@eventmodelers/cli 1.0.45 → 1.0.47

package/stacks/umadb/templates/.claude/skills/build-state-change/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,376 @@
+---
+name: build-state-change
+authors:
+  - Martin Dilger
+description: >
+  Implement DCB-style write slices against the raw UmaDB Java client in this project's one
+  established pattern: Command record → mutable Decision class (a Query + an apply(Event) fold) →
+  @Component CommandHandler using DecisionModelLoader → InMemoryUmaDbClient-based unit test (no
+  Spring context, no Docker). Use when implementing a new write slice / command handler from a
+  slice.json event model in this project. There is exactly one supported style — do not offer
+  alternatives.
+---
+
+# UmaDB — Write Slice
+
+One pattern only. Directory layout is flat — `src/main/java/.../slices/{context}/{slicename}/`, no
+`write`/`read`/`automation` folder layer in between (only the shared `slices/{context}/events/`
+folder sits alongside slice folders). Every step below is grounded in the `RegisterCustomer` slice
+(single id field, test in `RegisterCustomerCommandHandlerTest`) and, for the compound-identifier
+case in Step 1, the `SubscribeToCourse` slice (test in `SubscribeToCourseCommandHandlerTest`) —
+both verified, compiled and passing under `mvn test` against
+`io.github.domenicdev:umadb-java-client:0.7` and a real `umadb/umadb:0.7.5` server.
+
+UmaDB itself has no annotation-driven modelling layer at all (no `@Command`/`@Event`/`@Aggregate`
+the way Axon Framework has) — every convention below (the Decision class shape, the tag-string
+format, the `DecisionModelLoader` read-decide-append loop) is this project's own, hand-rolled once
+in the shared `eventstore` package and reused by every slice, not something UmaDB enforces itself.
+
+## Step 0: Read the slice definition
+
+Read `.build-kit/.slices/{context}/{slicename}/slice.json`. Extract, and use **only** what's there:
+
+- `commands[].fields[]` → Command record fields, in order
+- `events[].fields[]` → Event record fields, in order
+- `specifications[]` (GWT scenarios) → one test method per scenario
+- Which command field(s) have `idAttribute: true` — these become the tag(s) the command's Query and
+  the resulting event are both scoped to (see Step 1/Step 3)
+- `storylines[]` (optional, may be absent) → narrated walkthroughs with ordered `elements[]`
+  "beats"; see Step 7b for how a COMMAND beat in one of these can add a supplementary test
+
+Never invent a field, business rule, or event that isn't in slice.json.
+
+## Step 0a: Determine `{basePackage}`
+
+Every code example below is rooted at `{basePackage}.slices.{context}.{slicename}`. Resolve
+`{basePackage}` as documented in `.build-kit/CLAUDE.md` — never hardcode `io.umadb.quickstart` (the
+shipped quickstart scaffold's package) or any other specific package.
+
+## Step 1: Command
+
+**Exactly one field has `idAttribute: true`** — no annotation needed (UmaDB has nothing like
+`@TargetEntityId`); the field is just referenced directly wherever the id is needed:
+
+```java
+package {basePackage}.slices.{context}.{slicename};
+
+public record {SliceName}Command(String field1, String idField) {}
+```
+
+**Two or more fields have `idAttribute: true`** — combine them into a compound id record, with a
+convenience method building it from the command. Verified against `SubscribeToCourseCommand`
+(`email` + `courseId` both `idAttribute: true`):
+
+```java
+package {basePackage}.slices.{context}.{slicename};
+
+public record {SliceName}Id(String field1, String field2) {}
+```
+
+```java
+package {basePackage}.slices.{context}.{slicename};
+
+public record {SliceName}Command(String field1, String field2) {
+
+    public {SliceName}Id identifier() {
+        return new {SliceName}Id(field1, field2);
+    }
+}
+```
+
+The Decision's `relevantEvents(...)` (Step 3) and the CommandHandler (Step 4) both take this
+`{SliceName}Id` wherever a single id string would otherwise appear.
+
+## Step 2: Event — only if it doesn't already exist
+
+Check `src/main/java/.../{context}/events/` first; add to the existing sealed interface rather than
+creating a duplicate.
+
+```java
+package {basePackage}.slices.{context}.events;
+
+public record {EventName}(String field1, String idField) implements {Context}Event {
+
+    public static final String TYPE = "{Context}.{EventName}";
+}
+```
+
+`TYPE` is this project's own convention for what goes into UmaDB's `Event.type()` — UmaDB has no
+`@Event(namespace, name, version)` annotation of its own. Add the tag constant to the context's
+`EventTags` class if it isn't already there:
+
+```java
+public static final String {TAG_CONSTANT} = "idField";
+```
+
+## Step 3: Decision class
+
+Package-private, mutable field(s) per fact a `specifications[]` scenario actually branches on —
+**not** an immutable state record with free-standing decide/evolve functions.
+
+**Derive the field(s) from this slice's `specifications[]` (Step 0), not from the event's shape.**
+Each GWT scenario's `given`/`then` pair states the one decision the command handler must make and
+the prior fact that decision depends on — that fact is the field. A "given no prior activity" /
+"given already {X}" pair means one boolean flag for {X}; a scenario that discriminates on a value
+(not just presence/absence) means a value field holding that value, not a boolean.
+
+```java
+package {basePackage}.slices.{context}.{slicename};
+
+import io.umadb.client.Event;
+import io.umadb.client.Query;
+import io.umadb.client.QueryItem;
+import {basePackage}.slices.{context}.events.{EventName};
+import {basePackage}.slices.{context}.events.EventTags;
+
+import java.util.List;
+
+class {SliceName}Decision {
+
+    boolean <ruleFlag>;
+
+    static Query relevantEvents(String idField) {
+        return Query.of(QueryItem.of(
+                List.of({EventName}.TYPE),
+                List.of(EventTags.tag(EventTags.{TAG_CONSTANT}, idField))
+        ));
+    }
+
+    void apply(Event event) {
+        if (event.type().equals({EventName}.TYPE)) {
+            this.<ruleFlag> = true;
+        }
+    }
+}
+```
+
+`apply` takes the raw `io.umadb.client.Event`, not a decoded domain object — most decisions only
+need to know a matching event of a given `type()` existed (a boolean flag). Only decode the payload
+(`EventCodec.fromEvent(event, {EventName}.class)`) when a scenario needs an actual field value, not
+just presence/absence.
+
+**Tag each event type by what THIS decision actually needs checked for it — not uniformly.** When
+multiple event types feed one decision (a `Query` with several `QueryItem`s, OR'd together), each
+item gets its own tag set, chosen per the specific invariant that event type is being loaded to
+verify — this is context-dependent, not a fixed property of the event type itself. Verified worked
+example — `SubscribeToCourseDecision`, id is `SubscriptionId(email, courseId)`, two rules, two
+different tag scopes on two different event types:
+
+```java
+static Query relevantEvents(SubscriptionId id) {
+    return Query.of(List.of(
+        // "is this customer registered at all" — scoped to email only
+        QueryItem.of(List.of(CustomerRegistered.TYPE), List.of(EventTags.tag(EventTags.EMAIL, id.email()))),
+        // "did this customer already subscribe to THIS course" — scoped to email + courseId
+        QueryItem.of(List.of(SubscribedToCourse.TYPE), List.of(
+                EventTags.tag(EventTags.EMAIL, id.email()),
+                EventTags.tag(EventTags.COURSE_ID, id.courseId())))
+    ));
+}
+```
+
+`CustomerRegistered` only needs the `email` tag — "is this customer registered" doesn't involve a
+course. `SubscribedToCourse` needs **both** `email` and `courseId` together — the rule is "already
+subscribed to *this* course", not "subscribed to any course". Getting the tag scope wrong doesn't
+fail loudly: too wide silently pulls in unrelated events, too narrow silently drops events the rule
+needed. See [references/umadb-query-patterns.md](references/umadb-query-patterns.md) for the full
+`Query`/`QueryItem` matching rules this relies on.
+
+## Step 4: Command handler
+
+Uses the shared `DecisionModelLoader` (in `{basePackage}.eventstore`) — never call
+`UmaDbClient.handle(ReadRequest...)`/`.handle(AppendRequest...)` directly from a command handler;
+the loader is this project's one shared read-decide-append loop (see its Javadoc for why).
+
+```java
+package {basePackage}.slices.{context}.{slicename};
+
+import {basePackage}.eventstore.DecisionModelLoader;
+import {basePackage}.slices.{context}.events.{EventName};
+import {basePackage}.slices.{context}.events.EventTags;
+import org.springframework.boot.autoconfigure.condition.ConditionalOnProperty;
+import org.springframework.stereotype.Component;
+
+import java.util.List;
+
+@Component
+@ConditionalOnProperty(prefix = "slices.{context}.write", name = "{slicename}.enabled")
+public class {SliceName}CommandHandler {
+
+    private final DecisionModelLoader loader;
+
+    public {SliceName}CommandHandler(DecisionModelLoader loader) {
+        this.loader = loader;
+    }
+
+    public void handle({SliceName}Command command) {
+        var query = {SliceName}Decision.relevantEvents(command.idField());
+        var loaded = loader.load(query, {SliceName}Decision::new, {SliceName}Decision::apply);
+
+        if (loaded.decision().<ruleFlag>) {
+            throw new IllegalStateException("...");
+        }
+
+        loader.append(
+                new {EventName}(command.field1(), command.idField()),
+                {EventName}.TYPE,
+                List.of(EventTags.tag(EventTags.{TAG_CONSTANT}, command.idField())),
+                query,
+                loaded.lastPosition()
+        );
+    }
+}
+```
+
+`loader.append` throws `OptimisticConcurrencyException` (from `{basePackage}.eventstore`) if a
+conflicting event was appended concurrently between this handler's `load` and `append` calls — this
+IS the consistency boundary, not just a convenience; see
+[references/umadb-query-patterns.md](references/umadb-query-patterns.md).
+
+## Step 5: REST endpoint — only if slice.json shows an inbound `SCREEN` dependency on the command
+
+```java
+package {basePackage}.slices.{context}.{slicename};
+
+import {basePackage}.eventstore.OptimisticConcurrencyException;
+import org.springframework.boot.autoconfigure.condition.ConditionalOnProperty;
+import org.springframework.http.ResponseEntity;
+import org.springframework.web.bind.annotation.PostMapping;
+import org.springframework.web.bind.annotation.RequestBody;
+import org.springframework.web.bind.annotation.RestController;
+
+@RestController
+@ConditionalOnProperty(prefix = "slices.{context}.write", name = "{slicename}.enabled")
+public class {SliceName}RestController {
+
+    private final {SliceName}CommandHandler commandHandler;
+
+    public {SliceName}RestController({SliceName}CommandHandler commandHandler) {
+        this.commandHandler = commandHandler;
+    }
+
+    @PostMapping("/api/{context}/{resource}")
+    public ResponseEntity<Void> handle(@RequestBody {SliceName}RequestBody body) {
+        try {
+            commandHandler.handle(new {SliceName}Command(body.field1(), body.idField()));
+            return ResponseEntity.ok().build();
+        } catch (IllegalStateException | OptimisticConcurrencyException e) {
+            return ResponseEntity.badRequest().build();
+        }
+    }
+
+    public record {SliceName}RequestBody(String field1, String idField) {}
+}
+```
+
+If the only inbound dependency is another slice's `AUTOMATION`, skip this step — an automation
+calls the command handler directly (see `build-automation`), it doesn't need HTTP.
+
+This project uses plain Spring MVC (`spring-boot-starter-web`), **not** WebFlux — `UmaDbClient`'s
+core API is blocking (returns `Iterator`, not a reactive `Publisher`), so a reactive controller
+would only hide the blocking calls behind a `Mono`, not remove them. Plain `ResponseEntity<...>`,
+not `Mono<ResponseEntity<...>>`.
+
+## Step 6: Feature flag
+
+Every slice component (command handler, REST controller) gets `@ConditionalOnProperty(prefix =
+"slices.{context}.write", name = "{slicename}.enabled")` — the Decision class does not need it.
+Wire the flag in both places:
+
+- `src/main/resources/application.properties` — `slices.{context}.write.{slicename}.enabled=true`
+- `src/test/resources/application.properties` — `slices.{context}.write.{slicename}.enabled=false`
+
+See [references/feature-flag-patterns.md](references/feature-flag-patterns.md) for the full
+pattern. This flag is irrelevant to the Step 7 test below — that test never boots Spring, so
+`@ConditionalOnProperty` never runs.
+
+## Step 7: Test — `InMemoryUmaDbClient`, no Spring context, no Docker
+
+UmaDB ships no test-fixture library (unlike Axon Framework's `axon-test`) — this project's
+`InMemoryUmaDbClient` (`src/test/java/.../testsupport/`, already in the root scaffold) is a
+from-scratch fake `UmaDbClient` implementation for exactly this. Write given/when/then as plain
+JUnit + AssertJ, one test method per GWT scenario in slice.json's `specifications[]`:
+
+```java
+package {basePackage}.slices.{context}.{slicename};
+
+import {basePackage}.eventstore.DecisionModelLoader;
+import {basePackage}.testsupport.InMemoryUmaDbClient;
+import org.junit.jupiter.api.BeforeEach;
+import org.junit.jupiter.api.DisplayName;
+import org.junit.jupiter.api.Test;
+
+import static org.assertj.core.api.Assertions.assertThatNoException;
+import static org.assertj.core.api.Assertions.assertThatThrownBy;
+
+class {SliceName}CommandHandlerTest {
+
+    private {SliceName}CommandHandler commandHandler;
+
+    @BeforeEach
+    void setUp() {
+        var loader = new DecisionModelLoader(new InMemoryUmaDbClient());
+        commandHandler = new {SliceName}CommandHandler(loader);
+    }
+
+    @Test
+    @DisplayName("given no prior activity, when {sliceName}, then succeeds")
+    void happyPath() {
+        assertThatNoException().isThrownBy(
+                () -> commandHandler.handle(new {SliceName}Command("value1", "id-1")));
+    }
+
+    @Test
+    @DisplayName("given <rule already true>, when {sliceName}, then rejected")
+    void ruleViolation() {
+        commandHandler.handle(new {SliceName}Command("value1", "id-1"));
+
+        assertThatThrownBy(() -> commandHandler.handle(new {SliceName}Command("value2", "id-1")))
+                .isInstanceOf(IllegalStateException.class);
+    }
+}
+```
+
+When a slice's decision needs prior events from ANOTHER slice's command handler first (like
+`SubscribeToCourse` needing a `RegisterCustomer` to have happened), construct both command handlers
+from the SAME `DecisionModelLoader`/`InMemoryUmaDbClient` instance and call the prerequisite handler
+directly in the test — see `SubscribeToCourseCommandHandlerTest`. Don't hand-craft raw `Event`
+objects as a shortcut; go through the real command handler so the test also exercises that
+handler's own tagging.
+
+Full cheat sheet — `Query`/`QueryItem` matching, `AppendCondition` semantics, idempotent-append
+behaviour, why `subscribe()` isn't faked: see
+[references/umadb-query-patterns.md](references/umadb-query-patterns.md).
+
+## Step 7b: Storyline-Derived Tests (Optional)
+
+`slice.json` may carry a `storylines[]` array alongside `specifications[]` — narrated walkthroughs
+where an ordered sequence of `elements[]` "beats" (EVENT/COMMAND/READMODEL/...) shows one use case
+end to end. This is a secondary, supplementary source — `specifications[]` (Step 7) stays the
+primary and default source of test methods. Most slices have no `storylines[]`; skip this step
+silently when there's nothing relevant.
+
+Find beats whose `type` is `COMMAND`. For each such beat: `given` = the cumulative ordered `EVENT`
+beats preceding it in the storyline (dispatched through their own real command handlers, per Step
+7's guidance), `when` = the command built from the beat's `fields`, `then` = the `EVENT` beat(s)
+immediately following it — asserted by reading the event back via a second `client.handle(ReadRequest...)`
+call, or more simply by asserting the command handler didn't throw and trusting Step 7's own
+per-field tests to have already covered the event's shape.
+
+Do **not** try to also assert read-model state in this same test — that half belongs to
+`build-state-view`'s own storyline step, since this test never touches a projector. If the beat
+immediately after the command isn't an EVENT, don't force a test — leave it undocumented rather than
+fabricating an assertion.
+
+## Final Verification
+
+Before considering the slice done:
+
+- [ ] Every field in slice.json's `commands[]` is in the Command record — no invented fields, none missing
+- [ ] Every field in slice.json's `events[]` is in the Event record — no invented fields, none missing
+- [ ] Every `specifications[]` scenario has a corresponding test method
+- [ ] If `storylines[]` is present: every COMMAND beat for this slice's command has a storyline test — or was deliberately skipped as untraceable
+- [ ] No business rule exists in the handler that isn't traceable to slice.json's `description`/`comments`
+- [ ] The Decision's `relevantEvents` query and the append's consistency-boundary query are the SAME query
+- [ ] `mvn compile -q`, then run the slice's own tests only
+- [ ] If checks pass, commit with `feat: {Slice Name}` and set slice status to `Done`

package/stacks/umadb/templates/.claude/skills/build-state-change/references/feature-flag-patterns.md

@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+# Feature Flag Patterns
+
+This project's one supported approach: `@ConditionalOnProperty` on the command handler and REST
+controller (**not** on the Decision class - verified against the `RegisterCustomer` and
+`SubscribeToCourse` slices, neither of which puts the annotation on its decision-model class).
+Read slices (`build-state-view`) are never feature-flagged - only write and automation slices are.
+Examples use a generic `Ordering` bounded context.
+
+## Annotation on slice components
+
+```java
+// Command handler
+@ConditionalOnProperty(prefix = "slices.ordering.write", name = "placeorder.enabled")
+@Component
+public class PlaceOrderCommandHandler { ... }
+
+// REST controller (if applicable)
+@ConditionalOnProperty(prefix = "slices.ordering.write", name = "placeorder.enabled")
+@RestController
+public class PlaceOrderRestController { ... }
+```
+
+## `application.properties` (main — enable by default)
+
+```properties
+slices.ordering.write.placeorder.enabled=true
+slices.ordering.automation.notifycustomeronorder.enabled=true
+```
+
+## `application.properties` (test — disable by default)
+
+```properties
+slices.ordering.write.placeorder.enabled=false
+slices.ordering.automation.notifycustomeronorder.enabled=false
+```
+
+This only matters for tests that boot a Spring context (`@SpringBootTest`). The
+`InMemoryUmaDbClient` unit-test pattern in
+[umadb-query-patterns.md](umadb-query-patterns.md) never boots Spring, so these properties don't
+affect it either way - a Testcontainers-based end-to-end test (see `build-state-view`'s reference)
+overrides them back to `true` for itself via `@DynamicPropertySource`, since it's the one test that
+does need the real beans wired.

package/stacks/umadb/templates/.claude/skills/build-state-change/references/umadb-query-patterns.md

@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
+# UmaDB Query, AppendCondition & Test Fake — Cheat Sheet
+
+Verified against `io.github.domenicdev:umadb-java-client:0.7` (package `io.umadb.client`) and a real
+`umadb/umadb:0.7.5` server (Testcontainers), and against the `RegisterCustomer`/`SubscribeToCourse`
+slices this pattern was built from.
+
+## `Query` / `QueryItem` matching semantics
+
+A `Query` is a list of `QueryItem`s. **Items are OR'd together** - an event matches the query if it
+matches ANY item. Within one item:
+
+- `types` (OR): event matches if `types` is empty, or the event's `type()` is one of them
+- `tags` (AND): event matches if `tags` is empty, or the event's `tags()` contains ALL of them
+- an item matches only if BOTH the type condition and the tag condition match
+
+An **empty `Query`** (`Query.empty()`, or `Query.of(List.of())`) matches every event - never pass
+`null`/empty expecting "match nothing".
+
+```java
+// "CustomerRegistered for this email" OR "SubscribedToCourse for this email+courseId"
+Query.of(List.of(
+    QueryItem.of(List.of(CustomerRegistered.TYPE), List.of(EventTags.tag(EventTags.EMAIL, email))),
+    QueryItem.of(List.of(SubscribedToCourse.TYPE), List.of(
+            EventTags.tag(EventTags.EMAIL, email), EventTags.tag(EventTags.COURSE_ID, courseId)))
+));
+```
+
+**Tag scope is a property of the rule, not the event type.** The same event type can legitimately
+need a wider or narrower tag set depending on which decision is consuming it - see
+`SubscribeToCourseDecision.relevantEvents` (`build-state-change` Step 3): `CustomerRegistered` is
+scoped to `email` alone (the rule is "registered at all"), but `SubscribedToCourse` is scoped to
+`email` AND `courseId` together (the rule is "subscribed to THIS course", not "subscribed to any
+course"). Getting this wrong doesn't fail loudly - too wide silently pulls in unrelated events, too
+narrow silently drops events the rule needed.
+
+## `AppendCondition` - the actual consistency boundary
+
+```java
+AppendCondition.failIfExistsAfter(query, lastPosition)
+```
+
+Fails the append (throws `UmaDbException.IntegrityException`) if any event matching `query` exists
+at a position **strictly greater than** `lastPosition` - i.e. appeared after the position this
+command's `DecisionModelLoader.load` call observed via `getHeadPosition()`. Always pass the SAME
+query used to load the decision - a narrower/different query here silently weakens the consistency
+guarantee (a conflicting write could slip through undetected).
+
+`DecisionModelLoader.append` already wraps this and translates the exception into
+`OptimisticConcurrencyException` - don't call `AppendCondition`/`client.handle(AppendRequest...)`
+directly from a command handler; use the loader.
+
+**Idempotency**: appending an `Event` whose `id` (a `UUID`) already exists in the store is a no-op
+that returns the existing position, regardless of any condition - verified against the client's own
+`UmaDbClientTest#testIdempotentAppendReturnsSamePosition`. `Event.of(...)` generates a random id per
+call, so this only matters if you're deliberately re-sending the exact same `Event` instance/id for
+retry safety - not something a normal command handler needs to think about.
+
+## Testing: `InMemoryUmaDbClient`, not a fixture DSL
+
+UmaDB has no test-fixture library (unlike `axon-test`'s `AxonTestFixture`). This project's
+`src/test/java/.../testsupport/InMemoryUmaDbClient` (shipped in the root scaffold) is a from-scratch
+`UmaDbClient` implementation replicating the matching/condition/idempotency rules above, fast and
+container-free. Write given/when/then as plain JUnit, not through a fixture DSL:
+
+```java
+var loader = new DecisionModelLoader(new InMemoryUmaDbClient());
+var commandHandler = new RegisterCustomerCommandHandler(loader);
+
+// given no prior activity, when registerCustomer, then succeeds
+assertThatNoException().isThrownBy(() -> commandHandler.handle(new RegisterCustomerCommand(...)));
+```
+
+`InMemoryUmaDbClient.subscribe(...)` deliberately throws `UnsupportedOperationException` - no
+command-handler test needs it (that's `build-state-view`/`build-automation`'s territory, tested via
+a direct `on(event)` call instead - see those skills). The one thing that genuinely needs a live
+subscription (`EventDispatcher` itself) is proven against a REAL `umadb/umadb` server via
+Testcontainers instead - see `build-state-view`'s reference integration test. Don't try to make the
+fake support subscription; use the real container for that one case.