(edc-ce-dev [IAM-mock]) Connector-Restricted-Usage Policy

[tmberthold]

Tested via edc-ce-dev 7.0.0 [IAM-mock].
Can be recreated by starting the normal docker-compose.yaml, which uses the edc-dev variant.

If a policy of the type "Connector-Restricted-Usage" (policy-referring-connector) is created and is then used as a "Contract Policy" when creating a new "Contract Definition", the contract negotiation, triggered by the consumer, then throws an error message and the contract negotiation doesn’t technically work. (using the always-true policy for "Access Policy")

Error log:

edc-extensions-edc2-1          | 2024-01-17 12:55:36 StateMachineManager [consumer-contract-negotiation] error caught 
edc-extensions-edc2-1          | java.lang.NullPointerException: Cannot invoke "org.eclipse.edc.spi.agent.ParticipantAgent.getClaims()" because the return value of "org.eclipse.edc.policy.engine.spi.PolicyContext.getParticipantAgent()" is null
edc-extensions-edc2-1          |        at de.sovity.edc.extension.policy.functions.AbstractReferringConnectorValidation.evaluate(AbstractReferringConnectorValidation.java:72)
[...]

Policy: https://github.com/sovity/edc-extensions/tree/main/extensions/policy-referring-connector

Line of code causing Nullpointer: https://github.com/sovity/edc-extensions/blob/45d15241c59c1313de31fb179eabe3bc7991929a/extensions/policy-referring-connector/src/main/java/de/sovity/edc/extension/policy/functions/AbstractReferringConnectorValidation.java#L72

If the policy is also used by the provider as "Access Policy" and not just as "Contract Policy", the provider-offer is not visible in the consumer-catalog, regardless of how the connector-IDs are set when creating the policy.

Is there a configuration missing somewhere in the default setup of the docker-compose and thus of edc-ce-dev or is it not possible to use this policy anyway in the context of the IAM-mock and therefore no referringConnector claim which would then always fail even later in the policy-validation without the null pointer? Or what could that be?

[tmberthold]

Did the analysis, will open a new Bug Ticket with my findings.

Update: Here it is: #727