Executive summary
Read through the Template lens: this is a template / kata / sample / demo — code meant to be read or copied, not operated. The ship-it and operate-it dimensions (CI/CD, observability, ADRs, architecture docs, deployment security) are N/A, and the colour bands on what remains are relaxed to what an example needs. Code correctness stays near-strict; the score is absolute and comparable across repos.
thangnguyenofficial/Frederick-Domain-Design-Driven carries serious risk (52%). Several issues below can materially affect reliability, security, or the cost of change and warrant near-term attention.
It is strongest in Event-Driven (100%) — its messaging keeps components properly decoupled. Maturity (80%) is solid too.
The area that most needs attention is Security (46%) — exposure to security and compliance incidents is elevated. Readiness (47%) is the next concern — operating, monitoring and recovering the system safely is harder.
Leadership focus, highest impact first: Store passwords with a salted KDF (Web-Security Posture); 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution (Test Distribution); strongly-typed ids across the domain (Strongly-typed ids).
For scale: Small (~6,388 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.1 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.
It builds on a genuinely strong Event-Driven foundation (100%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.
Code Health
67%
Fair · gated by X4
Architecture
74%
Healthy
Maturity
80% ★
Exemplary
Readiness
47%
Fair · gated by D9
Security
46%
Fair · gated by S1
Domain Modelling
60%
Fair · gated by DM2, DM7
Event-Driven
100% ★
Exemplary
Code composition — where the lines go
Business logic 7%Plumbing 89%Tests 4%
Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €1,800–€8,400
| Cost to rebuild | €1,800–€8,400 |
| Domain complexity | Very high |
| Quality factor | 0.7× (at 52% quality) |
| Size & shape | Small · 81% boilerplate · 12% straight-line · 7% branching logic |
This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€5,100 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Security at 46% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
Top priorities
1
Store passwords with a salted KDF — `Microsoft.AspNetCore.Identity.PasswordHasher<T>`, `Rfc2898DeriveBytes` (PBKDF2), or BCrypt/Argon2 — and compare with `CryptographicOperations.FixedTimeEquals`. (A fast/plain hash, or a client-hashed value stored and compared verbatim, is not password storage.) Start in `src/FrederickNguyen.DomainLayer/AggregatesModels/Customers/Models/Customer.cs:54`.
2
Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution.
3
Resolve the 1 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with CartDto.cs.
Diagnosis — what's actually going on
Value concentrated against a weak lens
This is a Small asset (~0.1 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Security at 46%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
Root cause: an un-encapsulated domain
9 findings across public setters, anemic types and primitive ids share one root cause — the domain layer doesn't protect its own invariants. Fixing the encapsulation pattern resolves them together, rather than chasing each finding.
Highest-leverage move
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Store passwords with a salted KDF — `Microsoft.AspNetCore.Identity.PasswordHasher<T>`, `Rfc2898DeriveBytes` (PBKDF2), or BCrypt/Argon2 — and compare with `CryptographicOperations.FixedTimeEquals`. (A fast/plain hash, or a client-hashed value stored and compared verbatim, is not password storage.) Start in `src/FrederickNguyen.DomainLayer/AggregatesModels/Customers/Models/Customer.cs:54`. The rest can wait behind it.
Improving trajectory
The headline is improving steadily (+10.5 pts/run over 4 runs) — whatever you're doing is working; keep the gate.
Trajectory
OverallCode HealthArchitectureMaturityReadinessSecurityDomain ModellingEvent-Driven
Architecture — module dependency graph
At a glance — Code Health
The Good
D1 · .NET / C#
Cyclomatic Complexity
10.0
D2 · .NET / C#
Cognitive Complexity
10.0
D3 · .NET / C#
God Classes
10.0
D4 · .NET / C#
Code Duplication
10.0
D17 · .NET / C#
Explicit Debt
10.0
D18 · .NET / C#
Solution Shape
10.0
GD1 · Repo
Unfinished & placeholder code
9.9
IC1 · Repo
Incompleteness & stubs
8.0
X1 · Repo
Async correctness
10.0
X2 · Repo
Cancellation propagation
6.4
X3 · Repo
Exception handling
10.0
The Ugly
At a glance — Architecture
The Good
D5 · .NET / C#
Coupling
8.9
D6 · .NET / C#
Cohesion (LCOM4)
9.5
D22 · .NET / C#
Internal API Consistency
10.0
D26 · .NET / C#
Project Cohesion
10.0
D27 · .NET / C#
Navigability
7.8
D35 · .NET / C#
Change Coupling
10.0
AX1 · Repo
Captive dependencies
10.0
AX10 · Repo
Code composition
6.5
AX3 · Repo
Project dependency cycles
10.0
AX5 · Repo
Architecture & structure
10.0
AX6 · Repo
Interface segregation
10.0
At a glance — Maturity
The Good
The Ugly
At a glance — Readiness
The Good
At a glance — Security
The Ugly
At a glance — Domain Modelling
The Good
At a glance — Event-Driven
The Good
Roadmap
Immediately secure the application by migrating password storage to a salted key derivation function and using constant-time comparison. Address the single missing test case to ensure test coverage is complete. Adopt strongly-typed identifiers across the domain layer to prevent argument-related bugs. Implement structured logging to replace interpolated messages, and restructure repositories to enforce aggregate root boundaries for better invariants.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Store passwords with a salted KDF — `Microsoft.AspNetCore.Identity.PasswordHasher<T>`, `Rfc2898DeriveBytes` (PBKDF2), or BCrypt/Argon2 — and compare with `CryptographicOperations.FixedTimeEquals`. (A fast/plain hash, or a client-hashed value stored and compared verbatim, is not password storage.) Start in `src/FrederickNguyen.DomainLayer/AggregatesModels/Customers/Models/Customer.cs:54`. | +6.8 pts | Medium | Web-Security Posture |
| Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution. | +2.0 pts | Low | Test Distribution |
| Resolve the 1 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with CartDto.cs. | +1.0 pts | Low | Comment Value |
| Adopt strongly-typed ids across the domain — finish the migration or document the boundary; primitive ids invite transposed-argument bugs. | +1.4 pts | Medium | Strongly-typed ids |
| Interpolated log message defeats structured logging | +1.4 pts | Medium | Structured logging |
| Define repositories per aggregate root; reach child entities through their root so invariants can't be bypassed. | +1.3 pts | Medium | Repository granularity |
| Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs. | +1.2 pts | Medium | Documentation (README) |
| Keep dependencies pointing inward: domain/application define interfaces, infrastructure/web implement them (Dependency Inversion). | +1.1 pts | Medium | Dependency direction |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| src/FrederickNguyen.DomainCore/Models/Enumeration.cs | 8.5 | Near-clean | Cohesion (LCOM4): Low cohesion: Enumeration (LCOM4 4) |
| src/FrederickNguyen.ApplicationLayer/DataTransferObjects/CartDto.cs | 9.5 | Near-clean | Comment Value: redundant comment |
Methodology & how to trust this report
Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 50 of 53 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 3 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.5 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
What we checked — 53 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D12D13D14D15D17D18D19D21D22D24D26D27D28D29D35AX1AX10AX3AX4AX5AX6DM1DM2DM4DM5DM6DM7DM8ED1ED2ED3ED4ED5GD1IC1M1M3M4P2P4P8S1X1X2X3X4
How to trust any code-health report — three questions
- Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 18 of 40 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line.
- Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
- Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
Tools & methods
| Method | Backs | Version | Evaluator |
|---|---|---|---|
| Roslyn static analysis | Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering | 5.3.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Native secret scanner | Hardcoded secrets / credentials | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| jscpd | Code duplication | — | ✓ deterministic |
| Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage) | Line & branch coverage | 10.0.301 | ✓ deterministic |
| NuGet / dotnet | Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies | 10.0.301 | ✓ deterministic |
| git / LibGit2Sharp | Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history | 2.43.0 · 0.31.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkov | Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR | 1.86.0 · 0.69.3 | ✓ deterministic |
| LLM (sampled · advisory) | Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement | Qwen/Qwen3.5-35B-A3B | ◐ LLM · sampled · advisory |
Run transparency — what happened this run
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D31 IaC & Container Security — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
- D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
- D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
- D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
- D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (EF migration scaffolds, *.Designer.cs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only; the generated footprint is reported separately under Solution Shape.
- D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
- D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
- D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
- D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
- D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
- D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
- D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
- D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (EF migrations, designer files, snapshots) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
- D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
- D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement.
- D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
- D22 Internal API Consistency: API-surface coherence is an LLM judgement over a sample of the public surface — consistency of intent across the whole API is approximated, not exhaustively verified.
- D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
- D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
- D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
- D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
- D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
- D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
- AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
- DM4 Rich vs anemic model: Behaviour is detected as state mutation inside a method body — a method that enforces an invariant by validating-and-throwing without mutating reads as a query, and mutation delegated through an interface the scan can't resolve isn't credited; entities with zero public properties still drop out of the population. It detects that state changes, not whether the rule is correct.
- DM6 Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary: Infrastructure reached through a hand-rolled wrapper, a domain-named facade, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-infra type and isn't seen; the body scan is symbol resolution over syntax, not full dataflow. A clean result means "no resolved infra reference in a domain body", not a proof of purity.
- ED5 Idempotency: Idempotency is judged from the handler body's visible writes and guards — a guard enforced by a database unique constraint, a broker's exactly-once delivery, or a domain method whose no-op-when-applied logic the scan can't follow may read as at-risk; the at-risk candidates are confirmed by a SAMPLED LLM verdict (advisory, not exhaustive) and degrade to heuristic-only when no model is configured. It flags the at-least-once double-apply SHAPE, not a runtime proof of a duplicate effect.
- M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
- P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
The LLM boundary
Dimensions
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
0 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
0 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes
0 god class(es) detected.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D4 · Code Duplication
0 duplicated block group(s) detected.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling
7 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on project(s).
Off the main sequence: FrederickNguyen.Infrastructure.Components
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Enforce Coupling in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)
1 of 22 classes have LCOM4 above 3.
Low cohesion: Enumeration (LCOM4 4)src/FrederickNguyen.DomainCore/Models/Enumeration.cs:22
Do you agree with this assessment?
D9 · Test Distribution
No test projects found.
No tests found
What to do
- Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
0 outdated, 0 vulnerable, 0 deprecated packages.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D13 · Secret Scanning
Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D14 · License Compliance
0 of 24 packages use a banned license.
Licenses scanned
Do you agree with this assessment?
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.
git history depth insufficient
Do you agree with this assessment?
D17 · Explicit Debt
0 deducted debt markers + 0 dead symbols across 6099 LoC (0.0/KLoC) → score 10.0.
Justified suppression src/FrederickNguyen.WebApi/Infrastructure/Filters/HttpGlobalExceptionFilter.cs:16
Do you agree with this assessment?
D18 · Solution Shape
7 projects, 115 .cs files, 6388 hand-written lines of code (6099 production / 289 test), 18 inter-project edges (build status unknown — did not finish).
Build status unknown
FrederickNguyen.DomainLayer (Production)src/FrederickNguyen.DomainLayer/FrederickNguyen.DomainLayer.csproj
FrederickNguyen.DomainCore (Production)src/FrederickNguyen.DomainCore/FrederickNguyen.DomainCore.csproj
FrederickNguyen.ApplicationLayer (Production)src/FrederickNguyen.ApplicationLayer/FrederickNguyen.ApplicationLayer.csproj
FrederickNguyen.Infrastructure.Data (Production)src/FrederickNguyen.Infrastructure/FrederickNguyen.Infrastructure.Data.csproj
Do you agree with this assessment?
D19 · Documentation Quality
The project has a single README file that provides a high-level overview, technology stack, and architecture summary. However, it lacks critical practical information such as build/run instructions, configuration steps, and a clear project structure. The documentation relies heavily on external links and a wiki, which may be unstable or incomplete. XML documentation coverage is high, but this is not reflected in the README.
XML-doc coverage: FrederickNguyen.DomainLayer src/FrederickNguyen.DomainLayer/FrederickNguyen.DomainLayer.csproj
What to do
- Improve Documentation Quality — currently 4.0/10. — The project has a single README file that provides a high-level overview, technology stack, and architecture summary. However, it lacks critical practical information such as build/run instructions, configuration steps, and a clear project structure. The documentation relies heavily on external links and a wiki, which may be unstable or incomplete. XML documentation coverage is high, but this is not reflected in the README.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D21 · Naming Consistency
1 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.
Typo in model name: 'AddProudct' instead of 'AddProduct'. The word 'Product' is misspelled as 'Proudct' in the class name, while other similar models (AddNewProductViewModel, AddNewCustomerViewModel) are correctly spelled.
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Typo in model name finding(s) in Naming Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D22 · Internal API Consistency
No public API surface exposed; nothing to be inconsistent.
No exposed public API
Do you agree with this assessment?
D24 · Comment Value
4 valuable / 118 redundant across 200 sampled comments; 1 shown with locations.
redundant commentsrc/FrederickNguyen.ApplicationLayer/DataTransferObjects/CartDto.cs:2
What to do
- Resolve the 1 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with CartDto.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D26 · Project Cohesion
0 of 7 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D27 · Navigability
90 % of calls cross a namespace and 16 % go through an interface, but 69 % of collaborators are co-located — so following a call takes several hops. Baseline: small — navigation cost is tolerated.
What to do
- Improve Navigability — currently 7.8/10. — 90 % of calls cross a namespace and 16 % go through an interface, but 69 % of collaborators are co-located — so following a call takes several hops. Baseline: small — navigation cost is tolerated.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D28 · Secrets (history)
gitleaks scanned the full history AND the current working tree and found no secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
semgrep found no security issues.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D35 · Change Coupling
No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.
git history depth insufficient
Do you agree with this assessment?
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AX1 · Captive dependencies
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX10 · Code composition
What to do
- The domain core is a small share of production code — check that business logic isn't leaking into the application/infrastructure layers (a thin domain is the anemic-domain smell).
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX3 · Project dependency cycles
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX4 · Dependency direction
- `FrederickNguyen.ApplicationLayer` is a Application project but references `FrederickNguyen.Infrastructure.Data`, a Infrastructure project. The clean-architecture rule is that dependencies point INWARD — the domain/application core must not depend on outer layers (infrastructure/web). Invert it: define the abstraction in the inner layer and implement it in the outer one.
- `FrederickNguyen.DomainLayer` is a Domain project but references `FrederickNguyen.Infrastructure.Components`, a Infrastructure project. The clean-architecture rule is that dependencies point INWARD — the domain/application core must not depend on outer layers (infrastructure/web). Invert it: define the abstraction in the inner layer and implement it in the outer one.
What to do
- Keep dependencies pointing inward: domain/application define interfaces, infrastructure/web implement them (Dependency Inversion).
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX5 · Architecture & structure
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX6 · Interface segregation
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM1 · Aggregate boundaries
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM2 · Strongly-typed ids
- `Cart.CustomerId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct CustomerId { Guid Value }`). — Cart.cs:46
- `Purchase.CustomerId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct CustomerId { Guid Value }`). — Purchase.cs:45
- `PurchasedProduct.PurchaseId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct PurchaseId { Guid Value }`). — PurchasedProduct.cs:31
- `PurchasedProduct.ProductId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct ProductId { Guid Value }`). — PurchasedProduct.cs:37
- `DomainNotification.DomainNotificationId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct DomainNotificationId { Guid Value }`). — DomainNotification.cs:29
- `DomainNotification.Key` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct Key { String Value }`). — DomainNotification.cs:35
What to do
- Adopt strongly-typed ids across the domain — finish the migration or document the boundary; primitive ids invite transposed-argument bugs.
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM4 · Rich vs anemic model
- `Customer` is an aggregate/entity with 7 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — Customer.cs:28
What to do
- Move business rules onto the aggregates/entities they govern so invariants are enforced at the source, not in anemic services.
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM5 · Encapsulated state
- `Cart` exposes public setter(s) (CreatedDate). — Cart.cs:29
- `Purchase` exposes public setter(s) (Products). — Purchase.cs:27
What to do
- Make entity setters private/init-only; change state only through methods that enforce the invariants (Marten/EF can bind via constructor or private setters).
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM6 · Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM7 · Repository granularity
- `CartRepository` is a repository over `Cart`, which is an entity but not an aggregate root. Repositories should be per aggregate ROOT — loading/saving a child entity independently lets callers bypass the root's invariants. Access `Cart` through its owning aggregate instead. — CartRepository.cs:28
- `CustomerRepository` is a repository over `Customer`, which is an entity but not an aggregate root. Repositories should be per aggregate ROOT — loading/saving a child entity independently lets callers bypass the root's invariants. Access `Customer` through its owning aggregate instead. — CustomerRepository.cs:27
- `ProductRepository` is a repository over `Product`, which is an entity but not an aggregate root. Repositories should be per aggregate ROOT — loading/saving a child entity independently lets callers bypass the root's invariants. Access `Product` through its owning aggregate instead. — ProductRepository.cs:21
What to do
- Define repositories per aggregate root; reach child entities through their root so invariants can't be bypassed.
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM8 · Value-object opportunities
Do you agree with this assessment?
ED1 · Handler temporal coupling
Do you agree with this assessment?
ED2 · Event/command shape
Do you agree with this assessment?
ED3 · Event naming
- `CustomerCreatedEvent` reads as an instruction, not a fact that happened. Events describe something that already occurred — name them in the past tense (e.g. `OrderPlaced`, `PaymentCaptured`) so the ubiquitous language stays clear. — CustomerCreatedEvent.cs:24
- `CustomerRemovedEvent` reads as an instruction, not a fact that happened. Events describe something that already occurred — name them in the past tense (e.g. `OrderPlaced`, `PaymentCaptured`) so the ubiquitous language stays clear. — CustomerRemovedEvent.cs:24
- `ProductCreatedEvent` reads as an instruction, not a fact that happened. Events describe something that already occurred — name them in the past tense (e.g. `OrderPlaced`, `PaymentCaptured`) so the ubiquitous language stays clear. — ProductCreatedEvent.cs:23
- `DomainNotification` reads as an instruction, not a fact that happened. Events describe something that already occurred — name them in the past tense (e.g. `OrderPlaced`, `PaymentCaptured`) so the ubiquitous language stays clear. — DomainNotification.cs:23
What to do
- Name events in the past tense — they record facts that already happened.
Do you agree with this assessment?
ED4 · Outbox / dual-write
Do you agree with this assessment?
ED5 · Idempotency
Do you agree with this assessment?
GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code
- A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×2) — CartRepository.cs:96, CartRepository.cs:101
What to do
- Finish or delete NotImplementedException stubs and replace placeholder literals before shipping.
Do you agree with this assessment?
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs
- `Update` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — CartRepository.cs:94
- `Delete` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — CartRepository.cs:99
- A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). (×8) — IEventStoreRepository.cs:31, CreateCustomerCommandValidator.cs:52, CreateCustomerCommandValidator.cs:55, …
What to do
- Finish or delete the unfinished stubs (NotImplementedException / empty / constant-returning bodies) — they are dead surface that looks live.
- Clear the softer debt: remove commented-out code and dead branches, re-enable or delete skipped tests, and replace blanket warning suppressions with targeted ones.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M1 · Documentation (README)
What to do
- Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
- Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
- Add a README to the 7 of 7 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M3 · Folder & project structure
- Test projects aren't grouped under a tests/ folder — the test surface isn't separable from production code at a glance.
What to do
- Group test projects under tests/ (or test/, spec/) so the test surface is discoverable and CI can scope it.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M4 · Documentation accuracy
- SDK version mismatch
What to do
- Reconcile the README with reality: SDK version mismatch.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P2 · Observability
- Only 2/7 service-like projects use logging (pure contract/DTO projects are excluded — they have nothing to log).
What to do
- Extend structured logging to the remaining service-like projects so the whole executable surface is diagnosable in production.
- Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics and a health-check endpoint for operability.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P4 · Deployment & Rollback
- Deployment automation exists but no readiness/liveness probes, rolling-update strategy, lifecycle hooks or migration job were evidenced — a bad release is harder to detect and reverse.
What to do
- Add readiness/liveness probes and a rolling-update (or blue/green) strategy so a bad release is caught and rolled back automatically.
- Add an approval/environment gate (required reviewers / protection rules) before production promotion.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P8 · Schema migrations
- EF Core is used but neither migrations nor EnsureCreated were detected — confirm how the production schema is created and evolved.
What to do
- Adopt EF migrations (dotnet ef migrations add + Migrate() on startup) as the explicit, versioned schema strategy — no migration mechanism was detected.
Do you agree with this assessment?
S1 · Web-Security Posture
- Identifier 'PasswordHash' looks like a password-hash field/property, but no KDF (PBKDF2 / Argon2 / BCrypt / PasswordHasher) was found anywhere in the source — so passwords aren't protected by a salted key-derivation function (whether a fast/plain hash, or a client-hashed value stored and compared verbatim). Password storage needs a salted KDF and a constant-time compare. — Customer.cs:54
- No Content-Security-Policy / X-Frame-Options / X-Content-Type-Options configuration found — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them. (−2.0 on this card.)
- No UseHttpsRedirection/UseHsts and no reverse-proxy signal — transport security is unverified at the app layer. (−2.0 on this card.)
- No CookieSecurePolicy/HttpOnly/SameSite configuration found. (−1.5 on this card; skip if the app sets no cookies.)
What to do
- Store passwords with a salted KDF — `Microsoft.AspNetCore.Identity.PasswordHasher<T>`, `Rfc2898DeriveBytes` (PBKDF2), or BCrypt/Argon2 — and compare with `CryptographicOperations.FixedTimeEquals`. (A fast/plain hash, or a client-hashed value stored and compared verbatim, is not password storage.) Start in `src/FrederickNguyen.DomainLayer/AggregatesModels/Customers/Models/Customer.cs:54`.
- Add security response headers (Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them.
- Enforce HTTPS at the app layer (UseHttpsRedirection / UseHsts) — only skip this if a reverse proxy demonstrably terminates TLS.
- Set secure cookie flags — CookieSecurePolicy.Always, HttpOnly, and SameSite (Strict/Lax) on auth/session cookies. Skip only if the app sets no cookies.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X1 · Async correctness
Do you agree with this assessment?
X2 · Cancellation propagation
- Only 4/10 async methods accept a CancellationToken, so requests can't be cancelled cleanly under load or on client disconnect. In Blazor Server circuits and other short-write hosts, omitting it can be an accepted convention — judge against your hosting model.
- No CancellationToken parameter — work can't be cancelled cleanly on disconnect/shutdown. (×6) — CommandDispatcher.cs:43, CustomerService.cs:95, CustomerService.cs:105, …
What to do
- Thread a CancellationToken through async methods so work stops promptly on cancellation.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X3 · Exception handling
Do you agree with this assessment?
X4 · Structured logging
- Logging an interpolated string (`$"..."`) collapses the event to plain text — you lose the named, queryable properties structured logging exists for. Use a message template with placeholders: `LogInformation("User {UserId} did {Action}", id, action)`. (×3) — CustomerCreatedEventHandler.cs:54, LoggingBehavior.cs:53, LoggingBehavior.cs:55
What to do
- Interpolated log message defeats structured logging
Do you agree with this assessment?
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 67% | Fair — gated by X4 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Architecture | 74% | Healthy | Solid. |
| Maturity | 80% | Exemplary | Solid. |
| Readiness | 47% | Fair — gated by D9 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 46% | Fair — gated by S1 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Domain Modelling | 60% | Fair — gated by DM2, DM7 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Event-Driven | 100% | Exemplary | Strongest area. |
Not included — 48 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
- AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
- AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
- AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
- AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
- C1 Data Protection — This is a dotnet-new template — at-rest encryption and key-vaulting are deferred to the application you build from it. Add ASP.NET Data Protection / column encryption + a key vault for your real data store when you productionise.
- C2 Access Controls — This is a dotnet-new template — authorization is deferred to the application you build from it. Add [Authorize]/policies (or imperative guards) when you wire up real users; until then there are no real endpoints to protect.
- C3 Audit Trail — Repo shows no audit-logging mechanism (IAuditable, an immutable audit log, an EF SaveChanges interceptor) for sensitive changes — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Record an audit trail in code (or document where it lives) so this dimension can be scored.
- C4 Data Retention — Repo shows no data-retention / TTL / cleanup mechanism for personal data (event-sourced storage — lifecycle is stream archival / event TTL, not row CASCADE) — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Define retention periods and a purge/cleanup job (or TTL) in code, or document where retention is enforced, so this dimension can be scored.
- C5 Data-Subject Rights — Repo shows no corroborated data-subject-rights mechanism (erasure / export-portability / consent) tied to a subject id or GDPR vocabulary — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Implement erasure, data export/portability and consent tracking over the subject's records.
- D10 Test Quality — ~289 lines of test code exist on disk but weren't loaded from the analyzed solution (excluded from the .sln, or co-located/using a test attribute not loaded here), so test quality couldn't be assessed. Include the tests in the analyzed solution to enable this check.
- D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included
- D16 Bus Factor — early-stage repository — too few commits for a meaningful bus factor
- D20 ADR Quality — N/A — this repo declares itself a template / kata / sample / demo; a formal ADR log is deferred to a real application built from it.
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Bounded contexts not declared
- D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not applicable
- D31 IaC & Container Security — Not applicable
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — Not applicable
- D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not applicable
- D34 Knowledge Freshness — early-stage repository — too little history to judge knowledge freshness
- D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — Not applicable
- D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — Not applicable
- D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not applicable
- D7 Architectural Integrity — No checkable ADRs to assess
- D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not measured
- DM3 Integration-event coupling — no integration events detected — coupling check not applicable
- ES1 Event Sourcing — not run — 0/3 markers found
- M2 Architecture documentation — This repo declares itself a template / kata / sample / demo — formal architecture documentation (ADRs, C4 diagrams) is deferred to a real application built from it, so its absence is not a defect here.
- P1 CI/CD gates — This repo declares itself a template / kata / sample / demo — code meant to be read or copied, not operated. Automated CI/CD gates are deferred to the application you build from it, so their absence is not a defect here. The dimension reactivates once the repo becomes a real app.
- P12 CI test-gate honesty — no CI workflow found
- P3 Security & performance tooling — This repo declares itself a template / kata / sample / demo — code meant to be read or copied, not operated. SAST, secret/dependency scanning and performance benchmarks are deferred to the application you build from it, so their absence is not a defect here. The dimension reactivates once the repo becomes a real app.
- P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
- P6 Release Hygiene — not evidenced — no changelog, version stamp or semver release tag in the repo
- P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — no outbound HTTP usage detected
- P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — run tests with `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` (or in CI) to enable this cross-layer check
- PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- X5 Nullable reference types — no NRT-eligible projects
- X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — no data
- X7 Silent fallback defaults — no data
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
Warning — 5 finding(s)
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
- git history depth insufficient
D35 · Change Coupling
- git history depth insufficient
D5 · Coupling
- Off the main sequence: FrederickNguyen.Infrastructure.Components
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)
- Low cohesion: Enumeration (LCOM4 4) src/FrederickNguyen.DomainCore/Models/Enumeration.cs:22
D8 · Code Coverage
- Coverage not measured
Recommendation — 16 finding(s)
D11 · Test Reliability
- Test reliability not included
D16 · Bus Factor
- early-stage repository — too few commits for a meaningful bus factor
D21 · Naming Consistency
- Typo in model name: 'AddProudct' instead of 'AddProduct'. The word 'Product' is misspelled as 'Proudct' in the class name, while other similar models (AddNewProductViewModel, AddNewCustomerViewModel) are correctly spelled.
D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling
- Bounded contexts not declared
D24 · Comment Value
- redundant comment src/FrederickNguyen.ApplicationLayer/DataTransferObjects/CartDto.cs:2
D25 · ADR Conformance
- no ADRs to check
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
- Not applicable
D31 · IaC & Container Security
- Not applicable
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)
- Not applicable
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities
- Not applicable
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
- early-stage repository — too little history to judge knowledge freshness
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- Not applicable
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy
- Not applicable
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities
- Not applicable
D7 · Architectural Integrity
- No checkable ADRs to assess
D9 · Test Distribution
- No tests found
Info — 19 finding(s)
D19 · Documentation Quality
- XML-doc coverage: FrederickNguyen.DomainLayer src/FrederickNguyen.DomainLayer/FrederickNguyen.DomainLayer.csproj
- XML-doc coverage: FrederickNguyen.DomainCore src/FrederickNguyen.DomainCore/FrederickNguyen.DomainCore.csproj
- XML-doc coverage: FrederickNguyen.ApplicationLayer src/FrederickNguyen.ApplicationLayer/FrederickNguyen.ApplicationLayer.csproj
- XML-doc coverage: FrederickNguyen.Infrastructure.Data src/FrederickNguyen.Infrastructure/FrederickNguyen.Infrastructure.Data.csproj
- XML-doc coverage: FrederickNguyen.WebApi src/FrederickNguyen.WebApi/FrederickNguyen.WebApi.csproj
- XML-doc coverage: FrederickNguyen.Infrastructure.Components src/FrederickNguyen.Infrastructure.Components/FrederickNguyen.Infrastructure.Components.csproj
- XML-doc coverage: FrederickNguyen.Infrastructure.CrossCutting.IoC src/FrederickNguyen.Infrastructure.CrossCutting.IoC/FrederickNguyen.Infrastructure.CrossCutting.IoC.csproj
D17 · Explicit Debt
- Justified suppression src/FrederickNguyen.WebApi/Infrastructure/Filters/HttpGlobalExceptionFilter.cs:16
- Justified suppression src/FrederickNguyen.WebApi/Infrastructure/Filters/HttpGlobalExceptionFilter.cs:24
D14 · License Compliance
- Licenses scanned
D18 · Solution Shape
- Build status unknown
D18 · Solution Shape
- FrederickNguyen.DomainLayer (Production) src/FrederickNguyen.DomainLayer/FrederickNguyen.DomainLayer.csproj
D18 · Solution Shape
- FrederickNguyen.DomainCore (Production) src/FrederickNguyen.DomainCore/FrederickNguyen.DomainCore.csproj
D18 · Solution Shape
- FrederickNguyen.ApplicationLayer (Production) src/FrederickNguyen.ApplicationLayer/FrederickNguyen.ApplicationLayer.csproj
D18 · Solution Shape
- FrederickNguyen.Infrastructure.Data (Production) src/FrederickNguyen.Infrastructure/FrederickNguyen.Infrastructure.Data.csproj
D18 · Solution Shape
- FrederickNguyen.WebApi (Production) src/FrederickNguyen.WebApi/FrederickNguyen.WebApi.csproj
D18 · Solution Shape
- FrederickNguyen.Infrastructure.Components (Production) src/FrederickNguyen.Infrastructure.Components/FrederickNguyen.Infrastructure.Components.csproj
D18 · Solution Shape
- FrederickNguyen.Infrastructure.CrossCutting.IoC (Production) src/FrederickNguyen.Infrastructure.CrossCutting.IoC/FrederickNguyen.Infrastructure.CrossCutting.IoC.csproj
D22 · Internal API Consistency
- No exposed public API
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
| Dimension | Tool | Version | Command | Findings | Raw output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json |
| D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) | semgrep | — | semgrep --config auto --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off . | 0 | — |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | dotnet | — | dotnet: not applicable — the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan for NuGet CVEs — excluded rather than scored; re-run on an SDK that can restore this solution | 0 | — |
| D31 · IaC & Container Security | trivy | — | trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan. | 0 | — |
| D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) | semgrep | — | semgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess. | 0 | — |
| D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities | trivy | — | trivy: not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside bin/obj (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan. | 0 | — |
| D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing | provenance | — | provenance: not applicable — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines.yml, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); there is no build to attest provenance for. | 0 | — |
| D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy | disclosure | — | disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed. | 0 | — |
| D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities | osv-scanner | — | osv-scanner: not applicable — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan. | 0 | — |
Appendix C — Personal-data map
Name — 12 field(s)
- CustomerDto.FirstName src/FrederickNguyen.ApplicationLayer/DataTransferObjects/CustomerDto.cs:34
- CustomerDto.LastName src/FrederickNguyen.ApplicationLayer/DataTransferObjects/CustomerDto.cs:40
- CustomerPurchaseHistoryDto.FirstName src/FrederickNguyen.ApplicationLayer/DataTransferObjects/CustomerPurchaseHistoryDto.cs:34
- CustomerPurchaseHistoryDto.LastName src/FrederickNguyen.ApplicationLayer/DataTransferObjects/CustomerPurchaseHistoryDto.cs:40
- AddNewCustomerViewModel.FirstName src/FrederickNguyen.ApplicationLayer/Models/AddNewCustomerViewModel.cs:30
- AddNewCustomerViewModel.LastName src/FrederickNguyen.ApplicationLayer/Models/AddNewCustomerViewModel.cs:37
- UpdateCustomerViewModel.FirstName src/FrederickNguyen.ApplicationLayer/Models/UpdateCustomerViewModel.cs:37
- UpdateCustomerViewModel.LastName src/FrederickNguyen.ApplicationLayer/Models/UpdateCustomerViewModel.cs:44
- CustomerCommand.FirstName src/FrederickNguyen.DomainLayer/AggregatesModels/Customers/Commands/CustomerCommand.cs:35
- CustomerCommand.LastName src/FrederickNguyen.DomainLayer/AggregatesModels/Customers/Commands/CustomerCommand.cs:41
- Customer.FirstName src/FrederickNguyen.DomainLayer/AggregatesModels/Customers/Models/Customer.cs:36
- Customer.LastName src/FrederickNguyen.DomainLayer/AggregatesModels/Customers/Models/Customer.cs:42
Email — 6 field(s)
- CustomerPurchaseHistoryDto.Email src/FrederickNguyen.ApplicationLayer/DataTransferObjects/CustomerPurchaseHistoryDto.cs:46
- AddNewCustomerViewModel.Email src/FrederickNguyen.ApplicationLayer/Models/AddNewCustomerViewModel.cs:41
- EmailAvailableViewModel.Email src/FrederickNguyen.ApplicationLayer/Models/EmailAvailableViewModel.cs:30
- CustomerCommand.Email src/FrederickNguyen.DomainLayer/AggregatesModels/Customers/Commands/CustomerCommand.cs:47
- CustomerCreatedEventHandler._emailSender src/FrederickNguyen.DomainLayer/AggregatesModels/Customers/EventHandlers/CustomerCreatedEventHandler.cs:30
- Customer.Email src/FrederickNguyen.DomainLayer/AggregatesModels/Customers/Models/Customer.cs:48
Financial (card / IBAN) — 3 field(s)
- CreditCard.CardNumber src/FrederickNguyen.DomainLayer/AggregatesModels/Customers/Models/CreditCard.cs:35
- Customer._creditCards src/FrederickNguyen.DomainLayer/AggregatesModels/Customers/Models/Customer.cs:30
- Customer.CreditCards src/FrederickNguyen.DomainLayer/AggregatesModels/Customers/Models/Customer.cs:72