Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add service layer to manage authorization details types #6073

Open
wants to merge 21 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

VimukthiRajapaksha
Copy link

@VimukthiRajapaksha VimukthiRajapaksha commented Oct 28, 2024

Proposed changes in this pull request

This PR adds CRUD operations to manage Authorization Details Types, allowing for Create, Read, Update, and Delete operations.

  • Implemented database layer and queries to support the new CRUD operations.
  • Developed new services for managing Authorization Details Types within the framework.
  • Created unit tests to ensure the functionality of the new features.

Related Issues

Checklist (for reviewing)

General

  • Is this PR explained thoroughly? All code changes must be accounted for in the PR description.
  • Is the PR labeled correctly?

Functionality

  • Are all requirements met? Compare implemented functionality with the requirements specification.
  • Does the UI work as expected? There should be no Javascript errors in the console; all resources should load. There should be no unexpected errors. Deliberately try to break the feature to find out if there are corner cases that are not handled.

Code

  • Do you fully understand the introduced changes to the code? If not ask for clarification, it might uncover ways to solve a problem in a more elegant and efficient way.
  • Does the PR introduce any inefficient database requests? Use the debug server to check for duplicate requests.
  • Are all necessary strings marked for translation? All strings that are exposed to users via the UI must be marked for translation.

Tests

  • Are there sufficient test cases? Ensure that all components are tested individually; models, forms, and serializers should be tested in isolation even if a test for a view covers these components.
  • If this is a bug fix, are tests for the issue in place? There must be a test case for the bug to ensure the issue won’t regress. Make sure that the tests break without the new code to fix the issue.
  • If this is a new feature or a significant change to an existing feature? has the manual testing spreadsheet been updated with instructions for manual testing?

Security

  • Confirm this PR doesn't commit any keys, passwords, tokens, usernames, or other secrets.
  • Are all UI and API inputs run through forms or serializers?
  • Are all external inputs validated and sanitized appropriately?
  • Does all branching logic have a default case?
  • Does this solution handle outliers and edge cases gracefully?
  • Are all external communications secured and restricted to SSL?

Documentation

  • Are changes to the UI documented in the platform docs? If this PR introduces new platform site functionality or changes existing ones, the changes should be documented.
  • Are changes to the API documented in the API docs? If this PR introduces new API functionality or changes existing ones, the changes must be documented.
  • Are reusable components documented? If this PR introduces components that are relevant to other developers (for instance a mixin for a view or a generic form) they should be documented in the Wiki.

@CLAassistant
Copy link

CLAassistant commented Oct 28, 2024

CLA assistant check
All committers have signed the CLA.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 28, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 64.63415% with 290 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 45.75%. Comparing base (1c36a56) to head (52c5d04).
Report is 546 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
...ntity/api/resource/mgt/util/FilterQueriesUtil.java 49.19% 55 Missing and 8 partials ⚠️
...t/dao/impl/AuthorizationDetailsTypeMgtDAOImpl.java 75.31% 45 Missing and 13 partials ⚠️
...application/mgt/dao/impl/AuthorizedAPIDAOImpl.java 76.36% 24 Missing and 15 partials ⚠️
...ication/common/model/AuthorizationDetailsType.java 0.00% 36 Missing ⚠️
...rce/mgt/dao/impl/APIResourceManagementDAOImpl.java 57.14% 10 Missing and 5 partials ⚠️
...CacheBackedAuthorizationDetailsTypeMgtDAOImpl.java 77.04% 9 Missing and 5 partials ⚠️
...ource/mgt/AuthorizationDetailsTypeManagerImpl.java 72.09% 6 Missing and 6 partials ⚠️
...nternal/APIResourceManagementServiceComponent.java 0.00% 11 Missing ⚠️
...entity/application/common/model/AuthorizedAPI.java 0.00% 10 Missing ⚠️
...cation/mgt/AuthorizedAPIManagementServiceImpl.java 62.50% 6 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️
... and 7 more
Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master    #6073      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     40.82%   45.75%   +4.93%     
+ Complexity    16031    14200    -1831     
============================================
  Files          1813     1639     -174     
  Lines        130155   102071   -28084     
  Branches      22264    17805    -4459     
============================================
- Hits          53130    46701    -6429     
+ Misses        69267    48626   -20641     
+ Partials       7758     6744    -1014     
Flag Coverage Δ
unit 28.55% <64.63%> (+0.25%) ⬆️

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.

*/
public class AuthorizationDetailsTypeMgtDAOImpl implements AuthorizationDetailsTypeMgtDAO {

private static final Log log = LogFactory.getLog(AuthorizationDetailsTypeMgtDAOImpl.class);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
private static final Log log = LogFactory.getLog(AuthorizationDetailsTypeMgtDAOImpl.class);
private static final Log LOG = LogFactory.getLog(AuthorizationDetailsTypeMgtDAOImpl.class);

please change other places also

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fixed in 9f2011a

ID CHAR(36) NOT NULL,
TYPE VARCHAR(255) NOT NULL,
API_ID CHAR(36) NOT NULL,
CURSOR_KEY INTEGER NOT NULL,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why we need this cursor key

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This field can be used in the "cursor pagination" which is more efficient than "limit/offset pagination"

Capitalize private static final variable names
private boolean isRichAuthorizationRequestsEnabled() {

for (final String tableName : AuthorizationDetailsTypesUtil.RICH_AUTHORIZATION_REQUESTS_TABLES) {
if (!IdentityDatabaseUtil.isTableExists(tableName)) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

don't we have a configuration to enable this feature? Why are we relying on the table exists?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This has added to prevent database exceptions such as "Table does not exist"

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We decided to not use isTableExist checks in the product due to schema owner issues in oracle DB. Shall we use a configuration and properly document the need of necessary tables before enabling the configuration.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@madurangasiriwardena instead of using

isTableExists

method can we have a configuration.
@VimukthiRajapaksha correct me if I am wrong, this config is needed to seperate the feature for any specific deployments right?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes @Thumimku we have added this to avoid triggering database operations for this feature in a specific deployment.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Since this is a feature going in a product release, all the required new database tables are supposed to be added with the product upgrade procedure. So there is no requirement to avoid "Table does not exist" exceptions.

If there are no other reasons to enable/disable the feature, we can get rid of this altogether.

Copy link
Contributor

@shashimalcse shashimalcse Dec 20, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@VimukthiRajapaksha Let's address this, and then we can proceed.

make db operations transactional

Add authorization details types to authorized api events

Add missing java doc comments

remove static method imports
resolve checkstyle issues
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants