# Code Quality Assessment

## Test Coverage
- **Overall**: Fair — unit tests exist for Core and Availability modules
- **Unit Tests**: Present for Core.Tests and Modules.Availability.Tests
- **Integration Tests**: Not observed in current structure
- **Frontend Tests**: None (example app has no test files)

## Code Quality Indicators
- **Linting**: Not explicitly configured (no .editorconfig or eslint config seen in backend; frontend likely uses Vite defaults)
- **Code Style**: Consistent — clean C# with XML doc comments on public interfaces and entities
- **Documentation**: Good for core interfaces and entities (XML doc comments); controllers have minimal comments
- **Naming**: Follows .NET conventions (PascalCase classes/methods, camelCase parameters)

## Technical Debt
- Auth context in example React app uses `localStorage` for user state (security concern — no httpOnly cookies)
- Example app auth-context simulates login locally without real API calls (will need to be replaced with actual API integration)
- No CORS configuration confirmed in backend (needs verification for SPA integration)
- `AvailabilityController.UpdateStatus` uses a direct service cast (`as PersistentAvailabilityService`) which couples controller to implementation
- No OpenAPI/Swagger spec currently integrated (would help frontend integration)

## Patterns and Anti-patterns

### Good Patterns
- Module pattern provides clear separation of concerns between features
- JWT refresh token rotation is properly implemented
- Authorization policies are well-defined (OwnerOnly, AdminOnly)
- EF Core used consistently for persistence
- Service interfaces (IAuthService, IInvitationService, ISetupService) for testability

### Anti-patterns
- Direct implementation cast in `AvailabilityController` (should use extended interface instead)
- Example React app uses localStorage-based auth (acceptable for prototype, not production)
- Example React app `auth-context` hardcodes mock users (must be replaced with real API calls)