♻️ Refactor catalog domain in webserver

[bisgaard-itis]

What do these changes do?

• Refactor Catalog domain of webserver so it now adheres to the new design @pcrespov
• Improve code coverage to 94% in our unittests:
  

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 95.78947% with 4 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 84.06%. Comparing base (a4a3bc3) to head (9d55786).
Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #7308      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   88.57%   84.06%   -4.51%     
==========================================
  Files        1527      664     -863     
  Lines       60106    31667   -28439     
  Branches      711      168     -543     
==========================================
- Hits        53241    26622   -26619     
+ Misses       6672     4987    -1685     
+ Partials      193       58     -135     

Flag	Coverage Δ
integrationtests	65.39% <61.05%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
unittests	87.19% <95.78%> (-0.49%)	⬇️

Components	Coverage Δ
api	76.84% <ø> (ø)
pkg_aws_library	∅ <ø> (∅)
pkg_dask_task_models_library	∅ <ø> (∅)
pkg_models_library	∅ <ø> (∅)
pkg_notifications_library	∅ <ø> (∅)
pkg_postgres_database	∅ <ø> (∅)
pkg_service_integration	∅ <ø> (∅)
pkg_service_library	∅ <ø> (∅)
pkg_settings_library	∅ <ø> (∅)
pkg_simcore_sdk	77.30% <ø> (-8.16%)	⬇️
agent	∅ <ø> (∅)
api_server	∅ <ø> (∅)
autoscaling	∅ <ø> (∅)
catalog	∅ <ø> (∅)
clusters_keeper	∅ <ø> (∅)
dask_sidecar	∅ <ø> (∅)
datcore_adapter	∅ <ø> (∅)
director	∅ <ø> (∅)
director_v2	78.54% <ø> (-12.76%)	⬇️
dynamic_scheduler	∅ <ø> (∅)
dynamic_sidecar	89.43% <ø> (-0.86%)	⬇️
efs_guardian	∅ <ø> (∅)
invitations	∅ <ø> (∅)
osparc_gateway_server	∅ <ø> (∅)
payments	∅ <ø> (∅)
resource_usage_tracker	∅ <ø> (∅)
storage	∅ <ø> (∅)
webclient	∅ <ø> (∅)
webserver	85.81% <95.78%> (+0.48%)	⬆️

---

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 a4a3bc3...9d55786. Read the comment docs.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

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

[pcrespov]

thx! left some suggestions for your considerations

[pcrespov]

BTW, did you figure out the issue with coverage? Checkout what is the current state in the api-keys domain
https://app.codecov.io/gh/ITISFoundation/osparc-simcore/tree/master/services%2Fweb%2Fserver%2Fsrc%2Fsimcore_service_webserver%2Fapi_keys

[matusdrobuliak66]

Thanks a lot!

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 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 SonarQube Cloud

[bisgaard-itis]

BTW, did you figure out the issue with coverage? Checkout what is the current state in the api-keys domain https://app.codecov.io/gh/ITISFoundation/osparc-simcore/tree/master/services%2Fweb%2Fserver%2Fsrc%2Fsimcore_service_webserver%2Fapi_keys

No, I didn't figure out why some lines were reported as missing in the api_keys domain when those lines were in fact hit. But in this case of the catalog I was able to systematically reduce the missing lines by introduce tests that hit those part of the code. So that indicates I am using the tool correctly. Hence, I suspect the issue in the api_keys domain is that we have something misconfigured (our .coveragerc looks rather random TBH) or a bug in pytest-cov