audit readme for review

[LinusWestling]

Closes #14

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation
  • Added comprehensive documentation for the request auditing subsystem, detailing audit log capture, access via API and UI endpoints, data persistence, query sanitization, and operational guidance.

[coderabbitai]

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

A new AUDIT.md documentation file is added that specifies the request auditing subsystem architecture, including persistence layer details (AuditEventEntity, AuditEventRepository), capture mechanism (AuditInterceptor, AuditWebMvcConfig), business logic (AuditService with record and listEvents methods), DTO mapping, and endpoint specifications for both REST and UI.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Audit Subsystem Documentation AUDIT.md	Comprehensive specification of the auditing subsystem covering persistence, capture mechanism, business logic, DTO mapping, REST/UI endpoints, client IP/user-agent handling, sensitive data redaction, and operational notes.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~12 minutes

Possibly related PRs

• PR #32: Implements the actual auditing subsystem (AuditEventEntity/Repository, AuditService/Mapper, AuditInterceptor/WebMvcConfig) that this AUDIT.md documentation specifies.

Poem

🐰✨ A rabbit hops through audit trails so clear,
Documents the system we hold dear,
With interceptors dancing and services bright,
The auditing tale is now written right! 📋

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 2 | ❌ 1

❌ Failed checks (1 inconclusive)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Title check	❓ Inconclusive	The title 'audit readme for review' uses vague language that doesn't clearly convey the specific content or purpose of the AUDIT.md document being added.	Consider using a more descriptive title such as 'Document audit subsystem architecture and implementation' or 'Add AUDIT.md documenting request auditing system'

✅ Passed checks (2 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch audit/readme

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[coderabbitai]

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)

AUDIT.md (1)

76-79: Consider varying sentence structure for better readability.

These four consecutive sentences all start with "Sets", which slightly impacts readability. Consider restructuring for variety.

📝 Suggested rewording

-2. Sets identity fields: `actorId`, `actorRole`, `principalName`.
-3. Sets request metadata: method, URI, query string, resolved handler name.
-4. Sets `responseStatus`, `errorType` (from `ex`).
-5. Sets **`caseId`** via `extractCaseId(request)`:
+2. Populates identity fields: `actorId`, `actorRole`, `principalName`.
+3. Captures request metadata: method, URI, query string, resolved handler name.
+4. Records outcome: `responseStatus`, `errorType` (from `ex`).
+5. Extracts **`caseId`** via `extractCaseId(request)`:

As per static analysis hints: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Consider rewording the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents

Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

In `@AUDIT.md` around lines 76 - 79, The four consecutive sentences that each
begin with "Sets" are repetitive; rephrase them to vary sentence starters while
keeping the same meaning—e.g., combine or transform them into: "Populates
identity fields (actorId, actorRole, principalName), request metadata (method,
URI, query string, resolved handler name), and response details (responseStatus,
errorType from ex). The caseId is extracted via extractCaseId(request)." Update
the AUDIT.md lines that list these fields so they no longer all start with
"Sets" but still reference actorId, actorRole, principalName, request metadata,
responseStatus, errorType (from ex), and caseId via extractCaseId(request).

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

Nitpick comments:
In `@AUDIT.md`:
- Around line 76-79: The four consecutive sentences that each begin with "Sets"
are repetitive; rephrase them to vary sentence starters while keeping the same
meaning—e.g., combine or transform them into: "Populates identity fields
(actorId, actorRole, principalName), request metadata (method, URI, query
string, resolved handler name), and response details (responseStatus, errorType
from ex). The caseId is extracted via extractCaseId(request)." Update the
AUDIT.md lines that list these fields so they no longer all start with "Sets"
but still reference actorId, actorRole, principalName, request metadata,
responseStatus, errorType (from ex), and caseId via extractCaseId(request).

---

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 4fc1936b-cb09-4641-95c5-0db27729d0fa

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 81b32ad and aa3e33f.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• AUDIT.md