Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

#1: implement layer dependency violations #14

Open
wants to merge 23 commits into
base: violations/layer
Choose a base branch
from
Open

#1: implement layer dependency violations #14

wants to merge 23 commits into from

Conversation

vlad961
Copy link
Contributor

@vlad961 vlad961 commented Jan 28, 2023

DO NOT MERGE.
This fork branch contains classes demonstrating archunit layer dependency rules violations.

#1
#8
#13

vlad961 added 13 commits January 27, 2023 09:29
@vlad961
Violation of L9-Logic layer doesnt dep. on service
f65d4db
@vlad961
Violation of L1 - Common Layer doesnt depend
eb4b245 
on any other layer.
@vlad961
Added sample client.
ffbca63 
Removed rules from ArchitectureTest.java.
Because they were too restrictive.
Violation of L2 - Client layer doesnt depend
on any other layer.
@vlad961
Violationf of L3.
87a4880 
Client Layer doesnt depend on logic layer.
@vlad961
Violation of L4.
2826baa 
Client Layer doesnt depend on dataaccess layer.
@vlad961
Refactored L9Violation class name for consistency.
fc1152f 
Added Violation of L8.
Service layer doesnt depend on dataaccess layer.
@vlad961
Violation of L10.
8b0138a 
Dataaccess layer doesnt depend on service layer.
@vlad961
Refactored L10: Added comment.
b6a6e8c 
Added Violation of L12.
Dataaccess layer doesnt depend on logic layer.
@vlad961
Added sample import script.
264cd90 
Added sample tasklist and taskitem dump file.
@vlad961
Violation of L5.
8314815 
Client layer doesnt depend on batch layer.
@vlad961
Violation of L6.
3e3394c 
Service layer doesnt depend on batch layer.
@vlad961
Violation of L7.
7ffb53c 
Batch layer doesnt depend on service layer.
@vlad961
Violation of L11.
1c8c079 
Batch layer doesnt depend on dataaccess layer.
@hohwille hohwille marked this pull request as draft January 30, 2023 09:42
@vlad961
Deleted redundant layer rules check.
d37e643 
LayerDependencyRulesTest.java includes all necessary tests.
@vlad961
Adjusted ArchitectureTest.java.
cd26c1b 
Deleted LayerDependencyRulesTest.java.
Refactored L2Violation and moved into service layer.
Refactored TaskService and L9Violation to resemble to other Violations.
@vlad961 vlad961 mentioned this pull request Jan 31, 2023
Merged
@vlad961
Adjusted layer rules.
e781fa9 
They equal those of add-layer-rules branch now.
@hohwille hohwille changed the title Issue/8 implement layer dependency violations #8: implement layer dependency violations Feb 7, 2023
@hohwille hohwille changed the title #8: implement layer dependency violations #1: implement layer dependency violations Feb 7, 2023
@hohwille
Copy link
Contributor

hohwille commented Feb 7, 2023

@vlad961 thanks for this demo PR. Very nice demonstration with good naming of «RuleId»Violation«Source»LayerDependsOn«Target»Layer resulting in readable violation output:

because Dependency of technical layers violates architecture rules.' was violated (12 times):
Field <com.devonfw.sample.archunit.batch.L11ViolationBatchLayerDependsOnDataaccessLayer.taskItemRepository> has type <com.devonfw.sample.archunit.task.dataaccess.TaskItemRepository> in (L11ViolationBatchLayerDependsOnDataaccessLayer.java:0)
Field <com.devonfw.sample.archunit.batch.L7ViolationBatchLayerDependsOnServiceLayer.taskService> has type <com.devonfw.sample.archunit.task.service.TaskService> in (L7ViolationBatchLayerDependsOnServiceLayer.java:0)
Field <com.devonfw.sample.archunit.client.L3ViolationClientLayerDependsOnLogicLayer.taskItemMapper> has type <com.devonfw.sample.archunit.task.logic.TaskItemMapper> in (L3ViolationClientLayerDependsOnLogicLayer.java:0)
Field <com.devonfw.sample.archunit.client.L4ViolationClientLayerDependsOnDataaccessLayer.taskItemRepository> has type <com.devonfw.sample.archunit.task.dataaccess.TaskItemRepository> in (L4ViolationClientLayerDependsOnDataaccessLayer.java:0)
Field <com.devonfw.sample.archunit.client.L5ViolationClientLayerDependsOnBatchLayer.taskImport> has type <com.devonfw.sample.archunit.batch.SampleTaskImport> in (L5ViolationClientLayerDependsOnBatchLayer.java:0)
Field <com.devonfw.sample.archunit.task.common.L1ViolationCommonLayerDependsOnOtherLayer.taskItemMapper> has type <com.devonfw.sample.archunit.task.logic.TaskItemMapper> in (L1ViolationCommonLayerDependsOnOtherLayer.java:0)
Field <com.devonfw.sample.archunit.task.dataaccess.L10ViolationDataaccessLayerDependsOnServiceLayer.taskService> has type <com.devonfw.sample.archunit.task.service.TaskService> in (L10ViolationDataaccessLayerDependsOnServiceLayer.java:0)
Field <com.devonfw.sample.archunit.task.dataaccess.L12ViolationDataaccessLayerDependsOnLogicLayer.taskItemMapper> has type <com.devonfw.sample.archunit.task.logic.TaskItemMapper> in (L12ViolationDataaccessLayerDependsOnLogicLayer.java:0)
Field <com.devonfw.sample.archunit.task.logic.L9ViolationLogicLayerDependsOnServiceLayer.taskService> has type <com.devonfw.sample.archunit.task.service.TaskService> in (L9ViolationLogicLayerDependsOnServiceLayer.java:0)
Field <com.devonfw.sample.archunit.task.service.L2ViolationNoLayerOtherThanClientDependsOnClientLayer.sampleClient> has type <com.devonfw.sample.archunit.client.SampleClient> in (L2ViolationNoLayerOtherThanClientDependsOnClientLayer.java:0)
Field <com.devonfw.sample.archunit.task.service.L6ViolationServiceLayerDependsOnBatchLayer.sampleTaskImport> has type <com.devonfw.sample.archunit.batch.SampleTaskImport> in (L6ViolationServiceLayerDependsOnBatchLayer.java:0)
Field <com.devonfw.sample.archunit.task.service.L8ViolationServiceLayerDependsOnDataaccessLayer.taskItemRepository> has type <com.devonfw.sample.archunit.task.dataaccess.TaskItemRepository> in (L8ViolationServiceLayerDependsOnDataaccessLayer.java:0)

vlad961 and others added 3 commits February 8, 2023 10:30
@hohwille hohwille changed the base branch from master to violations/layer April 25, 2023 06:01
@hohwille hohwille marked this pull request as ready for review April 25, 2023 06:02
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@vlad961 @hohwille