feat(core-api): add plugin object store interface definition

[petermetz]

This will be implemented by object store plugins so as to
have guarantee that at runtime the plugins can be used the
way the caller expects them to.

Signed-off-by: Peter Somogyvari peter.somogyvari@accenture.com

[takeutak]

@petermetz Just to confirm, what is the intent behind the functionality around this IPFS plugin? (What types of data are you going to put on distributed storage?) **related with #1007, #1033

[petermetz]

@petermetz Just to confirm, what is the intent behind the functionality around this IPFS plugin? (What types of data are you going to put on distributed storage?) **related with #1007, #1033

@takeutak Nothing planned at the moment. It will be up to the BLP authors to use it as they see fit, store the kind of data they want as part of their business logic.

[takeutak]

@petermetz Thanks to answer! Is this IPFS function required by releasing V1-RC as the roadmap #716 ? If this is not so, I would like to arrange the core functions on the roadmap on #716 and I'm sure that we should concentrate on the development of core functions. (related with #1007, #1033)

[petermetz]

@takeutak Cheers! It's not needed for 1.0-RC, but it is needed for something else internally.

[takeutak]

@petermetz Thanks for your commit.
As I discussed on the previous, IPFS plugin seems to be suitable to be moved to an extension feature (= optional feature).
The features about ObjectRequest (GetObjectRequestV1, HasObjectRequestV1, etc.) seem to be ones for IPFS plugins. Could you mind if you move these features to some extension?

[petermetz]

@petermetz Thanks for your commit.
As I discussed on the previous, IPFS plugin seems to be suitable to be moved to an extension feature (= optional feature).
The features about ObjectRequest (GetObjectRequestV1, HasObjectRequestV1, etc.) seem to be ones for IPFS plugins. Could you mind if you move these features to some extension?

@takeutak I would need to create a brand new package for it. Is that acceptable?

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #1032 (398c2de) into main (e54f2f9) will decrease coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is 50.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1032      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   73.15%   73.14%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         245      246       +1     
  Lines        8613     8617       +4     
  Branches      995      996       +1     
==========================================
+ Hits         6301     6303       +2     
- Misses       1781     1783       +2     
  Partials      531      531              

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...pescript/generated/openapi/typescript-axios/api.ts	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...pt/plugin/object-store/is-i-plugin-object-store.ts	33.33% <33.33%> (ø)
.../cactus-core-api/src/main/typescript/public-api.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update e54f2f9...398c2de. Read the comment docs.