[clientpython] feat(pyoaev): add multi-tenancy (#205)

[Megafredo]

Proposed changes

1. Client-side implementation using Python (pyoaev)

• 1.1 Managing the tenant_id in the configuration (settings_loader.py)

  • Add the expected optional tenant_id field to ConfigLoaderOAEV
  • Implement a check that the expected value is a valid UUID tenant_id: UUID
  • Accept backward compatibility by accepting the missing field tenant_id: UUID | None
  • Explicitly set default=None, for now and replace it with default="2cffad3a-0001-4078-b0e2-ef74274022c3", once the migration is officially live

• 1.2 Managing the tenant_id in the pyoaev (client.py)

  • Add the optional argument tenant_id: Optional[UUID] to the client constructor
  • Update _build_url() to support:
    • base_url and path normalization
    • Accept url_legacy if no tenant_id exists
    • Accept url_tenant if tenant_id exists

• 1.3 Managing the tenant_id in the pyoaev (helper.py)

  • Update OpenAEVInjectorHelper
  • Retrieve the tenant_id from the config and send OpenAEV

• 1.4 Managing the tenant_id in the pyoaev (utils.py)

  • Small addition to indicate the tenant_id triggered during PingAlive
  • Small addition to indicate the tenant_id when stopping PingAlive

• 1.5 Managing the tenant_id in daemons (base_daemon.py)

  • Retrieve tenant_id for self.api in BaseDaemon
  • Update __get_default_api_client with the tenant_id

2. Tests

• Several tests have been added to the client-python

3. Functional propagation tests from configurations

• Test without tenant_id (legacy)
  • Injector
  • Collector
  • Catalog
• Test with valid tenant_id UUID
  • Injector
  • Collector
  • Catalog
• Test with invalid tenant_id UUID (must fail)
  • Injector
  • Collector
  • Catalog

Related issues

• Closes [Multi-tenancy] refacto the endpoint build_url to accept tenant-id #205

Checklist

• I consider the submitted work as finished
• I tested the code for its functionality
• I wrote test cases for the relevant uses case
• I added/update the relevant documentation (either on github or on notion)
• Where necessary I refactored code to improve the overall quality
• For bug fix -> I implemented a test that covers the bug

Further comments

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 83.33333% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
⚠️ Please upload report for BASE (release/current@5bf4ce1). Learn more about missing BASE report.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
pyoaev/utils.py	33.33%	2 Missing ⚠️
pyoaev/client.py	87.50%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@                Coverage Diff                 @@
##             release/current     #208   +/-   ##
==================================================
  Coverage                   ?   70.63%           
==================================================
  Files                      ?       58           
  Lines                      ?     2350           
  Branches                   ?        0           
==================================================
  Hits                       ?     1660           
  Misses                     ?      690           
  Partials                   ?        0           

Flag	Coverage Δ
connectors	70.63% <83.33%> (?)

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

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[Kakudou]

LGTM, everything seem in place, thanks. 🔥
If you can add some tests for that it would be perfects. 🤘

[Kakudou]

All good for me, every tests passes, and i'm able to see the tenant_id from the injector down to the client-python !

I've still have 3comments on the tests (nothing requiring a 'request changes', more a QoL):

• we could add a constraint to check that the uuid is in the format of an uuid4 (to be sure we don't get the default example ChangeMe for example)
• One assert is always True, so not really interesting
• we could create _given, _when, _then function from the gherkin features to even more emphasis and mutualized those steps if possible (like a common/conftest '_given_dummy_daemon(config)' )

[Kakudou]

Maybe we could add a constraint 'tenant_id is not a valid uuid4' ?

[Kakudou]

Look like, it's an always assert True
If the tenant_id is missing -> True
If the tenant_id is valid -> True

So it doesn't really test 'if the tenant is propagated'.