Schema merge requestshttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/schema-service/-/merge_requests2020-10-06T02:45:05Zhttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/schema-service/-/merge_requests/22Draft: Resolve "[Schema Service] IBM SPI Implementation"2020-10-06T02:45:05ZAnuj GuptaDraft: Resolve "[Schema Service] IBM SPI Implementation"Closes #6Closes #6https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/schema-service/-/merge_requests/23adding helm charts for schema service2023-08-18T22:00:55ZAman Vermaadding helm charts for schema service- Adding helm charts for schema service
- updated `gitlab-ci.yml`
- updated 'fossa.yml'
- Added `DockerFile` for container generation
- Added README
These changes follow the pattern of similar changes made for wks service. https://commu...- Adding helm charts for schema service
- updated `gitlab-ci.yml`
- updated 'fossa.yml'
- Added `DockerFile` for container generation
- Added README
These changes follow the pattern of similar changes made for wks service. https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/data-flow/enrichment/wks/-/merge_requests?scope=all&utf8=%E2%9C%93&state=merged
FYI @polavishnu , @kibattul , @kiveerap , @danielscholl , @dkodeihM1 - Release 0.1Aman VermaAman Vermahttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/schema-service/-/merge_requests/24Changes to run test suit only once instead of thrice2023-08-18T22:00:53ZNeha SardaChanges to run test suit only once instead of thriceM1 - Release 0.1https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/schema-service/-/merge_requests/25Slb put errormsgfix2023-08-18T22:00:51ZAbhishek Kumar (SLB)Slb put errormsgfix**Summary**
When the user tries to create/update a schema using PUT API, the application tries to update the schema into the same tenant. If there is no schema found, it tries to create the schema with the same id. However, while creati...**Summary**
When the user tries to create/update a schema using PUT API, the application tries to update the schema into the same tenant. If there is no schema found, it tries to create the schema with the same id. However, while creating the schema it checks for its existence into the other schemas as well. For example, if the schema is created from PRIVATE tenant then it checks for the duplicate schema in COMMON tenant, and in another scenario, if the schema is created from COMMON tenant then it checks for the duplicate schema in all the private tenants.
**Steps to reproduce**
Create a schema that doesn't exist in the same tenant (PRIVATE) but in the common tenant.
**What is the current bug behavior?**
Currently, the error message returned is misleading which states:
> "Schema Id is already present"
**What is the expected correct behavior?**
The expected error message would be: "
> Update/Create failed because schema id is present in another tenant"M1 - Release 0.1Abhishek Kumar (SLB)Abhishek Kumar (SLB)https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/schema-service/-/merge_requests/26WIP: Adding steps to run integration tests for schema service2020-10-26T14:32:11ZAman VermaWIP: Adding steps to run integration tests for schema serviceThis MR contains following changes:
1. setting `AZURE_SKIP_TEST` to true, so that Integration tests can run
2. updating a variable name i.e. `TESTER_SERVICEPRINCIPAL_SECRET` to reuse variables defined in common section of azure.yaml in c...This MR contains following changes:
1. setting `AZURE_SKIP_TEST` to true, so that Integration tests can run
2. updating a variable name i.e. `TESTER_SERVICEPRINCIPAL_SECRET` to reuse variables defined in common section of azure.yaml in ci-cd pipeline.
3. adding a sample yaml file to run on kubernetes.
See following issues for failures in test runs:
https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/schema-service/-/issues/23
https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/schema-service/-/issues/16
cc: @osdu/platform/roles/azure-contributorsAman VermaAman Vermahttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/schema-service/-/merge_requests/27AWS Provider Implementation for Schema Service2020-09-18T16:50:32ZMatt WiseAWS Provider Implementation for Schema ServiceM1 - Release 0.1Rucha DeshpandeMatt WiseRucha Deshpandehttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/schema-service/-/merge_requests/28Use AWS CI master2020-09-18T17:08:30ZMatt WiseUse AWS CI masterM1 - Release 0.1Matt WiseMatt Wisehttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/schema-service/-/merge_requests/29GCP make enum value ACCOUNT_ID_COMMON_PROJECT configurable (GONRG-854)2023-08-18T22:00:50ZIgor Filippov (EPAM)GCP make enum value ACCOUNT_ID_COMMON_PROJECT configurable (GONRG-854)Description:
- Change for 'GoogleSchemaInfoStore' java class, the value now is taken not from the enum 'SchemaConstants' but from the properties.
- Added a property 'account.id.common.project'
# How to test:
Check business logic.
# C...Description:
- Change for 'GoogleSchemaInfoStore' java class, the value now is taken not from the enum 'SchemaConstants' but from the properties.
- Added a property 'account.id.common.project'
# How to test:
Check business logic.
# Changes include:
- [ ] Refactor (a non-breaking change that improves code maintainability).
- [ ] Bugfix (a non-breaking change that solves an issue).
- [x] New feature (a non-breaking change that adds functionality).
- [ ] Breaking change (a change that is not backward-compatible and/or changes current functionality).
# Changes in:
- [x] GCP
- [ ] Azure
- [ ] AWS
- [ ] IBM
# Dev Checklist:
- [ ] Added Unit Tests, wherever applicable.
- [ ] Updated the Readme, if applicable.
- [x] Existing Tests pass
- [x] Verified functionality locally
- [x] Self Reviewed my code for formatting and complex business logic.
# Other comments:
Any comments to approvers hereM1 - Release 0.1Dmitriy RudkoRostislav Dublin (EPAM)Dmitriy Rudkohttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/schema-service/-/merge_requests/30making the logs consistent with gcp implementation2023-08-18T22:00:48ZAman Vermamaking the logs consistent with gcp implementation## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
* [YES/NO] I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it?: YES
* [YES/NO] I have updated the documentation accordingly.: NA
* [YES/NO/N...## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
* [YES/NO] I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it?: YES
* [YES/NO] I have updated the documentation accordingly.: NA
* [YES/NO/NA] I have added tests to cover my changes. : NA
* [YES/NO/NA] All new and existing tests passed. YES
* [YES/NO/NA] My code follows the code style of this project. YES
* [YES/NO/NA] I ran lint checks locally prior to submission. NA
## What is the issue or story related to the change?
-------------------------------------
<!-- Please describe the current behavior that you are modifying, 'or' link to a relevant issue.
Feel free to add references to any design documents you might have shared with the team or any
related MR that you are building on top of. -->
Making the log messages consistent with what we have in GCP implementation
High level design:
Issue: <!-- Link any __GitLab__ workitem(s) to this pull request. -->
<!-- Please add implementation details of current set of changes and how the code changes are
doing what they are expected to do. Are there any complex loops or designated code blocks that
should be elaborated? Is there some contextual knowledge that the reviewer should be aware of? -->
Change details:
here is line by line comparison of logs added in both the CSP implementations:
AZURE IMPLEMENTATOIN
=======================
D:\OSDURepos2\schema-service\provider\schema-azure\src\main>findstr /s /i "log\." *.java
AzureAuthorityStore.java: log.warning(SchemaConstants.AUTHORITY_EXISTS_ALREADY_REGISTERED);
AzureAuthorityStore.java: log.error(MessageFormat.format(SchemaConstants.OBJECT_INVALID, ex.getMessage()));
AzureAuthorityStore.java: log.info(SchemaConstants.AUTHORITY_CREATED);
AzureEntityTypeStore.java: log.warning(SchemaConstants.ENTITY_TYPE_EXISTS);
AzureEntityTypeStore.java: log.error(MessageFormat.format(SchemaConstants.OBJECT_INVALID, ex.getMessage()));
AzureEntityTypeStore.java: log.info(SchemaConstants.ENTITY_TYPE_CREATED);
AzureSchemaInfoStore.java: log.warning(SchemaConstants.SCHEMA_ID_EXISTS);
AzureSchemaInfoStore.java: log.error(MessageFormat.format(SchemaConstants.OBJECT_INVALID, ex.getMessage()));
AzureSchemaInfoStore.java: log.info(SchemaConstants.SCHEMA_INFO_CREATED);
AzureSchemaInfoStore.java: log.error(MessageFormat.format(SchemaConstants.OBJECT_INVALID, ex.getMessage()));
AzureSchemaInfoStore.java: log.info(SchemaConstants.SCHEMA_INFO_UPDATED);
AzureSchemaInfoStore.java: log.error(SchemaConstants.INVALID_SUPERSEDEDBY_ID);
AzureSourceStore.java: log.warning(SchemaConstants.SOURCE_EXISTS);
AzureSourceStore.java: log.error(MessageFormat.format(SchemaConstants.OBJECT_INVALID, ex.getMessage()));
AzureSourceStore.java: log.info(SchemaConstants.SOURCE_CREATED);
AzureSchemaStore.java: log.info(SchemaConstants.SCHEMA_CREATED);
GCP IMPLEMENTATOIN
=====================
D:\OSDURepos2\schema-service\provider\schema-gcp\src\main>findstr /s /i "log\." *.java
GoogleAuthorityStore.java: log.warning(SchemaConstants.AUTHORITY_EXISTS_ALREADY_REGISTERED);
GoogleAuthorityStore.java: log.error(MessageFormat.format(SchemaConstants.OBJECT_INVALID, ex.getMessage()));
GoogleAuthorityStore.java: log.info(SchemaConstants.AUTHORITY_CREATED);
GoogleEntityTypeStore.java: log.warning(SchemaConstants.ENTITY_TYPE_EXISTS);
GoogleEntityTypeStore.java: log.error(MessageFormat.format(SchemaConstants.OBJECT_INVALID, ex.getMessage()));
GoogleEntityTypeStore.java: log.info(SchemaConstants.ENTITY_TYPE_CREATED);
GoogleSchemaInfoStore.java: log.warning(SchemaConstants.SCHEMA_ID_EXISTS);
GoogleSchemaInfoStore.java: log.error(SchemaConstants.OBJECT_INVALID);
GoogleSchemaInfoStore.java: log.info(SchemaConstants.SCHEMA_INFO_CREATED);
GoogleSchemaInfoStore.java: log.error(SchemaConstants.OBJECT_INVALID);
GoogleSchemaInfoStore.java: log.info(SchemaConstants.SCHEMA_INFO_UPDATED);
GoogleSchemaInfoStore.java: log.error(SchemaConstants.INVALID_SUPERSEDEDBY_ID);
GoogleSourceStore.java: log.warning(SchemaConstants.SOURCE_EXISTS);
GoogleSourceStore.java: log.error(SchemaConstants.OBJECT_INVALID);
GoogleSourceStore.java: log.info(SchemaConstants.SOURCE_CREATED);
GoogleSchemaStore.java: log.info(SchemaConstants.SCHEMA_CREATED);
## Test coverage:
------------------
<!-- Mention unit test coverage of changes. -->
No code changes
## Does this introduce a breaking change?
-------------------------------------
- [YES/NO]
NO
<!-- If this introduces a breaking change, please describe the impact and migration path for existing applications below. -->
## Pending items
----------------
<!-- Are there changes that you'll introduce in upcoming MRs and hence did not add in this one? Next steps of your
feature can also be mentioned here. -->
NONE
## Reviewer request
-------------------
- Please provide an ETA when you plan to review this MR. Write a comment to decline or provide an ETA.
- Block the MR if you feel there is less testing or no details in the MR
- Please cover the following aspects in the MR
-- Coding design: _\<Reviewer1>_
-- Backward Compatibility: _\<Reviewer2>_
-- Feature Logic: _\<Logic design\>_
-- _\<Any other context mention here>_
OR
-- _\<Component 1>_: _\<Reviewer1>_
-- _\<CosmosDB>_: _\<Reviewer2>_
-- _\<ServiceBus>_ _\<Reviewer3>_
-- _\<Mention any other component and owner>_
## Other information
-------------------------------------
<!-- Any other information that is important to this MR such as screenshots of how the component looks before and after the change. -->
cc: @osdu/platform/roles/azure-contributorsM1 - Release 0.1Aman VermaAman Vermahttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/schema-service/-/merge_requests/31Added relative path again2023-08-18T22:00:47ZNeha SardaAdded relative path again@ethiraj : As per @wsmatth comment, I added relative path in this merge request. Please approve this change.@ethiraj : As per @wsmatth comment, I added relative path in this merge request. Please approve this change.M1 - Release 0.1https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/schema-service/-/merge_requests/32[Draft]: Add osdu-gcp pipeline for schema (GONRG-503)2020-09-29T11:25:31ZOleksandr Kosse (EPAM)[Draft]: Add osdu-gcp pipeline for schema (GONRG-503)## Type of change
- [ ] Bug Fix
- [ ] Feature
## Does this introduce a change in the core logic?
- [NO]
## Does this introduce a change in the cloud provider implementation, if so which cloud?
- [ ] AWS
- [ ] Azure
- [ ] GCP
- [ ] IB...## Type of change
- [ ] Bug Fix
- [ ] Feature
## Does this introduce a change in the core logic?
- [NO]
## Does this introduce a change in the cloud provider implementation, if so which cloud?
- [ ] AWS
- [ ] Azure
- [ ] GCP
- [ ] IBM
## Does this introduce a breaking change?
- [NO]
## What is the current behavior?
Schema service isn't deployed to OSDU_GCP Env
## What is the new/expected behavior?
Schema service will be deployed to OSDU_GCP Env
## Have you added/updated Unit Tests and Integration Tests?
-
## Any other useful informationOleksandr Kosse (EPAM)Oleksandr Kosse (EPAM)https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/schema-service/-/merge_requests/33updating key names to make code work against opendes tenant2023-08-18T22:00:45ZAman Vermaupdating key names to make code work against opendes tenant## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
* [YES/NO] I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it?- [YES]
* [YES/NO] I have updated the documentation accordingly. [N/A]
* [YES/...## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
* [YES/NO] I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it?- [YES]
* [YES/NO] I have updated the documentation accordingly. [N/A]
* [YES/NO/NA] I have added tests to cover my changes. [N/A]
* [YES/NO/NA] All new and existing tests passed.[YES]
* [YES/NO/NA] My code follows the code style of this project. [YES]
* [YES/NO/NA] I ran lint checks locally prior to submission. [N/A]
## What is the issue or story related to the change?
-------------------------------------
<!-- Please describe the current behavior that you are modifying, 'or' link to a relevant issue.
Feel free to add references to any design documents you might have shared with the team or any
related MR that you are building on top of. -->
Recently we have update the infrastructure against which Ci/CD pipelines run to become DP complaint. In this process we have moved away from having a single resource containing all the azure resources. Now each tenant has it's dedicated resource group. The naming convention of various keys in KV has also changed. e.g. erstwhile `cosmos-key` is now called `opendes-cosmos-key` for a tenant named `opendes`
High level design:
- The purpose of this MR is to make code changes work against any one tenant. That one tenant is `opendes` in this case. Hence updating the key names according to above mentioned convention. Now keys are called `opendes-cosmos-endpoint` and `opendes-cosmos-primary-key`.
- Updated the UTs
- updated the deployment.yaml file to reflect latest names of variables in key-vault
Issue: <!-- Link any __GitLab__ workitem(s) to this pull request. -->
Not running ITs. One integration test fails in azure environment due to a certain behaviour of Istio. Details here:
https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/issues/1
<!-- Please add implementation details of current set of changes and how the code changes are
doing what they are expected to do. Are there any complex loops or designated code blocks that
should be elaborated? Is there some contextual knowledge that the reviewer should be aware of? -->
Change details:
## Test coverage:
------------------
<!-- Mention unit test coverage of changes. -->
89%
## Does this introduce a breaking change?
-------------------------------------
- [YES/NO]
NO
<!-- If this introduces a breaking change, please describe the impact and migration path for existing applications below. -->
## Pending items
----------------
<!-- Are there changes that you'll introduce in upcoming MRs and hence did not add in this one? Next steps of your
feature can also be mentioned here. -->
NONE
## Reviewer request
-------------------
- Please provide an ETA when you plan to review this MR. Write a comment to decline or provide an ETA.
- Block the MR if you feel there is less testing or no details in the MR
- Please cover the following aspects in the MR
-- Coding design: _\<Reviewer1>_
-- Backward Compatibility: _\<Reviewer2>_
-- Feature Logic: _\<Logic design\>_
-- _\<Any other context mention here>_
OR
-- _\<Component 1>_: _\<Reviewer1>_
-- _\<CosmosDB>_: _\<Reviewer2>_
-- _\<ServiceBus>_ _\<Reviewer3>_
-- _\<Mention any other component and owner>_
## Other information
-------------------------------------
<!-- Any other information that is important to this MR such as screenshots of how the component looks before and after the change. -->
cc: @osdu/platform/roles/azure-contributorsM1 - Release 0.1Aman VermaAman Vermahttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/schema-service/-/merge_requests/34Actualize README.md for GCP (GONRG-804)2023-08-18T22:00:43ZRustam Lotsmanenko (EPAM)rustam_lotsmanenko@epam.comActualize README.md for GCP (GONRG-804)Module specific documentation:
- Project Title
- Getting Started
- Prerequisites
- Installation
- Run Locally
- Testing
- Running E2E Tests
- Deployment
- LicenceModule specific documentation:
- Project Title
- Getting Started
- Prerequisites
- Installation
- Run Locally
- Testing
- Running E2E Tests
- Deployment
- LicenceM1 - Release 0.1Rostislav Dublin (EPAM)Rostislav Dublin (EPAM)https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/schema-service/-/merge_requests/35Gcp bring sonar update with int master2023-08-18T22:00:42ZRustam Lotsmanenko (EPAM)rustam_lotsmanenko@epam.comGcp bring sonar update with int masterGO3NRG-933 Sonar
Added <exclusion>google-cloud-core-http</exclusion>
for google-cloud-datastore.GO3NRG-933 Sonar
Added <exclusion>google-cloud-core-http</exclusion>
for google-cloud-datastore.M1 - Release 0.1Rostislav Dublin (EPAM)Rostislav Dublin (EPAM)https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/schema-service/-/merge_requests/36adding yaml file for bootstrapping step for schema service2023-08-18T22:00:40ZAman Vermaadding yaml file for bootstrapping step for schema service## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
* [YES/NO] I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it? YES
* [YES/NO] I have updated the documentation accordingly. NA
* [YES/NO/NA]...## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
* [YES/NO] I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it? YES
* [YES/NO] I have updated the documentation accordingly. NA
* [YES/NO/NA] I have added tests to cover my changes. NA
* [YES/NO/NA] All new and existing tests passed. NA
* [YES/NO/NA] My code follows the code style of this project. YES
* [YES/NO/NA] I ran lint checks locally prior to submission. NA
## What is the issue or story related to the change?
-------------------------------------
<!-- Please describe the current behavior that you are modifying, 'or' link to a relevant issue.
Feel free to add references to any design documents you might have shared with the team or any
related MR that you are building on top of. -->
adding yaml file for bootstrapping step for schema service
High level design:
Issue: <!-- Link any __GitLab__ workitem(s) to this pull request. -->
Reference MR: https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/data-flow/enrichment/wks/-/merge_requests/14/diffs#diff-content-f05bdd3f902b15fe51800821cbe5b9ee06413ed2
<!-- Please add implementation details of current set of changes and how the code changes are
doing what they are expected to do. Are there any complex loops or designated code blocks that
should be elaborated? Is there some contextual knowledge that the reviewer should be aware of? -->
Change details:
## Test coverage:
------------------
<!-- Mention unit test coverage of changes. -->
NA
## Does this introduce a breaking change?
-------------------------------------
- [YES/NO]
NO
<!-- If this introduces a breaking change, please describe the impact and migration path for existing applications below. -->
## Pending items
----------------
<!-- Are there changes that you'll introduce in upcoming MRs and hence did not add in this one? Next steps of your
feature can also be mentioned here. -->
NONE
## Reviewer request
-------------------
- Please provide an ETA when you plan to review this MR. Write a comment to decline or provide an ETA.
- Block the MR if you feel there is less testing or no details in the MR
- Please cover the following aspects in the MR
-- Coding design: _\<Reviewer1>_
-- Backward Compatibility: _\<Reviewer2>_
-- Feature Logic: _\<Logic design\>_
-- _\<Any other context mention here>_
OR
-- _\<Component 1>_: _\<Reviewer1>_
-- _\<CosmosDB>_: _\<Reviewer2>_
-- _\<ServiceBus>_ _\<Reviewer3>_
-- _\<Mention any other component and owner>_
## Other information
-------------------------------------
<!-- Any other information that is important to this MR such as screenshots of how the component looks before and after the change. -->
cc: @osdu/platform/roles/azure-contributorsM1 - Release 0.1Aman VermaAman Vermahttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/schema-service/-/merge_requests/37GCP fix NPE (GONRG-945)2023-08-18T22:00:39ZIgor Filippov (EPAM)GCP fix NPE (GONRG-945)## Type of change
- [X] Bug Fix
- [ ] Feature
## Does this introduce a change in the core logic?
- [NO]
## Does this introduce a change in the cloud provider implementation, if so which cloud?
- [ ] AWS
- [ ] Azure
- [X] GCP
- [ ] IB...## Type of change
- [X] Bug Fix
- [ ] Feature
## Does this introduce a change in the core logic?
- [NO]
## Does this introduce a change in the cloud provider implementation, if so which cloud?
- [ ] AWS
- [ ] Azure
- [X] GCP
- [ ] IBM
## Does this introduce a breaking change?
- [NO]
## What is the current behavior?
GCP provider contains NPE.
## What is the new/expected behavior?
NPE in GCP provider fixed.
## Have you added/updated Unit Tests and Integration Tests?
- [NO]
## Any other useful information
Changes:
- Changed `provider/schema-gcp/src/main/java/org/opengroup/osdu/schema/impl/schemainfostore/GoogleSchemaInfoStore.java`
- Changed `provider/schema-gcp/src/main/java/org/opengroup/osdu/schema/impl/schemastore/GoogleSchemaStore.java`M1 - Release 0.1Dmitriy RudkoRostislav Dublin (EPAM)Dmitriy Rudkohttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/schema-service/-/merge_requests/38Decoupling shared partition name.2020-10-27T08:56:16ZAbhishek Kumar (SLB)Decoupling shared partition name.There was a dependency on partition name and this put a restriction on all the providers to use the same shared partition name ie "**common**".
Now, every vendor is free to use the shared partition name of their choice. The same value c...There was a dependency on partition name and this put a restriction on all the providers to use the same shared partition name ie "**common**".
Now, every vendor is free to use the shared partition name of their choice. The same value can be configured and passed via pipeline.https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/schema-service/-/merge_requests/39updating the "no auth header" related integration test2023-08-18T22:00:37ZAman Vermaupdating the "no auth header" related integration test## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
* [YES/NO] I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it? YES
* [YES/NO] I have updated the documentation accordingly. NA
* [YES/NO/NA]...## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
* [YES/NO] I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it? YES
* [YES/NO] I have updated the documentation accordingly. NA
* [YES/NO/NA] I have added tests to cover my changes. NA
* [YES/NO/NA] All new and existing tests passed. YES
* [YES/NO/NA] My code follows the code style of this project. YES
* [YES/NO/NA] I ran lint checks locally prior to submission. NA
## What is the issue or story related to the change?
-------------------------------------
<!-- Please describe the current behavior that you are modifying, 'or' link to a relevant issue.
Feel free to add references to any design documents you might have shared with the team or any
related MR that you are building on top of. -->
During schema service Integration test run with istio enabled, it has been observed that one Integration test which covers the `No auth header` fails because of wrong HttpStatus code. This happens because of the way Istio processes this request. For No auth header scenario Istio returns error code `403` instead of `401`(More details in the issue linked)
High level design:
Updated the Integration test to accept two types of HttpStatus codes, 401 and 403. This, ofcourse, is a short term fix. The test would revert back to it's old state once this issue is fixed and Istio handles the no auth header scenario as expected.
Issue: <!-- Link any __GitLab__ workitem(s) to this pull request. -->
https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/issues/1
<!-- Please add implementation details of current set of changes and how the code changes are
doing what they are expected to do. Are there any complex loops or designated code blocks that
should be elaborated? Is there some contextual knowledge that the reviewer should be aware of? -->
Change details:
- Refer the Issue to get more details. One important thing to note here is not all cloud providers are facing this issue because they don't use Istio for authentication and the service itself has logic to handle this. Hence the test is passing for them.
- Enabled the integration test run step
## Test coverage:
------------------
<!-- Mention unit test coverage of changes. -->
## Does this introduce a breaking change?
-------------------------------------
- [YES/NO]
<!-- If this introduces a breaking change, please describe the impact and migration path for existing applications below. -->
## Pending items
----------------
<!-- Are there changes that you'll introduce in upcoming MRs and hence did not add in this one? Next steps of your
feature can also be mentioned here. -->
## Reviewer request
-------------------
- Please provide an ETA when you plan to review this MR. Write a comment to decline or provide an ETA.
- Block the MR if you feel there is less testing or no details in the MR
- Please cover the following aspects in the MR
-- Coding design: _\<Reviewer1>_
-- Backward Compatibility: _\<Reviewer2>_
-- Feature Logic: _\<Logic design\>_
-- _\<Any other context mention here>_
OR
-- _\<Component 1>_: _\<Reviewer1>_
-- _\<CosmosDB>_: _\<Reviewer2>_
-- _\<ServiceBus>_ _\<Reviewer3>_
-- _\<Mention any other component and owner>_
## Other information
-------------------------------------
<!-- Any other information that is important to this MR such as screenshots of how the component looks before and after the change. -->
cc: @osdu/platform/roles/azure-contributors @kiveerap, @gramdasM1 - Release 0.1Aman VermaAman Vermahttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/schema-service/-/merge_requests/40WIP Schema test GONRG-10312020-11-27T11:42:06ZMykola Zamkovyi (EPAM)WIP Schema test GONRG-1031https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/schema-service/-/merge_requests/41Decoupling common tenant2020-12-04T13:19:13ZAbhishek Kumar (SLB)Decoupling common tenantThe basic objective of this change is to decouple SHARED tenant name as common.
Now, the shared tenant name can be injected through the pipeline, by default the name is "common".The basic objective of this change is to decouple SHARED tenant name as common.
Now, the shared tenant name can be injected through the pipeline, by default the name is "common".ethiraj krishnamanaiduethiraj krishnamanaidu