Files

T

julien c8e2fba13e docs(adr): convert all ADRs to MADR 2.1.2 format

Rewrites all 12 frontend ADRs from a custom structure to the MADR 2.1.2
template required by the VS Code ADR Manager extension: bullet metadata
(Status/Date), standardised section headings, "Chosen option: X, because Y"
wording, and explicit Pros/Cons blocks per option.

2026-04-26 16:50:34 +02:00

2.1 KiB

Raw Blame History

Coexist Angular Material and Bootstrap during UI library consolidation

Status: accepted
Date: 2026-04-26

Context and Problem Statement

The application currently uses two UI libraries: Angular Material (interactive components) and Bootstrap 5 (layout, spacing utilities). Bootstrap was the original styling layer; Angular Material was introduced incrementally. Maintaining both increases bundle size, creates styling inconsistencies, and adds cognitive overhead. Which strategy should be adopted?

Considered Options

Keep both libraries and consolidate later
Consolidate to Angular Material only
Consolidate to Bootstrap only
Migrate to a different library (PrimeNG, Spartan/shadcn-angular, etc.)

Decision Outcome

Chosen option: "Keep both libraries and consolidate later", because a big-bang UI rewrite is not justified at this stage and the final target library has not yet been chosen.

Positive Consequences

No immediate rewrite required — development velocity is preserved.
Each library covers the other's gaps during the transition period.

Negative Consequences

Two styling systems in tension, leading to inconsistent UX.
Bootstrap's @import-based Sass is incompatible with the @use module system, requiring a deprecation workaround (see ADR 0012).
Larger CSS bundle than a single-library solution.

Pros and Cons of the Options

Keep both libraries and consolidate later

Good, because no rewrite cost now.
Bad, because styling inconsistency and larger bundle persist until consolidation.

Consolidate to Angular Material only

Good, because single coherent design system.
Bad, because Bootstrap layout utilities would need to be replaced.

Consolidate to Bootstrap only

Good, because removes Angular Material dependency.
Bad, because Angular Material components (dialogs, date pickers, etc.) would need rebuilding.

Migrate to a different library

Good, because could address limitations of both current libraries.
Bad, because highest rewrite cost; unknown tradeoffs until evaluated.

2.1 KiB Raw Blame History