contacts management proposal

[DmyMi]

Note

This is only a part for changes for approach review

• Implemented contacts owned entity using the following relationship.

---
title: Contacts
---
erDiagram

    WORKSHOP ||--|{ CONTACT : "owns many"
    CONTACT ||--|| ADDRESS : "owns one"
    CONTACT ||--|{ PHONE : "owns many"
    CONTACT ||--|{ EMAIL : "owns many"
    CONTACT ||--|{ SOCIALLINK : "owns many"

    WORKSHOP {
        long Id
        string Name
    }

    CONTACT {
        long Id
        string Title
    }

    ADDRESS {
        long Id
        string Street
        string BuildingNumber
    }

    PHONE {
        long Id
        string Number
        string Type
    }

    EMAIL {
        long Id
        string Address
        string Type
    }

    SOCIALLINK {
        long Id
        string Url
        string Type
    }

Loading

• Created a separate service (composition over inheritance) to manage contacts. Strongly typed on both sides using interfaces to make sure we are mapping contacts from same entity-dto combo (as we will have multiple entities onwing contacts). Using a generic approach to instantiate it.
• As entities are owned - no need to explicitly save them or manage with repository.

Question: Current approach does not expose Ids and uses content comparison. It might lead to deletion and creation of new records in db, e.g., change one letter in email => delete old record and create new. If it's ok - we can leave it as it is simpler than managing Ids.

[VadymLevkovskyi]

No checks for duplicates

[VadymLevkovskyi]

Shouldn't it be part of ChangeTeachers

[VadymLevkovskyi]

Still not done - was it missed or were there any reasons?

[DmyMi]

@VadymLevkovskyi Teachers are not related to contacts, as we're providing contacts of the workshop itself, not its teachers. Also later teachers will be completely changed to new employees, so instead of adding teachers as value objects they are going to be completely separate and indepentent entity.

[VadymLevkovskyi]

Commented a bit. Mainly about naming and stricter typing

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate failed

Failed conditions
48.3% Coverage on New Code (required ≥ 80%)

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud