♻️ refactor project listing DB function (🚨 We no longer list projects that do not have a product assigned)

[matusdrobuliak66]

What do these changes do?

• ♻️ As part of the project module improvements, I merged the two listing functions in the DB layer into one in this PR.
• 🚨 Breaking change 🚨 We no longer list projects that do not have a product assigned. (Projects in this situation have their last timestamp changed before 11.11.2022.)

Related issue/s

How to test

Dev-ops checklist

• No ENV changes or I properly updated ENV (read the instruction)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 85.71429% with 14 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 88.88%. Comparing base (e32787b) to head (75f6aea).
Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #6692      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   87.95%   88.88%   +0.93%     
==========================================
  Files        1569     1272     -297     
  Lines       63117    54419    -8698     
  Branches     2106      897    -1209     
==========================================
- Hits        55512    48371    -7141     
+ Misses       7280     5914    -1366     
+ Partials      325      134     -191     

Flag	Coverage Δ
integrationtests	64.87% <14.28%> (+0.03%)	⬆️
unittests	86.64% <85.71%> (+0.72%)	⬆️

Components	Coverage Δ
api	∅ <ø> (∅)
pkg_aws_library	∅ <ø> (∅)
pkg_dask_task_models_library	∅ <ø> (∅)
pkg_models_library	92.00% <71.42%> (-0.20%)	⬇️
pkg_notifications_library	∅ <ø> (∅)
pkg_postgres_database	∅ <ø> (∅)
pkg_service_integration	71.44% <ø> (ø)
pkg_service_library	∅ <ø> (∅)
pkg_settings_library	∅ <ø> (∅)
pkg_simcore_sdk	85.27% <ø> (ø)
agent	97.17% <ø> (ø)
api_server	89.82% <ø> (ø)
autoscaling	95.21% <ø> (ø)
catalog	89.46% <ø> (ø)
clusters_keeper	98.72% <ø> (ø)
dask_sidecar	91.32% <ø> (ø)
datcore_adapter	94.05% <ø> (ø)
director	58.38% <ø> (ø)
director_v2	90.96% <ø> (+0.12%)	⬆️
dynamic_scheduler	96.59% <ø> (ø)
dynamic_sidecar	89.79% <ø> (ø)
efs_guardian	90.00% <ø> (ø)
invitations	93.51% <ø> (ø)
osparc_gateway_server	85.15% <ø> (ø)
payments	93.02% <ø> (ø)
resource_usage_tracker	90.75% <ø> (ø)
storage	89.76% <ø> (ø)
webclient	∅ <ø> (∅)
webserver	89.36% <96.42%> (-0.01%)	⬇️

---

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update e32787b...75f6aea. Read the comment docs.

[bisgaard-itis]

Cool! Thanks a lot for the effort 😄

[sanderegg]

aren't we missing some tests in here? not sure I get the gist of the scopes.

[matusdrobuliak66]

We actually have a lot of listing tests. If they pass, it means nothing was broken. As for the scopes, the idea is to differentiate the type of filtering to apply. For folders, this could mean:

• Root folder (represented by a null value in the database)
• Specific folder (represented by an integer) - This is a specific user folder (as folders can not be shared, they are owned exclusively by user) - maybe should I rename this type to USER?
• ALL folders (searching through all folders)

The same logic applies to workspaces. In the context of workspaces, the types are:

• PRIVATE (My Workspace - represented by a null value in the database)
• SHARED (represented by an integer)
• ALL workspaces

Does this make more sense? We can discuss further offline if needed.

[sanderegg]

all clear, thanks for the explanations

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
2 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarCloud