TeamAI/doujin-manager
4
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases 4 Packages Wiki Activity Actions

docs: Flutter implementation plan (Phase 10a-10j) #24

Closed
matikane wants to merge 2 commits from docs/flutter-phase-plan into main
pull from: docs/flutter-phase-plan
merge into: TeamAI:main
Conversation 1 Commits 2 Files changed 1 +102 -7
matikane commented 2026-06-29 20:11:44 +02:00
Member
Copy link

Flutter Implementation Plan — Phase 10 detailed breakdown

Expands the single-line Phase 10 in PROJECT_PLAN.md into 10 detailed sub-phases with specific deliverables for each:

Phase Scope Status
10a Project scaffold, deps, linting, smoke test ✅ Complete (PR #22)
10b Folder structure, Gallery theme, Redux store skeleton, go_router Next
10c Settings page, SecureStorage, dio ApiClient, connection test
10d Freezed DTOs, domain models, repository interfaces + implementations
10e Library grid, search panel, pagination, browse UX
10f Doujin detail screen (metadata + thumbnails)
10g Metadata editor (titles, tags, people, circles, rating)
10h Variant/page/chapter management, upload flow
10i Full-screen reader with keyboard navigation
10j Polish: CI, error handling, loading/empty states, keyboard shortcuts

Each phase has specific deliverables, epics, and test requirements listed.

## Flutter Implementation Plan — Phase 10 detailed breakdown Expands the single-line Phase 10 in PROJECT_PLAN.md into 10 detailed sub-phases with specific deliverables for each: | Phase | Scope | Status | |-------|-------|--------| | **10a** | Project scaffold, deps, linting, smoke test | ✅ Complete (PR #22) | | **10b** | Folder structure, Gallery theme, Redux store skeleton, go_router | Next | | **10c** | Settings page, SecureStorage, dio ApiClient, connection test | | | **10d** | Freezed DTOs, domain models, repository interfaces + implementations | | | **10e** | Library grid, search panel, pagination, browse UX | | | **10f** | Doujin detail screen (metadata + thumbnails) | | | **10g** | Metadata editor (titles, tags, people, circles, rating) | | | **10h** | Variant/page/chapter management, upload flow | | | **10i** | Full-screen reader with keyboard navigation | | | **10j** | Polish: CI, error handling, loading/empty states, keyboard shortcuts | | Each phase has specific deliverables, epics, and test requirements listed.
Replaces the single-line Phase 10 with 10 detailed sub-phases:
- 10a: Project scaffold ✅ (already complete)
- 10b: Architecture skeleton + Gallery theme
- 10c: Settings and connection
- 10d: Data layer and API models
- 10e: Library browse and search
- 10f: Doujin detail
- 10g: Metadata editor
- 10h: Variant and page management
- 10i: Reader
- 10j: Polish and CI
- CI pipeline is now Phase 10c (right after architecture skeleton)
- Settings → 10d, Data layer → 10e, Library → 10f, etc.
- Polish → 10k (CI removed from polish, it's its own phase now)
bjoern closed this pull request 2026-06-29 20:18:45 +02:00
matikane commented 2026-06-29 20:19:23 +02:00
Author
Member
Copy link

🤖 Hermes automated review: no blocking issues found

Reviewed diff 7907427...1a34793 (+97/-7, 1 file: docs/PROJECT_PLAN.md). Docs-only change expanding Phase 10 (Flutter desktop/web app) into 10 detailed sub-phases (10a–10j), each with concrete deliverables, epics, and test requirements.

Assessment

  • No code changes — single Markdown file, no executable surface. Static scan clean (no secrets, no code-injection patterns; n/a for shell/eval/SQL).
  • ADR references are valid: phases 10a/10b/10c cite ADRs 0017 (technology stack), 0018 (clean architecture), 0019 (Gallery theme). I confirmed all three ADR files exist on this branch (docs/adr/0017-…, 0018-…, 0019-…).
  • Internal consistency: Phase 10a is correctly marked ✅ Complete (matches merged PR #22 — scaffold, deps, very_good_analysis, CI path filters). Phase 10b is marked "Next", consistent with #22 being merged.
  • Scope/sequencing is sound: 10b (architecture + theme + Redux + routing) → 10c (settings/connection) → 10d (data layer) → 10e (browse) → 10f (detail) → 10g (editor) → 10h (variant/page/upload) → 10i (reader) → 10j (polish/CI) follows a sensible dependency order (data layer before UI that consumes it; reader last).

Minor (non-blocking) observations

  • 10d ↔ 10e ordering nuance: The data-layer DTOs in 10d are modeled on "backend JSON envelopes (ResourceResponse, CollectionResponse, HypermediaLink, HypermediaAction, PageMeta)". These names should match the actual DoujinManager.RestAdapter.Envelopes.* types — worth a quick cross-check when 10d is implemented so the Dart freezed DTOs align with the C# envelope shapes (and with the POST-link style introduced in PR #18).
  • 10j "Flutter CI job in ci.yml": Note that ci.yml currently has no Flutter job (PR #22 added path filters only). The plan correctly calls out adding it in 10j; just flagging that until 10j lands, Flutter changes (10b–10i) won't be gated by backend CI. This is acknowledged by the plan, not a defect.

Verification

  • CI/CD: This is a docs-only change to PROJECT_PLAN.md; no build/test applies. No forgejo-actions coverage comment expected or needed for this PR. Local build/test intentionally skipped (no code surface).
  • Diff computed locally via git diff 7907427...1a34793.
  • Static security scan: clean (Markdown only).

Verdict

No blocking or minor actionable issues. The plan is well-structured and its references resolve. Safe to merge from a review standpoint.

Note: This is a conversation comment, not a formal Forgejo review approval — the current MCP integration cannot create review approval states or inline diff comments.

Automated daily review. I never merge PRs.

## 🤖 Hermes automated review: no blocking issues found Reviewed diff `7907427...1a34793` (+97/-7, 1 file: `docs/PROJECT_PLAN.md`). Docs-only change expanding Phase 10 (Flutter desktop/web app) into 10 detailed sub-phases (10a–10j), each with concrete deliverables, epics, and test requirements. ### Assessment - **No code changes** — single Markdown file, no executable surface. Static scan clean (no secrets, no code-injection patterns; n/a for shell/eval/SQL). - **ADR references are valid**: phases 10a/10b/10c cite ADRs 0017 (technology stack), 0018 (clean architecture), 0019 (Gallery theme). I confirmed all three ADR files exist on this branch (`docs/adr/0017-…`, `0018-…`, `0019-…`). - **Internal consistency**: Phase 10a is correctly marked ✅ Complete (matches merged PR #22 — scaffold, deps, very_good_analysis, CI path filters). Phase 10b is marked "Next", consistent with #22 being merged. - **Scope/sequencing is sound**: 10b (architecture + theme + Redux + routing) → 10c (settings/connection) → 10d (data layer) → 10e (browse) → 10f (detail) → 10g (editor) → 10h (variant/page/upload) → 10i (reader) → 10j (polish/CI) follows a sensible dependency order (data layer before UI that consumes it; reader last). ### Minor (non-blocking) observations - **10d ↔ 10e ordering nuance:** The data-layer DTOs in 10d are modeled on "backend JSON envelopes (ResourceResponse, CollectionResponse, HypermediaLink, HypermediaAction, PageMeta)". These names should match the actual `DoujinManager.RestAdapter.Envelopes.*` types — worth a quick cross-check when 10d is implemented so the Dart freezed DTOs align with the C# envelope shapes (and with the POST-link style introduced in PR #18). - **10j "Flutter CI job in ci.yml":** Note that `ci.yml` currently has no Flutter job (PR #22 added path filters only). The plan correctly calls out adding it in 10j; just flagging that until 10j lands, Flutter changes (10b–10i) won't be gated by backend CI. This is acknowledged by the plan, not a defect. ### Verification - **CI/CD:** This is a docs-only change to `PROJECT_PLAN.md`; no build/test applies. No forgejo-actions coverage comment expected or needed for this PR. Local build/test intentionally skipped (no code surface). - Diff computed locally via `git diff 7907427...1a34793`. - Static security scan: clean (Markdown only). ### Verdict No blocking or minor actionable issues. The plan is well-structured and its references resolve. Safe to merge from a review standpoint. *Note: This is a conversation comment, not a formal Forgejo review approval — the current MCP integration cannot create review approval states or inline diff comments.* *Automated daily review. I never merge PRs.*

Pull request closed

This pull request cannot be reopened because the branch was deleted.
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No reviewers
Labels
Clear labels
No items
No labels
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No items
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference
TeamAI/doujin-manager!24
No description provided.