“Markdown Architectural Decision Records” (MADR)
[ˈmæɾɚ]– architectural decisions that matter
- 2018-04-13: Mentioned in @vanto’s presentation about ADRs: https://speakerdeck.com/vanto/a-brief-introduction-to-architectural-decision-records.
- 2018-04-03: Scientific publication: Markdown Architectural Decision Records: Format and Tool Support.
It should be as easy as possible to a) write down the decisions and b) to version the decisions.
This repository offers a solution to record architectural decisions. It provides files to document Architectural Decisions using Markdown and Architectural Decision Records.
The decisions are placed in the folder
1) Enable GitHub pages to render it using the web.
See https://help.github.com/articles/configuring-a-publishing-source-for-github-pages/ for more information.
2) Separate the architectural decisions from other documentation.
The filenames are following the pattern
NNNN-title-with-dashes.md (ADR-0005), where
NNNNis a consecutive number and we assume that there won’t be more than 9,999 ADRs in one repository.
- the title is stored using dashes and lowercase, because adr-tools also does that.
- the suffix is
.md, because it is a Markdown file.
Table of Contents
The template reads as follows:
# [short title of solved problem and solution] * Status: [proposed | rejected | accepted | deprecated | … | superseded by [ADR-0005](0005-example.md)] <!-- optional --> * Deciders: [list everyone involved in the decision] <!-- optional --> * Date: [YYYY-MM-DD when the decision was last updated] <!-- optional --> Technical Story: [description | ticket/issue URL] <!-- optional --> ## Context and Problem Statement [Describe the context and problem statement, e.g., in free form using two to three sentences. You may want to articulate the problem in form of a question.] ## Decision Drivers <!-- optional --> * [driver 1, e.g., a force, facing concern, …] * [driver 2, e.g., a force, facing concern, …] * … <!-- numbers of drivers can vary --> ## Considered Options * [option 1] * [option 2] * [option 3] * … <!-- numbers of options can vary --> ## Decision Outcome Chosen option: "[option 1]", because [justification. e.g., only option, which meets k.o. criterion decision driver | which resolves force force | … | comes out best (see below)]. ### Positive Consequences <!-- optional --> * [e.g., improvement of quality attribute satisfaction, follow-up decisions required, …] * … ### Negative Consequences <!-- optional --> * [e.g., compromising quality attribute, follow-up decisions required, …] * … ## Pros and Cons of the Options <!-- optional --> ### [option 1] [example | description | pointer to more information | …] <!-- optional --> * Good, because [argument a] * Good, because [argument b] * Bad, because [argument c] * … <!-- numbers of pros and cons can vary --> ### [option 2] [example | description | pointer to more information | …] <!-- optional --> * Good, because [argument a] * Good, because [argument b] * Bad, because [argument c] * … <!-- numbers of pros and cons can vary --> ### [option 3] [example | description | pointer to more information | …] <!-- optional --> * Good, because [argument a] * Good, because [argument b] * Bad, because [argument c] * … <!-- numbers of pros and cons can vary --> ## Links <!-- optional --> * [Link type] [Link to ADR] <!-- example: Refined by [ADR-0005](0005-example.md) --> * … <!-- numbers of links can vary -->
The template is available at template/template.md.
# Use Markdown Architectural Decision Records ## Context and Problem Statement We want to record architectural decisions made in this project. Which format and structure should these records follow? ## Considered Options * [MADR](https://adr.github.io/madr/) 2.1.0 - The Markdown Architectural Decision Records * [Michael Nygard's template](http://thinkrelevance.com/blog/2011/11/15/documenting-architecture-decisions) - The first incarnation of the term "ADR" * [Sustainable Architectural Decisions](https://www.infoq.com/articles/sustainable-architectural-design-decisions) - The Y-Statements * Other templates listed at <https://github.com/joelparkerhenderson/architecture_decision_record> * Formless - No conventions for file format and structure ## Decision Outcome Chosen option: "MADR 2.1.0", because * Implicit assumptions should be made explicit. Design documentation is important to enable people understanding the decisions later on. See also [A rational design process: How and why to fake it](https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.1986.6312940). * The MADR format is lean and fits our development style. * The MADR structure is comprehensible and facilitates usage & maintenance. * The MADR project is vivid. * Version 2.1.0 is the latest one available when starting to document ADRs.
The example is rendered at template/0000-use-markdown-architectural-decision-records.md
For the MADR project itself, all ADRs exist at docs/adr/.
Apply it to your project
docs/adr in your project.
Copy all files in
template from the MADR project to the folder
docs/adr in your project.
For instance, using
npm, this can be done using the following command:
npm install madr && mkdir -p docs/adr && cp node_modules/madr/template/* docs/adr/
Create a new ADR
NNNNindicates the next number in sequence.
index.md, e.g., by executing
adr-log -d .You can get adr-log by executing
npm install -g adr-log.
Note you can also use other patterns for the directory format, but then the tools cannot be applied.
- MADR follows Semantic Versioning 2.0.0 and documents changes in a
CHANGELOG.mdfollowing keep a changelog 1.0.0.
- Issues can be reported at https://github.com/adr/madr/issues.
- Use the Markdown Style Guide space-sentence:1, wrap:sentence, header:atx, list-marker:asterisk, list-space:1, code:fenced
Releasing a new version:
README.mdwith the new template and the example.
- Adapt the version reference in
package.json, publish to npmjs, create GitHub release.
Use release-it (do not create a release on GitHub) and github-release-from-changelog.