52 lines
2.7 KiB
Markdown
52 lines
2.7 KiB
Markdown
# Refactor Backlog (Maintainability + System Integrity)
|
|
|
|
Last updated: 2026-03-12
|
|
|
|
## Priority 1 — Split `actions/index.js` by concern
|
|
|
|
- **Problem:** Single high-coupling module mixes API clients, hash/token helpers, logging, file/email/domain operations.
|
|
- **Why it matters:** Hard to reason about changes; high regression risk from unrelated edits.
|
|
- **Target outcome:** Small modules with explicit boundaries (e.g. `relayClient`, `fileClient`, `notifyClient`, `caseService`, `authService`).
|
|
- **Initial scope:** create façade layer first, then migrate call sites incrementally.
|
|
- **Detailed plan:** `memory-bank/refactor-plan-actions-index.md`
|
|
- **Test gate:** add unit regression tests + coverage reporting as part of this refactor.
|
|
|
|
## Priority 2 — Centralize relay/hash/token forwarding logic
|
|
|
|
- **Problem:** `pages/api/endpoint/**` and related routes duplicate request-signing + token + forwarding behavior.
|
|
- **Why it matters:** Security-sensitive drift and inconsistent error handling.
|
|
- **Target outcome:** Shared relay utility enforcing one signing contract, one timeout/retry policy, one error map, one redacted logging strategy.
|
|
- **Initial scope:** pilot on a small endpoint group, then roll out pattern.
|
|
|
|
## Priority 3 — Extract breadcrumb/back-link route-state rules
|
|
|
|
- **Problem:** Navigation logic in `components/breadcrumbs.js` and case summary is branch-heavy and query-dependent.
|
|
- **Why it matters:** Frequent regressions in search -> case -> myportal paths.
|
|
- **Target outcome:** Pure route-state helpers with table-driven tests; UI component mainly renders output.
|
|
- **Initial scope:** isolate `va/adv/ads/key` decision matrix first.
|
|
|
|
## Priority 4 — Standardize security guards in `pages/api/file/**`
|
|
|
|
- **Problem:** Hash/guard enforcement appears inconsistent across file endpoints.
|
|
- **Why it matters:** Uneven protection for document upload/download/delete paths.
|
|
- **Target outcome:** Shared guard middleware for hash/auth/input validation + consistent negative-path responses.
|
|
- **Initial scope:** enforce a common pre-handler contract on high-risk routes first.
|
|
|
|
## Priority 5 — Establish minimum automated regression baseline
|
|
|
|
- **Problem:** Limited automated tests for high-risk logic.
|
|
- **Why it matters:** Repeated regressions and heavy manual verification burden.
|
|
- **Target outcome:** Focused test suite for pure logic and high-risk decisions.
|
|
- **Initial scope:**
|
|
1. breadcrumb decision matrix
|
|
2. representation eligibility/date windows
|
|
3. hash utility behavior
|
|
4. locale rewrite mapping sanity checks
|
|
|
|
## Sequencing recommendation
|
|
|
|
1. Priorities 2 + 4 (security/integrity foundation)
|
|
2. Priority 3 (high-change regression hotspot)
|
|
3. Priority 1 (structural maintainability)
|
|
4. Priority 5 (continuous safety net, starts early and expands)
|