Pros:
Cons:
We propose MIDV‑699, a unified framework that addresses both challenges: MIDV-699
| Item | Details | |------|---------| | Ticket ID | MIDV‑699 | | Title | [Insert concise title] | | Author / Owner | [Name / team] | | Target Release | [e.g., v2.4.1] | | Type | Feature / Enhancement / Bug‑Fix / Refactor | | Scope | [High‑level description – e.g., “Add support for multi‑currency invoices”] | | Related tickets / dependencies | MIDV‑654, MIDV‑712, external library upgrade | | Date of review | 2026‑04‑11 | Cons: We propose MIDV‑699 , a unified framework
| Category | Positive Observations |
|----------|-----------------------|
| Code Quality | • Clear, single‑responsibility classes.
• Consistent naming and JavaDoc comments.
• Proper use of Optional to avoid null checks. |
| Test Coverage | • High unit‑test coverage (> 90 % for new classes).
• Added integration tests that spin up an in‑memory DB, verifying migration and CRUD flow. |
| Performance | • Benchmarks show ≤ 15 ms latency for the main service call (well under the 50 ms SLA). |
| Security | • Input validation performed using the existing InputSanitizer.
• No new privileged endpoints exposed. |
| Documentation | • All new APIs documented with Swagger annotations.
• User‑facing UI changes reflected in the help guide. |
| Backward Compatibility | • Feature is gated behind a config flag, making rollout safe. |
| Deployment | • Migration script is idempotent; can be re‑run without side effects. | | Item | Details | |------|---------| | Ticket
Evaluation protocols: