
**Decision**: Adopt the successful patterns from `pkg/ast/provider` refactoring
|
|
**Rationale**:
|
|
- Proven architecture that SOLID principles
|
|
- Maintains backward compatibility
|
|
- Provides clear migration path
|
|
- Leverages existing shared utilities
|
|
|
|
**Alternatives Considered:**
|
|
- Minimal fixes to existing code (rejected: doesn't address architectural issues)
|
|
- Complete rewrite (rejected: too risky, breaks compatibility)
|
|
- Incremental refactoring (selected: balances improvement and stability)
|
|
|
|
## Research-Driven Decisions
|
|
|
|
### 1. Architecture Decision
|
|
**Decision**: Component-based architecture following provider patterns
|
|
**Components to Create:**
|
|
- `RouteParser` (coordinator)
|
|
- `CommentParser` (annotation parsing)
|
|
- `ImportResolver` (import processing)
|
|
- `RouteBuilder` (route construction)
|
|
- `RouteValidator` (validation logic)
|
|
- `RouteRenderer` (template rendering)
|
|
|
|
### 2. Compatibility Decision
|
|
**Decision**: Maintain full backward compatibility
|
|
**Requirements:**
|
|
- Preserve existing `@Router` and `@Bind` annotation syntax
|
|
- Keep `cmd/gen_route.go` interface unchanged
|
|
- Ensure generated code output remains identical
|
|
|
|
### 3. Testing Strategy Decision
|
|
**Decision**: Test-driven development approach
|
|
**Approach:**
|
|
- Write comprehensive tests first (contract tests)
|
|
- Refactor implementation to make tests pass
|
|
- Maintain test coverage throughout refactoring
|
|
|
|
### 4. Performance Decision
|
|
**Decision**: Maintain current performance characteristics
|
|
**Targets:**
|
|
- <2s parsing for typical projects
|
|
- Minimal memory overhead
|
|
- No performance regression
|
|
|
|
## Implementation Strategy
|
|
|
|
### Phase 1: Design & Contracts
|
|
1. Define new component interfaces based on provider patterns
|
|
2. Create data models and contracts
|
|
3. Establish test scenarios and acceptance criteria
|
|
|
|
### Phase 2: Task Implementation
|
|
1. Implement new component architecture
|
|
2. Migrate existing logic incrementally
|
|
3. Maintain compatibility through testing
|
|
|
|
### Phase 3: Validation
|
|
1. Comprehensive testing across all scenarios
|
|
2. Performance validation
|
|
3. Integration testing with existing systems
|
|
|
|
## Risk Assessment
|
|
|
|
**Low Risk:**
|
|
- Backward compatibility maintained
|
|
- Incremental refactoring approach
|
|
- Proven architectural patterns
|
|
|
|
**Medium Risk:**
|
|
- Complex parameter handling logic migration
|
|
- Template system integration
|
|
- Error handling standardization
|
|
|
|
**Mitigation Strategies:**
|
|
- Comprehensive test coverage
|
|
- Incremental implementation with validation
|
|
- Rollback capability at each stage
|
|
|
|
## Success Criteria
|
|
|
|
1. **Code Quality**: Clear separation of concerns, SOLID compliance
|
|
2. **Maintainability**: Component-based architecture with clear boundaries
|
|
3. **Testability**: Comprehensive test coverage with clear contract tests
|
|
4. **Compatibility**: Zero breaking changes to existing functionality
|
|
5. **Performance**: No performance regression
|
|
|
|
## Conclusion
|
|
|
|
The research confirms that refactoring `pkg/ast/route` using the successful patterns from `pkg/ast/provider` is the optimal approach. This will improve code maintainability, testability, and extensibility while preserving all existing functionality.
|
|
|
|
**Decision Status**: ✅ APPROVED - Proceed to Phase 1 design |