FI-2836: Fix double requests from suite endpoints

[Jammjammjamm]

Summary

I investigated the incoming requests showing up twice in the UI. I logged the stack trace where each was being persisted:

09:31:58 web.1    | **************************START****************************
09:31:58 web.1    | I, [2024-06-17T09:31:58.067544 #64323]  INFO -- : get body
09:31:58 web.1    | /Users/smacvicar/.asdf/installs/ruby/3.1.2/lib/ruby/gems/3.1.0/gems/inferno_core-0.4.38/lib/inferno/utils/middleware/request_logger.rb:37:in `each'
09:31:58 web.1    | /Users/smacvicar/.asdf/installs/ruby/3.1.2/lib/ruby/gems/3.1.0/gems/inferno_core-0.4.38/lib/inferno/utils/middleware/request_logger.rb:37:in `call'
09:31:58 web.1    | /Users/smacvicar/.asdf/installs/ruby/3.1.2/lib/ruby/gems/3.1.0/gems/rack-2.2.9/lib/rack/static.rb:161:in `call'
09:31:58 web.1    | /Users/smacvicar/.asdf/installs/ruby/3.1.2/lib/ruby/gems/3.1.0/gems/puma-5.6.8/lib/puma/configuration.rb:252:in `call'
09:31:58 web.1    | /Users/smacvicar/.asdf/installs/ruby/3.1.2/lib/ruby/gems/3.1.0/gems/puma-5.6.8/lib/puma/request.rb:77:in `block in handle_request'
09:31:58 web.1    | /Users/smacvicar/.asdf/installs/ruby/3.1.2/lib/ruby/gems/3.1.0/gems/puma-5.6.8/lib/puma/thread_pool.rb:340:in `with_force_shutdown'
09:31:58 web.1    | /Users/smacvicar/.asdf/installs/ruby/3.1.2/lib/ruby/gems/3.1.0/gems/puma-5.6.8/lib/puma/request.rb:76:in `handle_request'
09:31:58 web.1    | /Users/smacvicar/.asdf/installs/ruby/3.1.2/lib/ruby/gems/3.1.0/gems/puma-5.6.8/lib/puma/server.rb:443:in `process_client'
09:31:58 web.1    | /Users/smacvicar/.asdf/installs/ruby/3.1.2/lib/ruby/gems/3.1.0/gems/puma-5.6.8/lib/puma/thread_pool.rb:147:in `block in spawn_thread'
09:31:58 web.1    | ************************** END ****************************
09:31:58 web.1    | **************************START****************************
09:31:58 web.1    | I, [2024-06-17T09:31:58.096594 #64323]  INFO -- : get body
09:31:58 web.1    | /Users/smacvicar/.asdf/installs/ruby/3.1.2/lib/ruby/gems/3.1.0/gems/puma-5.6.8/lib/puma/request.rb:182:in `block in handle_request'
09:31:58 web.1    | /Users/smacvicar/.asdf/installs/ruby/3.1.2/lib/ruby/gems/3.1.0/gems/puma-5.6.8/lib/puma/request.rb:182:in `each'
09:31:58 web.1    | /Users/smacvicar/.asdf/installs/ruby/3.1.2/lib/ruby/gems/3.1.0/gems/puma-5.6.8/lib/puma/request.rb:182:in `handle_request'
09:31:58 web.1    | /Users/smacvicar/.asdf/installs/ruby/3.1.2/lib/ruby/gems/3.1.0/gems/puma-5.6.8/lib/puma/server.rb:443:in `process_client'
09:31:58 web.1    | /Users/smacvicar/.asdf/installs/ruby/3.1.2/lib/ruby/gems/3.1.0/gems/puma-5.6.8/lib/puma/thread_pool.rb:147:in `block in spawn_thread'
09:31:58 web.1    | ************************** END ****************************

The second one is correct where puma is handling the rack.after_reply callback. The first is because I messed up the conditional to persist these requests during testing when puma isn't running.

Testing Guidance

In the crd test kit, run bundle info inferno_core. This will tell you the location of the version inferno core being used in that test kit. If you change the condition there just like in this PR, start the test kit, and run the tests, you should see that the requests are no longer duplicated.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 79.71%. Comparing base (0a95ece) to head (0fb586f).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #505   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   79.70%   79.71%           
=======================================
  Files         240      240           
  Lines       11925    11924    -1     
  Branches     1168     1168           
=======================================
  Hits         9505     9505           
+ Misses       1757     1756    -1     
  Partials      663      663           

Flag	Coverage Δ
backend	92.27% <100.00%> (+0.02%)	⬆️
frontend	74.07% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[emichaud998]

Looks good and confirmed it fixes the issue I was seeing on my branch