Hi @georgidhristov
This is what I can see on my side.
Summary
The entire structure is straightforward. One library, one simple app, clear top-level folders.
But the project lacks automated testing, and a few process gaps will become friction as it scales.
Findings
1. No test coverage
The solution has DebugProbe.AspNetCore and DebugProbe.SampleApi, but no test project. CONTRIBUTING.md points to manual verification through the sample app.
For middleware handling exceptions, body capture, and response rendering, this is a risk. Unit and integration tests would cover core paths. Without them, any refactor risks regressions.
2. CI scope is limited
The workflow restores and builds DebugProbe.AspNetCore.csproj only. It does not build the full solution or run the sample app. Passing builds confirm that the library compiles. They confirm nothing else.
PLUS: Commit and PR conventions are mixed.
CONTRIBUTING.md defines branch naming, but not commit or PR title format.
It slows down code review and, most importantly, it gives the impression of non-senior collaboration.
History blends conventional commits (e.g., feat:, fix:) with loose subjects. PR titles vary too.
https://www.conventionalcommits.org/en/v1.0.0/#specification
Hope it helps you.
Hi @georgidhristov
This is what I can see on my side.
Summary
The entire structure is straightforward. One library, one simple app, clear top-level folders.
But the project lacks automated testing, and a few process gaps will become friction as it scales.
Findings
1. No test coverage
The solution has DebugProbe.AspNetCore and DebugProbe.SampleApi, but no test project. CONTRIBUTING.md points to manual verification through the sample app.
For middleware handling exceptions, body capture, and response rendering, this is a risk. Unit and integration tests would cover core paths. Without them, any refactor risks regressions.
2. CI scope is limited
The workflow restores and builds
DebugProbe.AspNetCore.csprojonly. It does not build the full solution or run the sample app. Passing builds confirm that the library compiles. They confirm nothing else.PLUS: Commit and PR conventions are mixed.
CONTRIBUTING.mddefines branch naming, but not commit or PR title format.It slows down code review and, most importantly, it gives the impression of non-senior collaboration.
History blends conventional commits (e.g., feat:, fix:) with loose subjects. PR titles vary too.
https://www.conventionalcommits.org/en/v1.0.0/#specification
Hope it helps you.