114 lines
5.7 KiB
Markdown
114 lines
5.7 KiB
Markdown
|
|
# Requirements Document
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Introduction
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
This document outlines the requirements for refactoring the customer portal codebase to eliminate redundancies, improve maintainability, and create a modern, optimal structure. The current codebase has significant structural issues including duplicate components, inconsistent patterns, scattered business logic, and poor separation of concerns.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Requirements
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Requirement 1
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
**User Story:** As a developer, I want a clean component architecture, so that I can easily maintain and extend the codebase without duplicating functionality.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
#### Acceptance Criteria
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1. WHEN components are created THEN they SHALL follow a consistent atomic design pattern (atoms, molecules, organisms)
|
||
|
|
2. WHEN UI components are needed THEN they SHALL be reused from a centralized design system
|
||
|
|
3. WHEN business logic is implemented THEN it SHALL be separated from presentation components
|
||
|
|
4. WHEN similar functionality exists THEN it SHALL be consolidated into reusable components
|
||
|
|
5. IF a component handles both UI and business logic THEN it SHALL be split into separate concerns
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Requirement 2
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
**User Story:** As a developer, I want consistent page layouts and routing patterns, so that the application has a predictable structure and user experience.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
#### Acceptance Criteria
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1. WHEN pages are created THEN they SHALL use standardized layout components
|
||
|
|
2. WHEN routing is implemented THEN it SHALL follow consistent naming conventions
|
||
|
|
3. WHEN page components are built THEN they SHALL separate data fetching from presentation
|
||
|
|
4. WHEN similar pages exist THEN they SHALL share common layout and behavior patterns
|
||
|
|
5. IF pages have duplicate functionality THEN they SHALL be consolidated or abstracted
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Requirement 3
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
**User Story:** As a developer, I want centralized state management and data fetching, so that application state is predictable and API calls are optimized.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
#### Acceptance Criteria
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1. WHEN data is fetched THEN it SHALL use centralized API services
|
||
|
|
2. WHEN state is managed THEN it SHALL follow consistent patterns across the application
|
||
|
|
3. WHEN API calls are made THEN they SHALL be cached and optimized to prevent redundant requests
|
||
|
|
4. WHEN business logic is implemented THEN it SHALL be encapsulated in service layers
|
||
|
|
5. IF duplicate API calls exist THEN they SHALL be consolidated into shared hooks or services
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Requirement 4
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
**User Story:** As a developer, I want a modular feature-based architecture, so that related functionality is grouped together and easily maintainable.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
#### Acceptance Criteria
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1. WHEN features are implemented THEN they SHALL be organized in self-contained modules
|
||
|
|
2. WHEN components belong to a feature THEN they SHALL be co-located with related business logic
|
||
|
|
3. WHEN shared functionality is needed THEN it SHALL be extracted to common utilities
|
||
|
|
4. WHEN features interact THEN they SHALL use well-defined interfaces
|
||
|
|
5. IF feature boundaries are unclear THEN they SHALL be clearly defined and documented
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Requirement 5
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
**User Story:** As a developer, I want consistent TypeScript types and interfaces, so that the codebase is type-safe and self-documenting.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
#### Acceptance Criteria
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1. WHEN types are defined THEN they SHALL be centralized and reusable
|
||
|
|
2. WHEN API responses are handled THEN they SHALL have corresponding TypeScript interfaces
|
||
|
|
3. WHEN components accept props THEN they SHALL have properly typed interfaces
|
||
|
|
4. WHEN business entities are used THEN they SHALL have consistent type definitions
|
||
|
|
5. IF duplicate types exist THEN they SHALL be consolidated into shared type definitions
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Requirement 6
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
**User Story:** As a developer, I want optimized build performance and bundle size, so that the application loads quickly and development is efficient.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
#### Acceptance Criteria
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1. WHEN components are imported THEN they SHALL support tree-shaking and code splitting
|
||
|
|
2. WHEN dependencies are added THEN they SHALL be evaluated for bundle size impact
|
||
|
|
3. WHEN code is bundled THEN it SHALL be optimized for production deployment
|
||
|
|
4. WHEN development builds run THEN they SHALL have fast hot-reload capabilities
|
||
|
|
5. IF unused code exists THEN it SHALL be identified and removed
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Requirement 7
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
**User Story:** As a developer, I want consistent styling and theming, so that the UI is cohesive and maintainable.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
#### Acceptance Criteria
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1. WHEN styles are applied THEN they SHALL use a consistent design token system
|
||
|
|
2. WHEN components are styled THEN they SHALL follow established design patterns
|
||
|
|
3. WHEN themes are implemented THEN they SHALL be centrally managed
|
||
|
|
4. WHEN CSS is written THEN it SHALL follow naming conventions and be scoped appropriately
|
||
|
|
5. IF duplicate styles exist THEN they SHALL be consolidated into reusable classes or components
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Requirement 8
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
**User Story:** As a developer, I want improved testing capabilities, so that the codebase is reliable and regressions are prevented.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
#### Acceptance Criteria
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1. WHEN components are created THEN they SHALL be designed for testability
|
||
|
|
2. WHEN business logic is implemented THEN it SHALL be unit testable
|
||
|
|
3. WHEN API integrations are built THEN they SHALL be mockable for testing
|
||
|
|
4. WHEN user interactions are implemented THEN they SHALL be integration testable
|
||
|
|
5. IF testing utilities are needed THEN they SHALL be centralized and reusable
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Requirement 9
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
**User Story:** As a developer, I want the existing business logic to be intact and the core business logics should not be changed
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
#### Acceptance Criteria
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1. WHEN redisning or refactoring always check the existing implementation and do not miss out on their business logic
|
||
|
|
2. WHEN business logic is implemented THEN it SHALL follow a similar way to the original logic
|
||
|
|
3. WHEN API integrations are built THEN they SHALL follow our business logic
|