주요 변경사항: - 창고 관리 API 응답 구조와 DTO 불일치 수정 - WarehouseLocationDto에 code, manager_phone 필드 추가 - RemoteDataSource에서 API 응답을 DTO 구조에 맞게 변환 - 회사 관리 API 응답 파싱 오류 수정 - CompanyResponse의 필수 필드를 nullable로 변경 - PaginatedResponse 구조 매핑 로직 개선 - 에러 처리 및 로깅 개선 - Service Layer에 상세 에러 로깅 추가 - Controller에서 에러 타입별 처리 - 새로운 유틸리티 추가 - ResponseInterceptor: API 응답 정규화 - DebugLogger: 디버깅 도구 - HealthCheckService: 서버 상태 확인 - 문서화 - API 통합 테스트 가이드 - 에러 분석 보고서 - 리팩토링 계획서
331 lines
12 KiB
Markdown
331 lines
12 KiB
Markdown
# Claude Code Global Development Rules
|
||
|
||
## 🌐 Language Settings
|
||
- **All answers and explanations must be provided in Korean**
|
||
- **Variable and function names in code should use English**
|
||
- **Error messages should be explained in Korean**
|
||
|
||
## 🤖 Agent Selection Rules
|
||
- **Always select and use a specialized agent appropriate for the task**
|
||
|
||
## 🎯 Mandatory Response Format
|
||
|
||
Before starting any task, you MUST respond in the following format:
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
[Model Name] - [Agent Name]. I have reviewed all the following rules: [rule file list or categories]. Proceeding with the task. Master!
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
**Agent Names:**
|
||
- **Direct Implementation**: Perform direct implementation tasks
|
||
- **Master Manager**: Overall project management and coordination
|
||
- **flutter-ui-designer**: Flutter UI/UX design
|
||
- **flutter-architecture-designer**: Flutter architecture design
|
||
- **flutter-offline-developer**: Flutter offline functionality development
|
||
- **flutter-network-engineer**: Flutter network implementation
|
||
- **flutter-qa-engineer**: Flutter QA/testing
|
||
- **app-launch-validator**: App launch validation
|
||
- **aso-optimization-expert**: ASO optimization
|
||
- **mobile-growth-hacker**: Mobile growth strategy
|
||
- **Idea Analysis**: Idea analysis
|
||
- **mobile app mvp planner**: MVP planning
|
||
|
||
**Examples:**
|
||
- `Claude Opus 4 - Direct Implementation. I have reviewed all the following rules: development guidelines, class structure, testing rules. Proceeding with the task. Master!`
|
||
- `Claude Opus 4 - flutter-network-engineer. I have reviewed all the following rules: API integration, error handling, network optimization. Proceeding with the task. Master!`
|
||
- For extensive rules: `coding style, class design, exception handling, testing rules` (categorized summary)
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
## 🚀 Mandatory 3-Phase Task Process
|
||
|
||
### Phase 1: Codebase Exploration & Analysis
|
||
**Required Actions:**
|
||
- Systematically discover ALL relevant files, directories, modules
|
||
- Search for related keywords, functions, classes, patterns
|
||
- Thoroughly examine each identified file
|
||
- Document coding conventions and style guidelines
|
||
- Identify framework/library usage patterns
|
||
- Map dependencies and architectural structure
|
||
|
||
### Phase 2: Implementation Planning
|
||
**Required Actions:**
|
||
- Create detailed implementation roadmap based on Phase 1 findings
|
||
- Define specific task lists and acceptance criteria per module
|
||
- Specify performance/quality requirements
|
||
- Plan test strategy and coverage
|
||
- Identify potential risks and edge cases
|
||
|
||
### Phase 3: Implementation Execution
|
||
**Required Actions:**
|
||
- Implement each module following Phase 2 plan
|
||
- Verify ALL acceptance criteria before proceeding
|
||
- Ensure adherence to conventions identified in Phase 1
|
||
- Write tests alongside implementation
|
||
- Document complex logic and design decisions
|
||
|
||
## ✅ Core Development Principles
|
||
|
||
### Language & Documentation Rules
|
||
- **Code, variables, and identifiers**: Always in English
|
||
- **Comments and documentation**: Use project's primary spoken language
|
||
- **Commit messages**: Use project's primary spoken language
|
||
- **Error messages**: Bilingual when appropriate (technical term + native explanation)
|
||
|
||
### Type Safety Rules
|
||
- **Always declare types explicitly** for variables, parameters, and return values
|
||
- Avoid `any`, `dynamic`, or loosely typed declarations (except when strictly necessary)
|
||
- Define **custom types/interfaces** for complex data structures
|
||
- Use **enums** for fixed sets of values
|
||
- Extract magic numbers and literals into named constants
|
||
|
||
### Naming Conventions
|
||
|
||
|Element|Style|Example|
|
||
|---|---|---|
|
||
|Classes/Interfaces|`PascalCase`|`UserService`, `DataRepository`|
|
||
|Variables/Methods|`camelCase`|`userName`, `calculateTotal`|
|
||
|Constants|`UPPERCASE` or `PascalCase`|`MAX_RETRY_COUNT`, `DefaultTimeout`|
|
||
|Files (varies by language)|Follow language convention|`user_service.py`, `UserService.java`|
|
||
|Boolean variables|Verb-based|`isReady`, `hasError`, `canDelete`|
|
||
|Functions/Methods|Start with verbs|`executeLogin`, `saveUser`, `validateInput`|
|
||
|
||
**Critical Rules:**
|
||
- Use meaningful, descriptive names
|
||
- Avoid abbreviations unless widely accepted: `i`, `j`, `err`, `ctx`, `API`, `URL`
|
||
- Name length should reflect scope (longer names for wider scope)
|
||
|
||
## 🔧 Function & Method Design
|
||
|
||
### Function Structure Principles
|
||
- **Keep functions short and focused** (≤20 lines recommended)
|
||
- **Follow Single Responsibility Principle (SRP)**
|
||
- **Minimize parameters** (≤3 ideal, use objects for more)
|
||
- **Avoid deeply nested logic** (≤3 levels)
|
||
- **Use early returns** to reduce complexity
|
||
- **Extract complex conditions** into well-named functions
|
||
|
||
### Function Optimization Techniques
|
||
- Prefer **pure functions** without side effects
|
||
- Use **default parameters** to reduce overloading
|
||
- Apply **RO-RO pattern** (Receive Object – Return Object) for complex APIs
|
||
- **Cache expensive computations** when appropriate
|
||
- **Avoid premature optimization** - profile first
|
||
|
||
## 📦 Data & Class Design
|
||
|
||
### Class Design Principles
|
||
- **Single Responsibility Principle (SRP)**: One class, one purpose
|
||
- **Favor composition over inheritance**
|
||
- **Program to interfaces**, not implementations
|
||
- **Keep classes cohesive** - high internal, low external coupling
|
||
- **Prefer immutability** when possible
|
||
|
||
### File Size Management
|
||
**Guidelines (not hard limits):**
|
||
- Classes: ≤200 lines
|
||
- Functions: ≤20 lines
|
||
- Files: ≤300 lines
|
||
|
||
**Split when:**
|
||
- Multiple responsibilities exist
|
||
- Excessive scrolling required
|
||
- Pattern duplication occurs
|
||
- Testing becomes complex
|
||
|
||
### Data Model Design
|
||
- **Encapsulate validation** within data models
|
||
- **Use Value Objects** for complex primitives
|
||
- **Apply Builder pattern** for complex object construction
|
||
- **Implement proper equals/hashCode** for data classes
|
||
|
||
## ❗ Exception Handling
|
||
|
||
### Exception Usage Principles
|
||
- Use exceptions for **exceptional circumstances only**
|
||
- **Fail fast** at system boundaries
|
||
- **Catch exceptions only when you can handle them**
|
||
- **Add context** when re-throwing
|
||
- **Use custom exceptions** for domain-specific errors
|
||
- **Document thrown exceptions**
|
||
|
||
### Error Handling Strategies
|
||
- Return **Result/Option types** for expected failures
|
||
- Use **error codes** for performance-critical paths
|
||
- Implement **circuit breakers** for external dependencies
|
||
- **Log errors appropriately** (error level, context, stack trace)
|
||
|
||
## 🧪 Testing Strategy
|
||
|
||
### Test Structure
|
||
- Follow **Arrange-Act-Assert (AAA)** pattern
|
||
- Use **descriptive test names** that explain what and why
|
||
- **One assertion per test** (when practical)
|
||
- **Test behavior, not implementation**
|
||
|
||
### Test Coverage Guidelines
|
||
- **Unit tests**: All public methods and edge cases
|
||
- **Integration tests**: Critical paths and external integrations
|
||
- **End-to-end tests**: Key user journeys
|
||
- Aim for **80%+ code coverage** (quality over quantity)
|
||
|
||
### Test Best Practices
|
||
- **Use test doubles** (mocks, stubs, fakes) appropriately
|
||
- **Keep tests independent** and idempotent
|
||
- **Test data builders** for complex test setups
|
||
- **Parameterized tests** for multiple scenarios
|
||
- **Performance tests** for critical paths
|
||
|
||
## 📝 Version Control Guidelines
|
||
|
||
### Commit Best Practices
|
||
- **Atomic commits**: One logical change per commit
|
||
- **Frequent commits**: Small, incremental changes
|
||
- **Clean history**: Use interactive rebase when needed
|
||
- **Branch strategy**: Follow project's branching model
|
||
|
||
### Commit Message Format
|
||
```
|
||
type(scope): brief description
|
||
|
||
Detailed explanation if needed
|
||
- Bullet points for multiple changes
|
||
- Reference issue numbers: #123
|
||
|
||
BREAKING CHANGE: description (if applicable)
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
### Commit Types
|
||
- `feat`: New feature
|
||
- `fix`: Bug fix
|
||
- `refactor`: Code refactoring
|
||
- `perf`: Performance improvement
|
||
- `test`: Test changes
|
||
- `docs`: Documentation
|
||
- `style`: Code formatting
|
||
- `chore`: Build/tooling changes
|
||
|
||
## 🏗️ Architecture Guidelines
|
||
|
||
### Clean Architecture Principles
|
||
- **Dependency Rule**: Dependencies point inward
|
||
- **Layer Independence**: Each layer has single responsibility
|
||
- **Testability**: Business logic independent of frameworks
|
||
- **Framework Agnostic**: Core logic doesn't depend on external tools
|
||
|
||
### Common Architectural Patterns
|
||
- **Repository Pattern**: Abstract data access
|
||
- **Service Layer**: Business logic coordination
|
||
- **Dependency Injection**: Loose coupling
|
||
- **Event-Driven**: For asynchronous workflows
|
||
- **CQRS**: When read/write separation needed
|
||
|
||
### Module Organization
|
||
```
|
||
src/
|
||
├── domain/ # Business entities and rules
|
||
├── application/ # Use cases and workflows
|
||
├── infrastructure/ # External dependencies
|
||
├── presentation/ # UI/API layer
|
||
└── shared/ # Cross-cutting concerns
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
## 🔄 Safe Refactoring Practices
|
||
|
||
### Preventing Side Effects During Refactoring
|
||
- **Run all tests before and after** every refactoring step
|
||
- **Make incremental changes**: One small refactoring at a time
|
||
- **Use automated refactoring tools** when available (IDE support)
|
||
- **Preserve existing behavior**: Refactoring should not change functionality
|
||
- **Create characterization tests** for legacy code before refactoring
|
||
- **Use feature flags** for large-scale refactorings
|
||
- **Monitor production metrics** after deployment
|
||
|
||
### Refactoring Checklist
|
||
1. **Before Starting**:
|
||
- [ ] All tests passing
|
||
- [ ] Understand current behavior completely
|
||
- [ ] Create backup branch
|
||
- [ ] Document intended changes
|
||
|
||
2. **During Refactoring**:
|
||
- [ ] Keep commits atomic and reversible
|
||
- [ ] Run tests after each change
|
||
- [ ] Verify no behavior changes
|
||
- [ ] Check for performance impacts
|
||
|
||
3. **After Completion**:
|
||
- [ ] All tests still passing
|
||
- [ ] Code coverage maintained or improved
|
||
- [ ] Performance benchmarks verified
|
||
- [ ] Peer review completed
|
||
|
||
### Common Refactoring Patterns
|
||
- **Extract Method**: Break large functions into smaller ones
|
||
- **Rename**: Improve clarity with better names
|
||
- **Move**: Relocate code to appropriate modules
|
||
- **Extract Variable**: Make complex expressions readable
|
||
- **Inline**: Remove unnecessary indirection
|
||
- **Extract Interface**: Decouple implementations
|
||
|
||
## 🧠 Continuous Improvement
|
||
|
||
### Code Review Focus Areas
|
||
- **Correctness**: Does it work as intended?
|
||
- **Clarity**: Is it easy to understand?
|
||
- **Consistency**: Does it follow conventions?
|
||
- **Completeness**: Are edge cases handled?
|
||
- **Performance**: Are there obvious bottlenecks?
|
||
- **Security**: Are there vulnerabilities?
|
||
- **Side Effects**: Are there unintended consequences?
|
||
|
||
### Knowledge Sharing
|
||
- **Document decisions** in ADRs (Architecture Decision Records)
|
||
- **Create runbooks** for operational procedures
|
||
- **Maintain README** files for each module
|
||
- **Share learnings** through team discussions
|
||
- **Update rules** based on team consensus
|
||
|
||
## ✅ Quality Validation Checklist
|
||
|
||
Before completing any task, confirm:
|
||
|
||
### Phase Completion
|
||
- [ ] Phase 1: Comprehensive analysis completed
|
||
- [ ] Phase 2: Detailed plan with acceptance criteria
|
||
- [ ] Phase 3: Implementation meets all criteria
|
||
|
||
### Code Quality
|
||
- [ ] Follows naming conventions
|
||
- [ ] Type safety enforced
|
||
- [ ] Single Responsibility maintained
|
||
- [ ] Proper error handling
|
||
- [ ] Adequate test coverage
|
||
- [ ] Documentation complete
|
||
|
||
### Best Practices
|
||
- [ ] No code smells or anti-patterns
|
||
- [ ] Performance considerations addressed
|
||
- [ ] Security vulnerabilities checked
|
||
- [ ] Accessibility requirements met
|
||
- [ ] Internationalization ready (if applicable)
|
||
|
||
## 🎯 Success Metrics
|
||
|
||
### Code Quality Indicators
|
||
- **Low cyclomatic complexity** (≤10 per function)
|
||
- **High cohesion**, low coupling
|
||
- **Minimal code duplication** (<5%)
|
||
- **Clear separation of concerns**
|
||
- **Consistent style throughout**
|
||
|
||
### Professional Standards
|
||
- **Readable**: New developers understand quickly
|
||
- **Maintainable**: Changes are easy to make
|
||
- **Testable**: Components tested in isolation
|
||
- **Scalable**: Handles growth gracefully
|
||
- **Reliable**: Fails gracefully with clear errors
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
**Remember**: These are guidelines, not rigid rules. Use professional judgment and adapt to project needs while maintaining high quality standards. |