191 lines
5.3 KiB
Markdown
191 lines
5.3 KiB
Markdown
# Architecture Decision Records (ADRs)
|
|
|
|
Architecture Wiki: [https://wiki.byting-pandas.ninja/en/Projects/LUNA-Charts/Introduction]
|
|
|
|
## Purpose
|
|
|
|
This directory contains the **Architecture Decision Records (ADRs)** for the LUNA Charts project.
|
|
|
|
An Architecture Decision Record documents a significant architectural decision, the context in which it was made, the chosen solution, and its consequences.
|
|
|
|
The goal is to preserve the reasoning behind architectural decisions so that future contributors and maintainers understand **why** a decision was made—not only **what** was implemented.
|
|
|
|
ADRs complement the Architecture Development Method (ADM) documentation and serve as the primary record of architectural decisions throughout the project's lifecycle.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Architecture Documentation
|
|
|
|
The complete software architecture of LUNA Charts is documented in the official Architecture Wiki.
|
|
|
|
The wiki follows the **TOGAF Architecture Development Method (ADM)** and describes the project from the initial vision through implementation governance and long-term architecture evolution.
|
|
|
|
### Architecture Wiki
|
|
|
|
* Architecture Vision (Phase A)
|
|
* Business Architecture (Phase B)
|
|
* Information Systems Architecture (Phase C)
|
|
* Technology Architecture (Phase D)
|
|
* Opportunities & Solutions (Phase E)
|
|
* Migration Planning (Phase F)
|
|
* Implementation Governance (Phase G)
|
|
* Architecture Change Management (Phase H)
|
|
|
|
The ADRs contained in this directory should always be read together with the Architecture Wiki.
|
|
|
|
The wiki describes the architecture as a whole, whereas ADRs explain the reasoning behind individual architectural decisions.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Relationship to the Architecture Documentation
|
|
|
|
| Architecture Wiki | Architecture Decision Records |
|
|
| -------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
| Describes the complete software architecture | Documents individual architectural decisions |
|
|
| Defines the overall system structure | Explains why a specific solution was selected |
|
|
| Organized according to TOGAF ADM phases | Organized chronologically by architectural decision |
|
|
| Updated when the architecture evolves | Added whenever a significant decision is made |
|
|
|
|
ADRs do **not** replace the Architecture Wiki.
|
|
|
|
Likewise, the Architecture Wiki should not duplicate ADRs.
|
|
|
|
Instead, both artifacts complement each other.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## When to Create an ADR
|
|
|
|
An ADR should be created whenever a decision has a significant impact on the architecture of the project.
|
|
|
|
Typical examples include:
|
|
|
|
* Selecting a new technology
|
|
* Introducing or replacing an architectural pattern
|
|
* Changing the public API
|
|
* Introducing a new rendering strategy
|
|
* Changing accessibility principles
|
|
* Modifying the repository structure
|
|
* Changing release or governance processes
|
|
|
|
Small implementation details, bug fixes, refactorings, or coding style decisions do **not** require an ADR.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## ADR Lifecycle
|
|
|
|
Every ADR has one of the following statuses:
|
|
|
|
| Status | Description |
|
|
| ---------- | ------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
| Proposed | The decision is under discussion. |
|
|
| Accepted | The decision has been approved and adopted. |
|
|
| Deprecated | The decision is no longer recommended but still exists. |
|
|
| Superseded | The decision has been replaced by another ADR. |
|
|
| Discarded | The proposal was rejected. |
|
|
|
|
Only **Accepted** ADRs represent the current architecture.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## ADR Structure
|
|
|
|
Each ADR follows the same structure.
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
Title
|
|
|
|
Status
|
|
|
|
Context
|
|
|
|
Decision Drivers
|
|
|
|
Considered Alternatives
|
|
|
|
Decision
|
|
|
|
Rationale
|
|
|
|
Consequences
|
|
Positive
|
|
Negative
|
|
|
|
Related TOGAF Phases
|
|
|
|
References
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
This structure ensures that every ADR answers the following questions:
|
|
|
|
* **What** decision was made?
|
|
* **Why** was the decision necessary?
|
|
* **When** was it made?
|
|
* **Who** approved the decision?
|
|
* **What** are the expected consequences?
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Naming Convention
|
|
|
|
ADRs use sequential numbering.
|
|
|
|
Examples:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
0001-repository-structure.md
|
|
0002-technology-stack.md
|
|
0003-svg-rendering.md
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
The number is never reused.
|
|
|
|
If an ADR becomes obsolete, its status changes instead of deleting the document.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Decision Process
|
|
|
|
Architectural decisions follow the governance model defined in **Implementation Governance (Phase G)**.
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
Proposal
|
|
↓
|
|
Architecture Discussion
|
|
↓
|
|
Architecture Review
|
|
↓
|
|
Maintainer Decision
|
|
↓
|
|
ADR Update
|
|
↓
|
|
Implementation
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Community members are encouraged to participate in discussions.
|
|
|
|
Final architectural decisions are made by the project maintainers.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Relationship to Source Code
|
|
|
|
Source code is expected to reflect accepted ADRs.
|
|
|
|
If an implementation no longer follows an accepted ADR, one of the following actions should occur:
|
|
|
|
* Update the implementation to match the ADR.
|
|
* Replace the ADR with a new architectural decision.
|
|
* Deprecate or supersede the ADR.
|
|
|
|
Architectural changes should always be documented before or together with the implementation.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## References
|
|
|
|
* TOGAF Architecture Development Method (ADM)
|
|
* LUNA Charts Architecture Wiki
|
|
* LUNA Charts Implementation Governance (Phase G)
|
|
* LUNA Charts Architecture Change Management (Phase H)
|