Skip to content

docs(14): document sharing architecture trade-off#185

Merged
FSM1 merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
docs/phase-14-architecture-tradeoff
Feb 22, 2026
Merged

docs(14): document sharing architecture trade-off#185
FSM1 merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
docs/phase-14-architecture-tradeoff

Conversation

@FSM1

@FSM1 FSM1 commented Feb 22, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Summary

  • Documents the architectural trade-off between server-side share records (current) vs metadata-embedded ACLs (considered alternative)
  • Records revocation risk assessment — practical risk is low in both approaches
  • Preserves the metadata-embedded approach as a viable future option for hiding the social graph

Test plan

  • No code changes — docs only review

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Documentation
    • Added architectural trade-off analysis documenting implementation approaches and considerations for the sharing feature.

Record the architectural decision to use server-side share records
vs embedding readers/writers ACLs in IPFS metadata, including
revocation risk assessment.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Entire-Checkpoint: 3ffd97fcb699
@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Feb 22, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉


Walkthrough

Adds an Architecture Trade-Off section to the planning documentation for Phase 14. The section compares server-side share records versus metadata-embedded ACLs approaches, documenting consequences, advantages, disadvantages, and revocation risk considerations, with a decision favoring the server-side approach.

Changes

Cohort / File(s) Summary
Planning Documentation
.planning/phases/14-user-to-user-sharing/14-CONTEXT.md
Adds Architecture Trade-Off section detailing server-side share records vs. metadata-embedded ACLs comparison with analysis of consequences, advantages, disadvantages, and revocation risks.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~10 minutes

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3
✅ Passed checks (3 passed)
Check name Status Explanation
Description Check ✅ Passed Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check ✅ Passed The title accurately summarizes the main change: documenting an architectural trade-off for the sharing feature. It is concise, specific, and directly related to the changeset.
Docstring Coverage ✅ Passed No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.

✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests
  • Post copyable unit tests in a comment
  • Commit unit tests in branch docs/phase-14-architecture-tradeoff

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.

@FSM1 FSM1 enabled auto-merge (squash) February 22, 2026 01:38
@FSM1 FSM1 merged commit aa25615 into main Feb 22, 2026
10 of 11 checks passed
@FSM1 FSM1 deleted the docs/phase-14-architecture-tradeoff branch March 3, 2026 22:21
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant