Remove Database validation in jdl

[nicolas63]

---

Please make sure the below checklist is followed for Pull Requests.

• All continuous integration tests are green
• Tests are added where necessary
• jhipster-online was updated if necessary
• Documentation is added/updated where necessary
• Coding Rules & Commit Guidelines as per our CONTRIBUTING.md document are followed

When you are still working on the PR, consider converting it to Draft (bellow reviewers) and adding skip-ci label, you can still see CI build result at your branch.

fix #12959

[MathieuAA]

Validation as a whole should be disabled when using blueprints.... Not just that.

[nicolas63]

sorry for my misunderstanding, how can I know if a blueprint is used in this part?

[MathieuAA]

@nicolas63 don't be! I'm gonna walk you through how it can be done step by step.

If you look at the jdl/jdl-importer.js file, you'll see it's the place where the actual JDL importing is done.
From there, there are two paths:

• the first one for importing JDL without applications,
• the second one reserved to the opposite: importing JDL with applications (at least one)

Now, go line 179. you'll see this function:

function checkForErrors(jdlObject, configuration) {
    let validator;
    if (jdlObject.getApplicationQuantity() === 0) {
        let application = configuration.application;
        if (!application && doesFileExist('.yo-rc.json')) {
            application = readJSONFile('.yo-rc.json');
        }
        let applicationType = configuration.applicationType;
        let databaseType = configuration.databaseType;
        let skippedUserManagement = configuration.skipUserManagement;
        if (application && application['generator-jhipster']) {
            if (applicationType === undefined) {
                applicationType = application['generator-jhipster'].applicationType;
            }
            if (databaseType === undefined) {
                databaseType = application['generator-jhipster'].databaseType;
            }
            if (skippedUserManagement === undefined) {
                skippedUserManagement = application['generator-jhipster'].skipUserManagement;
            }
        }
        validator = JDLWithoutApplicationValidator.createValidator(jdlObject, {
            applicationType,
            databaseType,
            skippedUserManagement,
        });
    } else {
        validator = JDLWithApplicationValidator.createValidator(jdlObject);
    }
    validator.checkForErrors();
}

This function checks a passed JDL object for errors. This is the validation is done. When there's no blueprint, the actual rules for validations are implemented and it works.
When there are blueprints, one can augment the JHipster scope to add databases, field types, etc. but they will trigger an error from this function, as you noticed.

There are two fixes to do:

• a first one for JDLs without apps,
• another one for JDL with apps.

There are two files: jdl/validators/jdl-without-application-validator.js and jdl/validators/jdl-with-validator.js that we need fix.

For the "no app" case, we need to pass to the validator whether there are blueprints involved, which is done line 173 of the jdl-importer.js file where we need to add one more parameter to the applicationSettings: blueprints: ... like this:

function checkForErrors(jdlObject, configuration) {
    let validator;
    if (jdlObject.getApplicationQuantity() === 0) {
        let application = configuration.application;
        if (!application && doesFileExist('.yo-rc.json')) {
            application = readJSONFile('.yo-rc.json');
        }
        let applicationType = configuration.applicationType;
        let databaseType = configuration.databaseType;
        let skippedUserManagement = configuration.skipUserManagement;
        let blueprints = configuration.blueprints; // first there
        if (application && application['generator-jhipster']) {
            if (applicationType === undefined) {
                applicationType = application['generator-jhipster'].applicationType;
            }
            if (databaseType === undefined) {
                databaseType = application['generator-jhipster'].databaseType;
            }
            if (skippedUserManagement === undefined) {
                skippedUserManagement = application['generator-jhipster'].skipUserManagement;
            }
            if (blueprints === undefined) { // here
                blueprints = application['generator-jhipster'].blueprints;
            }
        }
        validator = JDLWithoutApplicationValidator.createValidator(jdlObject, {
            applicationType,
            databaseType,
            skippedUserManagement,
            blueprints, // and there
        });
    } else {
        validator = JDLWithApplicationValidator.createValidator(jdlObject);
    }
    validator.checkForErrors();
}

and finally in the jdl/validators/jdl-without-application-validator.js file we need to:

• add the new blueprints param to the documentation,
• and add an if to the createValidator function like this:

function createValidator(jdlObject, applicationSettings = {}, logger = console) {
    if (!jdlObject) {
        throw new Error('A JDL object must be passed to check for business errors.');
    }

    if (applicationSettings.blueprints && applicationSettings.blueprints.length !== 0) {
      return { checkForErrors: () => {} };
    } 

    return {
        checkForErrors: () => {
            checkForEntityErrors();
            checkForRelationshipErrors();
            checkForEnumErrors();
            checkDeploymentsErrors();
            checkForOptionErrors();
        },
    };

  // ...
}

That's the hardest part. The easiest part will be updating the jdl-with-application-validation.js file:

function createValidator(jdlObject, logger = console) {
    if (!jdlObject) {
        throw new Error('A JDL object must be passed to check for business errors.');
    }

    return {
        checkForErrors: () => {
            checkForApplicationErrors();
            jdlObject.forEachApplication(jdlApplication => {
                const blueprints = jdlApplication.getConfigurationOptionValue('blueprints');
                if (!blueprints || blueprints.length > 0) {
                    return;
                }
                checkForEntityErrors(jdlApplication);
                checkForRelationshipErrors(jdlApplication);
                checkForEnumErrors();
                checkDeploymentsErrors();
                checkForOptionErrors(jdlApplication);
            });
            checkForRelationshipsBetweenApplications();
        },
    };

    // ...
}

There will be some testing to do: check no validation is performed when blueprints are passed in the two cases. This should be done at the highest level: for the jdl-importer file and for the two validators.

---

Hope it wasn't too long :) if you want to do this PR, it'd be awesome!

[nicolas63]

thank you @MathieuAA for your precious explanation, I will make the changes.

[mshima]

Print a warning:

      return { checkForErrors: () => {
          console.log('Generating application with blueprint, skipping jdl validation');
      } };

[MathieuAA]

Maybe not console.log, but console.warn :)

[nicolas63]

@MathieuAA
There will be some testing to do: check no validation is performed when blueprints are passed in the two cases. This should be done at the highest level: for the jdl-importer file and for the two validators.

how can i do this ? i have try to spy logger but the method createValidator don't use
const logger = require('../utils/objects/logger');

should I use it rather than console in function createValidator(jdlObject, logger = console) ?

[MathieuAA]

In the tests, pass whatever log object you want to test like it's done l.85 of the test/jdl/validators/jdl-with-application-validator.spec.js file. You can use spies too.

[nicolas63]

@MathieuAA i have added UT but some checks failed during CI, it's due to my modification ?

[MathieuAA]

I'll check right away

[MathieuAA]

It looks like an issue with Actions as a whole, I'm looking into it

[MathieuAA]

Very nice :) only a few changes needed and it's good to go.

[MathieuAA]

@MathieuAA i have added UT but some checks failed during CI, it's due to my modification ?

There was an issue with GH actions (I've noticed warning about 429 errors) and restarting the tests worked like a charm.

[MathieuAA]

@nicolas63 thanks!! Feel free to merge it once the CI report goes green :)

[nicolas63]

thanks to you @MathieuAA for your advice ! Can you merge it ? I don't have the rights to do