## What & why S-19b-2, closing out ADR-0028's stated direction: **the read projection is now derived from the `RegisterRecord` in Objecten, not from ZGW zaak events.** Until now the subscriber listened on `zaken` and *inferred* register state from case events — a `zaak/create` meant INGEDIEND, and any `status/create` was assumed to be the approval (it may not read OpenZaak, so it could not tell statustypen apart). The reference wasn't in the notification at all, so every projection made a second hop to the ACL. The register — a fact about a person — was being reconstructed by guessing at the lifecycle of the case that produced it. - The subscriber's abonnement moves to the `objecten` kanaal (S-19b-1 made it publish). - An Objecten notification carries **no record data**, only the object URL, so the record is read back through the ACL (`POST /register-records/read`) — §8.1 applies to Objecten exactly as ADR-0028 established. - The record carries `id`, `status` and `reference`, so the row *is* the record: `IsZaakCreated`, `IsZaakStatusSet`, `ZaakUrl`, `ZaakId` and `ToEntry`'s `Resource == "status"` inference are all gone, and so is the ACL enrichment hop. - **The ACL now writes an INGEDIEND record on submit.** Without it, re-sourcing would silently drop every submitted registration from the public register, since only approval wrote a record. - `processed_notifications` holds the projected row (`register_id`, `status`, `reference`) instead of the ZGW event, so a rebuild is a replay with no mapping rules and no upstream reads at all. **ADR-0030** records it. ADR-0028's open caveat — record written but not yet read, "the two must agree" — is closed: there is one source now. Closes #153 ## Definition of Done - [x] Linked Gitea issue (above). - [x] Failing tests committed before the implementation — two red/green pairs, ACL side (06c0444→566ef7d) and subscriber side (142ed45→8af09b2). - [x] Refactor commit follows (b496ac9). - [x] Conventional Commits referencing the issue (`refs #153`). - [x] CI green — all six jobs onb30fa66, `verify-stack` end to end including the e2e. - [x] `docker compose up` from a fresh clone reaches green health checks within 3 minutes (`verify-stack`'s bring-up step — see the wait-healthy fix below). - [x] Docs updated — ADR-0030 added, ADR-0028's consequence + caveat annotated, BACKLOG.md, e2e header comment. - [x] ADR added in `docs/architecture/`. - [x] Demo note in `docs/demo-script.md` — n/a: no user-visible change. The openbaar register shows the same two statuses for the same registrations; only where they come from changed. ## Notes for reviewers **The decision I'd most like a second opinion on** is the one the issue didn't settle: what happens to INGEDIEND. Objecten held only INGESCHREVEN records, so re-sourcing forced a choice between (a) the ACL also writing on submit, (b) a public register that lists only actual registrations, or (c) a hybrid keeping both kanalen. I took (a): visible behaviour is unchanged and the register holds the whole lifecycle. (b) is arguably the better *semantics* for a public register but narrows what the portal shows and reads against PRD §68 ("~50 register entries with diverse statuses"); (c) leaves the projection half-derived from ZGW, which is the coupling ADR-0028 set out to remove. All three are laid out in ADR-0030. **The dedup key is the projected row**, `objecten:object:{url}:{status}:{reference}` — not the object URL (the ACL upserts *one object per registration*, so submit and approval notify about the same URL and the approval would be swallowed as a duplicate) and not URL+actie (a retried approval is a second `update`). Redeliveries collapse, genuine state changes don't. §8.6. **The migration drops columns rather than renaming them.** EF scaffolded renames — `resource` → `register_id`, `zaak_id` → `status` — which would have carried ZGW values into columns meaning something else, and a rebuild would then have projected that garbage. It also empties both tables: a pre-slice row describes a zaak event the new projector can't reproject, and those registrations have no RegisterRecord in Objecten either, so they're not re-derivable from the new source. Stated as a ceiling in the ADR — fine while stacks are ephemeral, backfill from Objecten if a long-lived environment ever needs it. **`run-projection-check.sh` now opens its zaak through the ACL** instead of straight against OpenZaak, because the ACL is what writes the record. A zaak created behind the ACL's back produces no projection row — that's the re-source working, not a gap. ## Three fixes CI found, none of them in the projection logic 1. **`wait-healthy.sh` matched the wrong container** (744f91a). Bring-up timed out with `TIMEOUT: 'objecten' not healthy (status=none)` while the `docker ps` it dumps showed objecten `Up 9 minutes (healthy)`. `--filter name=` is a substring match, so `objecten` also matches `objecten-db`/`objecten-redis`/`objecten-celery`, and `head -1` took whichever docker listed first — the celery worker has no healthcheck, hence `status=none`. Latent since those services landed and decided purely by listing order; `objecttypen` matches `objecttypen-db` the same way. Anchored on the compose replica suffix, which the verify scripts already do. 2. **The ACL had to be repointed at OpenZaak's IP** (7e0897a). Opening the zaak through the ACL put this check in the same bind run-domain-check.sh already handles: `400 {"name":"zaaktype","code":"bad-url","reason":"Voer een geldige URL in."}`. OpenZaak reflects the request Host into the zaaktype URL and then rejects it on zaak-create when single-label — the mechanism compose already documents on `ACL_OPENZAAK_BASEURL`. 3. **Approval arrives as `partial_update`, not `update`** (0dd26a7→b30fa66) — the one real bug in the slice. The ACL upserts with PATCH; DRF routes it through the notifying `update()` but names the action `partial_update`, so the projector dropped every approval. Only the e2e could catch it: `verify-projection` drives a submit, and per ADR-0028 the e2e is the only check that drives a *real* approval. `verify-tracing` also failed once (run 722) on a path this PR doesn't touch, and passed on a plain re-run of the same commit. Tempo logged `pusher failed to consume trace data` / `distributor_pool failing healthcheck` — it dropped spans under runner load rather than the trace chain being broken. Filed as **#156** rather than absorbed here. **Correction to the #152 PR notes:** I wrote there that celery concurrency was "the next knob" if verify-stack got tight. It isn't — `CELERY_WORKER_CONCURRENCY` already defaults to 1 in the Maykin image, so `objecten-celery` is already a single-process worker. Noted in #156. **Possible follow-up, deliberately not done here:** an `openzaak.local` network alias mirroring `objecten.local` would remove the ACL-repoint dance from both run-domain-check.sh and run-projection-check.sh. It changes the host in every zaak URL the system produces, which is too broad a ripple to land inside an unrelated slice — worth its own issue. **Known costs, all in the ADR:** submission is now two writes across two modules and eventually consistent (same posture ADR-0028 accepted for approval); projecting now depends on the ACL being reachable on the main path, not just for enrichment (NRC retries, so it converges); and OpenZaak still publishes to `zaken` with nothing in the product listening — kept because `verify-nrc` asserts that path.Reviewed-on: #155
102 lines
3.9 KiB
C#
102 lines
3.9 KiB
C#
using System.Net;
|
|
using System.Text;
|
|
using EventSubscriber.Api;
|
|
|
|
namespace EventSubscriber.Tests;
|
|
|
|
/// <summary>
|
|
/// Unit tests for the subscriber's ACL client, which reads a register record through the ACL — the
|
|
/// only code allowed to talk to Objecten (§8.1, ADR-0028/ADR-0030). Uses a scripted message handler
|
|
/// so no real ACL is required.
|
|
/// </summary>
|
|
public class AclHttpClientTests
|
|
{
|
|
private const string ObjectUrl = "http://objecten.local:8000/api/v2/objects/obj-9";
|
|
|
|
private static AclHttpClient Client(StubHandler handler) =>
|
|
new(new HttpClient(handler) { BaseAddress = new Uri("http://acl/") });
|
|
|
|
[Fact]
|
|
public async Task Reads_a_register_record_by_posting_the_object_url()
|
|
{
|
|
var capture = new RequestCapture();
|
|
var client = Client(capture.Responds(
|
|
HttpStatusCode.OK, """{"id":"zaak-1","status":"INGESCHREVEN","reference":"REG-42"}"""));
|
|
|
|
var record = await client.GetRegisterRecordAsync(new Uri(ObjectUrl));
|
|
|
|
Assert.Equal("zaak-1", record!.Id);
|
|
Assert.Equal("INGESCHREVEN", record.Status);
|
|
Assert.Equal("REG-42", record.Reference);
|
|
Assert.Equal(HttpMethod.Post, capture.Seen!.Method);
|
|
Assert.Equal("http://acl/register-records/read", capture.Seen.RequestUri!.ToString());
|
|
Assert.Contains($"\"objectUrl\":\"{ObjectUrl}\"", capture.Body);
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
[Fact]
|
|
public async Task Reads_a_missing_record_as_nothing_to_project()
|
|
{
|
|
var capture = new RequestCapture();
|
|
var client = Client(capture.Responds(HttpStatusCode.NotFound));
|
|
|
|
// The object may be gone by the time a redelivered notification is handled (§8.6).
|
|
Assert.Null(await client.GetRegisterRecordAsync(new Uri(ObjectUrl)));
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
[Fact]
|
|
public async Task Throws_when_the_acl_rejects_the_request()
|
|
{
|
|
var capture = new RequestCapture();
|
|
var client = Client(capture.Responds(HttpStatusCode.BadGateway));
|
|
|
|
await Assert.ThrowsAsync<HttpRequestException>(
|
|
() => client.GetRegisterRecordAsync(new Uri(ObjectUrl)));
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
[Fact]
|
|
public async Task Throws_when_the_acl_returns_an_empty_body()
|
|
{
|
|
var capture = new RequestCapture();
|
|
var client = Client(capture.Responds(HttpStatusCode.OK, "null"));
|
|
|
|
var ex = await Assert.ThrowsAsync<InvalidOperationException>(
|
|
() => client.GetRegisterRecordAsync(new Uri(ObjectUrl)));
|
|
Assert.Contains("empty", ex.Message, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase);
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
[Fact]
|
|
public async Task Rejects_a_null_object_url_without_sending_a_request()
|
|
{
|
|
var capture = new RequestCapture();
|
|
var client = Client(capture.Responds(HttpStatusCode.OK, "{}"));
|
|
|
|
await Assert.ThrowsAsync<ArgumentNullException>(() => client.GetRegisterRecordAsync(null!));
|
|
Assert.Null(capture.Seen);
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
/// <summary>A test double for <see cref="HttpMessageHandler"/> that records the last request and
|
|
/// returns a scripted response — mirrors the ACL/domain gateway tests.</summary>
|
|
internal sealed class StubHandler(Func<HttpRequestMessage, Task<HttpResponseMessage>> onSend) : HttpMessageHandler
|
|
{
|
|
protected override Task<HttpResponseMessage> SendAsync(HttpRequestMessage request, CancellationToken ct)
|
|
=> onSend(request);
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
/// <summary>Captures the request a client sent, including the (buffered) body.</summary>
|
|
internal sealed class RequestCapture
|
|
{
|
|
public HttpRequestMessage? Seen { get; private set; }
|
|
public string? Body { get; private set; }
|
|
|
|
public StubHandler Responds(HttpStatusCode status, string? json = null) => new(async req =>
|
|
{
|
|
Seen = req;
|
|
Body = req.Content is null ? null : await req.Content.ReadAsStringAsync();
|
|
var response = new HttpResponseMessage(status);
|
|
if (json is not null)
|
|
response.Content = new StringContent(json, Encoding.UTF8, "application/json");
|
|
return response;
|
|
});
|
|
}
|