Incorrect values in negotiation object

[juliapampus]

Running sample 4 and taking a look at the negotiation output, I just noticed some incorrect values. Maybe due to an error, or missing value settings that should be fixed in the core implementation. Or just due to the sample setup - then this can be ignored. Comments welcome.

A sample negotiation object, performing a request on GET /api/control/negotiation/{id}, could look as follows:

{
    "id": "44c86ae0-0b6e-412d-b75a-71a349c74275",
    "correlationId": null,
    "counterPartyId": "consumer",
    "counterPartyAddress": "http://localhost:8181/api/ids/multipart",
    "protocol": "ids-multipart",
    "type": "CONSUMER",
    "state": 1200,
    "stateCount": 1,
    "stateTimestamp": 1639144360995,
    "errorDetail": null,
    "contractAgreement": {
        "id": "1:239ae091-ba03-4c48-a11c-38ddf957e9c1",
        "providerAgentId": "null",
        "consumerAgentId": "null",
        "contractSigningDate": 0,
        "contractStartDate": 0,
        "contractEndDate": 0,
        "asset": {
            "properties": {
                "asset:prop:id": "urn:artifact:test-document"
            }
        },
        "policy": {
            "uid": "fd8549d1-c29c-4388-b5f9-904555f04ebb",
            "permissions": [
                {
                    "edctype": "dataspaceconnector:permission",
                    "uid": null,
                    "target": "test-document",
                    "action": {
                        "type": "USE",
                        "includedIn": null,
                        "constraint": null
                    },
                    "assignee": null,
                    "assigner": null,
                    "constraints": [],
                    "duties": []
                }
            ],
            "prohibitions": [],
            "obligations": [],
            "extensibleProperties": {},
            "inheritsFrom": null,
            "assigner": null,
            "assignee": null,
            "target": null,
            "@type": {
                "@policytype": "set"
            }
        }
    },
...

• CorrelationId should not be null as the negotiation process already exists on the other connector's side.
• Why is the counterPartyId's value consumer as the negotiation object is requested on the consumer side? It seems that something goes wrong here.
• The providerAgentId and consumerAgentId in the ContractAgreement should be filled. I assume this is because the contract offer in the sample is filled with null values. Maybe we should add a method that checks for essential attributes and creates them during the negotiation process if missing.
• Signing policies during contract negotiation process #667

[juliapampus]

CorrelationId should not be null as the negotiation process already exists on the other connector's side.

Currently, the correlationId is null on consumer side on purpose. If the consumer initiates the negotiation, it is sufficient that the provider knows both IDs.

[juliapampus]

Why is the counterPartyId's value consumer as the negotiation object is requested on the consumer side? It seems that something goes wrong here.

This was a hardcoded (and misunderstood) value. Changed the samples 4.0 accordingly.

The providerAgentId and consumerAgentId in the ContractAgreement should be filled. I assume this is because the contract offer in the sample is filled with null values. Maybe we should add a method that checks for essential attributes and creates them during the negotiation process if missing.

The providerAgentId and consumerAgentId are no ids values. There is no need for a connector to validate values that have been created by itself.