feat(infra): beheer portal in compose + e2e + ADR-0025 + demo note (refs #130)

2026-07-24 10:59:20 +02:00
parent 4c702e324a
commit 5f5dfda1a0
7 changed files with 134 additions and 3 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+# ADR-0025: The BFF reads the catalogus directly from the ACL
+
+- **Status:** Accepted
+- **Date:** 2026-07-24
+- **Deciders:** Respellion engineering
+- **Slice:** S-15a (#130), first of the S-15 (#16) split
+
+## Context
+
+The beheer portal shows a read-only view of the ZTC catalogus (the published
+zaaktypen). Two coupling rules constrain where that data can come from:
+
+- **§8.1** — only the ACL may talk to the ZGW APIs (Catalogi included). So the
+  catalogus read *must* originate in the ACL.
+- **§8.3** — portals talk only to the BFF. So the portal reaches the ACL only
+  through the BFF.
+
+That leaves the question of *how the BFF gets the data*. Until now the BFF fanned
+out to exactly two backends — the Domain Service and the read projection. The
+catalogus is neither: it is not a registration (domain) nor a projected read model.
+
+## Decision
+
+**The BFF calls the ACL directly for the beheer catalogus read** — a new typed
+`IAclClient` (`GET /catalogi/zaaktypen`), configured by `Downstream:Acl:BaseUrl`,
+mirroring the existing `IDomainClient` / `IProjectionClient` pattern.
+
+Rejected alternative — **route it through the Domain Service** (BFF → domain →
+ACL): the catalogus is not a domain concern, so the domain would gain a
+pass-through endpoint that owns no aggregate and no invariant, blurring the
+domain's responsibility purely to avoid a new edge. That is worse coupling, not
+better.
+
+This adds one service-to-service edge (BFF → ACL) — an architecturally
+significant boundary change (§14), hence this ADR. It does **not** bend §8: the
+ACL stays the only code that reads ZGW, and the portal still talks only to the
+BFF. The ACL endpoint is a plain read that trusts its callers (§8.3); the
+beheerder authorization lives at the BFF (medewerker realm + `beheerder` role).
+
+## Consequences
+
+**Positive**
+
+- The catalogus read follows the shortest honest path; the domain stays about
+  registrations.
+- Symmetric with the other downstream clients — nothing new to learn.
+
+**Negative / costs**
+
+- The BFF now depends on three backends instead of two. The ACL must be reachable
+  for the beheer portal to load (it already is — the BFF is on the same network).
+- A second consumer of the ACL (alongside the domain and event-subscriber), so
+  ACL read endpoints are now part of more than one caller's contract.
+
+## Coupling rules touched (CLAUDE.md §8)
+
+A new BFF → ACL edge. §8.1 and §8.3 remain intact; §14 (boundary change) is the
+reason this ADR exists.