🐛 Fixes api-keys unique constraint violation (🚨)

[pcrespov]

What do these changes do?

While starting a jupyter (in master), the variable substitution component triggers a callback to auto-generate a valid api-key for the current user. This callback raises

 File "/home/scu/.venv/lib/python3.10/site-packages/simcore_service_director_v2/modules/osparc_variables/_api_auth.py", line 40, in _get_or_create_data
    return await create_api_key_and_secret(
  File "/home/scu/.venv/lib/python3.10/site-packages/simcore_service_director_v2/modules/osparc_variables/_api_auth_rpc.py", line 28, in create_api_key_and_secret
    result = await rpc_client.request(
  File "/home/scu/.venv/lib/python3.10/site-packages/servicelib/rabbitmq/_client_rpc.py", line 96, in request
    return await asyncio.wait_for(awaitable, timeout=timeout_s)
  File "/usr/local/lib/python3.10/asyncio/tasks.py", line 445, in wait_for
    return fut.result()
  File "/home/scu/.venv/lib/python3.10/site-packages/aio_pika/patterns/rpc.py", line 413, in call
    return await future
servicelib.rabbitmq._errors.RPCServerError: While running method 'create_api_keys' raised 'psycopg2.errors.UniqueViolation': 'duplicate key value violates unique constraint "display_name_userid_uniqueness"
DETAIL:  Key (display_name, user_id)=(__auto_c52f362c-10cc-55b9-9539-82d97856bf06, 530) already exists.
'

Manual exploratory testing suggested that this error is produced by a race condition when executing get and create operations. Note that get_or_create operation was implemented in the directorv2 calls to get and create function are connected via RPC -> service -> repo.

• 🐛 Implements get_or_create as a single transaction in the api_keys._db repository
• 🗑️ retires unused api_keys_manager.py

Related issue/s

• Bug introduced by PR ✨ Registers OSPARC_VARIABLE_API_* as osparc session variable (🚨) #5858

How to test

Driving tests

cd services/web/server
make install-dev
pytest -vv tests/unit -k test_get_or_create_api_key

Dev-ops checklist

• No ENV changes or I properly updated ENV (read the instruction)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 95.34884% with 2 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 85.1%. Comparing base (cafbf96) to head (d5bed17).
Report is 232 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##           master   #5890      +/-   ##
=========================================
+ Coverage    84.5%   85.1%    +0.5%     
=========================================
  Files          10     561     +551     
  Lines         214   28228   +28014     
  Branches       25     205     +180     
=========================================
+ Hits          181   24032   +23851     
- Misses         23    4145    +4122     
- Partials       10      51      +41     

Flag	Coverage Δ
integrationtests	63.6% <46.5%> (?)
unittests	86.4% <95.3%> (+1.8%)	⬆️

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

Files	Coverage Δ
...rc/simcore_service_director_v2/core/application.py	96.2% <100.0%> (ø)
...s/dynamic_sidecar/scheduler/_core/_events_utils.py	92.6% <ø> (ø)
..._director_v2/modules/osparc_variables/_api_auth.py	100.0% <100.0%> (ø)
...ver/src/simcore_service_webserver/api_keys/_api.py	100.0% <100.0%> (ø)
...rver/src/simcore_service_webserver/api_keys/_db.py	95.0% <100.0%> (ø)
...ector_v2/modules/osparc_variables/_api_auth_rpc.py	76.9% <66.6%> (ø)
...ver/src/simcore_service_webserver/api_keys/_rpc.py	96.0% <80.0%> (ø)

... and 564 files with indirect coverage changes

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
No data about Coverage
0.2% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarCloud

[wvangeit]

Thanks a lot for finding/solving that.