📦 deps(thirdparty): update snapshots
This commit is contained in:
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
|
||||
|
||||
ADRs live in `docs/adr/` and use sequential numbering: `0001-slug.md`, `0002-slug.md`, etc.
|
||||
|
||||
Create the `docs/adr/` directory lazily — only when the first ADR is needed.
|
||||
Create the `docs/adr/` directory lazily: only when the first ADR is needed.
|
||||
|
||||
## Template
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -12,15 +12,15 @@ Create the `docs/adr/` directory lazily — only when the first ADR is needed.
|
||||
{1-3 sentences: what's the context, what did we decide, and why.}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
That's it. An ADR can be a single paragraph. The value is in recording *that* a decision was made and *why* — not in filling out sections.
|
||||
That's it. An ADR can be a single paragraph. The value is in recording *that* a decision was made and *why*, not in filling out sections.
|
||||
|
||||
## Optional sections
|
||||
|
||||
Only include these when they add genuine value. Most ADRs won't need them.
|
||||
|
||||
- **Status** frontmatter (`proposed | accepted | deprecated | superseded by ADR-NNNN`) — useful when decisions are revisited
|
||||
- **Considered Options** — only when the rejected alternatives are worth remembering
|
||||
- **Consequences** — only when non-obvious downstream effects need to be called out
|
||||
- **Status** frontmatter (`proposed | accepted | deprecated | superseded by ADR-NNNN`): useful when decisions are revisited
|
||||
- **Considered Options**: only when the rejected alternatives are worth remembering
|
||||
- **Consequences**: only when non-obvious downstream effects need to be called out
|
||||
|
||||
## Numbering
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -30,18 +30,18 @@ Scan `docs/adr/` for the highest existing number and increment by one.
|
||||
|
||||
All three of these must be true:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Hard to reverse** — the cost of changing your mind later is meaningful
|
||||
2. **Surprising without context** — a future reader will look at the code and wonder "why on earth did they do it this way?"
|
||||
3. **The result of a real trade-off** — there were genuine alternatives and you picked one for specific reasons
|
||||
1. **Hard to reverse**: the cost of changing your mind later is meaningful
|
||||
2. **Surprising without context**: a future reader will look at the code and wonder "why on earth did they do it this way?"
|
||||
3. **The result of a real trade-off**: there were genuine alternatives and you picked one for specific reasons
|
||||
|
||||
If a decision is easy to reverse, skip it — you'll just reverse it. If it's not surprising, nobody will wonder why. If there was no real alternative, there's nothing to record beyond "we did the obvious thing."
|
||||
If a decision is easy to reverse, skip it: you'll just reverse it. If it's not surprising, nobody will wonder why. If there was no real alternative, there's nothing to record beyond "we did the obvious thing."
|
||||
|
||||
### What qualifies
|
||||
|
||||
- **Architectural shape.** "We're using a monorepo." "The write model is event-sourced, the read model is projected into Postgres."
|
||||
- **Integration patterns between contexts.** "Ordering and Billing communicate via domain events, not synchronous HTTP."
|
||||
- **Technology choices that carry lock-in.** Database, message bus, auth provider, deployment target. Not every library — just the ones that would take a quarter to swap out.
|
||||
- **Technology choices that carry lock-in.** Database, message bus, auth provider, deployment target. Not every library: just the ones that would take a quarter to swap out.
|
||||
- **Boundary and scope decisions.** "Customer data is owned by the Customer context; other contexts reference it by ID only." The explicit no-s are as valuable as the yes-s.
|
||||
- **Deliberate deviations from the obvious path.** "We're using manual SQL instead of an ORM because X." Anything where a reasonable reader would assume the opposite. These stop the next engineer from "fixing" something that was deliberate.
|
||||
- **Constraints not visible in the code.** "We can't use AWS because of compliance requirements." "Response times must be under 200ms because of the partner API contract."
|
||||
- **Rejected alternatives when the rejection is non-obvious.** If you considered GraphQL and picked REST for subtle reasons, record it — otherwise someone will suggest GraphQL again in six months.
|
||||
- **Rejected alternatives when the rejection is non-obvious.** If you considered GraphQL and picked REST for subtle reasons, record it; otherwise someone will suggest GraphQL again in six months.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -40,9 +40,9 @@ _Avoid_: Client, buyer, account
|
||||
|
||||
## Contexts
|
||||
|
||||
- [Ordering](./src/ordering/CONTEXT.md) — receives and tracks customer orders
|
||||
- [Billing](./src/billing/CONTEXT.md) — generates invoices and processes payments
|
||||
- [Fulfillment](./src/fulfillment/CONTEXT.md) — manages warehouse picking and shipping
|
||||
- [Ordering](./src/ordering/CONTEXT.md): receives and tracks customer orders
|
||||
- [Billing](./src/billing/CONTEXT.md): generates invoices and processes payments
|
||||
- [Fulfillment](./src/fulfillment/CONTEXT.md): manages warehouse picking and shipping
|
||||
|
||||
## Relationships
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ description: Build and sharpen a project's domain model. Use when discussing cod
|
||||
|
||||
# Domain Modeling
|
||||
|
||||
Actively build and sharpen the project's domain model as you design. This is the *active* discipline — challenging terms, inventing edge-case scenarios, and writing the glossary and decisions down the moment they crystallise. (Merely *reading* `CONTEXT.md` for vocabulary is not this skill — that's a one-line habit any skill can do. This skill is for when you're changing the model, not just consuming it.)
|
||||
Actively build and sharpen the project's domain model as you design. This is the *active* discipline: challenging terms, inventing edge-case scenarios, and writing the glossary and decisions down the moment they crystallise. (Merely *reading* `CONTEXT.md` for vocabulary is not this skill: that's a one-line habit any skill can do. This skill is for when you're changing the model, not just consuming it.)
|
||||
|
||||
## File structure
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -37,17 +37,17 @@ If a `CONTEXT-MAP.md` exists at the root, the repo has multiple contexts. The ma
|
||||
│ └── docs/adr/
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Create files lazily — only when you have something to write. If no `CONTEXT.md` exists, create one when the first term is resolved. If no `docs/adr/` exists, create it when the first ADR is needed.
|
||||
Create files lazily: only when you have something to write. If no `CONTEXT.md` exists, create one when the first term is resolved. If no `docs/adr/` exists, create it when the first ADR is needed.
|
||||
|
||||
## During the session
|
||||
|
||||
### Challenge against the glossary
|
||||
|
||||
When the user uses a term that conflicts with the existing language in `CONTEXT.md`, call it out immediately. "Your glossary defines 'cancellation' as X, but you seem to mean Y — which is it?"
|
||||
When the user uses a term that conflicts with the existing language in `CONTEXT.md`, call it out immediately. "Your glossary defines 'cancellation' as X, but you seem to mean Y. Which is it?"
|
||||
|
||||
### Sharpen fuzzy language
|
||||
|
||||
When the user uses vague or overloaded terms, propose a precise canonical term. "You're saying 'account' — do you mean the Customer or the User? Those are different things."
|
||||
When the user uses vague or overloaded terms, propose a precise canonical term. "You're saying 'account': do you mean the Customer or the User? Those are different things."
|
||||
|
||||
### Discuss concrete scenarios
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -55,11 +55,11 @@ When domain relationships are being discussed, stress-test them with specific sc
|
||||
|
||||
### Cross-reference with code
|
||||
|
||||
When the user states how something works, check whether the code agrees. If you find a contradiction, surface it: "Your code cancels entire Orders, but you just said partial cancellation is possible — which is right?"
|
||||
When the user states how something works, check whether the code agrees. If you find a contradiction, surface it: "Your code cancels entire Orders, but you just said partial cancellation is possible. Which is right?"
|
||||
|
||||
### Update CONTEXT.md inline
|
||||
|
||||
When a term is resolved, update `CONTEXT.md` right there. Don't batch these up — capture them as they happen. Use the format in [CONTEXT-FORMAT.md](./CONTEXT-FORMAT.md).
|
||||
When a term is resolved, update `CONTEXT.md` right there. Don't batch these up: capture them as they happen. Use the format in [CONTEXT-FORMAT.md](./CONTEXT-FORMAT.md).
|
||||
|
||||
`CONTEXT.md` should be totally devoid of implementation details. Do not treat `CONTEXT.md` as a spec, a scratch pad, or a repository for implementation decisions. It is a glossary and nothing else.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -67,8 +67,8 @@ When a term is resolved, update `CONTEXT.md` right there. Don't batch these up
|
||||
|
||||
Only offer to create an ADR when all three are true:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Hard to reverse** — the cost of changing your mind later is meaningful
|
||||
2. **Surprising without context** — a future reader will wonder "why did they do it this way?"
|
||||
3. **The result of a real trade-off** — there were genuine alternatives and you picked one for specific reasons
|
||||
1. **Hard to reverse**: the cost of changing your mind later is meaningful
|
||||
2. **Surprising without context**: a future reader will wonder "why did they do it this way?"
|
||||
3. **The result of a real trade-off**: there were genuine alternatives and you picked one for specific reasons
|
||||
|
||||
If any of the three is missing, skip the ADR. Use the format in [ADR-FORMAT.md](./ADR-FORMAT.md).
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user