feat: improve readme.md

[npv12]

Important

Improves README.md by simplifying content, updating setup instructions, and clarifying project structure and commands.

• README.md:
  • Simplified project overview and features list.
  • Updated tech stack details for backend and frontend.
  • Revised quick start guide with clear setup instructions.
  • Streamlined environment setup section with essential variables.
  • Condensed command list for development, database, testing, and code quality.
  • Updated project structure and architecture sections for clarity.
  • Added concise development workflow and testing instructions.
  • Provided key API endpoints with brief descriptions.

^{This description was created by for 4c27bb2. You can customize this summary. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed everything up to 4c27bb2 in 1 minute and 39 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 2544 lines of code in 19 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 6 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. frontend/components/providers/ThemeProvider.tsx:13

• Draft comment:
  Consider adding a fallback UI or loading skeleton to mitigate potential FOUC, since using dynamic import (ssr: false) may delay theme resolution.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50% The comment is suggesting that the author add something back that they explicitly removed. This is interesting - the author clearly made a deliberate choice to remove the loading skeleton. The comment is essentially saying "you should reconsider this removal because it might cause FOUC." However, this is speculative - it says "may delay theme resolution" and "consider adding" which are not definitive. The author may have removed the skeleton for good reasons (perhaps it was causing issues, or perhaps the FOUC is acceptable, or perhaps next-themes handles this differently now). The comment doesn't provide strong evidence that there IS a problem, just that there MIGHT be one. The author deliberately removed the loading skeleton, so they likely had a reason. Perhaps they tested this and found the FOUC to be minimal or acceptable, or perhaps the skeleton was causing other issues. The comment is speculative ("may delay", "consider") rather than pointing to a definite problem. While the author did remove the skeleton deliberately, FOUC is a real concern with ssr: false and dynamic imports. However, the comment uses tentative language ("consider", "may") which suggests it's not pointing to a definite issue. This violates the rule about not making speculative comments. The comment is speculative and suggests reconsidering a deliberate removal without strong evidence of a problem. It uses tentative language ("consider", "may delay") rather than pointing to a definite issue. This should be deleted.

2. server/internal/api/controller/statement_controller_test.go:45

• Draft comment:
  The for-loop now sleeps 5 seconds per iteration; consider if this delay is acceptable for CI, or mock the asynchronous processing to speed up tests.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment looked like it was already resolved.

3. server/internal/service/rule_engine_service.go:38

• Draft comment:
  Passing context.Background() here loses potential cancellation from the caller; consider propagating the provided context to ExecuteRulesInBackground.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

4. server/internal/service/statement_service.go:77

• Draft comment:
  Spawning a goroutine with context.Background() here may ignore caller cancellation; consider passing the original context instead.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

5. server/internal/repository/transaction_repository.go:373

• Draft comment:
  The updateMapping function performs individual inserts in a loop; consider batching these operations for improved performance.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

6. server/internal/service/transaction_service.go:131

• Draft comment:
  Comparing errors by checking error string equality (using err.Error() comparisons) is fragile; use errors.Is for robust error handling.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

Workflow ID: wflow_doQdUbyNSn2ojGL3

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}