@cubis/foundry 0.3.31 → 0.3.33

package/workflows/workflows/agent-environment-setup/platforms/cursor/skills/postman/microservices-architect/references/data.md

@@ -0,0 +1,721 @@
+# Data Management in Microservices
+
+Comprehensive guide for managing data across distributed services.
+
+## Fundamental Principles
+
+### Database per Service
+
+**Core Principle:** Each microservice owns its data exclusively.
+
+**Rules:**
+```
+✓ DO:
+- Each service has its own database/schema
+- Service owns all CRUD operations on its data
+- Other services access data via APIs only
+- Service can choose its own database technology
+
+✗ DON'T:
+- Share database between services
+- Direct database queries across services
+- Shared tables or schemas
+- Database-level joins across services
+```
+
+**Implementation Options:**
+
+**1. Separate Database Instances:**
+```
+UserService → PostgreSQL instance 1
+OrderService → PostgreSQL instance 2
+InventoryService → PostgreSQL instance 3
+
+Pros:
+- Complete isolation
+- Independent scaling
+- No shared resource contention
+
+Cons:
+- Higher infrastructure cost
+- More operational overhead
+```
+
+**2. Separate Schemas:**
+```
+Same PostgreSQL instance:
+- Schema: user_service
+- Schema: order_service
+- Schema: inventory_service
+
+Pros:
+- Lower cost
+- Easier local development
+
+Cons:
+- Shared resource (CPU, memory)
+- Not true isolation
+- Scaling limitations
+
+Recommendation: Use separate schemas for dev/test, separate instances for production
+```
+
+**3. Polyglot Persistence:**
+```
+Each service chooses optimal database:
+
+UserService → PostgreSQL
+  (Relational data, ACID transactions)
+
+ProductCatalog → Elasticsearch
+  (Full-text search, faceted navigation)
+
+SessionStore → Redis
+  (Fast key-value, TTL support)
+
+EventLog → Kafka
+  (Event streaming, replay)
+
+RecommendationEngine → MongoDB
+  (Flexible schema, denormalized data)
+
+Benefits: Right tool for the job
+Challenges: Multiple technologies to manage
+```
+
+## Data Consistency Patterns
+
+### Strong Consistency vs Eventual Consistency
+
+**Strong Consistency:**
+```
+Definition: Read after write returns latest value
+
+Requires:
+- Distributed transaction (2PC, 3PC)
+- Coordination across services
+- Blocking operations
+
+Cost:
+- Higher latency
+- Reduced availability (CAP theorem)
+- Complexity
+
+When to Use:
+- Financial transactions
+- Inventory reservations
+- Critical business operations
+- Regulatory requirements
+```
+
+**Eventual Consistency:**
+```
+Definition: System converges to consistent state over time
+
+Characteristics:
+- Temporary inconsistencies acceptable
+- Non-blocking operations
+- Higher availability
+- Lower latency
+
+Example:
+1. Order placed (OrderService)
+2. Immediately return success to user
+3. Event published: order.created
+4. InventoryService eventually processes event
+5. Stock count updated (few milliseconds later)
+
+When to Use:
+- Social media feeds
+- Analytics dashboards
+- Recommendation systems
+- Non-critical updates
+```
+
+### Managing Cross-Service Data
+
+**Problem:** Order service needs customer data owned by User service.
+
+**Anti-Pattern Solutions:**
+```
+✗ Direct database access
+✗ Shared database
+✗ Database replication between services
+```
+
+**Proper Solutions:**
+
+**1. API Composition:**
+```
+Client Query: Get order with customer details
+
+API Gateway:
+1. GET /orders/123 from OrderService
+   Response: { orderId: 123, customerId: 456, items: [...] }
+
+2. GET /customers/456 from UserService
+   Response: { customerId: 456, name: "John", email: "john@example.com" }
+
+3. Combine responses and return to client
+
+Pros:
+- Maintains service boundaries
+- Real-time data
+
+Cons:
+- Multiple network calls (latency)
+- Partial failure handling complex
+- N+1 query problem
+```
+
+**2. Data Replication via Events:**
+```
+OrderService maintains denormalized customer data:
+
+CREATE TABLE orders (
+    order_id UUID PRIMARY KEY,
+    customer_id UUID,
+    customer_name VARCHAR(255),  -- Denormalized
+    customer_email VARCHAR(255), -- Denormalized
+    order_total DECIMAL,
+    created_at TIMESTAMP
+);
+
+UserService publishes events:
+- customer.created
+- customer.updated
+- customer.deleted
+
+OrderService subscribes and updates local copy:
+
+async def on_customer_updated(event):
+    await db.execute(
+        "UPDATE orders SET customer_name = $1, customer_email = $2 WHERE customer_id = $3",
+        event.name, event.email, event.customer_id
+    )
+
+Pros:
+- Fast queries (no joins across services)
+- Resilient to UserService downtime
+
+Cons:
+- Eventual consistency
+- Storage duplication
+- Keeping data in sync
+```
+
+**3. CQRS with Shared Read Model:**
+```
+Write Models (Command Side):
+- UserService writes to user_db
+- OrderService writes to order_db
+
+Read Model (Query Side):
+- Dedicated database for queries
+- Subscribes to events from both services
+- Denormalized view for efficient queries
+
+Example Read Model:
+CREATE TABLE order_details_view (
+    order_id UUID,
+    customer_id UUID,
+    customer_name VARCHAR(255),
+    customer_email VARCHAR(255),
+    items JSONB,
+    order_total DECIMAL,
+    order_status VARCHAR(50)
+);
+
+Pros:
+- Optimized for queries
+- No cross-service calls
+- Can rebuild from events
+
+Cons:
+- Eventual consistency
+- Additional infrastructure
+- Event replay mechanism needed
+```
+
+## Distributed Transactions
+
+### Two-Phase Commit (2PC)
+
+**How It Works:**
+```
+Phase 1: Prepare
+Coordinator asks all participants: "Can you commit?"
+- Service A: YES
+- Service B: YES
+- Service C: YES
+
+Phase 2: Commit
+If all YES:
+  Coordinator tells all: "Commit"
+If any NO:
+  Coordinator tells all: "Rollback"
+
+Example:
+Transfer $100 from Account A to Account B
+
+Prepare:
+- AccountService A: Can deduct $100? YES (balance sufficient)
+- AccountService B: Can add $100? YES (account active)
+
+Commit:
+- AccountService A: Deduct $100 (committed)
+- AccountService B: Add $100 (committed)
+```
+
+**Problems with 2PC:**
+```
+✗ Blocking protocol (participants wait for coordinator)
+✗ Single point of failure (coordinator down = all blocked)
+✗ Reduced availability
+✗ Poor performance (synchronous coordination)
+✗ Doesn't scale well
+
+Recommendation: Avoid 2PC in microservices, use Saga pattern instead
+```
+
+### Saga Pattern (Recommended)
+
+**Orchestration-Based Saga:**
+```
+Transfer Money Saga:
+
+Steps:
+1. Debit Account A
+2. Credit Account B
+
+Compensations:
+1. Credit Account A (reverse debit)
+
+Saga Orchestrator:
+saga_state = {
+    "saga_id": "saga-123",
+    "status": "in_progress",
+    "steps_completed": []
+}
+
+# Step 1
+result1 = await account_service.debit(account_a, 100)
+if not result1.success:
+    return fail_saga("Insufficient funds")
+
+saga_state["steps_completed"].append("debit_a")
+
+# Step 2
+result2 = await account_service.credit(account_b, 100)
+if not result2.success:
+    # Compensate step 1
+    await account_service.credit(account_a, 100)
+    return fail_saga("Account B invalid")
+
+saga_state["status"] = "completed"
+return success_saga()
+```
+
+**Saga State Persistence:**
+```
+CREATE TABLE saga_state (
+    saga_id UUID PRIMARY KEY,
+    saga_type VARCHAR(50),
+    current_step INTEGER,
+    max_steps INTEGER,
+    status VARCHAR(20),
+    payload JSONB,
+    steps_completed JSONB,
+    created_at TIMESTAMP,
+    updated_at TIMESTAMP
+);
+
+After each step:
+UPDATE saga_state
+SET
+    current_step = current_step + 1,
+    steps_completed = jsonb_array_append(steps_completed, 'step_name'),
+    updated_at = NOW()
+WHERE saga_id = $1;
+
+On failure, load saga state and execute compensations
+```
+
+**Idempotency for Saga Steps:**
+```
+Each saga step must be idempotent:
+
+Debit Operation:
+async def debit_account(account_id, amount, saga_id):
+    # Check if already processed
+    existing = await db.fetchone(
+        "SELECT * FROM transactions WHERE saga_id = $1 AND operation = 'debit'",
+        saga_id
+    )
+    if existing:
+        return {"success": True, "transaction_id": existing.id}
+
+    # Process debit
+    result = await db.execute(
+        "UPDATE accounts SET balance = balance - $1 WHERE id = $2 AND balance >= $1",
+        amount, account_id
+    )
+
+    if result.rowcount == 0:
+        return {"success": False, "error": "Insufficient funds"}
+
+    # Record transaction
+    await db.execute(
+        "INSERT INTO transactions (saga_id, account_id, amount, operation) VALUES ($1, $2, $3, 'debit')",
+        saga_id, account_id, amount
+    )
+
+    return {"success": True}
+
+Compensating Operation:
+async def compensate_debit(account_id, amount, saga_id):
+    await credit_account(account_id, amount, saga_id)
+```
+
+## Event Sourcing
+
+### Core Concepts
+
+**Event Store:**
+```
+All state changes stored as immutable events
+
+Example: Bank Account
+
+Events:
+1. AccountOpened { accountId: "acc-123", customerId: "cust-456", initialBalance: 0 }
+2. MoneyDeposited { accountId: "acc-123", amount: 1000, timestamp: "2025-01-15T10:00:00Z" }
+3. MoneyWithdrawn { accountId: "acc-123", amount: 200, timestamp: "2025-01-16T14:30:00Z" }
+4. MoneyDeposited { accountId: "acc-123", amount: 500, timestamp: "2025-01-17T09:15:00Z" }
+
+Current Balance = 0 + 1000 - 200 + 500 = 1300
+
+Replay all events to reconstruct current state
+```
+
+**Event Schema:**
+```json
+{
+  "eventId": "evt-789",
+  "aggregateId": "acc-123",
+  "aggregateType": "BankAccount",
+  "eventType": "MoneyDeposited",
+  "eventVersion": "1.0",
+  "timestamp": "2025-01-15T10:00:00Z",
+  "correlationId": "corr-456",
+  "causationId": "cmd-123",
+  "payload": {
+    "amount": 1000,
+    "currency": "USD",
+    "source": "wire_transfer"
+  },
+  "metadata": {
+    "userId": "user-789",
+    "ipAddress": "192.168.1.1"
+  }
+}
+```
+
+### Snapshots
+
+**Problem:** Replaying thousands of events is slow.
+
+**Solution:** Periodic snapshots.
+
+```
+Event Stream:
+1. AccountOpened (version 1)
+2. MoneyDeposited (version 2)
+...
+1000. MoneyDeposited (version 1000)
+[SNAPSHOT at version 1000: balance = $50,000]
+1001. MoneyWithdrawn (version 1001)
+...
+1500. MoneyDeposited (version 1500)
+
+To get current state:
+1. Load snapshot at version 1000 (balance = $50,000)
+2. Replay events 1001-1500 (only 500 events)
+
+Much faster than replaying all 1500 events
+
+Snapshot Strategy:
+- Every 100 events
+- Or every 24 hours
+- Async background process
+```
+
+**Snapshot Table:**
+```sql
+CREATE TABLE snapshots (
+    aggregate_id UUID,
+    aggregate_type VARCHAR(50),
+    version INTEGER,
+    state JSONB,
+    created_at TIMESTAMP,
+    PRIMARY KEY (aggregate_id, version)
+);
+
+CREATE INDEX idx_latest_snapshot ON snapshots(aggregate_id, version DESC);
+```
+
+### Event Schema Evolution
+
+**Challenge:** Events are immutable, but requirements change.
+
+**Strategies:**
+
+**1. Event Versioning:**
+```
+Version 1:
+{
+  "eventType": "OrderPlaced",
+  "eventVersion": "1.0",
+  "payload": {
+    "orderId": "123",
+    "amount": 99.99
+  }
+}
+
+Version 2 (added customer email):
+{
+  "eventType": "OrderPlaced",
+  "eventVersion": "2.0",
+  "payload": {
+    "orderId": "123",
+    "amount": 99.99,
+    "customerEmail": "customer@example.com"
+  }
+}
+
+Event Handler:
+def handle_order_placed(event):
+    if event.eventVersion == "1.0":
+        # Handle old format
+        process_order_v1(event.payload)
+    elif event.eventVersion == "2.0":
+        # Handle new format
+        process_order_v2(event.payload)
+```
+
+**2. Event Upcasting:**
+```
+Transform old events to new format during replay:
+
+def upcast_event(event):
+    if event.eventType == "OrderPlaced" and event.eventVersion == "1.0":
+        # Transform to v2.0
+        return {
+            "eventType": "OrderPlaced",
+            "eventVersion": "2.0",
+            "payload": {
+                **event.payload,
+                "customerEmail": "unknown@example.com"  # Default value
+            }
+        }
+    return event
+```
+
+**3. Event Transformation:**
+```
+Create new event types, keep old ones for historical accuracy:
+
+Old: OrderPlaced
+New: OrderPlacedV2
+
+Projections handle both:
+- Old events for historical data
+- New events for current processing
+```
+
+## Data Synchronization
+
+### Change Data Capture (CDC)
+
+**Purpose:** Capture database changes and publish as events.
+
+**How It Works:**
+```
+Database transaction log → CDC Tool → Event Stream
+
+Example with Debezium:
+
+PostgreSQL:
+INSERT INTO orders (id, customer_id, total) VALUES (123, 456, 99.99);
+
+Debezium captures:
+{
+  "before": null,
+  "after": {
+    "id": 123,
+    "customer_id": 456,
+    "total": 99.99,
+    "created_at": "2025-01-15T10:00:00Z"
+  },
+  "op": "c",  // create
+  "ts_ms": 1705314000000
+}
+
+Published to Kafka topic: postgres.public.orders
+
+Other services subscribe and update their read models
+```
+
+**Benefits:**
+```
+✓ No application code changes
+✓ Guaranteed delivery (based on database transaction log)
+✓ Captures all changes (even from direct DB access)
+✓ Low latency
+✓ Ordering preserved
+
+Use Cases:
+- Keep search index synchronized
+- Update cache automatically
+- Replicate to data warehouse
+- Trigger workflows on database changes
+```
+
+### Materialized Views
+
+**Purpose:** Pre-computed denormalized views for fast queries.
+
+**Pattern:**
+```
+Event-Driven Materialized View:
+
+1. Services publish domain events
+2. View service subscribes to events
+3. Updates materialized view in real-time
+
+Example: Order Summary View
+
+Events:
+- order.created
+- order.payment_received
+- order.shipped
+- order.delivered
+
+Materialized View:
+CREATE TABLE order_summary (
+    order_id UUID PRIMARY KEY,
+    customer_id UUID,
+    customer_name VARCHAR(255),
+    order_date TIMESTAMP,
+    total_amount DECIMAL,
+    status VARCHAR(50),
+    items_count INTEGER,
+    last_updated TIMESTAMP
+);
+
+View Service:
+async def on_order_created(event):
+    await db.execute(
+        "INSERT INTO order_summary (order_id, customer_id, status, ...) VALUES (...)",
+        event.data
+    )
+
+async def on_order_shipped(event):
+    await db.execute(
+        "UPDATE order_summary SET status = 'shipped', last_updated = NOW() WHERE order_id = $1",
+        event.order_id
+    )
+```
+
+## Data Partitioning
+
+### Horizontal Partitioning (Sharding)
+
+**When to Use:**
+```
+- Single database can't handle load
+- Data size exceeds single server capacity
+- Want to distribute geographically
+```
+
+**Sharding Strategies:**
+
+**1. Hash-Based Sharding:**
+```
+Shard = hash(customer_id) % num_shards
+
+customer_id: cust-123 → hash → 7234 → mod 4 → Shard 2
+customer_id: cust-456 → hash → 9812 → mod 4 → Shard 0
+
+Pros:
+- Even distribution
+- Simple to implement
+
+Cons:
+- Adding shards requires re-sharding
+- Range queries difficult
+```
+
+**2. Range-Based Sharding:**
+```
+Shard 0: customer_id 0-999
+Shard 1: customer_id 1000-1999
+Shard 2: customer_id 2000-2999
+
+Pros:
+- Range queries efficient
+- Easy to add shards
+
+Cons:
+- Uneven distribution (hotspots)
+- Requires shard map
+```
+
+**3. Geography-Based Sharding:**
+```
+Shard US: customers in USA
+Shard EU: customers in Europe
+Shard APAC: customers in Asia-Pacific
+
+Pros:
+- Data locality (GDPR compliance)
+- Lower latency
+
+Cons:
+- Uneven distribution
+- Cross-shard queries complex
+```
+
+**Shard Management:**
+```
+Shard Map Service:
+
+GET /shard-location?customer_id=cust-123
+Response: { "shard": "shard-2", "endpoint": "db2.example.com" }
+
+Application logic:
+customer_id = request.customer_id
+shard_info = await shard_map.get_shard(customer_id)
+db_connection = connection_pool.get(shard_info.endpoint)
+result = await db_connection.query("SELECT * FROM customers WHERE id = $1", customer_id)
+```
+
+## Summary
+
+Data management in microservices requires careful design:
+
+**Key Principles:**
+- Database per service (non-negotiable)
+- Embrace eventual consistency where possible
+- Use Saga pattern for distributed transactions
+- Event sourcing for audit trail and temporal queries
+- CQRS for read/write optimization
+- CDC for data synchronization
+
+**Decision Framework:**
+- Strong consistency → Saga with careful compensation logic
+- Audit trail → Event sourcing
+- Complex queries → CQRS with read models
+- Large scale → Sharding with appropriate strategy
+
+Always design for failure: compensating transactions, idempotent operations, and proper monitoring are essential.