feat:(fb) Add FormService for form management

[poBogan]

I asked Claude for help and this is what it came up with.

Implementation Details

Summary

Created a comprehensive service layer for form CRUD operations in form_service.py. The service follows the existing project patterns and conventions, mirroring the structure of submission_service.py.

Implemented Methods

FormService Class

The service layer includes the following methods:

Core CRUD Operations

1. create_form(form_data: FormCreate) -> FormInDB

   • Creates a new form in the database
   • Automatically generates ObjectId and timestamps
   • Initializes view_count and submission_count to 0
   • Returns the created form

2. get_form_by_id(form_id: PyObjectId) -> FormInDB | None

   • Retrieves a single form by its ID
   • Returns None if form not found
   • Handles ObjectId conversion

3. get_all_forms(skip: int = 0, limit: int = 10, active_only: bool = False) -> tuple[list[FormInDB], int]

   • Retrieves all forms with pagination support
   • Optional active_only filter to show only active forms
   • Returns tuple of (forms list, total count)
   • Validates pagination parameters (skip >= 0, 1 <= limit <= 100)
   • Sorts by creation date (newest first)

4. update_form(form_id: PyObjectId, form_data: FormUpdate) -> FormInDB | None

   • Updates an existing form with partial data
   • Only updates fields that are provided (not None)
   • Automatically sets updated_at timestamp
   • Returns updated form or None if not found

5. delete_form(form_id: PyObjectId) -> bool

   • Deletes a form by ID
   • Returns True if deleted, False if not found

Utility Methods

6. increment_view_count(form_id: PyObjectId) -> bool
   • Atomically increments the view count for a form
   • Useful for tracking form analytics
   • Returns True if successful, False if form not found

Helper Methods

7. _to_object_id(obj_id: PyObjectId) -> ObjectId

   • Converts PyObjectId to MongoDB ObjectId
   • Validates ObjectId format
   • Raises ValueError for invalid IDs

8. _document_to_form(doc: dict | None) -> FormInDB | None

   • Converts MongoDB document to FormInDB model
   • Handles None documents gracefully
   • Logs errors during conversion

Key Features

• Type Safety: Strict type hints for all parameters and return values
• Error Handling: Comprehensive error handling with PyMongoError catching
• Logging: Detailed logging for all operations (info, warning, error levels)
• Async/Await: All I/O operations use async/await pattern
• Validation: Proper validation of pagination parameters and ObjectIds
• Consistency: Follows the same patterns as submission_service.py

Integration

The service integrates with:

• Database: Uses Motor (AsyncIOMotorDatabase) for MongoDB operations
• Models: Uses Pydantic models from app/models/form.py
• Logger: Uses the project's logger from app/utils/logger

Code Quality

✅ Linting: Passed Ruff checks with no errors
✅ Conventions: Follows Python backend conventions (snake_case, type hints, async/await)
✅ Documentation: Comprehensive docstrings for all methods
✅ Error Handling: Proper exception handling and logging

Usage Example

from app.db.mongodb import get_database
from app.services.form_service import FormService
from app.models.form import FormCreate

# Initialize service
db = await get_database()
form_service = FormService(db)

# Create a form
form_data = FormCreate(
    title="Event Registration",
    description="Register for our upcoming event",
    questions=[...],
    is_active=True
)
new_form = await form_service.create_form(form_data)

# Get all active forms
forms, total = await form_service.get_all_forms(skip=0, limit=10, active_only=True)

# Increment view count
await form_service.increment_view_count(new_form.id)

Related Issue

Closes #49

Checklist

• Code follows project conventions
• I tested my changes locally
• Linting passes
• I added @seberatolmez or @DogukanUrker as reviewers

[DogukanUrker]

hey, i see there’s a plan in the pr body but that’s not really how this should work. the whole point of an implementation plan is to discuss and get approval before writing the code, not after the pr is already open. otherwise it’s just documentation, not a plan we can actually act on.

for future prs, please create the implementation plan separately, get approval from me or berat first, then start coding. i’ll review this one today, if it needs major changes we might be better off starting fresh with the proper flow.

btw i noticed you used claude for the plan which is cool. curious though, which model did you use and where? (cursor, claude code, claude desktop, etc.?)

[poBogan]

I used Claude Sonnet 4.5 that Antigravity provides. About the workflow, initially my intention was to follow it (create a implementation plan, get approval and continue with coding) but when I asked help from Claude about the task it just did everything without a implementation plan, when I asked for one it said that it did not create one since the task seemed simple and an implementation plan was not required. So I examined the code myself and decided it was ok to send you the code and documentation. In any case I will folow the proper workflow for future prs

[DogukanUrker]

ahh got it. so antigravity actually has a “plan mode” you can select from the chat (there’s fast mode and plan mode). for implementation plans, try using plan mode and start your prompt with something like “create an implementation plan for…” before diving into the task.

ai models tend to be eager to complete everything from start to finish. that’s just how they’re built. we need to guide them with proper prompts to prevent that. but honestly, the fact that you reviewed the code yourself and made the judgment call to send it is really solid, that’s exactly the kind of critical thinking we need for software development.

also heads up,antigravity gives you claude opus 4.5 for free, try using that next time. it’s currently the best model for coding tasks.

i want to set up a more detailed meeting soon about ai usage. i’ll walk through how to get the results we want more easily and efficiently. haven’t reviewed the pr yet so can’t speak on the code itself, but appreciate the proactive approach

[DogukanUrker]

lgtm! the code follows the existing patterns from submission_service well and the implementation is solid.

there are a couple of small things we can address later:

• _to_object_id returns unknown types unchanged instead of raising an error (same pattern exists in submission_service though)
• update_form uses exclude_none=True which prevents intentionally clearing fields like start_date or deadline - might want to change to just exclude_unset=True

nothing blocking, we can revisit these in a follow-up if needed.