Phase 05 · Lesson 05

Build the In Memory Todo API

≈ 4 min core reading · 770 source/companion words
Learning contract

What you should be able to do after this

  • Explain Build the In Memory Todo API without relying on framework buzzwords.
  • Connect the lesson to the phase outcome: Design HTTP APIs using resources, methods, status codes, idempotency, errors, caching semantics, and versionable contracts.
  • Reproduce the relevant behavior and verify it with evidence.
  • Diagnose at least one representative failure instead of guessing.
Figure 5.5 — TaskFlow boundary map
Client intent
HTTP method + URI
headers/body
server processing
status + response representation
client state transition
This lesson belongs to Phase 05. Keep the full request/data path visible even when today's code changes only one box.
Instructor workflow: predict first → implement the smallest slice → run it → inspect evidence → break one assumption → diagnose → explain it back. Do not copy the whole code block before understanding the first failing boundary.

FULL_STACK_DEVELOPER_2026_COMPLETE - Phase 05 Build the In-Memory Todo API

VOLUME 02 - FRONTEND + BACKEND FOUNDATIONS

Build the In-Memory Todo API Turn HTTP semantics into observable GET, POST, PATCH and DELETE behavior

HTTP is the contract between independent programs.

REQUEST HTTP Client TaskFlow API

PowerShell / browser / later Next.js NestJS + Fastify RESPONSE

method + target + headers + optional body

status + headers + optional body

Figure - HTTP request/response exchange. Phase 05 studies the protocol before Phase 06 introduces a browser cross-origin call.

Book 5 of Phase 05

FULL_STACK_DEVELOPER_2026_COMPLETE - Phase 05 Build the In-Memory Todo API

Build a temporary in-memory Todo API We now need a concrete protocol surface to exercise. The data deliberately lives in memory so a server restart resets it. That limitation is not a bug in this phase - it isolates HTTP behavior from database persistence. Volume 03 will solve persistence properly.

PowerShell Client Invoke-RestMethod

Fastify receives HTTP request

TodosController method + route + HTTP boundary

TodosService temporary in-memory behavior

HTTP Response status + JSON / no body

Figure - The Phase 05 Todo API is intentionally in-memory. PostgreSQL and Prisma arrive later; this phase isolates HTTP semantics.

Step 1 - Generate the Todo feature From: taskflow\apps\api

Terminal
pnpm exec nest generate module todos
pnpm exec nest generate controller todos --no-spec
pnpm exec nest generate service todos --no-spec

Step 2 - Give the service temporary state apps/api/src/todos/todos.service.ts - first read operations

FULL_STACK_DEVELOPER_2026_COMPLETE - Phase 05 Build the In-Memory Todo API

Code
import { Injectable, NotFoundException } from '@nestjs/common';

interface Todo { id: number; title: string; completed: boolean; }

Code
@Injectable()
export class TodosService {
private nextId = 3;
private readonly todos: Todo[] = [
{ id: 1, title: 'Learn HTTP', completed: false },
{ id: 2, title: 'Build the API contract', completed: false },
];

findAll() { return this.todos; }

findOne(id: number) { const todo = this.todos.find((item) => item.id === id); if (!todo) throw new NotFoundException('Todo not found'); return todo; } }

The service owns temporary application state. The controller should not own an array just because it receives HTTP requests. Later, Prisma replaces this in-memory persistence without changing the conceptual controller responsibility.

Step 3 - Add read routes apps/api/src/todos/todos.controller.ts - read routes

Code
@Controller('todos')
export class TodosController {
constructor(private readonly todosService: TodosService) {}

@Get() findAll() { return this.todosService.findAll(); }

Code
@Get(':id')
findOne(@Param('id') id: string) {
return this.todosService.findOne(Number(id));
}
}

We convert the route parameter to a number for this protocol exercise. Formal validation and typed DTO boundaries are deliberately deferred. The book should make that technical debt visible rather than pretend raw input is trustworthy.

Step 4 - Add creation todos.service.ts - temporary creation behavior

create(title: string) { const todo = { id: this.nextId++, title, completed: false, }; this.todos.push(todo); return todo; }

todos.controller.ts - POST /todos

FULL_STACK_DEVELOPER_2026_COMPLETE - Phase 05 Build the In-Memory Todo API

@Post() create(@Body() body: { title?: string }) { if (!body.title?.trim()) { throw new BadRequestException('title is required'); } return this.todosService.create(body.title.trim()); }

Nest defaults successful POST handlers to 201 Created. We use only a tiny manual guard here so the protocol example is usable; this is not the validation architecture taught later.

Step 5 - Add partial update todos.service.ts - patch behavior

update(id: number, changes: { title?: string; completed?: boolean }) { const todo = this.findOne(id); if (changes.title !== undefined) todo.title = changes.title; if (changes.completed !== undefined) todo.completed = changes.completed; return todo; }

todos.controller.ts - PATCH /todos/:id

Code
@Patch(':id')
update(
@Param('id') id: string,
@Body() body: { title?: string; completed?: boolean },
) {
return this.todosService.update(Number(id), body);
}

Step 6 - Add deletion with 204 todos.service.ts - removal behavior

Code
remove(id: number) {
const todo = this.findOne(id);
const index = this.todos.indexOf(todo);
this.todos.splice(index, 1);
}

todos.controller.ts - DELETE /todos/:id

Code
@Delete(':id')
@HttpCode(204)
remove(@Param('id') id: string) {
this.todosService.remove(Number(id));
}

A 204 response intentionally has no content. Returning a JSON success object would conflict with the meaning we are teaching. Nest allows explicit status selection through @HttpCode(204).

Temporary limitation

The array disappears when the server stops. That is useful right now because the learner can focus on request/response semantics. Do not add Prisma early to "fix" it. Persistence is a separate architectural problem and gets its own phase.

Official source notes Primary protocol reference: RFC 9110 - HTTP Semantics (RFC Editor). Supplemental developer reference: MDN HTTP Reference and HTTP Request Methods. Nest-specific routing and status behavior reference: NestJS Controllers documentation.

FULL_STACK_DEVELOPER_2026_COMPLETE - Phase 05 Build the In-Memory Todo API

This phase teaches HTTP semantics independent of a specific transport version. HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 change framing and transport details, while request methods, target resources, headers, status codes and representation semantics remain the important application-level concepts for this course.

Executable lesson studio · ui

Now turn the explanation into engineering skill.

Build the In Memory Todo API matters because it changes a real boundary in TaskFlow. The goal is to understand the inputs, owner, observable output, and failure modes before adding more abstraction.

By the end, you should be able to

  • Explain Build the In Memory Todo API in terms of concrete inputs, ownership, outputs, and evidence.
  • Implement or reproduce the smallest TaskFlow slice that demonstrates this ui concept.
  • Diagnose one representative ui failure using observable evidence instead of trial-and-error.
Figure 5.5B — Mental model
route data
UI state
component tree
interaction
accessible feedback
Read left-to-right while implementing. When debugging, walk right-to-left until the first observed fact differs from your prediction.
Code-along sequence

One coherent change at a time

  1. 01

    Restate the goal of “Build the In Memory Todo API” as one observable behavior. Write the success signal before touching code.

  2. 02

    Trace the boundary map: route data → UI state → component tree → interaction → accessible feedback. Mark the one boundary this lesson changes.

  3. 03

    Inspect the current repository state and record the exact files, route, table, or runtime involved. Avoid creating an abstraction before you can name the existing owner.

  4. 04

    Implement the smallest vertical slice. Add one coherent change, run the narrowest verification command, and read the output before continuing.

  5. 05

    Connect the slice to TaskFlow’s phase artifact: A written TaskFlow API contract for tasks with request/response examples and deliberate error semantics.. Verify behavior from the outside as a user or API client would.

  6. 06

    Create one controlled failure that is safe to reproduce. Predict the symptom first, capture evidence, locate the earliest broken boundary, then fix only that cause.

  7. 07

    Close the reference and rebuild or explain the core change from memory. Record what you would monitor or test before trusting the same change in production.

tsxModel non-happy states intentionally
if (query.isPending) return <TaskSkeleton />;
if (query.isError) return <TaskError retry={query.refetch} />;
if (!query.data.length) return <EmptyTasks />;
return <TaskTable tasks={query.data} />;

Do not copy this as a finished answer. Predict what each boundary does, type the smallest useful slice, run it, then compare the result with your prediction.

Verification

Prove the happy path

  1. Run the narrowest relevant command or request and require a clean exit/status.
  2. Inspect the boundary-specific evidence: terminal output, Network panel, database row/query plan, test report, container health, or deployment logs.
  3. Repeat the behavior once after the change so a one-off cached or stale result cannot masquerade as success.
Break it on purpose

Build debugging memory

  1. Using 200 for every outcome
  2. Change one assumption in the ui example—identity, input, configuration, ordering, connectivity, or state—and predict the exact symptom before running it.
SymptomInvestigation path
Expected result does not appear

Return to the nearest observable boundary: input, network, process log, database, or rendered UI. Compare actual evidence with the predicted path.

A shortcut appears to fix it

Change one variable at a time and reproduce the original failure after the fix; otherwise you have correlation, not diagnosis.

Closed-reference challenge

Can you transfer the idea?

Without copying the final source, create a second small scenario that applies “Build the In Memory Todo API” to a different TaskFlow resource or input. Write the acceptance criteria first, implement it, and provide the evidence that each criterion is satisfied.

Explain-back

Answer these without reopening the solution

  1. What problem does Build the In Memory Todo API solve in TaskFlow, and what would be observably wrong without it?
  2. Which part of the ui boundary owns the decision, and which neighboring layer must not own it?
  3. What evidence proves the happy path instead of merely suggesting it worked?
  4. Name one realistic failure or abuse case and the first place you would inspect.
  5. If requirements doubled tomorrow, which part of this design should stay stable and which part is allowed to change?
Lesson studio

Turn the reading into skill

01

Do it

Repeat safe/idempotent requests and reason about what should or should not change.

Use the smallest change that demonstrates this lesson. Stop after it works and capture evidence.
02

Break it safely

Using 200 for every outcome

Predict the symptom before causing the failure. Then locate the earliest boundary where reality diverges from expectation.
03

Explain it back

Why does this responsibility live here, what input does it trust, what output proves success, and what would go wrong if another layer owned it?

If your explanation is vague, repeat the boundary trace before moving on.
Exit ticket

Before marking complete

Close the reference. Reproduce the core idea from memory or explain the exact request/data flow aloud. Then check your diff or notes for accidental shortcuts that bypass validation, authorization, error handling, or verification earned in earlier phases.