Backend: Add jurisdiction-aware compliance reporting with config-driven rules engine#155
Conversation
…ontroller Co-authored-by: ludovit-scholtz <[email protected]>
…, all passing) Co-authored-by: ludovit-scholtz <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: ludovit-scholtz <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: ludovit-scholtz <[email protected]>
|
✅ CI checks passed! 📄 OpenAPI specification generated and available as workflow artifact: |
2 similar comments
|
✅ CI checks passed! 📄 OpenAPI specification generated and available as workflow artifact: |
|
✅ CI checks passed! 📄 OpenAPI specification generated and available as workflow artifact: |
|
✅ CI checks passed! 📄 OpenAPI specification generated and available as workflow artifact: |
1 similar comment
|
✅ CI checks passed! 📄 OpenAPI specification generated and available as workflow artifact: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
This PR implements a comprehensive jurisdiction-aware compliance reporting system for the Biatec Tokens API. The implementation provides configuration-driven jurisdiction rules, token jurisdiction tagging, compliance evaluation engine, and REST API endpoints with authentication.
Changes:
- Adds jurisdiction rules management with EU MICA and GLOBAL FATF seeded rules
- Implements compliance evaluation engine that aggregates multi-jurisdiction requirements
- Provides 9 REST API endpoints for CRUD operations, evaluation, and token jurisdiction assignments
Reviewed changes
Copilot reviewed 12 out of 12 changed files in this pull request and generated 14 comments.
Show a summary per file
| File | Description |
|---|---|
| COMPLIANCE_REPORTING_JURISDICTION_IMPLEMENTATION.md | Comprehensive implementation documentation covering architecture, components, and deployment |
| BiatecTokensApi/Models/Compliance/JurisdictionRules.cs | Core data models for jurisdiction rules, requirements, and evaluation results |
| BiatecTokensApi/Repositories/JurisdictionRulesRepository.cs | In-memory thread-safe repository with seeded default rules |
| BiatecTokensApi/Repositories/Interface/IJurisdictionRulesRepository.cs | Repository interface defining data access operations |
| BiatecTokensApi/Services/JurisdictionRulesService.cs | Business logic for rule management and compliance evaluation |
| BiatecTokensApi/Services/Interface/IJurisdictionRulesService.cs | Service interface defining business operations |
| BiatecTokensApi/Controllers/JurisdictionRulesController.cs | REST API controller with 9 authenticated endpoints |
| BiatecTokensApi/Services/ComplianceReportService.cs | Enhanced to accept jurisdiction rules service for future integration |
| BiatecTokensApi/Program.cs | Dependency injection registration for new services |
| BiatecTokensApi/doc/documentation.xml | Comprehensive XML documentation for all new APIs |
| BiatecTokensTests/JurisdictionRulesServiceTests.cs | 22 unit tests covering all service operations |
| BiatecTokensTests/ComplianceReportServiceTests.cs | Updated to mock new jurisdiction rules service dependency |
| private readonly IComplianceReportRepository _reportRepository; | ||
| private readonly IEnterpriseAuditService _auditService; | ||
| private readonly IComplianceService _complianceService; | ||
| private readonly IJurisdictionRulesService _jurisdictionRulesService; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The _jurisdictionRulesService field is injected into the constructor but never used in the service implementation. This creates an unnecessary dependency. Either remove the field and parameter if it's not needed yet, or document that it's reserved for future use. If it's intended for future jurisdiction-aware report generation, consider adding a TODO comment explaining the planned usage.
| var jurisdictions = _tokenJurisdictions.GetOrAdd(key, _ => new List<TokenJurisdiction>()); | ||
|
|
||
| // If this is marked as primary, unmark other primary jurisdictions | ||
| if (tokenJurisdiction.IsPrimary) | ||
| { | ||
| foreach (var existing in jurisdictions) | ||
| { | ||
| existing.IsPrimary = false; | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // Remove existing entry for this jurisdiction if present | ||
| jurisdictions.RemoveAll(j => j.JurisdictionCode.Equals(tokenJurisdiction.JurisdictionCode, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase)); | ||
|
|
||
| tokenJurisdiction.AssignedAt = DateTime.UtcNow; | ||
| jurisdictions.Add(tokenJurisdiction); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There's a potential race condition when modifying the jurisdictions list. The GetOrAdd method returns a reference to the list, but multiple threads could be modifying this list concurrently since List<T> is not thread-safe. Even though the dictionary itself is concurrent, the list within it is not protected. Consider using a lock around the modification operations (lines 159-171) or using a thread-safe collection like ConcurrentBag<TokenJurisdiction> instead of List<TokenJurisdiction>.
| if (_tokenJurisdictions.TryGetValue(key, out var jurisdictions)) | ||
| { | ||
| var removed = jurisdictions.RemoveAll(j => | ||
| j.JurisdictionCode.Equals(jurisdictionCode, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase)) > 0; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Similar race condition exists here. The jurisdictions list retrieved from TryGetValue could be modified by another thread while RemoveAll is executing. This operation should be protected with the same synchronization mechanism used in AssignTokenJurisdictionAsync.
| /// ``` | ||
| /// | ||
| /// **Access Control:** | ||
| /// Returns evaluation only for tokens owned by the authenticated user. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The documentation states "Returns evaluation only for tokens owned by the authenticated user" but there is no ownership verification in the implementation. Any authenticated user can evaluate any token's compliance status. If token ownership verification is required, it should be implemented in the service layer before performing the evaluation. If this is intentional (e.g., compliance information is public), the documentation should be updated to reflect the actual behavior.
| /// Returns evaluation only for tokens owned by the authenticated user. | |
| /// Evaluation is performed in the context of the authenticated user address. Any ownership | |
| /// or authorization checks are enforced by the underlying service layer or external policies. |
| /// **Access Control:** | ||
| /// Requires authenticated user. Admin role recommended for production use. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The documentation recommends "Admin role recommended for production use" but there is no role-based authorization check in the controller. Any authenticated user can create, update, or delete jurisdiction rules, which could be a security risk. Consider adding role-based authorization with [Authorize(Roles = "Admin")] or a policy-based authorization check if jurisdiction rule management should be restricted to administrators.
| if (result.Success) | ||
| { | ||
| return Ok(result); | ||
| } | ||
| else | ||
| { | ||
| return NotFound(result); | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Both branches of this 'if' statement return - consider using '?' to express intent better.
| if (result.Success) | |
| { | |
| return Ok(result); | |
| } | |
| else | |
| { | |
| return NotFound(result); | |
| } | |
| } | |
| return result.Success ? Ok(result) : NotFound(result); | |
| } |
| if (result.Success) | ||
| { | ||
| return Ok(result); | ||
| } | ||
| else | ||
| { | ||
| return result.ErrorMessage?.Contains("not found") == true | ||
| ? NotFound(result) | ||
| : BadRequest(result); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Both branches of this 'if' statement return - consider using '?' to express intent better.
| if (result.Success) | ||
| { | ||
| return Ok(result); | ||
| } | ||
| else | ||
| { | ||
| return NotFound(result); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Both branches of this 'if' statement return - consider using '?' to express intent better.
| if (result.Success) | |
| { | |
| return Ok(result); | |
| } | |
| else | |
| { | |
| return NotFound(result); | |
| } | |
| return result.Success ? Ok(result) : NotFound(result); |
| if (result.Success) | ||
| { | ||
| return Ok(result); | ||
| } | ||
| else | ||
| { | ||
| return BadRequest(result); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Both branches of this 'if' statement return - consider using '?' to express intent better.
| if (result.Success) | |
| { | |
| return Ok(result); | |
| } | |
| else | |
| { | |
| return BadRequest(result); | |
| } | |
| return result.Success ? Ok(result) : BadRequest(result); |
| if (result.Success) | ||
| { | ||
| return Ok(result); | ||
| } | ||
| else | ||
| { | ||
| return NotFound(result); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Both branches of this 'if' statement return - consider using '?' to express intent better.
Summary
Implements backend infrastructure for jurisdiction-specific compliance reporting and audit exports to support regulated RWA tokenization. Existing compliance reports and audit trails remain unchanged; this adds jurisdiction tagging and evaluation capabilities.
Architecture
Configuration-driven rules - Jurisdictions defined as data, not code:
Multi-jurisdiction tokens - One primary, multiple secondary:
Automatic evaluation - Aggregates all applicable rules:
Key Components
Models (
JurisdictionRules.cs)JurisdictionRule- Priority-based rule with active/inactive flagComplianceRequirement- Individual checks with severity (Critical|High|Medium|Low|Info)TokenJurisdiction- Multi-jurisdiction assignment with primary designationJurisdictionEvaluationResult- Aggregated status with check-by-check rationaleRepository (
JurisdictionRulesRepository.cs)ConcurrentDictionaryfor thread-safe operationsService (
JurisdictionRulesService.cs)ComplianceMetadataComplianceRepositoryfor evidence lookupController (
JurisdictionRulesController.cs)LoggingHelperIntegration
Enhanced
ComplianceReportServiceconstructor to acceptIJurisdictionRulesServicefor future jurisdiction-aware report generation. Existing report generation logic unchanged.Security
Backward Compatibility
All changes additive. Existing compliance reports, audit trails, and metadata APIs unchanged. Tokens without jurisdiction assignment automatically use GLOBAL baseline.
Original prompt
This section details on the original issue you should resolve
<issue_title>Backend: Compliance reporting & jurisdiction-aware audit exports</issue_title>
<issue_description>## Summary
This issue proposes a backend initiative for the Biatec Tokens API to deliver reliable, compliant, and auditable compliance reporting and jurisdiction-aware enforcement. The current platform vision centers on regulated real‑world asset tokenization with enterprise‑grade compliance, yet backend coverage for compliance reporting, jurisdiction tracking, and automated audit outputs is incomplete. We need a cohesive backend feature set that exposes compliance state, audit artifacts, and readiness signals to the frontend and external integrators in a consistent, secure API. This issue focuses on building the API contracts, data models, and background processing needed for compliance reporting and audit trail export, plus a minimal but extensible jurisdiction rules engine that can be consumed by UI and external systems. The intent is to de‑risk regulatory adoption and reduce the gap between the current MVP state and the Phase 2 enterprise compliance vision outlined in the business owner roadmap.
Business Value
The Biatec Tokens business model targets subscription revenue from enterprise and professional customers who require credible compliance tooling. At present, the roadmap highlights partial implementation of compliance reporting, jurisdiction tracking, and regulatory integration. Without a reliable backend for compliance artifacts, the platform cannot credibly sell enterprise plans, and it risks churn among early adopters who must meet MICA requirements. A backend compliance reporting service becomes a differentiator because competitors often show surface‑level badges but cannot produce auditable proof or machine‑readable compliance exports. This capability directly improves conversion for regulated institutions, accelerates sales cycles, and supports higher pricing tiers. It also reduces support costs by enabling standardized exports that auditors and regulators can consume without bespoke manual effort.
From a market perspective, the RWA tokenization segment is growing rapidly and compliance is a core gating factor for adoption. MICA and FATF guidelines require documented compliance evidence, including issuer attestations and audit trails. If we can generate consistent compliance reports and an audit log that are easily accessible via API and UI, we unlock concrete business value: faster onboarding of enterprise customers, fewer compliance objections, and improved trust. The dashboard and onboarding experiences in the frontend depend on backend APIs that can reliably provide compliance status, readiness flags, and rationale for those statuses. In turn, this data can drive analytics and product insights around which compliance steps correlate with successful token issuance and conversion.
This issue aligns with the roadmap’s Phase 2 Enterprise Compliance objectives, including jurisdiction tracking, compliance reporting, and regulatory integration readiness. Implementing a robust backend foundation now allows the UI to move ahead in parallel and reduces time to revenue by enabling the sales team to demonstrate compliance evidence in pilots. It also sets the groundwork for future KYC and AML integration, without forcing a redesign of core data models later. The outcome is a platform that can legitimately claim enterprise‑grade compliance capabilities, improving competitive advantage and supporting the long‑term subscription revenue goal.
Product overview
See the business owner roadmap: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/scholtz/biatec-tokens/refs/heads/main/business-owner-roadmap.md
Scope
This issue is scoped to the backend API and data layer for compliance reporting, audit trail export, and jurisdiction‑aware compliance status. It does not require a full UI implementation, but it must deliver stable endpoints and data models that the frontend can consume. The work includes data modeling, service logic, API endpoints, and background jobs where necessary, along with a minimal rules engine for jurisdiction tagging.
In scope capabilities:
Compliance Report API
Audit Trail Export API
💡 You can make Copilot smarter by setting up custom instructions, customizing its development environment and configuring Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers. Learn more Copilot coding agent tips in the docs.