feat: PolicyMonitorStore SQL implementation #3507
Conversation
ndr-brt
requested review from
bscholtes1A,
jimmarino and
paullatzelsperger
as code owners
![github-advanced-security[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/57789?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
| return "edc_policy_monitor"; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| default String getIdColumn() { |
Check notice
Code scanning / CodeQL
Missing Override annotation Note
|
|
||
| default String getErrorDetailColumn() { | ||
| return "error_detail"; | ||
| default String getIdColumn() { |
Check notice
Code scanning / CodeQL
Missing Override annotation Note
Codecov ReportAttention:
❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #3507 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 72.08% 72.07% -0.01%
==========================================
Files 841 841
Lines 16996 17030 +34
Branches 951 956 +5
==========================================
+ Hits 12251 12275 +24
- Misses 4341 4351 +10
Partials 404 404
☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM, but quite a substantial amount of the changeset comes from seemingly unrelated changes, i.e. refactoring of the in-mem stuff.
I think it would have been easier to review, if that had been in a separate PR. No need to revert now, just something to keep in mind for the future.
.../eclipse/edc/connector/policy/monitor/spi/testfixtures/store/PolicyMonitorStoreTestBase.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
@paullatzelsperger yes, you're right, I noted a lot of related things on my todo list and this PR seemed to be the right place to implement them, with hindsight, a different PR would had made sense. |
understandable. |
| try (var connection = getConnection()) { | ||
| var existing = findByIdInternal(connection, entity.getId()); | ||
| if (existing != null) { | ||
| leaseContext.by(leaseHolderName).withConnection(connection).breakLease(entity.getId()); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
minor
leaseContext.by(leaseHolderName) could be a noop since the leaseHolder should not change right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes, we do this in all the Stores, I guess this is something coming from the past, because as we decided, all the entity fetched to be modified should be leased. I would keep it for consistency but it could a good refactor to do on all the stores.
The more I think about it, the more I think it does not make any sense 🤣
What this PR changes/adds
Provide sql implementation for
PolicyManagerStoreWhy it does that
policy-manager
Further notes
Linked Issue(s)
Closes #3447
Please be sure to take a look at the contributing guidelines and our etiquette for pull requests.