Phil Skentelbery
f10d0679da
Implements tag/category system backend following microformats2 p-category specification. Database changes: - Migration 008: Add tags and note_tags tables - Normalized tag storage (case-insensitive lookup, display name preserved) - Indexes for performance New module: - starpunk/tags.py: Tag management functions - normalize_tag: Normalize tag strings - get_or_create_tag: Get or create tag records - add_tags_to_note: Associate tags with notes (replaces existing) - get_note_tags: Retrieve note tags (alphabetically ordered) - get_tag_by_name: Lookup tag by normalized name - get_notes_by_tag: Get all notes with specific tag - parse_tag_input: Parse comma-separated tag input Model updates: - Note.tags property (lazy-loaded, prefer pre-loading in routes) - Note.to_dict() add include_tags parameter CRUD updates: - create_note() accepts tags parameter - update_note() accepts tags parameter (None = no change, [] = remove all) Micropub integration: - Pass tags to create_note() (tags already extracted by extract_tags()) - Return tags in q=source response Per design doc: docs/design/v1.3.0/microformats-tags-design.md Generated with Claude Code Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
185 lines
7.5 KiB
Markdown
185 lines
7.5 KiB
Markdown
# v1.2.0 Phase 1: Custom Slugs - Architectural Review
|
|
|
|
**Date**: 2025-11-28
|
|
**Architect**: StarPunk Architect Subagent
|
|
**Component**: Custom Slug Implementation (Phase 1 of v1.2.0)
|
|
**Status**: APPROVED WITH MINOR NOTES
|
|
|
|
## Executive Summary
|
|
|
|
The Phase 1 implementation of custom slugs for v1.2.0 has been successfully completed. The implementation demonstrates excellent code quality, comprehensive test coverage, and strict adherence to the design specifications. The feature is production-ready and can proceed to Phase 2.
|
|
|
|
## What Went Well
|
|
|
|
### Architecture & Design
|
|
- **Excellent reuse of existing infrastructure** - Leverages `slug_utils.py` without modification
|
|
- **Clean separation of concerns** - Validation logic properly abstracted
|
|
- **Minimal code footprint** - Only necessary files modified (templates and route handler)
|
|
- **No database schema changes** - Works with existing slug column
|
|
- **Proper error handling** - Graceful fallbacks for all edge cases
|
|
|
|
### Implementation Quality
|
|
- **Form design matches specification exactly** - Optional field with clear guidance
|
|
- **Read-only edit behavior** - Prevents permalink breakage as specified
|
|
- **Consistent validation** - Uses same rules as Micropub for uniformity
|
|
- **Auto-sanitization approach** - User-friendly experience over strict rejection
|
|
- **Clear user messaging** - Helpful placeholder text and validation hints
|
|
|
|
### Test Coverage Assessment
|
|
- **30 comprehensive tests** - Excellent coverage of all scenarios
|
|
- **Edge cases well handled** - Unicode, emoji, whitespace, hierarchical paths
|
|
- **Validation thoroughly tested** - All sanitization rules verified
|
|
- **Web UI integration tests** - Forms and submission flows covered
|
|
- **Micropub consistency verified** - Ensures uniform behavior across entry points
|
|
- **All tests passing** - Clean test suite execution
|
|
|
|
## Design Adherence
|
|
|
|
### Specification Compliance
|
|
The implementation perfectly matches the v1.2.0 feature specification:
|
|
- Custom slug field in creation form with optional input
|
|
- Read-only display in edit form with explanation
|
|
- Validation pattern `[a-z0-9-]+` enforced
|
|
- Auto-sanitization of invalid input
|
|
- Fallback to auto-generation when empty
|
|
- Reserved slug handling with suffix addition
|
|
- Hierarchical path rejection
|
|
|
|
### Developer Q&A Alignment
|
|
All developer Q&A answers were followed precisely:
|
|
- **Q1**: New slugs validated, existing slugs unchanged
|
|
- **Q2**: Edit form uses readonly (not disabled) with visible value
|
|
- **Q3**: Server-side validation with auto-sanitization
|
|
- **Q7**: Slugs cannot be changed after creation
|
|
- **Q39**: Same validation as Micropub for consistency
|
|
|
|
### ADR Compliance
|
|
Aligns with ADR-035 (Custom Slugs in Micropub):
|
|
- Accepts custom slug parameter
|
|
- Validates and sanitizes input
|
|
- Ensures uniqueness with suffix strategy
|
|
- Falls back to auto-generation
|
|
- Handles reserved slugs gracefully
|
|
|
|
## Code Quality
|
|
|
|
### Strengths
|
|
- **Clean, readable code** - Well-structured and documented
|
|
- **Follows project patterns** - Consistent with existing codebase style
|
|
- **Proper error handling** - Try/catch blocks with specific error types
|
|
- **Good separation** - UI, validation, and persistence properly separated
|
|
- **Comprehensive docstrings** - Test file well-documented with Q&A references
|
|
|
|
### Minor Observations
|
|
1. **Version number not updated** - Still shows v1.1.2 in `__init__.py` (should be v1.2.0-dev or similar)
|
|
2. **CHANGELOG entry in Unreleased** - Correct placement for work in progress
|
|
3. **Test comment accuracy** - One test has a minor comment issue about regex behavior (line 84)
|
|
|
|
## Security Analysis
|
|
|
|
### Properly Handled
|
|
- **Path traversal protection** - Hierarchical paths rejected
|
|
- **Reserved slug protection** - System routes protected with suffix
|
|
- **Input sanitization** - All user input properly sanitized
|
|
- **No SQL injection risk** - Using parameterized queries
|
|
- **Length limits enforced** - 200 character maximum respected
|
|
|
|
### No Issues Found
|
|
The implementation has no security vulnerabilities or concerns.
|
|
|
|
## Performance Considerations
|
|
|
|
### Efficient Implementation
|
|
- **Minimal database queries** - Single query for existing slugs
|
|
- **No performance regression** - Reuses existing validation functions
|
|
- **Fast sanitization** - Regex-based operations are efficient
|
|
- **No additional I/O** - Works within existing note creation flow
|
|
|
|
## User Experience
|
|
|
|
### Excellent UX Decisions
|
|
- **Clear field labeling** - "Custom Slug (optional)" is unambiguous
|
|
- **Helpful placeholder** - "leave-blank-for-auto-generation" guides users
|
|
- **Inline help text** - Explains allowed characters clearly
|
|
- **Graceful error handling** - Sanitizes rather than rejects
|
|
- **Preserved form data** - On error, user input is maintained
|
|
- **Success feedback** - Flash message shows final slug used
|
|
|
|
## Minor Suggestions for Improvement
|
|
|
|
These are optional enhancements that could be considered later:
|
|
|
|
1. **Client-side validation preview** - Show sanitized slug as user types (future enhancement)
|
|
2. **Version number update** - Update `__version__` to reflect v1.2.0 development
|
|
3. **Test comment correction** - Fix comment on line 84 about consecutive hyphens
|
|
4. **Consider slug preview** - Show what the auto-generated slug would be (UX enhancement)
|
|
|
|
## Risk Assessment
|
|
|
|
### Low Risk
|
|
- No breaking changes to existing functionality
|
|
- All existing tests continue to pass
|
|
- Backward compatible implementation
|
|
- Minimal code changes reduce bug surface
|
|
|
|
### No Critical Issues
|
|
- No security vulnerabilities
|
|
- No performance concerns
|
|
- No data integrity risks
|
|
- No migration required
|
|
|
|
## Recommendation
|
|
|
|
### APPROVED - Ready for Phase 2
|
|
|
|
The Phase 1 implementation is excellent and ready to proceed to Phase 2 (Author Discovery + Microformats2). The code is clean, well-tested, and strictly follows the design specification.
|
|
|
|
### Action Items
|
|
1. **Update version number** to v1.2.0-dev in `__init__.py` (minor)
|
|
2. **Consider moving forward** with Phase 2 implementation
|
|
3. **No blockers** - Implementation is production-ready
|
|
|
|
## Architectural Observations
|
|
|
|
### What This Implementation Got Right
|
|
1. **Principle of Least Surprise** - Behaves exactly as users would expect
|
|
2. **Progressive Enhancement** - Adds functionality without breaking existing features
|
|
3. **Standards Compliance** - Matches Micropub behavior perfectly
|
|
4. **Simplicity First** - Minimal changes, maximum value
|
|
5. **User-Centric Design** - Prioritizes helpful over strict
|
|
|
|
### Lessons for Future Phases
|
|
1. **Reuse existing infrastructure** - Like this phase reused slug_utils
|
|
2. **Comprehensive testing** - 30 tests for a simple feature is excellent
|
|
3. **Clear documentation** - Implementation report was thorough
|
|
4. **Follow specifications** - Strict adherence prevents scope creep
|
|
|
|
## Phase 2 Readiness
|
|
|
|
The codebase is now ready for Phase 2 (Author Discovery + Microformats2). The clean implementation of Phase 1 provides a solid foundation for the next features.
|
|
|
|
### Next Steps
|
|
1. Proceed with Phase 2 implementation
|
|
2. Build author_profile table and discovery module
|
|
3. Enhance templates with Microformats2 markup
|
|
4. Integrate with IndieAuth flow
|
|
|
|
## Conclusion
|
|
|
|
This is an exemplary implementation that demonstrates:
|
|
- Strong adherence to architectural principles
|
|
- Excellent test-driven development
|
|
- Clear understanding of requirements
|
|
- Professional code quality
|
|
|
|
The developer has successfully delivered Phase 1 with no critical issues and only minor suggestions for enhancement. The feature is ready for production use and the project can confidently proceed to Phase 2.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
**Final Verdict**: APPROVED ✅
|
|
|
|
**Quality Score**: 9.5/10 (0.5 deducted only for missing version number update)
|
|
|
|
**Ready for Production**: Yes
|
|
|
|
**Ready for Phase 2**: Yes |