🐛 fixed SimcoreServiceSettingLabelEntry parsing

[GitHK]

What do these changes do?

• some services like iSeg are not able to start because the parsing failed.

Related issue/s

How to test

Checklist

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #3052 (114d99f) into master (fdb8a04) will decrease coverage by 0.0%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##           master   #3052     +/-   ##
========================================
- Coverage    80.6%   80.5%   -0.1%     
========================================
  Files         712     712             
  Lines       30686   30686             
  Branches     4006    4006             
========================================
- Hits        24737   24727     -10     
- Misses       5099    5109     +10     
  Partials      850     850             

Flag	Coverage Δ
integrationtests	66.1% <ø> (-0.1%)	⬇️
unittests	76.5% <ø> (-0.1%)	⬇️

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

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...s/dynamic_sidecar/docker_service_specs/settings.py	64.6% <ø> (ø)
...mcore_service_webserver/garbage_collector_utils.py	79.4% <0.0%> (-3.0%)	⬇️
...tor_v2/modules/dynamic_sidecar/scheduler/events.py	90.6% <0.0%> (-1.1%)	⬇️
...webserver/computation_comp_tasks_listening_task.py	78.4% <0.0%> (-1.0%)	⬇️
.../src/simcore_service_webserver/director_v2_core.py	75.7% <0.0%> (-1.0%)	⬇️
...ector_v2/modules/dynamic_sidecar/scheduler/task.py	81.4% <0.0%> (-0.5%)	⬇️
.../director/src/simcore_service_director/producer.py	61.6% <0.0%> (-0.5%)	⬇️

[mguidon]

Thanks for the hotfix!

[sonarcloud]

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!   

0 Bugs
0 Vulnerabilities
0 Security Hotspots
0 Code Smells

No Coverage information
0.5% Duplication

[sanderegg]

as @pcrespov said, using parse_obj is always more secure than the constructor.

[pcrespov]

not sure in this case makes a big difference though :-)
I think it is secure when your data is in a dict-like object but here we pass explicitly the values

[mguidon]

Anybody an idea why this fails stochastically?

[pcrespov]

-Q: why are you not using the constructor? (curious about your decision)

-TIP: an alternative is to add Config.allow_population_by_field_name = True to SimcoreServiceSettingLabelEntry

[GitHK]

I think that was some very old code. I now Know we should go for the parsing instead of the constructor. I've seen that using the constructor does not trigger the validators (or some of them).