|
| 1 | +# NOTES |
| 2 | + |
| 3 | +## Plan |
| 4 | + |
| 5 | +The approved plan added a `PUT /users/:id` route in `routes/users.js` and a matching |
| 6 | +`updateUser(id, { name, email })` helper in `db/store.js`, both mirroring the existing |
| 7 | +`GET /:id` and `POST /` handlers (same 404 shape, same "name and email are required" 400 |
| 8 | +message). The plan specified validating input before doing the lookup, so a request with |
| 9 | +a missing field 400s even against a real id — that matched how the tests exercise each |
| 10 | +case independently, and I approved it as written without edits. |
| 11 | + |
| 12 | +## Model |
| 13 | + |
| 14 | +Used Claude Sonnet 5 for the whole task — plan, implementation, and review. The change is |
| 15 | +small and follows patterns already present in the codebase, so there was no need for a |
| 16 | +larger/slower model; Sonnet handled the plan-mode exploration and the route/store code |
| 17 | +without any back-and-forth. |
| 18 | + |
| 19 | +## Commits |
| 20 | + |
| 21 | +Split into three: `db/store.js` (the `updateUser` helper) first, then `routes/users.js` |
| 22 | +(the route that uses it), then this `NOTES.md` last. Store-then-route mirrors the |
| 23 | +dependency between them (the route can't be written meaningfully without the helper it |
| 24 | +calls), and keeping `NOTES.md` as its own commit means the write-up can honestly describe |
| 25 | +what actually happened during implementation and review rather than what was planned. |
| 26 | + |
| 27 | +## Review |
| 28 | + |
| 29 | +Ran a self-review (correctness, removed-behavior, cross-file, reuse/simplification/ |
| 30 | +efficiency, altitude, conventions) against the two-file diff before pushing. Nothing came |
| 31 | +back: validation runs before the store lookup as planned, `Number(req.params.id)` on a |
| 32 | +non-numeric id degrades to `NaN`/not-found the same way the existing `GET /:id` handler |
| 33 | +already does, and the new store helper mutates the existing user record in place rather |
| 34 | +than duplicating any lookup logic. The review confirmed the implementation was clean |
| 35 | +rather than catching anything that needed fixing. |
0 commit comments