refactor: 각 어댑터터별 리펙토링 진행

2026-08-24 18:26:40 +09:00
parent e98b56eb03
commit 0137263441
439 changed files with 31935 additions and 4719 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+# ADR-JPA-006 — `audit` is the canonical technical audit model; `auditing` stays a frozen candidate
+
+- Status: Accepted
+- Date: 2026-08-24
+- Review: `docs/reviews/2026-08-14-jpa-module-code-review.md` JPA-022
+
+## Context
+
+Two complete technical-audit mechanisms live in this leaf and they disagree about the schema.
+
+`audit/AuditableEntity` stamps `created_at`/`created_by`/`updated_at`/`updated_by` with an actor
+column of length 256, captured through explicit `initializeAudit`/`applyModification` calls and an
+`AuditContextPort`. `auditing/AuditMetadata` is a Spring Data embeddable that stamps
+`created_*`/`modified_*` with an actor column of length 64, captured by `@CreatedDate` and friends
+through an `AuditorAware`.
+
+Only the first is real: it is what the sample entities extend and what the migrations were written
+for. `JpaAuditingConfiguration` is not a Spring `@Configuration`, and nothing in production
+constructs any of the three `auditing` types.
+
+The review asked for one canonical model with a migration or activation decision. The failure mode
+it was protecting against is specific: an author of a new entity picks whichever package they find
+first, and column names, actor lengths and capture lifecycles then diverge per table.
+
+## Decision
+
+`audit/AuditableEntity` is canonical. `auditing` stays in the tree as a candidate and is excluded
+from the Stable capability report.
+
+The candidate is not deleted and not promoted. Deleting it would discard a working Spring Data
+integration that a deployment preferring declarative auditing would want. Promoting it would mean
+either renaming `modified_*` to `updated_*` and widening the actor column — a schema migration of
+every audited table to gain nothing a caller asked for — or moving the sample entities onto
+`modified_*`, which is the same migration in the other direction.
+
+Neither is worth doing now. What the divergence actually needed was not consolidation but a rule
+that an entity cannot straddle the two, and that rule is cheaper than either migration.
+
+## Consequences
+
+Two audit mechanisms remain readable in one leaf, and a reader has to be told which one is live.
+That cost is paid in this document, in the package javadoc and in a test whose name says so.
+
+Two failure modes stay silent unless they are asserted, so both are:
+
+- The candidate acquires a stereotype and starts stamping in every deployment that has this module
+  on the classpath, including the ones whose tables have no `modified_*` columns — where the result
+  is a failed startup rather than a feature.
+- Somebody "harmonises" the two by editing one side's column names, at which point the schema a
+  deployed table was migrated for and the schema its entity expects diverge with no migration
+  between them.
+
+If the candidate is ever promoted, it is promoted atomically: forward migration, sample conversion,
+`AuditContextPort → AuditorAware` and `Clock → DateTimeProvider` bridges land together, and this
+ADR is superseded rather than amended.
+
+Bulk and native updates stamp nothing under either mechanism. That is a property of JPA, not of the
+choice made here, so it is enforced separately rather than assumed away.
+
+## Enforcement
+
+`JpaAuditMechanismRule.entitiesUseExactlyOneAuditMechanism` and
+`bulkUpdatesOfAuditedEntitiesStampAudit`, run against the real production graph by
+`JpaProductionArchitectureTest` at the composition root — not against fixtures, which is how the
+earlier version of this rule pack passed while applying to nothing. `AuditingCandidateStatusTest`
+asserts the candidate carries no composing stereotype and that the two column sets stay distinct.
+`JpaAuditMechanismRuleTest` exercises the rules' own negative cases.