mirror of
https://github.com/SamyRai/turash.git
synced 2025-12-26 23:01:33 +00:00
Repository Structure:
- Move files from cluttered root directory into organized structure
- Create archive/ for archived data and scraper results
- Create bugulma/ for the complete application (frontend + backend)
- Create data/ for sample datasets and reference materials
- Create docs/ for comprehensive documentation structure
- Create scripts/ for utility scripts and API tools
Backend Implementation:
- Implement 3 missing backend endpoints identified in gap analysis:
* GET /api/v1/organizations/{id}/matching/direct - Direct symbiosis matches
* GET /api/v1/users/me/organizations - User organizations
* POST /api/v1/proposals/{id}/status - Update proposal status
- Add complete proposal domain model, repository, and service layers
- Create database migration for proposals table
- Fix CLI server command registration issue
API Documentation:
- Add comprehensive proposals.md API documentation
- Update README.md with Users and Proposals API sections
- Document all request/response formats, error codes, and business rules
Code Quality:
- Follow existing Go backend architecture patterns
- Add proper error handling and validation
- Match frontend expected response schemas
- Maintain clean separation of concerns (handler -> service -> repository)
290 lines
12 KiB
Markdown
290 lines
12 KiB
Markdown
## 9. Technical Architecture & Implementation
|
|
|
|
### Architecture Decision Records (ADRs)
|
|
|
|
**Recommendation**: Adopt Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) using the MADR (Markdown Architectural Decision Records) template format.
|
|
|
|
**Implementation**:
|
|
- Create `docs/adr/` directory structure
|
|
- Document each major architectural decision in separate ADR files
|
|
- Each ADR should include:
|
|
- **Status**: Proposed | Accepted | Deprecated | Superseded
|
|
- **Context**: Problem statement
|
|
- **Decision**: What was decided
|
|
- **Consequences**: Pros and cons
|
|
- **Alternatives Considered**: Other options evaluated
|
|
- **Rationale**: Reasoning behind the decision
|
|
- **Date**: When decision was made
|
|
|
|
**Example ADR Topics**:
|
|
1. Graph database selection (Neo4j vs ArangoDB vs Memgraph vs TigerGraph)
|
|
2. Go HTTP framework selection (Gin vs Fiber vs Echo vs net/http)
|
|
3. Event-driven vs request-response architecture
|
|
4. Multi-tenant data isolation strategy
|
|
5. Real-time vs batch matching engine
|
|
6. Microservices vs modular monolith
|
|
7. Go 1.25 experimental features adoption (JSON v2, GreenTea GC)
|
|
8. Frontend framework and architecture (React Server Components consideration)
|
|
9. **Message Queue Selection (MVP)**: NATS vs Redis Streams vs Kafka
|
|
10. **Open Standards Integration**: NGSI-LD API adoption for smart city interoperability
|
|
11. **Knowledge Graph Integration**: Phase 2 priority for semantic matching
|
|
12. **Layered Architecture Pattern**: Device/Edge → Ingestion → Analytics → Application → Governance
|
|
|
|
### Event-Driven Architecture (EDA)
|
|
|
|
**Recommendation**: Adopt event-driven architecture with CQRS (Command Query Responsibility Segregation) for the matching engine.
|
|
|
|
**Rationale**:
|
|
- Graph updates and match computations are inherently asynchronous
|
|
- Real-time matching requires event-driven updates
|
|
- Scalability: decouple matching computation from data ingestion
|
|
- Resilience: event sourcing provides audit trail and replay capability
|
|
|
|
**Implementation** (Phased Approach):
|
|
```
|
|
MVP Phase:
|
|
Data Ingestion → NATS/Redis Streams → Event Processors → Graph Updates → Match Computation → Match Results Cache
|
|
|
|
Scale Phase (1000+ businesses):
|
|
Data Ingestion → Kafka → Event Processors → Graph Updates → Match Computation → Match Results Cache
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**Components**:
|
|
- **Event Store (MVP)**: NATS or Redis Streams for event types (ResourceFlowCreated, SiteUpdated, MatchComputed)
|
|
- **NATS**: Go-native messaging (`nats.go`), 60-70% complexity reduction vs Kafka
|
|
- **Redis Streams**: Simple pub/sub, suitable for initial real-time features
|
|
- Use `github.com/nats-io/nats.go` or `github.com/redis/go-redis/v9` for Go clients
|
|
- **Event Store (Scale)**: Kafka topics for high-throughput scenarios
|
|
- Use `confluent-kafka-go` or `shopify/sarama` for Go clients
|
|
- Migration path: NATS/Redis Streams → Kafka at 1000+ business scale
|
|
- **Command Handlers**: Process write operations (create/update ResourceFlow)
|
|
- Go HTTP handlers with context support
|
|
- Transaction management with Neo4j driver
|
|
- **Query Handlers**: Serve read operations (get matches, retrieve graph data)
|
|
- Read models cached in Redis
|
|
- Graph queries using Neo4j Go driver
|
|
- **Event Handlers**: React to events (recompute matches when resource flows change)
|
|
- NATS subscribers or Redis Streams consumers with Go workers
|
|
- Channel-based event processing
|
|
- **Migration**: Upgrade to Kafka consumer groups at scale
|
|
|
|
**Benefits**:
|
|
- Horizontal scalability for matching computation
|
|
- Better separation of concerns
|
|
- Event sourcing provides complete audit trail
|
|
- Can replay events for debugging or recovery
|
|
|
|
### Caching Strategy
|
|
|
|
**Recommendation**: Implement multi-tier caching strategy.
|
|
|
|
**Layers**:
|
|
1. **Application-level cache** (Redis):
|
|
- Match results (TTL: 5-15 minutes based on data volatility)
|
|
- Graph metadata (businesses, sites)
|
|
- Economic calculations
|
|
- Geospatial indexes
|
|
|
|
2. **CDN cache** (CloudFront/Cloudflare):
|
|
- Static frontend assets
|
|
- Public API responses (non-sensitive match summaries)
|
|
|
|
3. **Graph query cache** (Neo4j query cache):
|
|
- Frequently executed Cypher queries
|
|
- Common traversal patterns
|
|
|
|
**Cache Invalidation Strategy**:
|
|
- Event-driven invalidation on ResourceFlow updates
|
|
- Time-based TTL for match results
|
|
- Cache warming for popular queries
|
|
|
|
### Real-Time Matching Architecture
|
|
|
|
**Recommendation**: Implement incremental matching with streaming updates.
|
|
|
|
**Architecture**:
|
|
```
|
|
ResourceFlow Change Event → Stream Processor → Graph Delta Update → Incremental Match Computation → WebSocket Notification
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**Components**:
|
|
- **Stream Processor (MVP)**: NATS subscribers or Redis Streams consumers
|
|
- Go-native event processing with goroutines
|
|
- Channel-based message processing
|
|
- **Scale**: Migrate to Kafka consumer groups at 1000+ business scale
|
|
- **Graph Delta Updates**: Only recompute affected subgraphs
|
|
- **Incremental Matching**: Update matches only for changed resource flows
|
|
- Use Go channels for match result pipelines
|
|
- **WebSocket Server**: Push match updates to connected clients
|
|
- Use `gorilla/websocket` or `nhooyr.io/websocket`
|
|
- Goroutine per connection model (Go's strength)
|
|
|
|
**Optimization**:
|
|
- Batch small updates (debounce window: 30-60 seconds)
|
|
- Prioritize high-value matches for immediate computation
|
|
- Use background jobs for full graph re-computation (nightly)
|
|
|
|
### Query Optimization
|
|
|
|
**Recommendations**:
|
|
|
|
1. **Materialized Views**:
|
|
- Pre-compute common match combinations
|
|
- Refresh on ResourceFlow changes (event-driven)
|
|
|
|
2. **Query Result Caching**:
|
|
- Cache frequent queries (geographic area + resource type combinations)
|
|
- Invalidate on data changes
|
|
|
|
3. **Progressive Query Enhancement**:
|
|
- Return quick approximate results immediately
|
|
- Enhance with more details in background
|
|
- Notify user when enhanced results ready
|
|
|
|
4. **Database Connection Pooling**:
|
|
- Optimize connection pools for graph database
|
|
- Separate pools for read-heavy vs. write operations
|
|
|
|
### Layered Architecture Pattern
|
|
|
|
**Recommendation**: Adopt layered, modular architecture for scalability and maintainability.
|
|
|
|
**Architecture Layers**:
|
|
1. **Device/Edge Layer**: Local processing for IoT devices
|
|
- Data filtering and aggregation at edge
|
|
- Reduces bandwidth and improves latency
|
|
- Enables offline operation for field devices
|
|
|
|
2. **Ingestion & Context Layer**: Data normalization and routing
|
|
- Open APIs (NGSI-LD) or message buses (NATS/Redis Streams)
|
|
- Data normalization and validation
|
|
- Context information brokering
|
|
|
|
3. **Analytics/Service Layer**: Business logic and domain services
|
|
- Matching engine services
|
|
- Economic calculation services
|
|
- Domain services (traffic, energy, public safety)
|
|
|
|
4. **Application/Presentation Layer**: APIs and user interfaces
|
|
- REST APIs, GraphQL, WebSocket endpoints
|
|
- Frontend applications (React, Mapbox)
|
|
- Mobile PWA
|
|
|
|
5. **Governance/Security/Metadata Layer**: Cross-cutting concerns
|
|
- Identity management (OAuth2, JWT)
|
|
- Access control (RBAC)
|
|
- Audit logging and monitoring
|
|
- Data governance and versioning
|
|
|
|
**Benefits**:
|
|
- Enhanced flexibility and scalability
|
|
- Independent development and deployment of layers
|
|
- Better separation of concerns
|
|
- Easier integration with existing city systems
|
|
- Supports edge processing for IoT devices
|
|
|
|
**Implementation**:
|
|
- Modular microservices architecture
|
|
- Containerization (Docker, Kubernetes)
|
|
- Service mesh for inter-service communication (optional at scale)
|
|
|
|
### Knowledge Graph Integration
|
|
|
|
**Recommendation**: Plan knowledge graph capabilities for Phase 2 implementation.
|
|
|
|
**Market Opportunity**:
|
|
- Knowledge graph market growing at 36.6% CAGR (fastest-growing segment)
|
|
- Neo4j GraphRAG enables AI-enhanced querying and recommendation systems
|
|
- Semantic data integration improves match quality by 30-40% in similar platforms
|
|
|
|
**Implementation Phases**:
|
|
- **Phase 1**: Property graph model (already designed in data model)
|
|
- **Phase 2**: Enhance with knowledge graph capabilities for semantic matching
|
|
- Semantic relationships between resources
|
|
- Taxonomy integration (EWC, NACE codes)
|
|
- Process compatibility matrices
|
|
- **Phase 3**: Integrate GraphRAG for natural language querying and AI recommendations
|
|
- Neo4j GraphRAG for natural language queries
|
|
- AI-enhanced match recommendations
|
|
- Predictive matching capabilities
|
|
|
|
**Technical Benefits**:
|
|
- Improved match quality through semantic understanding
|
|
- Better resource categorization and classification
|
|
- Enhanced recommendation accuracy
|
|
- Competitive advantage through AI-enhanced matching
|
|
|
|
### Migration Strategies & Backward Compatibility
|
|
|
|
#### Data Migration Framework
|
|
|
|
**Database Migration Strategy**:
|
|
- **Schema Evolution**: Use Neo4j schema migration tools for graph structure changes
|
|
- **Data Transformation**: Implement transformation pipelines for data format changes
|
|
- **Zero-Downtime Migration**: Blue-green deployment with gradual data migration
|
|
- **Rollback Procedures**: Maintain backup snapshots for quick rollback capability
|
|
|
|
**Migration Phases**:
|
|
1. **Preparation**: Create migration scripts and test data transformation
|
|
2. **Validation**: Run migrations on staging environment with full dataset
|
|
3. **Execution**: Blue-green deployment with traffic switching
|
|
4. **Verification**: Automated tests verify data integrity post-migration
|
|
5. **Cleanup**: Remove old data structures after successful validation
|
|
|
|
#### API Versioning Strategy
|
|
|
|
**Semantic Versioning**:
|
|
- **Major Version (X.y.z)**: Breaking changes, new API endpoints
|
|
- **Minor Version (x.Y.z)**: New features, backward-compatible
|
|
- **Patch Version (x.y.Z)**: Bug fixes, no API changes
|
|
|
|
**API Evolution**:
|
|
- **Deprecation Headers**: Warn clients of deprecated endpoints
|
|
- **Sunset Periods**: 12-month deprecation period for breaking changes
|
|
- **Version Negotiation**: Accept-Version header for client-driven versioning
|
|
- **Documentation**: Version-specific API documentation and migration guides
|
|
|
|
#### Feature Flag Management
|
|
|
|
**Progressive Rollout**:
|
|
- **Percentage-Based**: Roll out features to X% of users
|
|
- **User-Segment Based**: Target specific user groups for testing
|
|
- **Geographic Rollout**: Roll out by region/country
|
|
- **Gradual Enablement**: Increase feature exposure over time
|
|
|
|
**Flag Management**:
|
|
- **Central Configuration**: Redis-backed feature flag service
|
|
- **Real-time Updates**: WebSocket notifications for feature changes
|
|
- **Audit Trail**: Track feature flag changes and user exposure
|
|
- **A/B Testing**: Integrate with experimentation framework
|
|
|
|
#### Rollback Procedures
|
|
|
|
**Automated Rollback**:
|
|
- **Health Checks**: Automated monitoring for service degradation
|
|
- **Threshold Triggers**: Automatic rollback on error rate thresholds
|
|
- **Manual Override**: Emergency rollback capability for critical issues
|
|
- **Gradual Rollback**: Percentage-based rollback to minimize user impact
|
|
|
|
**Data Rollback**:
|
|
- **Snapshot-Based**: Database snapshots for point-in-time recovery
|
|
- **Incremental Backup**: Continuous backup of critical data
|
|
- **Schema Rollback**: Automated schema reversion scripts
|
|
- **Data Validation**: Automated checks for data integrity post-rollback
|
|
|
|
#### Testing Strategy for Migrations
|
|
|
|
**Migration Testing**:
|
|
- **Unit Tests**: Test individual migration scripts
|
|
- **Integration Tests**: Test end-to-end migration workflows
|
|
- **Load Tests**: Test migration performance under load
|
|
- **Chaos Testing**: Test migration resilience to failures
|
|
|
|
**Compatibility Testing**:
|
|
- **Client Compatibility**: Test with various client versions
|
|
- **Data Compatibility**: Verify data transformations preserve integrity
|
|
- **Performance Compatibility**: Ensure migrations don't impact performance
|
|
- **Functional Compatibility**: Verify all features work post-migration
|
|
|
|
---
|