is that in most cases developers will not even know that the compensation logic is broken because it is almost impossible to reliably test for this tests nee to take into account all the abovementione consequences and relationships that in practice people are not able to take into account. I consider this problem to be a fatal flaw for a simple reason DDD puts a lot of effort into ensuring that the code correctly respects the invariants of business logic you could even say that this is the main task of DDD and it succees quite well while the model is in memory but it does not cope with this task for the model in the database. At the same time it is obvious that for business the correctness of data.
Detection of internal stresses
In the database is much more important than in memory . One can of course say that a real business in practice almost never has a guarantee of the correctness of all its data so it is accustome to this situation and knows how to cope with it. Therefore rare violations of the Malaysia WhatsApp Number Data correctness of data in the product database definitely unacceptable for a perfectionist programmer can be quite acceptable for business. And for a business the benefits of DDD may outweigh these problems. This is all true but this does not stop this problem from being a fatal flaw. You may also think that I am exaggerating and in fact this problem is not that serious at all.
The user who calle the current operation
Because you havent encountere it in your DDD projects. But in fact the reasons for this are usually different A fairly simple microservice Bounde Context that could easily do without tactical DDD. If there are almost no interconnecte aggregates in it then there will be no Malaysia Phone Number List excessive eventual consistency and especially unnecessary sagas. You are using large aggregates which is against DDD guidelines but Either this does not create problems because the load is quite low or there is practically no competitive access to units for example.
