Integration checkpoint for epic-duplicate-activity-detection-core-logic
epic-duplicate-activity-detection-core-logic-integration-task — Integration Task
Integration Purpose
Verify integration with dependent epics: epic-duplicate-activity-detection-foundation
This integration checkpoint ensures proper coordination and compatibility between different epics. It verifies that all interfaces, data flows, and dependencies are correctly implemented before proceeding.
Integrates With Epics
Execution Context
Tier 5 - 253 tasks
Can start after Tier 4 completes
Handles integration between different epics or system components. Requires coordination across multiple development streams.
| Status | pending |
| Type | Integration |
| Estimated | 4h |
| Tier | 5 |
If the duplicate check RPC fails due to a network error or Supabase outage, the service must decide whether to block submission entirely (safe but disruptive) or allow submission to proceed silently (functional but risks data duplication). An incorrect choice leads to either user frustration or data quality issues.
Mitigation & Contingency
Mitigation: Define an explicit error policy in the service: RPC failures result in a DuplicateCheckResult with status: 'check_failed' and no candidates. The caller treats this as 'allow submission, flag for async review'. Document this as the intended graceful degradation behaviour in the service interface contract.
Contingency: If stakeholders require blocking on RPC failure, expose a configurable `failMode` parameter in the service that can be toggled per organisation via the feature flag system without a code deployment.
The DuplicateComparisonPanel must handle varying activity schemas across organisations (NHF, HLF, Blindeforbundet each have different activity fields). A rigid layout may not accommodate all field variations, causing truncation or missing data in the comparison view.
Mitigation & Contingency
Mitigation: Design the panel to render a dynamic list of key-value pairs rather than a fixed-column layout. Define a `ComparisonField` model that each service populates with only the fields relevant to the activity type and organisation, allowing the panel to adapt without schema knowledge.
Contingency: If dynamic rendering proves too complex within the timeline, ship a simplified panel showing only the five most critical fields (peer mentor, activity type, date, chapter, submitter) and log a follow-up ticket for full field rendering in a later sprint.