Skip to content

Arch Forum 2023-09-14

Participants: Andy, JD, Liangxiong, Shakib, Victor, Zak

Agenda

  • TEKM / log levels
  • Replace Automapper with Mapperly part2

Notes

TEKM / log levels: The first topic was about our various log levels. Victor was not sure everyone is aligned on the levels. After discussion, Victor updated the logging wiki with the consensus.

While discussing, Liangxiong had a question - why do we need the TEKM log level? Isn't it the same as the CRIT (critical) level but unique for Majority? We could not come up with any reasons to keep TEKM, except that it quite widely spread in Majority, even outside Backend.

If you have any opinion on TEKM vs CRIT, please let Victor know!

Replace Automapper with Mapperly part 2: As a followup from last week, we continued discussion on Automapper and Mapperly (a source generation based mapping library). We could identify some technical advantages / disadvantages:

Disadvantages of Mapperly:
- Slightly slower compile times
- Fewer features than Automapper (but this might actually be an advantage!)

Advantages
- Quicker at runtime since there's no reflection going on
- Less runtime errors since all mapping is generated at compile time
- Arguably easier since it has fewer features

However, pure technical merits is not everything! Regardless of those, we must also take into consideration what we can reasonably do.
- We can only have a few "technical improvements" type of tasks running at the same time
- We can not spend 100% of our time on those
- We must make sure to prioritize which things are the most important

In the end we concluded we need a more formal backlog of tech tasks, building on the Roman handover notes, to go forward.

Actions

  • Victor to make small investigation if we could replace TEKM with CRIT.
  • Shakib will make a demo of Mapperly in one of the backend tech meetings.
  • Victor will gather all techy improvements already existing into a backlog.