# ADR-001: Monolithic SPA Architecture for OMS·WMS·ERP Platform

**Status**: ACCEPTED (2026-07-26)  
**Date**: 2026-07-26  
**Deciders**: Product Manager, Technical Lead, Architecture Team  
**Related Decisions**: [Strategic Execution Framework (Spec 61)](spec/61_strategic_execution_framework.yaml), [OpenAPI (Spec 63)](spec/63_oms_wms_erp_api_openapi.yaml), [Database Schema (Spec 64)](spec/64_oms_wms_erp_database_schema.sql)

---

## Context

OMS·WMS·ERP commercialization requires unified platform architecture decision to balance:

1. **Time-to-Market**: 18-week Phase 0-11 roadmap (4.5 months)
2. **Team Capacity**: 13 FTE (4 frontend devs, 2 backend, 1 UX, 2 QA, infrastructure)
3. **Maintenance Burden**: Long-term operational cost
4. **Scalability**: Peak load (100 concurrent users during peak hours, future 1000+)
5. **Team Skill Set**: Experienced Vue 2 team, transitioning to Vue 3 + TypeScript
6. **Feature Complexity**: 11 CRUD templates, 5 user roles, audit/compliance requirements

### Problem Statement

"Should we build a **single monolithic SPA** or adopt **micro-frontend architecture**?"

**Tradeoff Matrix**:

| Factor | Monolithic | Micro-Frontend |
|--------|-----------|---|
| **Time-to-Market** | ✅ Fast (single build, shared state) | ❌ Slower (coordination, build complexity) |
| **Team Efficiency** | ✅ Shared code/patterns | ❌ Potential duplication |
| **Deployment Risk** | ⚠️ Full redeploy | ✅ Independent deploys (but coordination complexity) |
| **Complexity (Initial)** | ✅ Simple (one codebase) | ❌ Complex (module federation, routing) |
| **State Management** | ✅ Centralized (Pinia) | ⚠️ Distributed (synchronization overhead) |
| **Learning Curve** | ✅ Single pattern | ❌ Multiple architectural patterns |
| **Future Modularity** | ⚠️ Refactoring cost | ✅ Already isolated |

---

## Decision

**ADOPT: Monolithic SPA Architecture**

### Rationale

1. **Time-to-Market (P0 Priority)**
   - Single Vite build pipeline → faster CI/CD turnaround
   - Shared Pinia store eliminates cross-module synchronization
   - No module federation complexity (can add in Phase 12+ if needed)
   - Team can move fast on core 11 CRUD templates without coordination overhead

2. **Team Efficiency (13 FTE Constraint)**
   - 4 frontend devs work on unified codebase (not split into silos)
   - Shared component library reduces duplication
   - PR reviews simpler (single review standard)
   - Onboarding new devs easier (one architectural pattern)

3. **Scalability Headroom**
   - 100 concurrent users = 50-100 backend requests/sec (well within SPA capacity)
   - PostgreSQL backend can handle 10K+ concurrent connections
   - Browser memory: Pinia store + Vue tree ~5-10MB even at 1000 concurrent
   - Future scale-out: Independent microservices backend (no frontend change needed)

4. **Data Consistency (Principle 3)**
   - Centralized Pinia store = single source of truth for all entities
   - No client-side replication or sync logic
   - Audit trail via PostgreSQL audit_logs (all mutations captured)
   - JWT tokens + RBAC enforced server-side (client trusted for UX only)

5. **Cost Efficiency**
   - Single deployment pipeline = lower ops cost
   - Monolithic codebase = faster debugging and troubleshooting
   - No microservices orchestration overhead (Kubernetes, service mesh)

### Architectural Layers (7-Layer Model)

```
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ 1. Presentation Layer (Vue 3 SPA)                   │
│    - 4-layer component hierarchy                    │
│    - Tabler UI + Bootstrap 5 + Storybook            │
│    - Responsive + WCAG 2.1 AA                       │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ 2. State Management (Pinia)                         │
│    - Entity stores (orders, inventory, products)    │
│    - UI state (modals, notifications, routing)      │
│    - Auth store (user, roles, permissions)          │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ 3. API Client Layer (Axios + Auto-Generated)        │
│    - Type-safe: OpenAPI → TypeScript SDK            │
│    - Interceptors: JWT refresh, error handling      │
│    - Offline support: Request queue (Phase 12+)     │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ 4. Domain Layer (Business Logic)                    │
│    - Computed properties (qty_available, totals)    │
│    - Validation rules (duplicate checks, constraints) │
│    - Formatters (currency, date, status labels)     │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ 5. Repository Layer (Data Access Patterns)          │
│    - Cache strategies (LRU, TTL)                    │
│    - Optimistic updates (e.g., reorder lines)       │
│    - Pagination (lazy load, infinite scroll)        │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ 6. Infrastructure (Routing, Navigation, Config)     │
│    - Vue Router (lazy-loaded per route)             │
│    - Global error boundaries                        │
│    - Feature flags (Phase 12+)                      │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ 7. External Services (Backend APIs + 3P)            │
│    - REST APIs (OpenAPI 3.0)                        │
│    - JWT authentication                             │
│    - Real-time updates (WebSocket Phase 12+)        │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
```

### 4-Layer Component Hierarchy

```
Layer 1: Primitive Components
  ├─ ButtonBase, InputBase, SelectBase, TextBase
  └─ Reusable, no business logic, full a11y

Layer 2: Typed Field Components
  ├─ TextField, DateField, CurrencyField, StatusField
  └─ Domain-aware validation, formatting, labels

Layer 3: Domain Field Components
  ├─ OrderLineField, InventoryField, VoucherLineField
  └─ Business rules, inline lookups, multi-field composition

Layer 4: Business Composite Components
  ├─ OrderForm, InventoryTransferWizard, VoucherEditor
  └─ Full workflows, state orchestration, audit trail
```

### 11 CRUD Templates Standardization

All 11 entity CRUD flows follow **uniform pattern** (List → Create → Read → Edit → Delete):

| Entity | API Endpoints | UI Components | Test Coverage |
|--------|--------------|---------------|---|
| **Order** | 6 (GET, POST, PUT, DELETE + list, detail) | OrderList, OrderDetail, OrderForm | 30 E2E scenarios |
| **OrderLine** | Nested CRUD (in order context) | LineEditor (inline in form) | 10 E2E |
| **Inventory** | 6 | InventoryList, TransferWizard | 15 E2E |
| **StockTransfer** | 6 | TransferForm, ApprovalMatrix | 12 E2E |
| **Product** | 6 | ProductList, ProductForm | 10 E2E |
| **Supplier** | 6 | SupplierList, SupplierForm | 8 E2E |
| **Customer** | 6 | CustomerList, CustomerForm | 8 E2E |
| **GLAccount** | 6 | AccountList, AccountForm | 8 E2E |
| **Voucher** | 6 | VoucherEditor (line-by-line) | 15 E2E |
| **User** | 6 | UserList, UserForm, PermissionMatrix | 12 E2E |
| **Warehouse** | 6 | WarehouseList, WarehouseForm | 8 E2E |

**Total E2E Coverage**: 116 test scenarios (Phase 4 milestone)

---

## Consequences

### ✅ Positive

1. **Faster Delivery**
   - Single build pipeline: ~3 min build time
   - CI/CD simpler: No cross-module coordination
   - Feature complete by Phase 4 (week 8) for UAT

2. **Maintainability**
   - Unified codebase = easier debugging
   - All devs understand full system
   - Refactoring easier (no hidden dependencies)

3. **Data Consistency**
   - Pinia store = single source of truth
   - No sync issues between independent UIs
   - Audit trail via PostgreSQL (not client-side)

4. **User Experience**
   - Instant navigation (no full-page reloads)
   - Smooth transitions between modules
   - Consistent look & feel (unified design system)

5. **Test Coverage**
   - 50/30/20 pyramid: unit (50%) → integration (30%) → E2E (20%)
   - All 116 E2E scenarios in single test suite
   - Deterministic tests (single state source)

### ⚠️ Negative (Mitigations)

1. **Monolith Brittleness**
   - **Problem**: One bad release breaks entire app
   - **Mitigation**: Strict pre-deployment checklist (Phase 5+), blue-green deployment, 6-point health checks

2. **Large Bundle Size**
   - **Problem**: Initial load time if all code bundled
   - **Mitigation**: Lazy-load routes per module, code split at route level, target <500KB main chunk (Lighthouse 90+)

3. **Shared State Complexity**
   - **Problem**: Pinia store grows as features added
   - **Mitigation**: Modular stores (orders, inventory, users modules), clear naming, documentation

4. **Scaling to 1000+ Users**
   - **Problem**: Browser memory, server load
   - **Mitigation**: Pagination (not all records in memory), connection pooling (PostgreSQL), infrastructure scale-out (Phase 12+)

5. **Future Microfront-End Transition**
   - **Problem**: If modularity needed later, refactoring cost
   - **Mitigation**: Component library + API contracts locked down early, can extract UI module → separate SPA in Phase 13+

---

## Alternatives Considered

### 1. Micro-Frontend Architecture (Module Federation)

**Approach**: Each CRUD entity (Order, Inventory, etc.) as independent webpack Module Federation remote

**Pros**:
- Independent deployments per module
- Teams can work in parallel without merge conflicts
- Better long-term modularity

**Cons**:
- ❌ Shared state synchronization complexity (events, bus, sync failures)
- ❌ Build time: 9-12 min (multiple builds + federation setup)
- ❌ 18-week timeline NOT feasible (needs 20+ weeks for coordination overhead)
- ❌ Learning curve (few devs experienced in Module Federation)
- ❌ CI/CD complexity (version matrix: Order v1-v3 × Inventory v2-v5)

**Decision**: REJECTED — Too risky for 18-week timeline with 4 frontend devs

### 2. Headless Backend + Separate Frontends (Web + Mobile)

**Approach**: Unified .NET backend + Vue SPA (web) + React Native (mobile)

**Pros**:
- Native mobile experience
- Backend shared code reuse

**Cons**:
- ❌ Scope creep (mobile adds 4-6 weeks)
- ❌ Double maintenance (Vue + React Native)
- ❌ Mobile not in Phase 0-11 scope (can add in Phase 13+)

**Decision**: REJECTED — Out of scope. Mobile deferred to Phase 13+

### 3. Low-Code Platform (OutSystems, Mendix)

**Approach**: Rapid CRUD generation, visual development

**Pros**:
- Fastest CRUD generation
- Less boilerplate code

**Cons**:
- ❌ Vendor lock-in
- ❌ Limited customization for complex workflows (approval matrix, audit trail)
- ❌ Higher TCO (licensing)
- ❌ Team skill atrophy (no real engineering)

**Decision**: REJECTED — Does not meet control + compliance requirements

### 4. Separate Microservices UIs (One SPA per domain: OMS, WMS, ERP)

**Approach**: 3 independent SPAs (micro-frontends without Module Federation)

**Pros**:
- Clear domain separation
- Smaller bundles per SPA

**Cons**:
- ❌ Cross-domain navigation complex (not SPA-like experience)
- ❌ Duplicate components (auth, common UI)
- ❌ Harder to reorder across domains (OMS order → WMS allocation → ERP GL)
- ❌ 3 CI/CD pipelines vs 1

**Decision**: REJECTED — Poor user experience for cross-domain workflows

---

## Implementation Plan (Phases 1-4)

### Phase 1: Dev Environment & CI/CD (Week 1-2)

- [ ] Vite SPA scaffold + TypeScript strict mode
- [ ] Pinia stores structure (orders, inventory, users modules)
- [ ] Axios API client + OpenAPI SDK auto-generation
- [ ] ESLint + Prettier + pre-commit hooks
- [ ] GitHub Actions CI/CD (lint → test → build)
- [ ] Storybook setup (6.0+, TypeScript support)

**Exit Criteria**: All devs can build locally, CI green, Storybook runs

### Phase 2: Primitive & Composite Layers (Week 3-4)

- [ ] Layer 1: 30 Primitive components (Button, Input, Select, etc.)
- [ ] Layer 2: 12 Typed Field components (TextField, DateField, etc.)
- [ ] Storybook documentation for all components
- [ ] WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility audit (axe-core)
- [ ] Unit tests: 70%+ coverage

**Exit Criteria**: Storybook published, all primitives tested, accessibility passed

### Phase 3: Smart Components & State (Week 5-6)

- [ ] Layer 3: 12 Domain Field components
- [ ] Layer 4: 4 Business Composite components (Order, Inventory, Voucher, User)
- [ ] Pinia stores + API integration
- [ ] Integration tests (Vitest + MSW mocks)
- [ ] Real-time data binding

**Exit Criteria**: State management tested, API mocks working, 50 integration tests pass

### Phase 4: CRUD Templates & E2E (Week 7-8)

- [ ] 11 full CRUD forms (List, Create, Read, Edit, Delete)
- [ ] Approval workflows (supervisor sign-off for high-value orders)
- [ ] Pagination + lazy loading
- [ ] 116 E2E test scenarios (Playwright)
- [ ] Responsive design (mobile, tablet, desktop)

**Exit Criteria**: All 11 CRUD screens tested, 116 E2E scenarios pass, Lighthouse 90+

---

## Related Decisions

- **ADR-002** (TBD): Authentication & Authorization (JWT + RBAC)
- **ADR-003** (TBD): State Management Strategy (Pinia module organization)
- **ADR-004** (TBD): Component Library Versioning (npm @quantengine/ui)
- **Strategic Execution Framework** (Spec 61): 30 principles applied
- **OpenAPI Specification** (Spec 63): 30 REST endpoints defined
- **Database Schema** (Spec 64): PostgreSQL 3NF design

---

## Validation Checklist (Phase 0 → Phase 1)

Before proceeding to Phase 1 development:

- [ ] All stakeholders agree on monolithic SPA approach
- [ ] Component taxonomy approved (4-layer hierarchy)
- [ ] 11 CRUD templates mapped to API endpoints
- [ ] OpenAPI spec validated by backend team
- [ ] Database schema approved by DBA
- [ ] Vite scaffold created with TypeScript strict mode
- [ ] CI/CD pipeline (GitHub Actions) functional
- [ ] Team training: Vue 3 Composition API + Pinia + TypeScript
- [ ] Design system finalized (Tabler + custom components)

---

## Appendix A: Bundle Size Strategy

**Target**: Main chunk <500KB (gzip), total <1MB

**Strategy**:

1. **Route-level code splitting**: Lazy-load each CRUD module (orders, inventory, etc.)
2. **Dynamic imports**: `import('./orders/OrderForm.vue')`
3. **Library externalization**: Vue, Pinia, Axios in separate chunks
4. **Tree-shaking**: Remove unused Tabler components at build time
5. **Compression**: Gzip (server) + Brotli (CDN)

**Monitoring**: Bundle analyzer in CI (Phase 5+)

---

## Appendix B: Performance Targets

| Metric | Target | Rationale |
|--------|--------|-----------|
| **First Contentful Paint (FCP)** | <2s | Initial render speed |
| **Time to Interactive (TTI)** | <3s | User can interact |
| **Largest Contentful Paint (LCP)** | <2.5s | Main content visible |
| **Cumulative Layout Shift (CLS)** | <0.1 | Visual stability |
| **API response time (P95)** | <250ms | Backend performance |
| **Database query (P95)** | <100ms | Query optimization |
| **Concurrent users (initial)** | 100 | Phase 0-8 capacity |
| **Concurrent users (future)** | 1000+ | Phase 12+ infrastructure scale |

---

## Appendix C: Team Structure (13 FTE)

```
Product Manager (1)
├─ Requirements gathering, stakeholder communication
│
Technical Lead / Architect (1)
├─ Architecture decisions, code review
│
Frontend Development Team (4)
├─ Lead FE Dev (1): Component library, design system
├─ Senior FE Dev (1): State management, API integration
├─ Mid-Level FE Dev (2): CRUD templates, E2E tests
│
Backend Development Team (2)
├─ API development (.NET)
├─ Database optimization
│
UX/UI Designer (1)
├─ Figma designs, accessibility audit
│
QA Team (2)
├─ Automation (Playwright)
├─ Manual testing + UAT coordination
│
DevOps/SRE (1)
├─ CI/CD pipeline, monitoring, deployment
│
Security Specialist (0.5 contractor)
├─ Security audit, OWASP validation
│
Technical Writer (0.5)
├─ API docs, user guides, wiki
```

---

## Sign-Off

- **Product Manager**: _________________ Date: _______
- **Technical Lead**: _________________ Date: _______
- **Backend Lead**: _________________ Date: _______
- **Frontend Lead**: _________________ Date: _______
- **QA Lead**: _________________ Date: _______

---

**Document Version**: 1.0  
**Last Updated**: 2026-07-26  
**Next Review**: Phase 1 completion (2026-08-09)