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

Expose Special issue types endpoint throughout the BIP API service #3280

Merged
merged 16 commits into from
Aug 20, 2024

Conversation

nelsestu
Copy link
Contributor

@nelsestu nelsestu commented Aug 7, 2024

The EE team has requested that the special_issue_types endpoint be exposed via a new rabbitmq queue on the bip exchange. This PR introduces many of the necessary components towards making that endpoint available for EE consumption. Accompanying the real bip data, is a mock implementation that can be used for local development.

What was the problem?

special_issue_types were needed.

Associated tickets or Slack threads:

How does this fix it?1

Adds the special_issue_types endpoint to all the necessary components of the bip service.

How to test this PR

  • submit a rabbitmq request to the newly create getSpecialIssueTypesQueue

Footnotes

  1. Pull-Requests guidelines. If PR is significant, update Current Software State wiki page.

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Aug 7, 2024

Test Results

122 tests  +3   122 ✅ +3   20s ⏱️ ±0s
 35 suites +1     0 💤 ±0 
 35 files   +1     0 ❌ ±0 

Results for commit 7f9d70a. ± Comparison against base commit 50b9c59.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Aug 8, 2024

JaCoCo Test Coverage

Overall Project 72.86% -0.13%
Files changed 86.21% 🍏

File Coverage
BipApiProps.java 100% 🍏
BipApiService.java 99.84% 🍏
RabbitMqController.java 0% -8.89%

@nelsestu nelsestu marked this pull request as ready for review August 13, 2024 13:47
@nelsestu nelsestu requested a review from a team as a code owner August 13, 2024 13:47
Copy link
Contributor

@brostk brostk left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This all looks good to me. The mock enablement is great and the tests look like they should pass just fine. One nitpick on GetSpecialIssuesTypeResponse but not a blocker.

Copy link
Contributor

@dfitchett dfitchett left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

You should remove commented code / comments!

@nelsestu nelsestu requested a review from a team as a code owner August 13, 2024 22:21
nelsestu pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 13, 2024
…ng PR feedback with minor edits as identified in PR #3280 comments.
…s the following commits:

    Laying the ground work for the special issue types endpoint.  Also building out the mock data service that we'll need for local development purposes.
    Get the mock bip api service up and running, with unit test coverage
    Introduces SpecialIssueStateService which handles population of the state attribute.  With this, requests for special issue types now allows for an array of codes while resolving the state attribute based on the functionality described in #3213.  Still working through some integration test error with Spring dependency injection.
    Fix special issue types service, by refactoring both BipApiService and SpecialIssueStateService to descend from a common  RestApiService  abstract class.  This will allow for easier integration testing of the special issue types functionality.
    simplifying special issue types implementation by eliminating the getSpecialIssueCodes call, and favoring a direct pass through call to the bip api.'
    Rebasing with develop to refresh this aging branch. Incorporating PR feedback with minor edits as identified in PR #3280 comments.
    Reapply some of the merge resolutions after the rebase
Copy link
Contributor Author

@nelsestu nelsestu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks @dfitchett , I wasn't understanding how the unrelated integration test would be failing, but removing the extra RestTemplate mock that was being created certainly makes sense in hindsight.

@dfitchett dfitchett merged commit cc4d1d7 into develop Aug 20, 2024
1 check passed
@dfitchett dfitchett deleted the 3213-special-issue-types branch August 20, 2024 18:32
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.

4 participants