Correcting the dependency order for backend entity enricher

[kotharironak]

While working on the issue - hypertrace/hypertrace#128, I have observed the following topology sort for enrichers.

As we can see from the code - https://github.com/hypertrace/hypertrace-trace-enricher/blob/435d21caab170c5b8d207785204b61839089a599/hypertrace-trace-enricher-impl/src/main/java/org/hypertrace/traceenricher/enrichment/enrichers/BackendEntityEnricher.java#L112 - that backend entity enricher depended on attribute ApiAttribute.API_ATTRIBUTE_ID in EndpointEnricher. So, adding the dependency.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #93 (37bc490) into main (70f66f3) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##               main      #93   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage     68.94%   68.94%           
  Complexity      820      820           
=========================================
  Files            84       84           
  Lines          3475     3475           
  Branches        367      367           
=========================================
  Hits           2396     2396           
  Misses          935      935           
  Partials        144      144           

Flag	Coverage Δ	Complexity Δ
unit	68.94% <ø> (ø)	0.00 <ø> (ø)

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

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 70f66f3...37bc490. Read the comment docs.

[jcchavezs]

@kotharironak I wonder how this did not fail and more so, how can we prevent this kind of things in the future.

[tim-mwangi]

@kotharironak I wonder how this did not fail and more so, how can we prevent this kind of things in the future.

unit tests :) That actually verify expectations

[jcchavezs]

unit tests :) That actually verify expectations

But isn't this a dependency issue? Shouldn't this appear on compilation? I am just wondering.

In any case if this is because of lack of unit tests I would quickly add one before merge it.

[findingrish]

I wonder why do we have all this dependency information as part of config. Do we need to frequently change this order based on environment etc?

[buchi-busireddy]

I don't think we change this based on the environment but we want to be able to enable/disable a given enricher.

[kotharironak]

unit tests :) That actually verify expectations

But isn't this a dependency issue? Shouldn't this appear on the compilation? I am just wondering.

In any case if this is because of lack of unit tests I would quickly add one before merge it.

Currently, it is config driven dependency so, I think, it's hard to check at compilation time. But, yes, some sort of test case help here. I will create a follow-up PR for this.