@jarrodmedrano/claude-skills 1.0.3 → 1.0.5

package/.claude/skills/domain-driven-design/references/wlaschin_patterns.md

@@ -0,0 +1,639 @@
+# Scott Wlaschin's Type-Driven Design Patterns
+
+This reference compiles patterns and principles from Scott Wlaschin's work on domain modeling, functional architecture, and type-driven design.
+
+## Core Philosophy
+
+**"Make Illegal States Unrepresentable"**
+
+Use the type system to eliminate entire categories of bugs at compile time. If a state shouldn't exist in your domain, make it impossible to construct.
+
+## Domain Modeling Made Functional
+
+### Understanding the Domain
+
+**Key Questions:**
+1. What are the inputs and outputs?
+2. What can happen? (scenarios, workflows)
+3. What can go wrong? (errors, edge cases)
+4. What are the business rules and constraints?
+5. What are the invariants that must always hold?
+
+**Process:**
+1. Talk to domain experts using their language
+2. Document workflows as transformations
+3. Identify the things (nouns) and actions (verbs)
+4. Model the lifecycle and state transitions
+5. Capture rules and constraints as types
+
+### Workflows as Pipelines
+
+Model business workflows as data transformation pipelines:
+
+```
+Input → Validate → Execute Business Logic → Persist → Output
+```
+
+Each step:
+- Takes data as input
+- Performs a transformation
+- Produces data as output
+- May fail (use Result types)
+
+**Benefits:**
+- Clear separation of concerns
+- Easy to test each step
+- Easy to compose steps
+- Makes the happy path obvious
+
+### Example: Order Placement Workflow
+
+```
+UnvalidatedOrder
+  → ValidateOrder
+  → ValidatedOrder
+  → PriceOrder
+  → PricedOrder
+  → PlaceOrder
+  → PlacedOrderEvent
+```
+
+Each arrow is a function. Each type in between represents a distinct state with its own invariants.
+
+## Type-Driven Design
+
+### Making Illegal States Unrepresentable
+
+**Problem:** Optional fields that create invalid combinations
+
+**Bad:**
+```typescript
+type Order = {
+  id: string;
+  // Both can be null, or both can be set - illegal!
+  approvedAt: Date | null;
+  rejectedAt: Date | null;
+}
+```
+
+**Good:**
+```typescript
+type Order = {
+  id: OrderId;
+  status:
+    | { type: "Pending" }
+    | { type: "Approved"; approvedAt: Date }
+    | { type: "Rejected"; rejectedAt: Date };
+}
+```
+
+Now impossible to be both approved and rejected, or to have dates without corresponding status.
+
+### Constrained Types
+
+Create types that can only hold valid values:
+
+**Bad:** Primitive obsession
+```typescript
+function createUser(email: string, age: number) { ... }
+// Can pass invalid values: createUser("not-an-email", -5)
+```
+
+**Good:** Constrained types
+```typescript
+type EmailAddress = EmailAddress & { __brand: "EmailAddress" };
+type Age = Age & { __brand: "Age" };
+
+function createEmailAddress(s: string): Result<EmailAddress, ValidationError> {
+  if (isValidEmail(s)) return Ok(s as EmailAddress);
+  return Err({ error: "Invalid email format" });
+}
+
+function createAge(n: number): Result<Age, ValidationError> {
+  if (n >= 0 && n <= 150) return Ok(n as Age);
+  return Err({ error: "Age must be between 0 and 150" });
+}
+
+function createUser(email: EmailAddress, age: Age) { ... }
+// Can only pass validated values!
+```
+
+### Single Case Unions (Wrapper Types)
+
+Use wrapper types to give semantic meaning to primitives:
+
+```typescript
+type CustomerId = { readonly value: string };
+type ProductId = { readonly value: string };
+type OrderId = { readonly value: string };
+
+// Now cannot confuse these:
+function getCustomer(id: CustomerId): Customer { ... }
+// getCustomer(productId) // Type error!
+```
+
+**Benefits:**
+- Type safety
+- Self-documenting code
+- Cannot confuse similar primitives
+- Compiler catches errors
+
+### Exhaustive Pattern Matching
+
+Use discriminated unions and let the compiler ensure you handle all cases:
+
+```typescript
+type PaymentMethod =
+  | { type: "CreditCard"; cardNumber: string; cvv: string }
+  | { type: "PayPal"; email: EmailAddress }
+  | { type: "BankTransfer"; accountNumber: string; routingNumber: string };
+
+function processPayment(method: PaymentMethod): Result<Receipt, PaymentError> {
+  switch (method.type) {
+    case "CreditCard":
+      return processCreditCard(method.cardNumber, method.cvv);
+    case "PayPal":
+      return processPayPal(method.email);
+    case "BankTransfer":
+      return processBankTransfer(method.accountNumber, method.routingNumber);
+    // If we add a new payment method, compiler will error here
+  }
+}
+```
+
+### States and Transitions
+
+Model entity states explicitly, not as flags:
+
+**Bad:**
+```typescript
+type Order = {
+  isPaid: boolean;
+  isShipped: boolean;
+  isCancelled: boolean;
+  // Can be paid and cancelled? Shipped but not paid?
+}
+```
+
+**Good:**
+```typescript
+type Order =
+  | { state: "Unpaid"; items: OrderLine[] }
+  | { state: "Paid"; items: OrderLine[]; paidAt: Date; paymentMethod: PaymentMethod }
+  | { state: "Shipped"; items: OrderLine[]; paidAt: Date; shippedAt: Date; trackingNumber: string }
+  | { state: "Cancelled"; reason: string };
+```
+
+Now impossible to be in multiple states or to be shipped without being paid.
+
+## Railway-Oriented Programming
+
+### The Problem
+
+Functions that can fail complicate the happy path:
+
+```typescript
+function placeOrder(unvalidatedOrder: UnvalidatedOrder) {
+  const validatedOrder = validateOrder(unvalidatedOrder);
+  if (validatedOrder.isError) return validatedOrder.error;
+
+  const pricedOrder = priceOrder(validatedOrder.value);
+  if (pricedOrder.isError) return pricedOrder.error;
+
+  const placedOrder = saveOrder(pricedOrder.value);
+  if (placedOrder.isError) return placedOrder.error;
+
+  return placedOrder.value;
+}
+```
+
+**Problem:** Error handling obscures the happy path.
+
+### Result Type
+
+Model success and failure explicitly:
+
+```typescript
+type Result<T, E> =
+  | { ok: true; value: T }
+  | { ok: false; error: E };
+```
+
+### Chaining with bind/flatMap
+
+Chain operations that return Results:
+
+```typescript
+function placeOrder(unvalidatedOrder: UnvalidatedOrder): Result<PlacedOrder, OrderError> {
+  return validateOrder(unvalidatedOrder)
+    .flatMap(priceOrder)
+    .flatMap(saveOrder);
+}
+```
+
+**The Railway Metaphor:**
+- Two tracks: Success and Failure
+- Functions switch from success to failure track on error
+- Once on failure track, stay on failure track
+- Clear separation: happy path is just composition
+
+### Combining Results
+
+When you need multiple independent validations:
+
+```typescript
+function createUser(
+  emailStr: string,
+  ageNum: number,
+  nameStr: string
+): Result<User, ValidationErrors> {
+  const email = createEmail(emailStr);
+  const age = createAge(ageNum);
+  const name = createName(nameStr);
+
+  // Collect all errors, not just first
+  return combineResults([email, age, name], (email, age, name) => ({
+    email,
+    age,
+    name
+  }));
+}
+```
+
+### Handling Errors at Boundaries
+
+Keep the domain pure; handle effects at edges:
+
+**Inside domain (pure):**
+```typescript
+function validateOrder(order: UnvalidatedOrder): Result<ValidatedOrder, ValidationError> {
+  // Pure validation logic, no IO
+}
+```
+
+**At boundary (effects):**
+```typescript
+async function handleOrderRequest(req: Request): Promise<Response> {
+  const result = validateOrder(req.body)
+    .flatMap(priceOrder)
+    .flatMap(saveOrder);  // IO happens here
+
+  if (result.ok) {
+    return { status: 200, body: result.value };
+  } else {
+    return { status: 400, body: { error: result.error } };
+  }
+}
+```
+
+## Designing with Types
+
+### Start with the Types
+
+Before writing any implementation:
+
+1. **Define the types** that represent domain concepts
+2. **Define the function signatures** (inputs and outputs)
+3. **Implement the functions** (fill in the logic)
+
+**Benefits:**
+- Types guide implementation
+- Types serve as documentation
+- Types catch mismatches early
+- Refactoring is safer
+
+### Example: Designing a Discount System
+
+**Step 1: Define domain types**
+```typescript
+type Product = { id: ProductId; price: Money; category: Category };
+type Customer = { id: CustomerId; membershipLevel: MembershipLevel };
+type Category = "Electronics" | "Clothing" | "Books";
+type MembershipLevel = "Bronze" | "Silver" | "Gold";
+
+type DiscountRule =
+  | { type: "Percentage"; percentage: number }
+  | { type: "FixedAmount"; amount: Money }
+  | { type: "BuyXGetY"; buyQuantity: number; getQuantity: number };
+
+type Discount = {
+  rule: DiscountRule;
+  applicableTo: Category[];
+  minimumMembershipLevel: MembershipLevel | null;
+};
+```
+
+**Step 2: Define function signatures**
+```typescript
+function calculateDiscount(
+  product: Product,
+  quantity: number,
+  customer: Customer,
+  discounts: Discount[]
+): Money;
+
+function findApplicableDiscounts(
+  product: Product,
+  customer: Customer,
+  discounts: Discount[]
+): Discount[];
+
+function applyDiscount(
+  price: Money,
+  quantity: number,
+  discount: Discount
+): Money;
+```
+
+**Step 3: Implement** (signatures guide what's needed)
+
+### Use Types to Model Business Rules
+
+Encode business rules in types:
+
+**Rule:** "An order must have at least one item"
+
+```typescript
+type NonEmptyList<T> = {
+  head: T;
+  tail: T[];
+};
+
+type Order = {
+  id: OrderId;
+  items: NonEmptyList<OrderLine>;  // Cannot be empty!
+};
+```
+
+**Rule:** "Refunds require a reason if amount exceeds $100"
+
+```typescript
+type Refund =
+  | { amount: Money; reason: null }  // reason not needed
+  | { amount: Money; reason: string };  // reason required
+
+// Factory function enforces rule:
+function createRefund(amount: Money, reason: string | null): Refund {
+  if (amount.value > 100 && reason === null) {
+    throw new Error("Refund over $100 requires a reason");
+  }
+  return { amount, reason };
+}
+```
+
+## Functional Architecture Patterns
+
+### Onion/Hexagonal Architecture
+
+**Layers (inside-out):**
+1. **Domain** - Pure business logic, no dependencies
+2. **Application** - Workflows, orchestration, still pure
+3. **Infrastructure** - IO, databases, external services
+
+**Dependency Rule:** Outer layers depend on inner layers, never reverse.
+
+**Domain Layer:**
+- Pure functions
+- Domain types
+- Business rules
+- No IO, no frameworks
+
+**Application Layer:**
+- Composes domain functions into workflows
+- Still mostly pure
+- Defines interfaces (ports) for infrastructure
+
+**Infrastructure Layer:**
+- Implements ports (adapters)
+- Handles IO (database, HTTP, file system)
+- Deals with frameworks and libraries
+
+### Dependency Injection via Function Parameters
+
+Pass dependencies as function parameters:
+
+```typescript
+// Domain function defines what it needs
+function placeOrder(
+  validateAddress: (address: Address) => Result<ValidatedAddress, ValidationError>,
+  checkInventory: (productId: ProductId) => Promise<boolean>,
+  saveOrder: (order: Order) => Promise<Result<void, DbError>>,
+  order: UnvalidatedOrder
+): Promise<Result<OrderPlaced, OrderError>> {
+  // Implementation uses provided functions
+}
+
+// At composition root, provide implementations:
+const result = await placeOrder(
+  addressValidator.validate,
+  inventory.check,
+  orderRepository.save,
+  incomingOrder
+);
+```
+
+**Benefits:**
+- No hidden dependencies
+- Easy to test (pass mock functions)
+- Explicit about requirements
+- No magic or DI container
+
+### Command/Query Separation
+
+**Commands:** Change state, return void or Result<void, Error>
+- `placeOrder(order): Result<void, OrderError>`
+- `cancelSubscription(id): Result<void, CancellationError>`
+- `updateProfile(profile): Result<void, ValidationError>`
+
+**Queries:** Read state, return data, never change state
+- `getOrder(id): Option<Order>`
+- `findCustomersByEmail(email): Customer[]`
+- `getTotalRevenue(): Money`
+
+**Benefits:**
+- Clear separation of reads and writes
+- Easier to optimize (cache queries)
+- Easier to reason about (commands have effects, queries don't)
+
+### Event Sourcing Pattern
+
+Instead of storing current state, store sequence of events:
+
+```typescript
+type OrderEvent =
+  | { type: "OrderPlaced"; orderId: OrderId; items: OrderLine[]; at: Timestamp }
+  | { type: "OrderPaid"; orderId: OrderId; amount: Money; at: Timestamp }
+  | { type: "OrderShipped"; orderId: OrderId; trackingNumber: string; at: Timestamp }
+  | { type: "OrderCancelled"; orderId: OrderId; reason: string; at: Timestamp };
+
+function applyEvent(state: Order | null, event: OrderEvent): Order {
+  switch (event.type) {
+    case "OrderPlaced":
+      return { id: event.orderId, items: event.items, status: "Placed" };
+    case "OrderPaid":
+      return { ...state!, status: "Paid" };
+    case "OrderShipped":
+      return { ...state!, status: "Shipped", trackingNumber: event.trackingNumber };
+    case "OrderCancelled":
+      return { ...state!, status: "Cancelled", reason: event.reason };
+  }
+}
+
+function reconstruct(events: OrderEvent[]): Order {
+  return events.reduce(applyEvent, null)!;
+}
+```
+
+**Benefits:**
+- Complete history
+- Audit trail
+- Can replay to any point in time
+- Events are facts (immutable)
+
+## Practical Patterns
+
+### Option Type for Missing Values
+
+Don't use null/undefined for domain concepts:
+
+```typescript
+type Option<T> = { some: true; value: T } | { some: false };
+
+function findCustomer(id: CustomerId): Option<Customer> {
+  // ...
+}
+
+// Forces handling:
+const result = findCustomer(customerId);
+if (result.some) {
+  console.log(result.value.name);
+} else {
+  console.log("Customer not found");
+}
+```
+
+### Newtype Pattern for Type Safety
+
+Create distinct types from same underlying representation:
+
+```typescript
+type UserId = string & { __brand: "UserId" };
+type ProductId = string & { __brand: "ProductId" };
+type OrderId = string & { __brand: "OrderId" };
+
+// Can't mix up IDs:
+function getUser(id: UserId): User { ... }
+const productId: ProductId = ...;
+// getUser(productId); // Type error!
+```
+
+### Builder Pattern for Complex Construction
+
+For complex objects with many fields:
+
+```typescript
+class OrderBuilder {
+  private order: Partial<Order> = {};
+
+  withCustomer(id: CustomerId): this {
+    this.order.customerId = id;
+    return this;
+  }
+
+  addItem(item: OrderLine): this {
+    this.order.items = [...(this.order.items || []), item];
+    return this;
+  }
+
+  build(): Result<Order, ValidationError> {
+    if (!this.order.customerId) return Err({ error: "Customer required" });
+    if (!this.order.items?.length) return Err({ error: "Items required" });
+    // ... validate all required fields present
+    return Ok(this.order as Order);
+  }
+}
+
+const result = new OrderBuilder()
+  .withCustomer(customerId)
+  .addItem(item1)
+  .addItem(item2)
+  .build();
+```
+
+### Active Pattern / Parser Pattern
+
+Transform external data into domain types:
+
+```typescript
+function parseOrderRequest(json: unknown): Result<UnvalidatedOrder, ParseError> {
+  // Parse and validate structure
+  if (!isObject(json)) return Err({ error: "Expected object" });
+  if (!hasProperty(json, "items")) return Err({ error: "Missing items" });
+  // ... more parsing
+  return Ok({ items: json.items, customerId: json.customerId });
+}
+
+function handleRequest(req: Request): Response {
+  return parseOrderRequest(req.body)
+    .flatMap(validateOrder)
+    .flatMap(placeOrder)
+    .match(
+      success => ({ status: 200, body: success }),
+      error => ({ status: 400, body: { error } })
+    );
+}
+```
+
+## Domain Modeling Recipes
+
+### Recipe: Modeling a Workflow
+
+1. **Name the workflow** using ubiquitous language
+2. **Define the input** (unvalidated/raw data)
+3. **Define the output** (result of successful execution)
+4. **Define errors** (what can go wrong)
+5. **Break into steps** (validation, execution, persistence)
+6. **Type each intermediate state**
+7. **Implement as pipeline**
+
+### Recipe: Modeling State Transitions
+
+1. **List all possible states**
+2. **For each state, determine what data is available**
+3. **Create a discriminated union type**
+4. **Define transition functions** (State → Event → Result<State, Error>)
+5. **Ensure illegal transitions are unrepresentable**
+
+### Recipe: Modeling Optional Fields
+
+1. **Ask: Is this really optional in all cases?**
+2. **If optional in all cases:** Use Option type
+3. **If required in some states, optional in others:** Use discriminated union with separate states
+4. **Never** use null/undefined for domain optionality
+
+### Recipe: Modeling Business Rules
+
+1. **Express rule in English**
+2. **Identify what makes the rule satisfied**
+3. **Use types to enforce:** Constrained types, discriminated unions, or validation functions
+4. **Make it impossible to violate:** Better in types than in runtime checks
+
+## Key Takeaways
+
+1. **Use types to make illegal states unrepresentable**
+2. **Model workflows as pipelines of data transformations**
+3. **Use Result types for operations that can fail**
+4. **Keep domain pure, handle effects at boundaries**
+5. **Design with types first, implementation second**
+6. **Use wrapper types to add semantic meaning**
+7. **Separate commands (writes) from queries (reads)**
+8. **Model events as immutable facts**
+9. **Use Option type instead of null/undefined**
+10. **Let the compiler be your friend - exhaustive pattern matching**
+
+When domain modeling, continuously ask:
+- What illegal states can I eliminate?
+- What can go wrong here?
+- Is this type signature telling the truth?
+- Can I make this constraint explicit in the type?
+- What's the simplest type that captures this domain concept?